Please include fair use rationale or explaination for the use of the Cagayan de Oro seal. The seal has been removed several times by a boot. See Cagayan de Oro discussion page for more details. Thanks VisitCDO (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) I am not required to add a fair use rationale for anything if am not the uploader of the image.
2) If you are refering to Image:Cagayan_de_Oro_City_seal.png, it is being used on the article about Cagayan de Oro already and already has a rationale of fair use written on the Image description page. No furthur edits need to be made. — Save_Us† 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the site andhranews.net was blacklisted, but it is absolutely unacceptable to remove these perfectly valid references to articles from news agencies. It is horrifying how little regard some of our editors have for referencing, to the point that someone would think they could go around destroying references without doing anything to replace them. You can remove the links if you must (although I am seeking for the site to be whitelisted), but you cannot remove the whole reference. I don't know if you were solely responsible for removing these references, but either way I expect you to help me find all cases where the refs were removed and either restore them without links or (better yet) find brand new sources for the information. Everyking (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek. The site was blacklisted because it was suspected that someone closely related to the site was on a spam campaign throughout Wikipedia to add andhranews.net and other links related to them. As long it is on the spam blacklist, it should, and will stay removed. As I said before, in reply to a post about this, if the news piece was as notable to begin with, a simple Google search will weild results other than a site that started spam campaigns here. I love how you don't who was responsible for blacklisting the link, don't know if there was any prior discussion, and then expect something out of me. Removing spam, to remove the spam filter from an article, is not a call of duty for action on my part. If it is, there would be quite a few other editors who I would like for you to notify of their services being needed (i.e. I wasn't the only person to remove these links). FWIW, I added a real reference to the article which you so boldy and discreetly added spam back into, and it took me exactly 6 minutes to actually find a reference. There is no need for my, albiet volunteer and not mandatory, help when this is a task that almost anybody could perform in a resonable amount of time. — Save_Us† 08:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not spam; I was the one who added that link to begin with. Every link to that website is now spam regardless of who added it or why? The site shows up prominently on Google news searches and it leaves its articles up, so I've used it quite a few times on Indian articles. My complaint is not so much that you removed the links (which I find merely obnoxious) but that you removed entire references. Don't you understand that isn't how you're supposed to deal with these issues? Go through your old contributions, which you know better than I do, and correct each instance where you removed the refs. Everyking (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to get anywhere making demands. — Save_Us† 13:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I should have to clean up all these references that you deliberately destroyed, especially considering that I don't know what articles you hit and you should be able to more or less recall that. This is a simple task: C&P the old reference back into the article, delete the link from it, and then save the page. You don't need to fix anything that was being used as part of an external links section, just things that were referencing specific pieces of information. Everyking (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is forcing you to do it either. Another thing, I refuse to add back the reference details of a site that was spammed, I would rather find a new reference than add repeatedly spammed information back into article. — Save_Us† 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The refs aren't original to the site; they're from agencies like the Press Trust of India. So the only source you need to give is the name of the agency; you don't need to credit the website if you aren't using their link. Furthermore, these links were not "repeatedly spammed"; the ones I am talking about were added by me (am I spammer now?), once, because they were my references for content I was writing on Wikipedia. You have an odd perspective about this stuff. Everyking (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not about to dig through their site to see which media press they got their information from. Again, I would rather add another references from a different site that doesn't spam us then use them for a source of anything. No, you are not a spammer. The owners or someone closely related to the site are the spammers here, for using Wikipedia to promote their site. Must I remind you this was not the only site, as there were a bundle of sites they had spammed, that is if you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek. I expect no more quirky comments about myself or my views from you or your not going to be welcome to comment here for a while. — Save_Us† 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is over this edit of yours. Per WP:NFCC, a rationale must have a link to which article it is fair use in and a rationale for every use (and in this case it has to have 3 rationales for usage). You removed it stating it has a rationale. That is true, but the rationale does not specify which article that rationale is written for and then there are two missing rationales for the other articles it is included on. Please re-review your edit again and review WP:NFCC for furthur reasoning on why that is not a valid rationale. Thank you, — Save_Us† 09:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the rationale, as it does provide rationales for all three of its uses. I think I understand NFCC, considering I'm one of the three admins left who works with images on a regular basis. east.718at 10:04, January 17, 2008
I think you have a horrible understanding of fair use if you think boilerplate templates are part of fair use rationales. They are absolutely not part of fair use rationales. I suggest you read WP:NFCC more clearly:
Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
10 (c) The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
It is most certainly disputed, at least upon what WP:NFCC says there. I'm bringing this to NFCC talk page since you insist that there is no violation. — Save_Us† 10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you think that is insufficent of an argument, have you read the template you even added to the image, Template:Non-free fair use in? It states the following:
To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale.
That explictly states that the template is not a rationale and a detailed non-free rationale has to be written for each use. — Save_Us† 10:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image was tagged for deletion by you. then the image description was updated. Can you tell me if it meets the criteria now, and if it does is it OK to remove the notification tag from the Paramount Records article?
It appears that it is public domain, so copyright is no longer eligible for this particular image, so everything is resolved there for the most part. As for removing the notification, you can remove the notification from the talk page is you like, but there is no real reason to. — Save_Us† 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I saw you had deleted just about all of User talk:The Tramp, and at first glance it looked like vandalism similar to an old revision of User talk:Mosmof made by an apparent sock puppet of User:The Tramp. I erroneously jumped to the conclusion that you were another such sock puppet, trying to wipe out all warnings against himself. Once I realized that my assumption was incorrect, I reverted my own revert, to put it back to the way you had it. Sorry for the error and confusion. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks. -- Art Smart (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noes, I commited vandalism :P Nah, that's quite alright Arthur, maybe looking at who is doing it first next time might help. ;) Thank you for admitting your mistake and taking the time to inform me. Cheers! — Save_Us† 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks again. -- Art Smart (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found another case where you deleted a reference at Kamal Nath. I restored the reference without the link, but knowing how eager you are to clean up after yourself I figured I'd bring it to your attention so that you could find a "non-spam" replacement. Everyking (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need sarcasm. Want to bring it to my attention, fine. But don't be an ass once you get here. — Save_Us† 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was nice of me, because I could have just left it alone after I restored the ref, and that way the website's name would have continued to sit in the article, which apparently bothers you. I have a question, though: do you feel that the anon who made this edit was spamming for andhranews.net? If so, do you think that spamming is mitigated if you add good information along with your spam? Everyking (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea spammers were such productive editors these days. But I assume you don't agree that it was a good edit, even though it added important info to WP. Do you think it would have been a good edit if he or she had used some other website for his ref? Everyking (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been fine if the person wasn't working for the site to begin with but the people who run the site obviously chose to spam their own site here, didn't they? Now if you're done playing 20 questions, I got better things to be doing. — Save_Us† 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have another one, though: do you think WP is better or worse because that person made that edit? Everyking (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editors intent was to spread content with links from their site. While the content is legitimate and thus improved the encyclopedia aspect, the links they were adding is inappropriate since they were closely associated with it. Think of it as if I started my own website to link current news and events and then started to add current news and events to Wikipedia, linking to my new website as the source. The content is legitimate news, but the link would be inappropriate since it is my site. — Save_Us† 02:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I presume the answer is "better". I am only concerned with improving the encyclopedia; I don't think, in producing an encyclopedia, anything else is relevant. Everyking (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Half and half. Actually I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the intent of spreading their link here is far much more an issue than the content they actually did provide being good. The encyclopedia aspect is important, but having site owners spam Wikipedia to raise their google hits isn't something I'll sit idley by and watch them do. — Save_Us† 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You be the internet police, I'll write an encyclopedia. Just don't do anything to harm the encyclopedia while policing, like removing references and leaving content uncited, and I'll be happy. Everyking (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you call removing spam harmful, there is a lot of editors and bots programed just for harming the encyclopedia. — Save_Us† 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey i was just going over my article for the band, i see you have dealted the links i've added.
