Other people made the translations (aside from japanese in which I know very very few words). On rare occasions I moved translations around. You should realize that the 'in many languages' thing isn't intended to be a big deal and is intended to promote interlingual nature of wikipedia. -- Catchi? 02:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I am so sorry for being rude. I understand you try to help people so hard. So it's ok if you are incapable of adding another language. Leor Natanov23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Abdurrahman YALÇINKAYA.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Abdurrahman YALÇINKAYA.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk03:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Blue icon template example.png listed for deletion
Not that I oppose what you are doing (nor support). I feel you are overloading image for deletion process. -- Catchi? 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not my intention to overload IFD. I do try to use alternate methods when they apply, but going through orphaned images, most are classified GDFL but have no encyclopedic value. I don't know what else to do. I could limit myself to only looking at so many pictures per day, but that doesn't seem appropriate. I did think that it might be a good idea for a new CSD category, that orphaned images could be tagged as orphan, the uploader notified and after 90 (or 180, or...?) days, if it's still orphaned, then it's deleted. It would remove it the process from IFD on most OR images. And anyone could look at any of the categories of tagged OR images such that they could de-orphan it. The problem is that the 90 (or whatever) days the orphaned images are there would take a long delay and many would likely complain about the number of days or that we still might delete images that are useful, despite them having lots of time to save them. Anyways, if you have any other input or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks. --MECU≈talk01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion: You can move them to commons. A use for them can be found on a variety of projects such as wikinews or wikibooks among others. We are looking for more images on commons after all. -- Catchi? 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah and btw there are tools to help you move images to commons. -- Catchi? 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What tools are available? My initial thoughts would be that only images that have value should be used in an article and therefore moved to Wikipedia. I guess there's another line between useful and just completely userful. Anyways, can you give me a link to the tools? Hopefully, they can autotag or something. Thanks.--MECU≈talk01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the tools I use is http://hdbot.velirat.de/ it is a commons uploader. It lets you copy an image to commons from wikipedia and tags the English copy for being a duplicate and even creates a button so you can delete the en copy. You can use all images on commons from en.wiki. This tool requires approval of the bot owner which you can catch on IRC.
I am aware that there are also some python bots doing the task as well although I never used them so I cant really comment on them.
Somewhat usefull images are ok on commons. Granted commons is not a webhost so the images being moved should have a potential value (someones pet dog may have an encyclopedic value (for say wikispecies) or a space shuttles debris (for say a wikinews article)) while not having a value for wikipedia. I haven't checked every image you are working on but I think you know what I mean so I wont bore you off with it. :)
Please look closely at the edit. THATS THE UN FLAG. If you arent going to at least review the contents of my edits, do not bother reverting them. -- Catchi? 17:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats ok, I guess the problem is that since my userpage wasn't updated so far the servers still think the image is transcluded. That linkage should go away in a few minutes/hours I suppose when chaches clear. -- Catchi? 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this image at this instant! Thank you! (uploader) -- Catchi? 21:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:An IDF M109 self-propelled howitzer fires into Southern Lebanon.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:An IDF M109 self-propelled howitzer fires into Southern Lebanon.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdish inhabited regions
Please take a look at the notice that you placed at the head of Kurdish inhabited regions. The notice asks you not to depopulate the category. Seeing as this is a policy which you yourself have used in preparing the category for deletion, the category has now been repopulated. You are also reminded that this category is politically sensitive, and widespread deletions lack such sensitivity. Please let the deletion process run its course, and, if the decision is to delete the category, the links to it from articles may be removed by hand or by bot. As the policy is quite clear depopulating categories again will result in you being temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was removing the categories as per WP:NOR and WP:RS. The policy on populating categories is also quite clear (WP:NOR/WP:RS applies). I wont be reverting you, but I take good note of this nonsense. -- Catchi? 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Religion in Kurdistan
Cool Cat: I have some questions for you: How can you nominate a good category, like Category:Religion in Kurdistan for deletion within 22 minutes [1] after I created the category? Secondly, why didn't you have the courtesy to inform me (as the creator of this category) that you were nominating it for deletion? Finally, how on Earth can you say that the "Category is too specific and underpopulated" when many millions of people live in Kurdistan and most practice one religion or another? IZAK12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, I monitor the RC feed and when I notice something I feel problematic I act on it. I didn't think "courtesy" would be necessary 22 minutes after the creation of the category as you point out.
Not true. Kurdistan is an undefined region. As far as some sources, it doesn't even exist. Some sources suggest it occupies most of the middle east. So the "millions" of people living there can easily be subjective. On an article/list you can explain why something is considered in Kurdistan (since all sources will never agree), on a machine generated category you cannot do that. A country on the other hand has defined borders and demographics info you can use to base your categorization.
Cool Cat: Many regions in the world are "undefined" and over history they get redefined many times over, all usually depending on who wins the last war/s, so cut out the nonsense please. Do you know how many times Alsace-Lorraine has been "German-French-German-French etc"? Or that the Native Americans are historically marginalized in the USA even though they have the longest history in it? The point is that the existence and definition of ethnic/cultural/religious/geographic groups is not an exact science so to resort to false requests for "defined" this-and-that is not just missing the point but is clear-cut obfuscation that is proabably hiding a simple POV prejudice against a group, and in this case it's the Kurds, and my particular focus, the Kurdish Jews that I will not permit to get lost in the shuffling of the decks for no good purpose here. Finally, 22 minutes to nomnate for deletion a category devoted to "Religion in Kurdistan" merely because you think it's problematic is simply not a good enough enough excuse. You could have at least let me know in any case. Thanks. IZAK14:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. You can't categories cities based on religion/ethnicity as there would be no end to how many categories we are to put for New York City alone.
By not categorizing New York City with a Native American Homeland we are not suggesting that it was not once Native American homeland. You can say it is Native American homeland in a sentence New York article, you should not be writing the article with categories.
How about an alternate approach: Consider how many categories would we put on Jerusalem... Would you support it being tagged as a part of Arabistan, Muslimistan, Jewishistan, Jewish inhabited region, Muslim inhabited region, and etc..? How about sub sects (Shiia, Sunni and whatever). How many pages of categories would we have?
Actually there are restrictions: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV are required to be observed.
Hi Cool Cat: You persist in coming over to my talk page and warning me about "personal attacks" and "disruptions" yet I have no idea what you are talking about because you do not give me any examples of EXACTLY what you claim are "personal attacks" or "disruptions." So can you be so kind as to let me know what is bothering you and which of my statements you are referring to so that I can then understand your problems with what I am saying (is it my style, content, factual presentation, or what ? -- I have no idea where you are coming from) and so that I can treat you more gently and answer your allegations specifically. Thank you. IZAK11:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Like what, let's agree to bump off the Kurds from Wikipedia? Sorry that is not my agenda. IZAK 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a personal attack. You can't accuse people of agendas, racial hate and etc. -- Catchi? 12:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
En Taro Wiki! I indeed enjoyed StarCraft, a bit too much at times. I'd love to help but my hands are a bit tied for a while. -- Catchi? 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award & Excellent User Page Award
Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award
I Hpfan9374, hereby award you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award, for contributing an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. Hpfan937408:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent User Page Award
I Hpfan9374, hereby award you with the Excellent User Page Award, for a professional layout and design, as well as great content. Hpfan937408:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the awards! -- Catchi? 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you please tell me the source of [2] that you uploaded?