I don't know why, but i've made it clear through that i know the band personally therefore, i can add the links in of the music videos myself with permission from the band's singer, JP. If it's a problem, tell me somehow to go around it, because the most thing i could do is prove to you through a voice call from the singer regarding letting me add the links!
When manually tagging violations of NFCC, would you be willing to contribute a basic fair use rationale instead? Why or why not? It would save some hassle for the images people cannot get to in time. Guroadrunner (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the kind of images, I can provide basic ones for album covers, logos and the such fairly easily if I wanted to. For other kinds of images on the other hand, such as historical images, I don't know basic rationales nor should a basic rationale be written. For historical images specifically, a reason (and a link) should be provided to define it's historical uniqueness. I am not capable of determining all of that while tagging nor will I take the time to research it for every image. I notify the uploader and leave a message on the article talk page where the image is being used. That should be enough notification. — Save_Us† 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair. I suppose what I'll have to do is write up some rationales to make things legally right. Lots of work, but who said life was easy? Guroadrunner (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for tagging 163.153.111.64. The district has reported that they have identified the students involved and are taking appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, thanks for the report back. :) — Save_Us† 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please give your input on whether the WWE Byte This article should be deleted or not. I saw that you created the article under a different name, and your input could definitely be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSoxFan3458 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly decline to comment on the merit of the article's notability despite me maybe being able to correct some of the problems. If it survives AFD, I'll help rewrite it. — Save_Us† 22:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have been careful though. The first time I reverted was because no source had been provided (so that doesn't count as part of the 1RR), the second time was because the only "source" provided was an illegally hosted video and thus not allowed as a source (so that doesn't count). I will be careful not to violate 1RR, but thanks for reminding me. TJSpyke 02:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for actually finding a reliable source (something the other two editors refused to do). TJSpyke 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I apologize for saying you had a grudge against me without relying on facts to prove it. And thank you for those comments, you as well are a productive editor.TrUCo9311 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have no furthur grievence. — Save_Us† 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on your recent edit regarding the external link? I am the owner of the site in question and the fact that it spreads computer worms is news to me. Has someone hacked the site and put in a malicious code? Is the web-hosting service to blame? Are the worms even malicious? How did you find out it causes worms to spread? I ask because I'd like to remove the site from circulation if someone's hijacked it for nefarious reasons inconsistent with my own. Thanks in advance for yr response. -- Adkins 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am unaware if someone has hijacked your site. I use a program called avast! which moniters my internet as I browse. I was directed to the site as it was a link from an article and two seconds into loading the page a malicious worm was trying to attach itself to a temporary internet file but avast! caught it beforehand. I would love for your site to be moved to a different domain other than 100megsfree4 so that your site would still be available for usage on Wikipedia, minus the computer worms. — Save_Us† 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, let me test something, I'll be back in a short while. — Save_Us† 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. That was an expected result. I went back through a test and it appears it isn't only just specific sites on 100megsfree4 that are containing this malware, it is almost all of them. I went to a seperate one besides the one you provided and the 'Wrestling Information Archive', a freqent one of the sites here on Wikipedia and tested it for Malware and it pulled up a VBS:Malware-gen computer worm. It is not only your site that is infected, it is a lot of the 100megsfree4.com sites. — Save_Us† 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, damnit! Thanks for this info. I've got to find another host. I just worry that if I transfer the pages I will transfer the worm as well. Wow. I'm really bummed out by this. Violated, in essence. Weird because I use avast! as well and it has never indicated a problem--Adkins (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you just copy and paste the text onto the clipboard (instead of the coding) from the host, I think you should be fine. :) Your site was decent for the few minutes I saw it, I hope you can find another host soon. It is weird, I used to use visit a 100megsfree4 sub-site called the 'Wrestling Information Archive' without any problems until recently when all of the sites starting pulling this up. Maybe I'm just the unlucky one who had to get the virus and give the bad news. :) Regards, — Save_Us† 22:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem. At least we now know about the bug!--Adkins (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19:57, 8 February 2008 Save Us 229 (bypassing spam protection filter; site causes computer worms to be spread)
00:02, 9 February 2008 Save Us 229 (Reverted edits by Save Us 229 (talk) to last version by Philip Baird Shearer)
Just curious what was the problem and what has been fixed? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a program called avast! that monitors my computer for viruses and it detected that the site I removed had a VBS:Malware-gen on it. After some discussion with others who have the program and other editors, it turns out that if I didn't have the latest version of avast! then I would get a bug that makes a lot of sites come up as malware, when all it really is, is VBScript. To make a long story short, it was a false positive of a site containing malware. :) — Save_Us† 15:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start a new section. I archived it because the entire thread had shifted focus from what was the real issue at hand. It appears east718 still has unfinished business with editors there and issues still need to be addressed, so the new section being added seems appropriate. Regards, — Save_Us† 12:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is rollback? I've considered getting it, but I'm not sure how it compares to twinkle. I know they're similar, but I'm not sure which one comes out on top. What's your impression of it thus far? SexySeaBass 23:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I never had Twinkle. Twinkle is pretty fast from what I've seen at least, but I don't think it is nearly as fast as rollback. I used to be one of the fastest at rollback by hand before everyone had scripts like twinkle and god-mode light, and I used to be able to get 250 rollbacks or so on a good day. After all the scripts came out and everyone was faster I pretty much quit RC patrol because I was outdated to faster scripts on different browsers. Compare that to now with scripts like Huggle (which is in my opinion faster than twinkle), non-admins with rollback feature and the like out there, with rollback, I'm able to get back to 250 rollbacks on a good day again. You should either go get rollback or that Huggle script, things