I want to use it in Chinese wikipedia, but the source is not clear. Is it scanned by yourself? Thank you very much.--Alnhfa02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from anime. -- Catchi? 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Megumi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! manga).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Megumi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! manga).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Urd (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Urd (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Skuld (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Skuld (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oh My Goddess 2x14 2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 2x14 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oh My Goddess 2x14 3.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 2x14 3.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot15:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Misuzu_Kamio_(Air_TV).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Misuzu_Kamio_(Air_TV).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oh My Goddess 2x03 2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 2x03 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sentaro Kawanishi with Skuld.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sentaro Kawanishi with Skuld.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oh My Goddess 2x02 2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 2x02 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oh My Goddess 2x01 2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 2x01 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please
Please tell your bot to leave me alone. Delete the images if you desire. -- Catchi? 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The bot does not have an option to exclude any people from getting the talk page warnings but it should be done with all the images you uploaded already. BJTalk04:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add that function because with the amount of uploads I made in the past (which are not used anymore and I could care less why) you will end up filling my talk page forever. I am among the top 100 editors with most edits/uploads and etc. -- Catchi? 04:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am still getting those warnings you know... :( -- Catchi? 08:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the optout code and it should be working, all you have to do is add your name to User:BJBot/Optout but I have already done this for you. Leave me a talk page message if you get any more warnings. BJTalk09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oh My Goddess 2x15 2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 2x15 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot04:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per personal policy I do NOT ever notify anyone when it comes to my deletion nominations. That way nominations are held in an impartial manner with random people commenting on the matter at hand. I am sorry but I have no intention of changing this personal policy. I am saddened that you find it uncivil. -- Catchi? 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not drastically change inclusion criteria and participate in the discussion under Category talk:Kurdistan. There is no logical reason I can see why we should tag airliners, squares and provinces as well as others under the same category. -- Catchi? 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I was using the inclusion criteria on several encyclopedias as well as how we include cities and towns elsewhere on wikipedia. No sourced information provided establishes kurdistan as a cultural region. Sources I used present on the category page before you removed was: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Dictionary.com. I have the option to remove any category I feel fit from an article if it has been added without a rationale on occasions by people who are banned from wikipedia such as User:Diyako
The Category going through several CfDs is irrelevant. We never categorise cities based on geographic categories. Take New York City for example. No doubt it is in North America but categorizing it like that is silly why must cities inside the geographic region Kurdistan be treated any differently?
Also for instance why must Kurdistan Airlines be inside the geographic category? Is it an article related to geography? One would be hard pressed to consider an article about a Market or a Square to be geography related.
USSR was not around in 2002. Map makes no mention of the word "kurdistan" establishing Kurdistan as a cultural region based on a map like that falls under WP:OR. -- Catchi? 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That still is a "kurdish inhabitance" map with no mention of kurdistan. That map can be used on Kurdish people to show the ethnicities distribution. It is not an accurate representation of the geographic region. It also does not establish Kurdistan as a "cultural region". -- Catchi? 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Turkish Armed Forces.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish Armed Forces.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bajoran Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bajoran Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kano Kirishima (Air TV).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kano Kirishima (Air TV).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Air (TV) 04 1.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Air (TV) 04 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot06:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for adminship
Bryan Tong Minh would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Bryan to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool Cat (04). If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Well, it was short lived glory. Thank you for your nice comments. -- Catchi? 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Merhaba
Ben Türk'üm ve tercüme(çeviri)yapmanız için yardım edebilirim.Bu mesajı anladıysanız bana cevap yazın.İyi günler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edebiyataski (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 February 2007
Iyi gunler. Ne tur bir tercume dusunuyordunuz? -- Catchi? 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you can create an article by typing it into the "Search" box and clicking on the red link. What new article do you have in mind? The article may already exist with a different title. -- Catchi? 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Remarkable! -- Catchi? 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Something is wrong with it though. "Evolution" field does nothing. And several diamond and pearl Pokemon lack a # (I do not own the game so I am curious why). -- Catchi? 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So far the game is only available in Japan, and since I've not yet seen any comprehensive online Pokédexes for the new Pokémon, I can't yet number them. As for the evolution column, I myself am not completely sure as to its purpose; someone else added it at a later date. The list probably won't be complete until the US/European release of Diamond and Pearl, when the English Name and number columns can be filled. Laïka17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at sites like http://www.serebii.net/pokedex-dp/493.shtml ... The last column is for diamond and pearl and Sinnoh no is left blank there too. I am not certain but the player probably acquires national dex before being able to acquire or see the unnumbered species... This should be clarified on the list. Much like how it is on Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald -- Catchi? 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, yeah. I already said that below. And, there is already clarification on the list. Right in the intro it says “the fourth generation combined some (for the first time not all) of the 107 new creatures from Pokémon Diamond and Pearl with a number of the old ones to form the new regional Pokédex (of Sinnoh)”. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don’t intrude in other people’s conversations on the wiki, but I feel a need to make an exception here. The brilliant idea of the sortable list was Laïka’s, but I am the one who actually merged the lists and implemented the table. I created it using the old List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number and then spent several days adding the rest of the numbers. I am also the one who added the “Evolution” column. It doesn’t do nothing! It sorts Pokémon by evolution! Honestly, I thought that was pretty fucking obvious, but clearly I was mistaken; you guys are not the only ones who have had trouble figuring it out, so don’t feel bad.
What it does is insert new evolutions and pre-evolutions in the list below and above the original Pokémon, so for instance when you sort by Evolution, Pichu is before Pikachu, Crobat is after Golbat, Elekid and Elekible are respectively before and after Electabuzz, etc.. Perhaps the problem is that you don’t scroll down far enough after clicking the sort button. The first 24 Pokémon have never gotten extra evolutions or pre-evolutions, so there really is no difference from the National numbering system until you get down to the Pichu-Pikachu-Raichu line. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them at Talk:List of Pokémon, where we are trying to solve the issue of getting people to understand the Evolution column( not on my personal talk page, please).
Oh, and to answer the question about D/P Pokémon not having numbers: For the first time, several of the new Pokémon in D/P are not included in the new( Sinnoh) regional Pokédex, and obviously they wouldn’t be in the Johto ’dex or Hoenn ’dex, so those species only have a National Pokédex number. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify on WikidSmaht's comments, the column contains a series of hidden numbers in the form 025a, which are arranged to allow the list to autosort. The Pokémon without numbers are legendaries caught outside the normal area. As a result, they only appear in the National Pokédex, and not the regional ones. Laïka20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selam
Merhaba,sizden İngilizce öğrenmeyi istiyorum.Hem ben de size Türkçenizi geliştirmekte yardımcı olurum.msnye klerseniz konuşuruz.Benim adresim:cem_burak_@hotmail.com--Edebiyataski18:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ben ogretmenlik yapabilecek yetenege pek sahip degilim. Fakat bir konu hakkinda sorunuz olursa cevaplamak icin elimden geleni yaparim. -- Catchi? 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Good Evening (GMT time); I have accepted your Mediation Cabalcase - requested by yourself - on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. I am prepared to commence mediation as soon as possible. I would like to start by enquiring if you wish for mediation to be conducted at the Mediation Cabal subpage, or on the article talk page.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to Contact Me; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality.
Hi we can start right away. The mediation cabal page probably will be the best location to discuss. I have already made some points prior to me requesting a mediation cabal case. Please see them at Category Talk:Kurdistan -- Catchi? 20:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've started the mediation at the mediation case page; I invite you to contribute with regards to my request which has been posted at the bottom of the page. Once again, please do not hesitate to contact me - see my contact page for more information.
Kind regards,
Good morning (GMT time); I'd just like to ask what course of action you would like to take as a result of inactivity on behalf of every other editor at the above case. I have been respecting WP:NEHAMFTAY, but that grace period has now expired in my opinion and it is time to press on regardless of presence of other editors.
Hi, as a commons admin, could you perhaps have a look at the contributions of commons:User:Ibrahimjon there? He's uploaded a number of images, for instance Image:Abuali Sino Avicenna.jpg, credited to a painter called "Immodinova C." and at the same time claimed to be released as "own work" - but his own real name as per his userpage doesn't match, he calls himself Ibrahimjon Rustamov there. Fut.Perf.☼20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it would have been better to contact me on commons. :)
I have asked him if they are his. I want to act after a defense.
Sure, thanks. Your talk page over there directs one here, by the way. Oh, and I don't envy you your job with all the image copyright problems there. Just did my first day on the image deletion beat here on en today. Oufff ;-) Best, -- Fut.Perf.☼21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to ask you to clean up this which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The images are now are almost deleted and discussing my here is not the right way - hopefully you will delete this, otherwise I will delete or take other actions. Thanks--Ibrahimjon15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your attempt negotiate an agreement on categorization of Kurdish related articles, and I believe your attempt to find a solution through a mediation cabal is a good faith and mature way of dealing with such things. Thus, I am even more sorry not to have reacted. I have been too busy in outside-Wikipedia life lately, and as you might have noticed I have not even followed the debate. If I never intended to participate I would have told so at a much earlier stage in the process. Cheers Bertilvidet18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I tried fooling around with the code on your userpage. I was able to get the "My watchlist" in a small table (like the user box list) that was just one column, but it was messy. Having that though, with small text, and on the left side of my user page would be awesome, especially then I could write inbetween that and the userbox (so the main text is in the middle). And maybe some table or something for my awards... Not sure. Do you think you could help me out with that? I just noticed your user page and thought it was very well done. ~ UBeR18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sorry for the somewhat late response. I'd be glad to help, but if I do all the work, I wouldn't be really helping you. :) You may want to create a few sub pages.
Could you draw me what you want on paint so I know what exactly is you want. (userpage is often a matter of taste)
I understand. I tried messing around trying to get a little better. Didn't make much progress lol. I am not very fluent in this coding language ^^. But anyway, here's an example of what I'm trying to do. Not sure if you'd be able to do so, but any help would be much appreciated! ~ UBeR19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Minagi_Tōno_(Air_TV).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Minagi_Tōno_(Air_TV).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2talk05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening (GMT time); please accept my sincerest apologies for my inactivity - I was on a WikiBreak, and lately I lost my list of AMA/MedCabal/MedCom case(s) and so neglected yours. Once again, my apologies.
Regarding the case (which is linked above, in bold) I have continued Mediation of the case, which I think you will be interested in.
Once again, my apologies - next time, nudge me via email or talk!
Have a look at the case page. -- Catchi? 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
March
St. Joseph High School (Istanbul)
I recently created St. Joseph High School (Istanbul) and noticed that you have contributed to its equivalent article on the Turkish Wikipedia. Should you have the time, I would greatly appreciate it if you might be able to translate some (or all, if you feel so inclined!) of the Turkish article over to the English Wikipedia. Thank you very much for any assistance you might be able to provide! --Thisisbossi05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but my translation skills aren't all that well. -- Catchi? 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik(talk)
Barnstar]]
Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik(talk)
Once again, someone disagrees with my interpretation of our very loose guidelines. Now I don't mind when two users like WJBscribe and Kathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na, but they've taken the disagreement and posted negative comments over at that RFC.
You asked what I meant by general picture n the Deletion Review . I meant, that the general question is whether (1) there is an region, comprised of parts of several nations, that can be called Kurdistan.& if there is, whether it has geographic boundaries such that one can say a village is in it or not in it. , or, (2) if there is no multi-national region to which the name Kurdistan can be applied, whether there is one which can appropriately be called by some other name, and if there is such a region, whether it has geographic boundaries such that one can say a village is in it or not in it.
The subsidiary question(3) is if there is such a region called Kurdistan, whether the name Turkish Kurdistan,can be applied to some part of it, or if there is a region called by some other name, whether there is a Turkish part of it. (if there is no region to which a name can be applied, then obvious there is no Turkish part of it), and that's what I meant by the questions hanging together.
I wanted the Turkish qy to be decided first, but that was only because the formal process was clearer for that question, but logically it should have been the general question first, & I have just amended that. .
I am not concerned with the question of whether Kurdistan is or ought to be a political category, except that if there is presently a political Kurdistan, then then it has a geographic region, which must at least be either the presently de facto or or the de jure area of that entity. and the question would be what name to call it.
There would then be the question of whether the geographic boundaries should or should not encompass a wider area, and under what name. DGG18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Country. This only exists in blogs and other unreliable sources and is not similar to entities like Taiwan or Sealand. [4] (first hit on Google)
A mere geo-cultural area defined as "where Kurds happen to live". Some sources restrict it to the middle east. There is no single reliable source for the borders. [5]
Kurdistan is the official name of Iraqi Kurdistan, a political body in the Iraqi federal structure with well defined borders. [6] (first hit on Google). I have created Category:Iraqi Kurdistan for it.
If we decide to go with #1 we would be no near WP:V.