will go much faster :) — Save_Us† 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, you can go try your rollback out on the Pro Wrestling Wikia as well, you have it there. :) — Save_Us† 23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it there, and it is twice as fast as twinkle, but for actual vandal reversions twinkle is only 1.5 times longer than rollback, as I don't need to leave a summary, and it actually saves me time in the long run by automatically opening their talk page and giving me a menu of warnings. Thanks for reminding me that I've already tried it, though that wasn't your intention :P. I'll look up that other script you mentioned, but I think I like twinkle more than rollback. Cheers, SexySeaBass 23:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the downside to rollback is warning the user. Rollback only gives you a link to the talk. Either way, they both make RC patrol easier :P I can't vouche for Huggle though, I couldn't get it to work on my browser (I really need different browsers >_>), but I edit conflicted Huggle a lot while using rollback, so giving that a shot may be worth it. Later, — Save_Us† 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just stick with twinkle. I'd like to get rollback just for the cool logo in the top right-hand corner of my userpage I could add, though. So, do you know what happens if I have rollback, but use twinkle? Does the Universe implode? Do the wiki servers stop running on electricity, and start running on the tears of children? What happens? Peace, SexySeaBass 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I hate cats. Anyway, I'm just wondering if having both means Twinkle breaks. Do you know? Peace, SexySeaBass 05:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't break, although I never had Twinkle, I never heard of a technical problem occuring because rollback was given. — Save_Us† 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, now comes the moral crossroads of wasting someone's time to to get a tool never to be used, just so I can say I have it. Meh, if only using twinkle (or "twinkling" myself) killed my conscience. Cheers, SexySeaBass 05:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's given to users who have the common sense to not abuse it, you should be given it with ease. Regards, — Save_Us† 05:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to my secret page, yep, a period. I made it so hard because I wasted so much time coming up with the idea for and making that barnfish. After that I decided I'm gonna make everyone work for it >:^(. Anyway, congratulations on finding it! Woot SexySeaBass 05:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was so hard I comtemplated cheating, but thought I wouldn't get an award for that, but as it turns out if I had cheated I would have gotten something anyways :) I should make one of those... then again looking at my userpage I really don't think it would work for me. >< — Save_Us† 05:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could set up a scavenger hunt through your subpages. Or, I can probably show you how to make an invisible link, if only I can remember how. Anyway, you're creative, and I'm God. I comandeth thee to cometh up with an idea, and buyeth me buffalo wings. Cheerseth, SexySeaBass 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you find my secret page without cheating I'll really get you buffalo wings, cause even I can't find it (pretty bad, right?). — Save_Us† 05:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, alright, you're on Moe. Let's see, SexySeaBass 05:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can find it by cheating (no, really), but the link I haven't found yet. I'll keep looking, SexySeaBass 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my creativity never ceases to amaze me, the hardest link to find is in fact on the simplist user page. :) — Save_Us† 05:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I hit edit. Damn you Moe, you literally made the link invisible. I should have known you'd do something like that. Gah, just for that,
This template message is important, and must not be removed. Do not remove this template message, because it is important.
Haha, darn templated again. Alright, I simplied my link so you could find it now (and cuz I couldn't find it either), go ahead and look again (without looking in the history :P) — Save_Us† 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's see if I can do it. Get those buffalo wings nice and crispy for me. I like hot with a nice hint of maple. SexySeaBass 06:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you get buffalo wings for the ones the inviso-link, this one I think should be much easier. :) — Save_Us† 06:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what do you mean? There's more than one link? I found the penguin one. SexySeaBass 06:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, its just the penguin now, everything else was harder (even for me :P). I meant buffalo wings for first link I made invisible, that is wing-worthy :) — Save_Us† 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't get wings :( SexySeaBass 06:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woot, here, have a beer on me. I love buffalo wings! Cheers Moe, SexySeaBass 06:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woot, thanks for the beer. I must say, I love purple boxes. :) — Save_Us† 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, my son. Well done, you've made me proud. Anyway, for an update on the rollback/twinkle situation, they can both work simultaneously, and I'm very happy having both. The admin rollback is place in a different place than Twinkle's, so it all works out. Peace, SexySeaBass 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, very well then, good to hear it works. It's late, so I should be heading to bed. — Save_Us† 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked more deeply into the deleted revisions, and I've noticed that several of them aim to 'out' his real-life identity and link to off-wikipedia insults and abuse. While it would have been best for him to just come out and say so in response to your requests, I can say quite assuredly that he is justified in not wanting that type of information reposted or in the regular page history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still really doesn't account for a whole 15+ months missing. I believe he said he would restore the previous versions that weren't vandalism, so that is all I'm holding him accountable for. He seems to have restored them, so I have no grievence. — Save_Us† 00:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Betacommand, read WP:SIG please and consider removing the images from it. Thank you. — Save_Us† 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why not though? Loads of people do it. Please see my reply also on Betacommands bot talk page also. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to see why, read WP:SIG, and to reply to you, no, everyone doesn't use them, you may be refering to unicode characters like the smiley in your sig, read this from WP:SIG:
Images of any kind may not be used in signatures for the following reasons:
they are an unnecessary drain on server resources, and could cause server slowdown
a new image can be uploaded in place of the one you chose, making your signature a target for possible vandalism and Denial-of-service attacks
they make pages more difficult to read and scan
they make it more difficult to copy text from a page
they are potentially distracting from the actual message
in most browsers images do not scale with the text, making lines with images higher than those without
they clutter up the "file links" list on the image page every time you sign on a different talk page
images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution
As an alternative to using images, consider using unicode characters that are symbols, such as these: ☺☻♥♪♫♣♠♂♀§. For a full listing of Unicode characters see Wikibooks:Unicode/Character reference.
Regards, — Save_Us† 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont remember typing "Everyone" uses them. But ok i'll remove it :'(. But why did three of you have to tell me seems like your wasting your time when you could be dealing with serious vandalism. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I don't have anything else to do. Four of us told you because it is visually distracting, and it drew our attention most likely. — Save_Us† 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused why you've redirected this page. Blank it, sure, but we generally allow blocked users to post unblock requests, even ones who are obvious vandals/trolls. Redirecting the page interferes with a user's ability to post the unblock template; an editor unfamiliar with the redirect syntax might not even understand that they can still edit their user talk page. This isn't such a big deal with Griot, since it's highly unlikely that any admin would unblock him, but there are other cases where users get indef blocked, and shouldn't be; an unblock request might be the only way they get noticed. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Griot knows how to post an unblock and revert me if he wishes to post an unblock, he isn't a new editor here. You even said yourself it's highly unlikely he will be unblocked. So what, wait a few days, then redirect it back? Why wait? If he is inappropriately blocked, then he can revert his talk page back to the previous revision and give an unblock reason, it's not like he is incapable of doing so. — Save_Us† 02:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He may not know how to do it, actually. Even users who have been around for a long time have problems with wikisyntax, and Griot recently demonstrated that he didn't know how to use diffs. It's not unimaginable that he might not be able to figure out the redirect.
The larger issue is if you're doing this to users who might deserve unblocking. Sometimes an indef block is a mistake, and an unblock request might be the only way it gets noticed.
I don't see the point of redirecting the user talk page anyway. The user talk page contains a notice of the indef block, so it's not as if the redirect is necessary for informational purposes; there's no sign that the user has abused his talk page since the block, so why the rush to redirect it? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush, it's just something that is done to indefinetly blocked/banned editors. Normally I only do it to obvious editors who do not need a unblock at all (i.e. blatant vandals) or sockpuppets (i.e. editors blocked for a long time or haven't edited for a long time that was recently blocked). Most of the people I do the redirect to are undeserving of an unblock or have already been denied. None of that fits Griot's M.O. I believe, but regardless. I'm not exactly the only one who redirects the talk page to the main userpage or vice versa, you know. Besides, whenever you are blocked, I'm sure the standard blocked message that appears when you try to edit probably explains what to do anyways if they don't know how to revert your talk page (which I'm almost sure Griot would know how to do). I'm not sure, but I think there is a mailing list that was provided in the auto-message for when your blocked, I haven't looked at the MediaWiki page in a long time. If you have a problem with general redirecting of the talk pages, then discuss it with a more general audience because this is not something that I just do, a lot of administrators do this as well (and some of them protect the talk page so they can't revert). — Save_Us† 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2] This comment is assuming that you didn't have a problem with my edit from yesterday: Please be more careful not revert other editors edits in the midst of a content dispute you have with another editor. Reverting should be done more carefully, and unless your straight reverting to the latest edit only once, you should use the undo button provided in the history page if your undoing a single editor. If undo is impossible to perform, I expect you to revert and put back things that were not what disagreed with (i.e. typo fixes, link fixes, etc.) — Save_Us† 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. «»bd(talkstalk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
02:04, 20 February 2008 [3] You make changes to the article
20:12, 20 February 2008 [4] I make an edit to the article
21:51, 20 February 2008 [5] Someone reverted your edits
14:22, 21 February 2008 [6] You revert him and me because you reverted back to your old revision at 02:04, 20 February 2008.
That is what I meant. Don't revert me while your reverting someone else. — Save_Us† 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I thought I kept the changed template, but I guess I goofed. It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal, especially since you seem to have fixed it with 0 problem. All I can offer is a "my bad" and hope it's a dead issue.«»bd(talkstalk) 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know I can fix it with 0 problems, it's just frustrating to have to go behind every edit and make sure someone didn't accidently revert me in the process of making a revert of someone else. I edit at a pretty fast rate, I just dont like seeing mistakes happen like that =/ No hard feelings, — Save_Us† 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And concering personal attacks in your commentary and in your edit summaries, this is your first warning. — Save_Us† 02:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks? I don't recall making any personal attacks to you lately. TJSpyke 02:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the hypocrite comment, I don't see how that would be considered a personal attack. TJSpyke 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was refering to your explictives shouted and the use of the word hypocrite. The basis of WP:NPA is commenting on the content, not the contributor, and calling me a hypocrite certainly falls under that. — Save_Us† 02:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this: User_talk:TJ_Spyke#Edit_summaries. TJ has been warned about his language in edit summaries a few times already. I think an admin board discussion will be needed pretty soon on this. TJ knows not to use abusive edit summaries (with swearing, personal attacks, etc), but doesn't seem to listen to warnings. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making me aware of his recent history and feel free to report another incident of them same nature to me or the admin noticeboard as well. Let me know about it goes to the admin noticeboard and I'll try to comment there. — Save_Us† 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is freaking awesome! Oh shit man, that's something I'll remember for years to come. Dear Lord, that is freakin' sweet. Oh man, SexySeaBass 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just did that in paint shop using some other free images around here, I thought it turned out good. lolbuffalos turn out to be funnier than lolcats :) — Save_Us† 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear lord, I have to admit that completely pwns my sea bass. I'm gonna have to stop being lazy and kink that thing up in an image editor myself someday. Man, I love that buffalo picture. That thing is awesome. SexySeaBass 03:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this took a little over an hour. The hard part was getting the baseball cap on the buffalo lol. Thanks, feel free to spread the buffalo around. ;) — Save_Us† 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to make that your signature animal, like my sea bass is to me. I can't think of a more awesome picture for you. SexySeaBass 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woulda been more funny under my old username, Moe buffalo. But I guess the buffalo will just have to Save Us. ;) — Save_Us† 03:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, now if that buffalo had its own religion, I would certainly convert to that. SexySeaBass 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Buffalo doesn't have a religion, but it does have a crime family. :) — Save_Us† 03:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding: [7]. Why do you assume that it has to be public domain? Because it isn't a public domain image doesn't mean that has to be removed. It was used under a claim of fair use and was applicable per WP:NFCC. I see you added another image to the article from the WikiMedia Commons as a replacement, but don't remove images simply because it isn't free. — Save_Us† 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now there appears to be a different problem. Image:Raven-and-the-first-men.jpg, the image you added as the replacement is facing deletion as it is a potential copyright violation because it is non-free. In other words, you're "free" image is marked is now marked as non-free and going to be deleted. I readded the old image to the article, the one you removed, because that image was being used correctly already. — Save_Us† 03:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I switched images because the colour image is larger, better quality, and in colour. The delete nomination on creative commons was mine, because i thought it couldn't be public domain. As it turns out, because it is permanently installed in a public museum, Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama applies. The delete nomination has been voted down, and will close soon. The fair use claim on the low-res b&w image is unnecessary. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I didn't see the comments on the deletion page itself. Freedom of panorama appears to apply here. I have readded the public domain image and removed and tagged Image:Raven-bill reid.jpg for deletion since it is used under a claim of fair use. — Save_Us† 04:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and sorry my original edits weren't more clear. TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