If we go with #2 we will run into further difficulties. Firstly we do not categorize cities by geographic regions. Secondly the area occupied by Kurdistan (according to Dictionary.com) intersects with quite a number of notable geographic regions that are not controversial (unlike Kurdistan) such as Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Middle East, Asia. None of the borders of If we do Kurdistan, we would have to do them all. There are probably others that I am not listing. -- Catchi? 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Kurdistan's very existence is controversial. Turkey for instance claims a Kurdistan does not exist at all. Most world atlases do not display a Kurdistan and those that do display it do not give it borders. -- Catchi? 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Starcraft
I like the Starcraft quote on your user page. I've read it a few times now, and always thought of saying something to you about how much I like it, and I finally did today. =) --Deskana(request backup)03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Maybe we can battle some time :) -- Catchi? 15:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
your name
Cool cat is a very bad name for you, since you are a loser and are not cool at all. You have no life, and spend all your time bothering other people on the internet.!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.121.71 (talk • contribs)
I am a bit concerned about this article and I saw that you nominated it to be deleted. I think much of the data is a copy of the Norouz article, and the main part of the article is basically the problems in Turkey which I don't think justifies existence of it. This came to my attention after another user created yet another Norouz article about how they celebrate it in Mazandaran and said well, if Kurds have their own page, why can't we?! I would love to know your thoughts --Rayis14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I also feel the page proves to be mostly redundant. It is perhaps preferable not to have tens of articles explaining the same material. That particular article may be nominated for deletion later on. I am not very knowledgeable on the topic about the holiday itself. -- Catchi? 14:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon (GMT time); would you now like to enlist a CfD nomination for each of the subcategories? I was originally attempting to, but failed :) you seem experienced, so I'll leave it up to you. Remember to link back to the above case page.
Do you feel a nomination is the best way to approach the issue (I am merely brainstorming). Since the start of the MedCab discussion, people participated in the deletion discussion of some of the subcategories but did not bother joining the discussion... Might it be better to raise the dispute resolution process a notch? -- Catchi? 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if Med COM is a notch up since parties appear to be ignoring the mediation... I think promoting the medcom page any more that it has would be fruitless. I was thinking of any other process - except arbcom (I want to avoid arbcom if possible, they are already busy) -- Catchi? 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Why did you adjust the page? :) -- Catchi? 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the meter thing would point to a number if I changed the number... just playing - sorry if it caused any disruption —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aferwe45 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi. You can experiment with the meter here with the following code.
Well, it was renamed so there was no way for me to know... In any case a non-consensus can be challenged at any point. -- Catchi? 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Because when I see something I feel is a "mistake" I act on it. On the same basis, I am more than willing to challenge any past consensus to correct what I feel is a "mistake". That's just how I am. -- Catchi? 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand the reason for this weird attitude of yours. Care to elaborate? -- Catchi? 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Category:Armenian terrorism
I think there is enough material to start a category for Armenian terrorism. It starts with the 1896 Ottoman Bank Takeover, then there is the Yıldız Attempt, assassination of Talat Pasha, then diplomats and civilians murdered by ASALA and other Armenian organizations. I want to know what you think about the category. It might face heavy resistance from certain users.--DoktorGonzo14:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose such a category. Any category with the word "terror" in it is in my view bad taste.
However on the ASALA article you can explain ASALA's activities and Turkish govs view towards ASALA and let the reader decide how they feel about them.
It is the better side of valor not to name call. ;)
I think all those events should be collected under one category or we write an article that covers all of them. I am not hardcore about the "Armenian terrorism" category, I understand if it doesn't find much support. But I don't understand your last sentence, am I being accused of name calling?--DoktorGonzo16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. It is possible to rename a category name through WP:CfD which a bot mass retags the articles with the "new" category. It is however not possible to rename as in how articles can be renamed/moved. -- Catchi? 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I used it when Lilo had his accident from my userpage (to keep my userspace tidy). Now I am not using it (and probably will never use it) - I would like to have the history of that as a reminder of wiki-syntax and format issues. I will alter the text so it isn't a memorial anymore. In the future I would appreciate a discussion prior to deletion ;) -- Catchi? 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted my edit on this post asking please not to remove sourced material. I do appreciate your point but I addressed this on the talk pages. Turkish authorities allege a link between PKK and Roj television but has been unable to substantiate that even in a thorough investigation by Belgian authorities. Furthermore Turkish domestic law is completely inapplicable - it's a Danish company, it only needs to comply with Danish, EU and international law. You can always find sources for inaccurate information. Why not remove material just because it is sourced when it is not relevant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ifonlyalabama (talk • contribs) 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I am sorry, but wikipedia articles are not about the "truth" but instead weather or not they comply with Wikipedia:Attribution. Any relevant information from a reliable source is more than welcome. Weather or not Turkish domestic law has an application or weather or not this can survive a thorough investigation is completely irrelevant. -- Catchi? 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Air_TV_DVD_Vol_06.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Air_TV_DVD_Vol_06.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2talk05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was originaly on mainspace. someone blanked it or something. I do not know/care at this point. The image in question may be deleted. -- Catchi? 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether the Yildiz attempt or the assassinated Turkish diplomats; attacks against Turkish authorities and civilians by armed Armenian groups has been going on since late 19th century. I think I am being quite positivist when I say we should gather all these under one cat or article. Help me with it, will you? Then again, you might have gotten tired of the heat which I can understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doktor Gonzo (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Why not simply categorize them as assassination attempts? That is what they are right? Also please sign your posts with a --~~~~ -- Catchi? 10:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Problem is not all of them are assassinations, and not all of them are "attempts", most succeded. Not all assassinations, there are also armed takeovers, such as the hostage event in the Atatürk Airport some years ago. It is a pretty deep list really. And don't start complaining on me just cause I forgot to sign one post.--DoktorGonzo10:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If my memory serves me right most of those incidents you listed are the acts of ASALA organization. Those can be categorized as actions by ASALA. As for others I am certain a certain group or another claimed responsibility. Hence categorizing accordingly is the prudent course of action. I wasn't complaining, merely reminding... I assumed you were a newer wikipedian. -- Catchi? 16:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hate Site Links