Why is the article for Ipod typeset as iPod, but the article for mOBSCENE is typeset as Mobscene? The song is named mOBSCENE, not Mobscene, and the article should reflect that. -- Hierophantasmagoria 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the specific section called Wikipedia:NAMING#Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise. The only exception to this section is articles where the first letter is lowercase and the letter after that is uppercase, like iPod and eBay. mOBSCENE doesn't meet this exception. Moving it to mOBSCENE renders most of the article title to be all caps, which is not encouraged. — Save_Us† 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ipod redirects to iPod. I don't see why Mobscene or mObscene couldn't redirect to mOBSCENE just as easily. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off the name will never be put at mObscene, that naming convention is for things that actually are named like that, like iPod; it would either be mOBSCENE or Mobscene. Again, the name of the above section is called Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise, mOBSCENE is not standard English. All caps =/= standard. Understand? — Save_Us† 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a double standard, there is an exception to the guideline above for things with a lowercase beginning letter and a capitalized second letter. mOBSCENE isn't the same thing and is mostly all caps, thus the above guideline applies. — Save_Us† 23:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you're allowing for non-standard English in certain cases. I don't see how one is different from the other. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the guidelines take the conversation someplace else. — Save_Us† 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear the argument you have for gothic metal not being part of the gothic subculture when gothic rock is. Heavy metal is a genre of rock, how is the same kind of music not and one is? — Save_Us† 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was a year about ago and not much was said other than users giving their personal point of view on it and consensus changes sometimes. I will start a thread, preferably a straw poll, on Talk:Goth subculture, to determine if gothic metal should be added to the template of gothic subculture. To remain even, I will start the thread and end it when a satisfactory consensus is made, and I will refrain from adding my own !vote. Feel free to comment there once the thread starts. The most credible arguments are going to be ones with the best reliable sources to back up their argument, so please provide any you have to the discussion. Thanks, — Save_Us† 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a minor issue with the images you create, like Image:Basketball110.png and Image:Chetblong flickr logo.png. You claim the image is used under a claim of fair free use and then add a trademark symbol (TM) in the image itself. By claiming it is "trademarked" it gives a false sense of ownership for the username being used to brand a good or service. To those working with images, it is very confusing. While it is essentially harmless, I would request you reupload the images you did this too without the trademark sign, as it is very misleading. — Save_Us† 09:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had asked another admin to look into the issue, and he said that there isn't any rule strictly against having a ™ in a freely licensed image (not fair use as you stated). Also one of those pics was brought up for deletion for that same reason, and was kept by a Commons admin (which is where these pics are located). I would remove the ™, but some of the people who asked for a logo also asked for the ™ symbol as well. So since there is no real issue with the ™ symbol, I have chose to keep it in all the images. Hope I can be of assistance for you in the future! Cheers , ChetblongTC 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about saying fair use, I meant free. That'll teach me to not edit until the early morning hours. >_> It is fine, I never said it had to be removed, as I stated above that they are essentially harmless since it is a free image. I just suggested it since it was misleading to some editors and guessing from your comment, I don't think I was the only one. It's fine really. — Save_Us† 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and yes you weren't the only one. But since I had another admin backing me I felt pretty good about my decision. And don't worry I've stayed up until the next morning sometimes editing Wikipedia. Cheers! ChetblongTC 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i note this edit. I assessed the article as start class for WP:SCH, you appear to have reverted it, without a message to notify me on my talk page. Im just curious as to what you would rate the page? For mine, the page misses out some important things like what education program is run, who is it administered by, and still misses many key things like history, and the schools campus. Although it appears to have a good array of references, its still a little bit off B-class, but its coming along nicely. Im re-instating the start-class rating, but if you still disagree, revert again. I am currently an experienced assessor at WP:SCH, and if you would like to have the article assessed by someone else from WP:SCH, feel free to request an assessment at WP:SCH. Thanks. TwentyYears 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finished with the article, so I feel any rating at all right now is based on a article in the middle of expansion. If you do look in the article there is a section on the education program, its under the section called "Academics", if you are referring to a different kind of educational program, then let me know. The school campus I'm trying to work on. As for the history though, it was established seven years ago, and besides the projects and other related incidents I'm adding to the article, there isn't a definied history of Bartram Trail. I'm going to be working on the article again shortly after I finish a few things related with my username changing. — Κaiba 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop changing the naming of this template; your edits are not helpful to the general listing which the names are written. Do you even realize that the way your naming them isn't even correct by the way you want to list them?
Your edit includes this change:
Ashley • Beth Phoenix • Carlito • Candice Michelle • Cody Rhodes
So I think I know you're intention here. It is to list them in alphabetical order starting with the first letter, but did you even read beyond that part? It then reads like this (directly after the line above):
Lance Cade • John Cena • Jim Duggan • Lilian Garcia • Todd Grisham
That is not an improvement to the article, you are meshing the two naming standards together making it being named awkwardly. The revision I'm reverting to is following the naming that is followed on the World Wrestling Entertainment roster article. If you want to discuss a way that it is written, then do so on the talk page and I will comment there, but you're revision is simply wrong as is clashes two different styles of writing. — Κaiba 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of blindly pointing to MOS, why don't you tell me the exact section you are referencing. And BTW, again, you only did half of the job again and is still reading like this:
Ashley • Beth Phoenix • Carlito • Candice Michelle • Cody Rhodes • Lance Cade • John Cena • Jim Duggan • Lilian Garcia • Todd Grisham
If you're going to make this template in compliance with WP:MOS, why are you not doing the entire template instead of a few names? — Κaiba 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faint, and please stop posting stuff like i did a crime. First off, the template would look better off with a ABC way of it, like Ashley, Beth Phoniex and so on and on. NimiTize 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first, I am assuming good faith so far, as I started a discussion. Second, if you're interpreting that what I'm writing is like a crime report, you have an over-active imagination. Third, thank you for finally telling me what you're intention is, and as I suspected, it was to list it alphabetically. Now will you please point to the section of WP:MOS which you are talking about, and tell me why you only did part of the template and not the whole thing? — Κaiba 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing to here, this is considered well done, and organized with ABC style (With some not organized ABC style), and WP:MoS, I must of did what you call blindly posted it on your talk page. This just words, that editors make mistakes.
Thanks for finally explaning the template you were following, but that doesn't make you're change any better. It is still incomplete, claming that they are good being out of order is not the correct way to go about it. The naming standard followed at the TNA template is actually this:
If it is a stage name, it is alphabetically ordered
If it is the real name, it is alphabetical order by starting by last name.
I can fix the WWE roster template to reflect that kind of change, but claiming the TNA template is out of order and it's correct, is in fact false. It does have an order, as I explained above. — Κaiba 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice of you to fix it up, I would help, but I got to go, am going to a place to eat, sorry. NimiTize 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll correct the order now as it is on the TNA roster. — Κaiba 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop adding that change, we don't list by letter of 1st name unless they don't have a surname. Skitzo (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was an agreed convention used by myself, NimiTize, WP:PW and is used on other pro wrestling roster templates:
If it is a stage name it is listed by first letter of the stage name, surname or not, it is still a stage name.
If it is their real name, it is list by first letter of their surname.
That is the convention, dispute it on WP:PW. — Κaiba 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you were a steeler fan to sweet!! what about Big Ben's new contract $$$$. Will you sign your name on my wiki freinds please? thanks and as allway's happy editing. SexySteelerFan 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, have been for many years now. I heard about Ben's contract, defiently good news for the team :) I would be happy to add my name to your wikifriends section, thanks! If you ever need anything, just ask. Regards, — Κaiba 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to personally thank you, Kaiba, for your participation in my recent RfB. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it didn't work out the way you wanted it Avraham. The best of luck if you decide to run again. Regards, — Κaiba 18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you were expecting it, weren't you? How many usernames is this, anyway? Will(talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, glad someone caught the name :) I believe this is only my third account with contributions on it, but the fifth different name in total. People are smart they can follow redirects, no problems. ;) — Κaiba 16:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gawd, I didn't even see his birthday, one day away from mine (October 24th), thats creepy O_o — Κaiba 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was too rapid a close at the AfD. Others would have come, and, like me, they might well have had a different point of view about it. I suggest that it remains contentious, and in such cases its always better to have a full discussion than one that looks like closing off something prematurely. DGG (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, it was an MFD, not a AFD. Second, you should not want something contentious, as you stated above. Contentious things happen on Wikipedia, but you should not seek contentious situations or try to make them contentious. Third, yes, it was a premature close, but the other five editors on the deletion discussion page, that including three administrators disagreed with Zenwhat's assessment of the page, resulting in a snow-covered close. My rationale is that consensus was either not going to happen or either be in favor of keeping the page. In no way did I see that discussion resulting in a delete at the end. Zenwhat's nomination addresses various concerns like "This page offers people with a conflict-of-interest a way to disrupt Wikipedia without violating policy" and "it is also extremely prone to abuse" without actually providing an example of this happening. I don't follow the rewards board page, and this is the first I heard of it, I believe, but I haven't heard any problems stemming from this page as of yet. His nomination sounds more like a preemptive action being taken against a page that may cause trouble. I don't believe any administrator action should be performed to preemptively stop something from happening (unless it's an office action). Things like 'what kind of "reward" that could be given' and 'what to do when a reward is not "payed"' is not what WP:MFD is for, that is for the talk page, and since I don't believe there is a prior incident, then I see no reason for MFD to be a method of discussion before the talk page. If you feel the discussion on MFD was closed much too early and want to seek furthur consensus about the pages existance, then feel free to start Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reward board 2. — Κaiba 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry if I was unclear. Yes, it was an MfD, and there would have been disagreement about it had you given it time to develop. Good faith disagreement on WP is not harmful, but the way we work here. If I decide it's worth it, I'll do a deletion review, to see what others think of your close, not another MfD. I might not have been able to convince everyone, or a majority, but I and others who may have felt this way should have been given the chance to try. You assume I disagreed with the form of rewards; no, I disagreed with the entire principle. But how were you to know that unless you had let the discussion continue? A MfD is not an administrative action, it's an attempt at consensus As an admin, I myself would reverse my own snow close in almost any case if it were objected to in good faith. DGG (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I hadn't given the others a chance to speak their minds, but how was I supposed to know that they were going to comment to delete with a seperate reason outside of the nominators reason when everyone who had previously !voted to keep it? I can't read minds, so I'm using my best judgement when it was snow kept. When I referred to an administrative action I was referring to deletion and how it would be inappropriate to delete a page for a preemptive reason like 'abuse could occur'. I wasn't talking about the MFD itself. If you feel my closure was wrong, feel free to bring to deletion review to see if others agree or disagree with me or be bold yourself and restart the conversation. — Κaiba 09:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to DGG: Is it your actual intent to alter MFD policy through use of WP:IAR? (as there's several pages active, please leave note on my talk as to where you'll answer, I'll then keep track there) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I'm getting my proverbial scolding for snow closing when the nomination had been previously closed before myself when only two other editors commented. I didn't even realize someone closed it before me until you just pointed this out. "How many editors have to say keep?" is the question of the day. Interesting indeed.. — Κaiba 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
0, in this case. MFD of policies, proposals and projects in the project namespace (and especially MFD of XFD pages :-P) is not permitted per current policy, because it causes all kinds of mind bending recursions, loops and catch-22-like situations (real-world and theoretical examples available). However, several people are ignoring that, without clear rationale (mostly "oops, we didn't know that", I think). Suffice to say, I disagree with those people, somewhat O:-). --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me thinks those who invoke IAR to start something contentious lacked a clear rationale to begin with. Just my opinion.. — Κaiba 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than drama, if any administrator disagrees with the close, they can just revert it, per WP:DPR#NAC. Daniel (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated above Daniel, I didn't mind if an administrator did boldy reopen it or contest it at deletion review. Zscout370 apparently has taken this chance to re-open it, and that is fine. — Κaiba 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had it reopened before, but it was closed again by the time I woke up. Then during my work, a ton of other people came in and said "Hey, that's not right" so I took their hints and reopened it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 06:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only see three other editors (including the nominator) at your talk page to say something about it. I wouldn't exactly call that a 'ton'. Three (or even one) is enough, however. But you may have better luck discussing this on the talk page and getting consensus to tag it as historical. Typically with these kinds of pages, we tend to do things like how Wikipedia:Esperanza and Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard was ended. Outright deletion of these kinds of pages shouldn't be done unless there is a reason to do so. — Κaiba 06:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as an aside Zscout370, your tone is inappropriate, I suggest you assume good faith more. — Κaiba 13:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less happy with the re-opening, as it is not in line with MFD procedure. Zscout370: You are altering-best-practice-by-doing now (WP:POLICY method #1) . However, (paraphrase) A majority on my talk page said so and "just let this run, damnit", are ... hmmm... well, a little thin on the ground, and make it rather hard to build consensus. Could you expand on your rationale, if possible, please? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it :-) Sorry to frown at you like that, but it does say so somewhere in the policy "Strongly frowned upon". How am I doing so far? Frowning hard enough? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "AGF is dead" Zscout: No, it is not. And your good faith should be extended to contributors who act accordingly and are in good standing with the community. If you feel I wasn't acting in good faith, then you are mistaken. I already said you could re-open it days ago, so you don't need to constant defending under WP:DPR#NAC and snide remarks left here. You are no longer welcome to comment here if you think I'm ok with that. — Κaiba 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. I've been putting him under quite some pressure, (as have others), and he's sort of been caught in the middle. From that point of view his response is partially my fault. Apologies.