I do not believe that the links that you have provided are appropriate for Wikipedia. References to "Armenian butt-kissing France" and comments like "From an early age, Armenians are taught to be victimized by Turks" reveal it to be nothing more than a hate site. Please remove these links instead of warning me for vandalism. -- Augustgrahl05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found four additional sources with identical content. Is this adequate citation? -- Catchi? 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at then now and replied to you on the afd also. My 5 days comment was just in regard to how long Afds typically might run... - Denny06:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry. :) I misunderstood you. In any case, I would welcome any assistance -- Catchi? 06:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been sorting the article. It appears there are multiple groups doing the same thing. Do you think it would be better to change the scope to include all attacks by the various Armenian groups? Or maybe 3 separate lists? -- Catchi? 09:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The main ASALA article only has a handful of attacks listed, so I'd guess it would be probably be easier/better to make it all-inclusive for now. all Armenian groups/attacks, then it can always fork later if that gets too big. - Denny13:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. This has a lot of attacks listed, not all aimed at diplomats. Certain insignificant-looking events (such as incidents were one pesky security guard is killed) turns out to be a full fledged hostage crisis. The more I read about this stuff the more stuff that comes up. I haven't even mined half of the stuff on www.atmg.org. -- Catchi? 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yo, would you care to assist with mining of this source? [7]. Its too demanding work for a single person to do. -- Catchi? 09:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Rather than clog up ANI further, I'll comment here: if I wanted to know what Armenian/Kurdish material was up for deletion, reading down the list of your Wikispace contribs looking for XfDs would be an easy way to find it. I don't know that this is how it's done, any more than you know that it's done by email, but it would certainly work. Regards, Angus McLellan(Talk)12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly certain what is it that you are asking. Are you looking for a way to scan my contribs for AfDs/CfDs/TfDs I participated in? If so you can use Interiot's tool. -- Catchi? 13:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No, what I'm saying is that anyone who looks at this every so often will have a good idea of what XfDs you have commented in and that they may want to comment in those as well. It could be you who is doing the "canvassing" just by your (predictable) editing patterns. Angus McLellan(Talk)13:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I being accused of something? Please elaborate. -- Catchi? 15:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If I were accusing you of something, we'd be likely having this discussion over in wikispace. For now, I'm merely drawing your attention to the curious nature of your XfD contributions. Angus McLellan(Talk)15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was well aware of my nominations. You see a pattern in them? Thats nice. I tend to live a chaotic life. Why is it that you are pointing this out to me? And what exactly is the pattern? You got me confused. -- Catchi? 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I am still waiting for you to explain yourself. What's up? -- Catchi? 11:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah OK, is there any other way I can help you? I am a self proclaimed template guru after all :) -- Catchi? 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, but not with templates. You're a Commons admin, and I guess that would make you an expert on transwikying stuff to Commons. I've been trying to clean out the backlog of images needing copied, but it's a bit tedious. If Commons is down, can't upload. If Wikipedia is down, can't find images to download. If the toolserver is down, can't get Magnus's commonshelper to work (and too lazy to do it by hand). If the upload server is having a bad day - and that seems to be around half the times I try - no downloads. It feels like I must be being really dim here and that I'm missing something obvious. Is there an easier way to do things, particularly in terms of grabbing the images off Wikipedia? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan(Talk)16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be this tool: http://hdbot.velirat.de/ but it is broken right now and the programmer says he will be busy for the next 3 months with real life. Sadly commons administrators do not have any tool that is not available to regular users for such a task. So my options are the same as you. -- Catchi? 07:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could be of any help. I'd like to point out one important issue though you probably already know this. When you are uploading "free images" from en.wiki to commons you are basically guaranteeing its "freeness"... So it is very important to review each and every image. People often upload non-free images to en.wiki with a free license. It would be advisable to keep a list of images you have uploaded via the tools somewhere on your userspace. -- Catchi? 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. These images have been long moved to commons. Other orphaned GAP images can also be speedy deleted. -- Catchi? 09:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Air TV DVD Vol 05.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Air TV DVD Vol 05.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan cat
Consensus new and old
Why are you blanket reverting me? Do you have a reason to call random cities under Kurdistan cat? If you have a reason to object my removal please state your reasons under the mediation case or else please agree with the consensus. -- Catchi? 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
They're not "random cities", they're cities in Kurdistan. There was no consensus to mass-remove the category from every page. Khoikhoi03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to tag them like that in the first place. Aside from me, no one (including you) bothered to even comment on the RfC or the mediation page. If you have a rationale in reverting me, please state it on the mediation page. Also, please study the image on the right. -- Catchi? 07:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria: Armenian Armed organizations that are unofficial and non-governmental
You wrote that because you think my additions are not in the context of the category? Well, they have guns don't they, they even pose with them. Anyway.--DoktorGonzo19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain what you are referring to. My edit was simply establishing an inclusion criteria based on concerns raised on a TfD debate. -- Catchi? 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not know enough about them to comment. If they are armed and non-governmental they would fit the categories inclusion criteria. -- Catchi? 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
They are armed for sure, the articles say they are political but I don't think that makes them governmental so I guess we can add them. It was the political thingy that got me confused, thought you added the criteria because of that. I go now, kolay gelsin.--DoktorGonzo19:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kurdistan mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Category:Kurdistan, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Catchi? 22:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll get some communication between cool cat and myself running; thanks for your opinions - they're greatly appreciated. anthony[cfc]20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually looking at this, we can discuss it on IRC right now. -- Catchi? 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) no problem; I would take this case, but sadly MedCom cases cannot me mediated by a non-committee member without making a request to the chairperson. Good luck, and I'll be sure to pop in - the case has started to really interest me :) regards, — anthony[cfc]22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on the matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Catchi? 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You made and uploaded the video still for the 190th/Blues and Royals friendly fire article. I need to capture a video still for another article that I'm preparing to start but don't know how to do it. How do you capture a video still into a .jpg or .gif file? Cla6809:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VideoLAN has the built in function to screen capture. I use and recommend that. VideoLAN is also an excellent video player and it can even play corrupt video files to a degree. -- Catchi? 09:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered: 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
April
A 'rude' Riva72
Hello! I am sorry for disturbing you here at the English Wikipedia project but I was forced to do this by the Commons user WarX. He has completely blocked my access to the Commons with no sensible reason. I have to quote his reason written in Polish (sic!) which reads: papa Riva72, tylko kto cie teraz zrewertuje? I provide the translation here: 'ByeBye Riva72, who's gonna revert you now?'. In my opinion, he may have chosen Polish as not to be understood by the majority of the Commons users. I am not rude.. The actions of the Polish Wikipedians like WarX are rude. They are not the professionals. They 'do not like Riva72' euphemism :) and, as they cannot do otherwise, they 'revenge themselves' that way which is funny. Cool Cat, I ask you to unblock my access to the Commons (both ways).. I will not do any edits (if not forced to by crucial reasons..) and I will not upload any pictures to the Commons in the future. Tell me if it is possible to prohibit the Polish Wikipedia use the castle in Podhorce images.. It is important for the author of the photos and for me if they were not displayed with the Polish Wikipedia..
I have noticed this blockade by WarX while I was saving the following words at your Commons discussion page:
I have placed these two images to be deleted. I have placed the proper template as the deletion request. The templates were 'taken' (the revert action by odder) with no explanation given. I see this user action as irrational or vicious. The National Bank of Ukraine holds the copyrights to the coins issued by them and, therefore, to the coins images. The presence of these images in the Commons is the obvious 'copyvio' case. I was not aware of the fact that the coin images are copyrighted by law while uploading these photos to the Commons.