His situation is quite unfair, you see. We're going to have to sort out how to solve the issue without hurting Zscout in the mean time :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another username bites the dust... SexySeaBass 05:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*nods* I'm gonna keep this name though, I wanted it from the very beginning, but I never wanted to go through that whole usurpation process, but it was worth the wait. :) — Κaiba 06:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you had to usurp it. That's very interesting, but I guess it makes sense that this name would be taken. Anyway, how's everything been going? SexySeaBass 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here on Wikipedia, business as usual ;) I'm writing the Bartram Trail High School article, which is exhausting. I've been writing this article for a week now, but it's a pretty good looking article. In real life, however, I'm feeling pretty crappy lol. For the last week I have had maybe a grand total of twelve hours sleep and three sleepless nights. Insomnia at its worst. In fact, I think I'm going to go try and sleep now. — Κaiba 07:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I immediately urge you to undelete these userspaces and protect it from this user's abuse of the userspace. User:Mcfly85 is a abusive sockpuppeteer as established here and here. His right to vanish should no longer apply as he is not within good standing with the community. — Κaiba 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me. I have restored the pages, placed the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag, and protected the pages to prevent further abuse. bibliomaniac15 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very much. Regards, — Κaiba 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter[edit]
Ron Killings is still being reported as having signed a WWE contract. As there is no reliable source for anything of the sort, be prepared for his name to be continually added to the WWE Roster article, and information about his return being added to his article. There is also, apparently, an audio interview with Killings where he states he will be returning to WWE with his old K-Kwik gimmick. Recent SmackDown! taping spoilers indicate that Killings has already debuted under the name Kwik Killings in a Dark match. However, no reliable source for this information has been found yet.
The article collaboration for March 3 through March 16 is Ric Flair. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 16.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has dropped by 45 while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
Professional wrestling articles by quality and importance
Just to let you know, you have new messages at the Pro Wrestling Wikia regarding Hybrid and I. --Cheers, LAX 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LAX, I read The Hybrid's message over on Pro Wrestling Wikia and he said he was retiring from being an active administrator. I would have been fine with him being an inactive administrator, but it is his choice. He suggested that you become an administrator, and I agree with his choice. Since I am I bureaucrat over there, I changed your user rights from none to +sysop. Regards, — Κaiba 10:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for that. I really apreciate it. --Cheers, LAX 10:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are still probably best known as Save_Us 229, I was wondering if I could change my name and my signature to "Save_Us.222"? –Cheers, LAX 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems with that :) — Κaiba 13:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ;) But, don't you think that there would be some confusion between us? –Cheers, LAX 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless your signature was blue and black like mine. :P I'm probably not best known as Save Us 229, but as Moe Epsilon. As long as your username that is changing to Save Us.222, and it points to LAX, then you should be fine. If there is any confusion, which I don't anticipate, I can always make a note at the top of my userpage saying I'm not you :) — Κaiba 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Thank you. –Cheers, LAX 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is conflicting data that needs to be resolved. The info box says campus size is 120 acres, but the Campus section states that the school "campus takes up two hundred acres of land" Mgreason (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stated, both in the checkin note and the thread on my talk page, that I felt the existing text was sufficient to meet the free use guidelines. In response, you stated that it did not meet the guidelines, and I should read the guidelines. I did read the guidelines, and still felt that it met them. You responded again, saying I should read some more guidelines. I read those too, and remained confused. Then I became busy editing and the matter fell of my radar, and the image was deleted.
Please please please look at the page and tell me specifically what additional text would be needed. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I am really trying to understand why it is you believe the statement was not enough. I have read the guidelines, and I remain convinced that the statement did address all of the issues to the extent needed for the "common man":
What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage : Nazi Germany no longer exists (phew)
If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? " Not applicable, so it was left out.
What purpose does the image serve in the article? : It is an image of the main topic, which I stated made it free use in that article.
Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? Yes (this is part of the item above).
To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image? : I cannot be replaced by a free image, the object in question no longer exists.
These are all of the points in the "Necessary components", the portion of the document you pointed me to. The only item that was not explicitly stated is the first one, which I thought should be obvious. If this was the problem, why didn't you say so, or add it yourself? Again, I'm not trying to be an ass, but it seems like I am being made to repeatedly jump through other people's hoops, long after the fact, and its starting to wear on me. If this could have been addressed in a trivial manner, it should have been.
I remember what the description said, it said "fair use in article such and such" and had {{Non-free fair use in}} at the bottom. Please note that this not an acceptable rationale that is required by Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. A fair use rationale must be written out, not assumed. Something like {{Non-free use rationale}} must be added to the image description page with every point you made above, written out in plain language so it can be made clear. Even the obvious things, like Nazi Germany no longer existing so the copyright is no longer competes with the usage, has to be written. I didn't do this myself because I do not know the copyright status of every image that I tag as lacking a rationale, that is why I request the uploader and those familiar with the image subject to help. Since you wrote out all the components here, I requested the administrator who deleted the image, to undelete it so a rationale can be written. — Κaiba 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg has now been undeleted. But I have a feeling that the image may be in the public domain like it's other relevant image, Image:He 113.jpg. Did you make the image yourself, or did you take it from a website? (if it's from a website, can you provide a souce for the image?) — Κaiba 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take what follows as constructive criticism. Also, this isn't about you, the problems I am going to describe are widespread. I don't know how to fix this though, except by trying to point out every instance I find.
If you examine the history of the image you'll note that I uploaded it about three years ago. In those days the requirements for tagging were much more lax than they are today, and the image, as it was, met those requirements. Three years later, a robot finds all the older tags and posts big messages on my talk page implying I am a pirate. These message do not contain any useful information, like a link to where to turn for help. All they link to is the rules that are causing the problem in the first place. Because of that, a user has no choice but to ask the "person" who posted the tag. As this is typically a robot, these often go ignored.
But in this case you did see the message, due largely to the fact that I do know how to get help. I asked you for an explanation of what was wrong with the tag. You did not give me an explanation, you simply pointed me to a web page. I read the web page and felt that the existing message was good enough. You responded that it was not good enough, once again failing to point out what specifically was the problem. And instead of putting the image on some sort of hold while this was addressed, the image was simply deleted because you had tagged it and not removed the tag. So now, weeks later, I find that the image has been deleted. I posted, in detail, why I felt it met the requirements, and you just parroted those back to me. When I finally met the requirement that it took me weeks to drag out of you, I get another post on talk page. Can you imagine my frustration? Ask Sisiphus.
All I can ask is that in the future you might consider this: it should be just as difficult to remove content as it is to create it. A robot posting tags on a user page requires no effort at all, yet this results in content being removed that took some effort to create. That's asymmetrical, and IMHO, bad. Was it really too much to ask for you to spend more than a few moments helping me? If content was created in good faith, I really think that the deletion process should be just as generous. And I do appreciate that you did take the time to clean up the tags. But I really feel that this should be the default, not the result of discussion.
Again, I apologize for what I realize sounds like a complaint, but I really don't know how else to improve this state of affairs. If you have a suggestion on where I could go to bring these up, where they will really get a hearing and not just disappear into some black hole, please let me know.
Get this through your head. {{Non-free fair use in}} being tagged on an image is not enough for fair use to be claimed. You think it is, but it clearly is not. Read the bottom of the template: To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale. It states a rationale has to be written. The image has a rationale now. Without a rationale, it can be deleted. It's as simple as that. If you cannot read in between the lines anymore than that, I'm sorry. — Κaiba 16:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I remembered you were into image licensing and the like. I wanted to point out to you this pic which was taken from here. As you can see the image is under "No Derivatives" license making it incompatible for Wiki; could you mark (or show me how to tag) the image for deletion? Thanks, indopug (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Indopug. Yes, I remember you :) There really isn't a tag for this situation that I know of. The place to list these kinds of images would be Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Be sure to follow the listing procedure and you should get a review of the image from there. — Κaiba 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go and make a case about my behaviour... now. — Edokter • Talk • 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For an administrator, you are awfully hostile. First you make threating posts to editors, and a fellow administrator, Future Perfect at Sunrise letting them know that they have been warned and then let it be known that your intention to challenge the foundation on fair use application, which is not discussable here on Wikipedia and/or discussable with people outside the foundation on how to change it. Next you act in a manner similar to a troll, begging for a report on your behavior. Sir, I would step back from your computer for a while. — Κaiba 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can get hostile sometime, and I shouldn't have. However, your threat was quite empty, as the warning I gave was quite valid, as Fut.Perf stated the desire of sabotaging the infobox template, thereby ridding 200 articles of their image. If that is not disruptive, I don't know what is. Each image must be judged on a case-by-case basis, so his intention was very ill-advised, and I told him so. — Edokter • Talk • 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was my threat? That I would report you? That is not a threat, I would do so if your aggressiveness was to continue. I wasn't arguing on the merit of your argument (I just happen to agree that images should be judged on a case-to-case basis, except in circumstances where such a parameter could be/is known to be used abusively). It was more of a comment on your tone and what could be percieved as someones intent to use an administrative action when they are actively involved in a dispute. — Κaiba 01:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should stop calling eachother's warnings "threads". I can be stern when warning, but I never threatened with administrative action; that is just your (and other's) perception. — Edokter • Talk • 10:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was mostly my point, the wording seemed like you planned some kind of admin action with the warning (the warning was actually worded to mean a lot different things though). Yes, that was my perception, sorry if thats not your intent, but being a little less stern could remedy that. — Κaiba 10:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't promise not to be stern, but I will try to be less confrontational in the future. I hope this chat has cleared some air. — Edokter • Talk • 14:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I hope this is the end of this particular confrontation. Thank you for trying, at least. — Κaiba 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long time no speak, hey! I just got back from a break about a month ago, thought I'd drop you a line. How ya doing? Normy 09:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Normy, it has been a while since we spoke, I thought you dropped off the face of the planet :] I'm doing pretty good compared to 2006 when we last spoke, laughing out loud, but then again so many things have happened since then. How have you been? — Κaiba 09:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kaiba, just wondering about the deleted links at Jeffery Kripal; about “Blacklisted Website(s)”. What does that mean? Blacklisted on Wikipedia? I didn’t know about any blacklisted sites… And that “bypassing spam filter”—sorry, I’m not so familiar with all the lingo here. Hope you could take a moment to explain. Thanks. Devadaru (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. On the Jeffrey J. Kripal article in particular, there were a couple of websites that were marked as spamming Wikipedia. When a website is spamming Wikipedia, we place them on the spam blacklist, which means they can no longer be used in articles or anywhere on Wikipedia. There is also a blacklist filter created by the blacklist. If your editing a page with a blacklisted website (like the Jeffrey J. Kripal article before I removed the links) the filter will not save your edits until you remove the site. What I did to the article was remove the blacklisted sites so the filter doesn't trigger and edits are not saved. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask, — Κaiba 10:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Too bad about Sulekha; some of that material is appropriate for the Kripal article, I think. But if the site is blacklisted ... well, I guess that’s that! Devadaru (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Sulekha and Galatta.com and lots of other sites related to them were found to have spammed AdSense around Wikipedia, so I think their done for. — Κaiba 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is by way of a heads up. Editors who participated in this fair use discussion have sort of been named as involved parties in this request for arbitration, with the caveat that they "can add themselves as they see fit". I've no idea whether you wish to involve yourself with a case that doesn't look likely to get off the ground, but thought you ought to be informed anyway. --Bragen 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh how funny, someone thinks ArbCom trumps the Foundation policies. Lets see how far this lead balloon flies.. — Κaiba 19:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to check the recent changes on the prowrestling wikia, and some user has uploaded a ton of images in violation of copyright laws. You're probably going to have to use the admin's special bot rollback on the guy, in addition to deleting all of those images. You have a lot of work ahead of you. Cheers, SexySeaBass 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look over on pro wrestling Wikia tomorrow, thanks for alerting me. — Κaiba 05:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the work, btw, just before I go on my break for a short bit. Regards, — Κaiba 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and enjoy your break. Cheers Moe :) SexySeaBass 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Hs_129B-3.jpg){kind=link}