I am sorry for these words and I thank you for understanding. Fortunately, I have this 'Riva 72' account at the English Wikipedia. Have a nice Sunday! --Riva7200:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The war over the Castle in Podhorce began when I placed the following words under the article (which was written by me and edited only by me): The article is dedicated to Oksana, the lady who got me interested in the castle's history and who helped me to collect the resources and provided with photos of the castle. It was written in Polish nice and easy. I assumed it would be a nice accent to the article, a nice attribution to the author of the photos according to the licence provided. The dedication was an eyesore. Made people jealous? :) It was constantly removed. As far as I know no editor (publisher) removes the author's dedications because such action is a pure vandalism. Anyway, the history of the article and all discussions available there are very interesting.. Therefore, it is the most interesting and the most colourful article in the entire Polish Wikipedia section. :) The article on the castle is also the place where the Commons user Ejdzej showed his ignorance in a spectacular way as far as architecture details are concerned (for which he was blushing for a few days..). He simply made a fool of himself. That is again the argument to hate Riva72. :) The whole affair reminds me of Helen and the battle of Troy. :) You can read it and, therefore, judge yourself if Riva72 was trolling. There were none disruptive activities on the Polish Wikipedia on my part. :) Some Wikipedian administrators (mainly some Polish ones) are famous for 'closing mouths' of their discussion opponents in the forms of blockades when these "respectable" administrators run out of rational arguments. --Riva72 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) + --Riva7207:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the page with artistic images version cannot be displayed for your glance. :)
Anyway: Вінець ратних трудів — перемога, перемога — тріумф, тріумф — відпочинок or Owocem walki jest zwycięstwo, zwycięstwo prowadzi do chwały, chwała to zasłużony odpoczynek as was translated by me. The translated version is copyrighted. Do not repeat and share with friends! Do not distribute! --Riva7205:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Anfal Campaign
Hi I think we should rewrite this section if you mind me asking you this...
"Independent sources estimate 50,000 to more than 100,000 deaths; the Kurds claim about 182,000 people were killed. Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988. [2] The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature, notably before a court in The Hague. It is also characterized as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East (hereafter, HRW/ME)."
If we can add this section to it.
"This military operation, code-named the "Al-Anfal" campaign, resulted in the death of at least 180,000 people"
Source: Humanitarian Intervention: the United Nations in an evolving world order - Page 183 by Sean D. Murphy
It doesn't really sound encyclopedic due to the number of sources we can rewrite with my version on top and than add Kurdish sources since it sounds like a good starter any opinions? Lakers04:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add a source from the UN that would be great. Kurdish sources are fine provided they fall under Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources -- Catchi? 10:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been filed. Feel free to comment there. -- Catchi? 13:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A question
Hello! This is the last post for you from me both here and the Commons. I have this question: Can the author of the photo which is uploaded by her (or her representative) to the Commons under 'Creative Commons Attribution 2.5' licence prohibit one of the sections of the Wikipedia encyclopedia (the Polish Wikipedia section) to use the author's photo to illustrate an article available there? The author wants to inform about this in the permission section of the photo summary info box. I ask for a serious answer.. My question concerns the Podhorce castle images and the following note [15] which was reverted by the user called Ejdzej. Of course it may (maybe should) be shortened to the information that: The author of the photo prohibit the Polish Wikipedia to use her work which should be respected.. I consent to the three months blockade (which is still unjust) but we (the author and I who uploaded the pictures) still want to prohibit the Polish Wikipedia section to use the set of eight photos known as 'Caspod1-8.gif' to illustrate the seriously distorted article available at the Polish Wikipedia. For lots of other reasons, as well.. I would appreciate your answer. --Riva7217:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no such issue in the past of this nature... but as far as the license is concerned, by uploading it to commons you are to use a license like CC, GFDL, PD which allows anyone to use it for any purpose. So I do not believe prohibition of images can have any legal basis. Of course none of this has been challenged in court. -- Catchi? 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it possible to stop being the Commons user (I mean a permanent profile removal) for personal reasons such as disapproval of the project and the feeling of serious repugnance to this project, to its ways (including these of conduct) and its ideology (to name just a few reasons)? I have started to have second thoughts concerning the Commons and the Wikipedia projects and I experience all the feelings mentioned. I would like to resign and ask you, the administrator, to remove my Commons profile with the condition that you remove all the photos and images (the coats of arms: [16] and [17]) uploaded by me, Riva72. I would appreciate your understanding and your respect for my decision would be welcomed. --Riva7219:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have the technical means to remove accounts (removing an account would cause a number of problems). I could however delete your user page. I am sorry but I cannot remove other contribution including uploads and edits. -- Catchi? 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete my Commons user page and my Commons discussion page under these circumstances.. Allow me to mark all my uploads with the deletion request templates and place at the deletion discussion page (mass deletion request) all my messages to you available here (I mean the ones called A 'rude' Riva72 and A request alongside your answers).. In my opinion it would be the best solution to the problem (if not the only as explained by you earlier) and let the majority of the Commons users speak their minds, express their opinions. It would also be the sign of the Commons (+ its administrators) respect towards me, Riva72 which I fully owe.. In my opinion, the Commons users like WarX and Ejdzej are not worth any respect.. It is my personal opinion to which I have rights and for which I cannot be blocked.. (I experienced blockades for my personal opinions and my gentle yet sharp answers in the past). --Riva7220:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe throughout commons history no ones entire contribution was deleted per request. You are welcome to make such a nomination but I do not believe it would work. In any case, as much as I want to help you - I can't just act recklessly. I will post your request to the commons ANB discussion. -- Catchi? 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What does not mean that it cannot be done for the first time. I am not welcome to make such nominations because I was blocked by the user called Ejdzej for three months (for making pictures more artistic or adding the second version to them -name it as you wish). This action by him/her(?) is ridiculous and childish. He/she(?) even do not posted any message to me in this case. :) I ask you to unblock the Riva72's account immediately. I will be kind enough to post no message until (or maybe after as well) the commons ANB discussion is closed. I would appreciate if you provided me with the link to this Commons ANB discussion. I think the use of the future simple tense is a promise itself. :) Thank you. --Riva7221:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of your block. I cannot unblock people just because I feel like it. Weather I agree with you or not is irrelevant when it comes to me taking an administrative action as drastic as an unblock. The commons discussion is: commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Riva72. -- Catchi? 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I don't mean to sound critical in my comments at the AfD about your nomination of this article but I really do encourage you to follow the AfD procedure's notification requirements (proper edit summaries) and suggestions (notifications to contributors) in the future. From my own experiences with articles I've taken to AfD, I found I've had better luck when I do this. --A. B.(talk)15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was planing on doing that. I generally do not nominate large articles for deletion (it is generally nonsese, pov fork, and etc). -- Catchi? 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Template guru assistance needed...
Hello! Hope you're well. I have a simple (for a guru; not for me) template question. How would I add a category to a page if, and only if, the current page is in the Talk: namespace? Hope it's easy! Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan(Talk)15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would require the usage if if/elses - which is a bit complicated. What template is in question? -- Catchi? 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
An example would be {{1911}}, although all of the Category:Attribution templates would need changed in time. Please don't change the live one! I need to arrange for a bot to copy it to the talk pages of all the articles first. If you know of an example of a template like that I can copy it from there and make a test one to play with. Angus McLellan(Talk)16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am no admin, I cant edit it :) I'll copy it to User:White Cat/1911 and edit. -- Catchi? 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Dekteru dekteru (all done), is this what you need? -- Catchi? 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Perrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect! That's exactly what I need. I really appreciate your help. If there's ever anything I can do to help you, please let me know. Angus McLellan(Talk)17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question to the administrator
Hello again! Please, explain me the reason for a one-year-blockade (at the Commons) which I was punished with a few minutes ago by the Commons user called WarX. The reason given by them is vandalizing image descriptions. This is a vicious action by the user because I have not vandalized any image decriptions.. I (as the author of the photos and the authorized person to do the upload as far as images called 'Caspod1-8.gif' are concerned and having the rights granted by law) changed the licences of some images from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5'. I inform that I have not changed the licences of the photos I wish to remain in the public domain and I state that I will not change this decision in the future. I request you for the explanation. I am sorry to disturb you and engage you in this matter but I was forced to do it. --Riva7200:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riva72 was unblocked by me, because he wanted to prepare deletion request, but he started tampering with licenses... I'm not going to be tricked so easily again. A.J.07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were not tricked. It was the only way I could do in this situation. It is still a deletion request. I ask you to revert the Ejdzej user's action (applied to the recent photos) which is the violation of the law which I fully possess and which allows me to change the licence from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5'. The whole situation becomes annoying and unpleasant. As I said earlier: I have all the rights to do so. The form of the deletion request which the user called Ejdzej is thinking about would be exactly the same: the change of a licence type from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5' but it would not be appropriate because I do not have to ask the Commons administrators for the consent. Quotation: Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above. (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 - legal code). My decision of changing the following licences has got one more reason which can be expressed with words: we cannot donner de la confiture à des cochons. I was led to these conclusion by the recent actions of both such "respectable" administrators as Warx and Ejdzej. I was extremely glad to read the following words by the latter at the ANB discussion page:
Riva72: To the user called Ejdzej: You are really a misleading person and not reliable what is a shame for the administrator.. as: Your upload of the [18] to the article on [19] was done on March 5,2007 - proof: [20]]. You voted to preserve the article on the castle in Podhorce on March 3, 2007 - proof: [21] - - no further comments - (213.199.192.60 15:07, 3 April 2007).
Ejdzej: That's all true. - (A.J. 15:35, 3 April 2007).
It is only the fragment of the discussion. I welcome you to read it all at: [22]
--Riva72 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Riva7208:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Cat, I ask for your personal deletion of the photos I tagged yesterday. My other statements in this chapter remain unchanged. --Riva7208:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The user called Ejdzej violated the law and broke the previous 'cc-by-sa-2.5' licences given to these photos while he/she(?) blocked me for altering them, i.e. for making derivative works for which I again possess all the rights. He was even so rude and irrational to call the reason for my blockade: spoiling of images.. --Riva7208:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I have to remind the "administrators" like the user called Ejdzej that according to the (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 - legal code) it is allowed to create and reproduce Derivative Works. --Riva7209:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were unblocked to nominate the images you uploaded for deletion as per the discussion we had here. You instead altered licenses. You cannot randomly change licenses. The "law" does not allow you to use a {{cc-by-nd-2.5}} (commons incompatible license) after releasing images under {{cc-by-2.5}}. Commons policy explicitly forbids this kind of behaviour. You are making it increasingly difficult for me to help you.
I cannot delete images just because I feel like it. Being an administrator only means I have additional buttons, I still have to follow consensus like everyone else. Unless there is a consensus for delete, I can't delete the images.
The user called Ejdzej's words are again worth nothing: I was informed by them at the ANB discussion page that: The blockade is over. Please make a good use of it. Goodbye! A.J. 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Nevertheless, please inform me how I can gently remove the photos (which were linked above) from the Commons depository. This will be my last action at the Commons and after that I would like you, Cool Cat, to remove my profile and my user page.. Thanks for understanding (and patience). --Riva7209:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the newest information by the user called Ejdzej (which name, by the way, sounds awfully..) posted at the Commons ANB discussion user-problems page I wish to inform that I have never trusted the users called Ejdzej and Warx. Besides - recently - I have lost my trust to the Commons and to the Wikipedia projects. I am strongly convinced that the projects ways are dirty.. --Riva7209:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that I had the right to change the licence types of some (if not all the photos uploaded by me) of these photos (mainly the photos called 'Caspod1-8.gif') as their previous licence cc-by-sa-2.5 was breached by the user called Ejdzej.. while blocking me and reverting the derative works of these photos.
To remind you:
This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You (and it means the user called Ejdzej and all the Commons project which he/she(?) is the funny representative of) of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.
Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
Do not use me as a tool. -- Catchi? 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You are all tools, the sysops, of someone who holds all the Commons and the Wikipedia. Besides, you are tools of the users; you are for the users and not vice versa. Besides, I see you are only a Cool Cat. I even do not know if you are a man, a woman or an animal. The user called Ejdzej evidently broke the licence rules and you are a coward to admit this. This is all from my part. Bye, bye C.C! --Riva7214:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valiance, I wasn't particularly bugged by his comments though. He seems to be very upset due to his block. -- Catchi? 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right: I seem to be very upset. Anyway, you are wrong thinking this feeling is the result of the block. It is a pity I was forced to place this answer at this place because I thought we had said everything to each other both here and at the Commons. Bye! --Riva7214:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IRC
Would it be possible for me to catch you on IRC? -- Catchi? 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a gmail account? Gmail chat would also work. -- Catchi? 17:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I would suggest that my talk page (or email, for more private matters) are likely to be the most useful ways of communicating. Kirill Lokshin18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, I'll prefer the public option then. The issue at hand is WP:RfAr#Category:Kurdistan. I was wondering if you could reconsider your position. Since you posted your opinion on the rfar page, I have gathered some additional evidence.
My reason in filing the case was not to find a solution to the actual content dispute. Several users have had been revert waring while avoiding/ignoring any discussion. The two mediation cases failed because of their inactivity.
You asked me to be patient. I have been trying to resolve this dispute for the past 2 months. People are ignoring discussion and I have been waiting for that time period. Same people are ignoring any avenue for discussion even now. What would you recommend I do? -- Catchi? 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Continue to be patient. Temporarily walking away from an issue is very important strategy for content dispute resolution. There is no reason that this particular issue on Wikipedia can not be left unresolved for the time being. Trust that over time more interested users will give involved and the community will make the best decision. Take care, FloNight23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some rewording and rewriting on the Anatolian Rock. In my opinion, it can be improved into a good article in time and it is a pretty interesting topic. Can you review it when/if you have the time? Cheers.--DoktorGonzo12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can look, but I know nothing on the topic. -- Catchi? 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, if you can just do one of those wikify, reword, restructure things when you have time. Thanks in advance.--DoktorGonzo12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the article a bit. I am not certain what more I can do without adding info on a topic I know nothing about. I also worked on both navigation templates that appear on the page. -- Catchi? 09:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
A commons question...
Hello, I'm hoping you can help me out with a Commons question. I uploaded Commons:Image:Bacteroides biacutis 01.jpg using the CommonsHelper generated tagging. It looks ok to me, but apparently it's not. Any chance you can have a look at it and tell me why it is {{nsd}} tagged? It seems to be just the same as dozens of others, so if there's something I need to change I'd better get busy! Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan(Talk)11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not absolutely certain why but I suspect this is because of the lack of necessary "linkage" to the source of the image. If possible images should be linked to the image on the USGov website. This is to easily verify the copyright status of images in the future. I do not see any other problems.
I am seriously concerned with User:Artaxiad. He had very recently stirred some problems on commons using a sockpuppet. I was wondering if ArbCom (or some other group of people) has some sort of a process against this.
Hi, thanks for the follow up. Judging by the recent blocks (a list of them - not sure if its complete) I noticed Artaxiad had Kurdish, Greek, Armenian alternate persona (sockpuppets). Some of these were rather amazing such as User:Lakers. I was wondering if he has other alternate persona which may go under the radar if they are using open proxies and etc. Also the checkuser data will expire in a month. Something should be done to keep those to make it possible to detect future sockpuppets. I just don't want to deal with any more disruption from these/this people/person.
Oh this request was for en.wikipedia sockpuppets. Once we eliminate them all here, we can do a commons collaboration - though I do not feel that is necessary at this point since his disruption there is minimal. -- Catchi? 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I do want to be prepared should the need arise. -- Catchi? 11:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You have provided no conclusive evidence to compare edit behavior of Ozgurgerilla. This should be "obvious" evidence. Antivandalism (talk·contribs) and Bohater (talk·contribs) relationship is rather obvious (though you haven't cited that). Your RfCu case would be stronger if you had clear/"obvious" evidence. -- Catchi? 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate the intended message. Was I being accused of something? I do not understand. -- Catchi? 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Cool Cat. You are accused of nothing. It was a humoristic approach (which you obviously did not like) I tried to adopt (because I don't see any other way of approaching the whole issue). If you feel offended, disregard the comment, erase it, do it whatever you want, and have my apologies. As far the request itself is concerned, I'll first wait the execution of the CheckUser, and then I'll comment on it, because I don't want to be reagarded as trying to influence it in anyway. Cheers!--Yannismarou19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, you merely got me confused... ;)
Checkuser is a merely a process to help eliminate disruptive users such as User:Artaxiad, it is nothing personal. It will help eliminate the paranoia developing in all of us - which I believe will be most rpoductive.
If you see any "paranoia developing", speak for yourself and not for "all of us". Now, fully respecting the procedures in Wikipedia, I'll post my comments on the issue after these procedures are completed.--Yannismarou08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Khoikhoi did not accept it. Khoi said that Uğur Kaymaz was a civilian Kurdish, he was killed, so it is not only PKK-Turkey conflict. But, current name Turkish-Kurdish conflict is wrong because that there is no ethnic conflict. There is a problem related to ethnic Kurdish problem but it is not directly an ethnic war. I asked the naming dispute to R.Cakır, and he said that "I think that "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" is not a good idea because it refers to some kind of civil war that does not exist yet. I would prefer 'Kurdish question (or problem, or maybe conflict) in Turkey' or Turkey's Kurdish question'. But, Khoi did not like the name because according to him not only Kurds are responsible for the conflict. He said that he would think about the name, but no suggestions came form him! I searched on the Internet, and found an article by Koç University academician Somer: "People seem to instinctively understand and fear that this time such a path may lead to a Turkish-Kurdish conflict, i.e. not only a conflict between the state and Kurdish separatists as the conflict previously was, but which involves ordinary people". from http://www.turkishpolicy.com/default.asp?show=fall_2006_somer That would be another nominee for the name: "Turkish state- Kurdish separatists conflict". Is "Turkish state - Kurdish separatists conflict" good?
If there is a voting, we should make a consensus. Any name other than current name is more suitable. But, at the last vote, people who are against the current name gave votes to different names so article's name did not change, since there were no consensus. We should refrain from this in a survey.Paparokan11:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not much of an article writer myself so I would welcome any assistance. -- Catchi? 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the invitation. I am not an expert editor either. However, I will do my best to contribute. I believe that it will grow up soon and will ignate the creation of similar Turkey-related articles of recent political issues in Turkey. Happy wikiProjectTurkeyEditing. CeeGee04:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a start ;) -- Catchi? 04:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that you are the user who started the article above. According to the statistics that the Turkish media has shown, the amount of people who participated this incredible rally is over a million. Moreover, some citizens have jeered at TRT because of reflecting the number as 10,000. So, is it possible to change the expression 'over 200,000' to 'over a million' (since there is a huge difference between them) ?. Thank-you for your understanding, --Bahar (Spring in Turkish)✍16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (Bahar|you may find me here)[reply]
Hi, I merely used the data provided my the Turkish Armed Forces website (according to Hurriyet.com.tr that is - I was not able to verify it). We could provide a range for the numbers from different sources - it is an estimate anyways. -- Catchi? 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
protect your republic article
hi cool cat! you tagged the protect your republic rally article as a current event again. it's not a current event. as I said so in that article's talk page wether mr. erdogan should be the president or not is a current event, the rally is a past event. what is your rationale on tagging it? can you please elaborate on the article's talk page? thanks. best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.180.116 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
On wikipedia we tag very recent events as a "current event". The content of the article will develop during the course of this week such as how people react to it. When we have an article on an air crash, it stays as a "current event" for a week or more during the course of the initial investigation. The demonstration itself might be over but it is a developing story which makes it a current event. -- Catchi? 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
hi cool cat, I don't understand the rationale behind your excision of the phrase secularist-leaning from the articel. it was a very clear part. when you say something made the people suspicious it means it may have made the WHOLE people suspicious. I added the word some there as not everyone in Turkey is suspicious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.180.116 (talk • contribs)
Hi, I am sorry but you'd have to cite a source that confusion was exclusive to "secularist-leaning" people. Non-secularist people may also be confused with his motives. We would need a credible source to exclude/include a specific group. -- Catchi? 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you maybe right but we also need a source for the claim that it made the people suspicious, saying just people is as ambiguous as saying some people, thus I thought it would be better to add something to describe the suspicious sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.204.174 (talk • contribs)
The point of the entire protest is that very suspicion/belief. Every source talks about it. The president reportedly even aimed a direct comment about it towards the prime minister last Friday. We cannot determine the nature of protectors (their political beliefs and etc) without sources. "Some people" is as bad as "Every person" -- Catchi? 19:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
hi Cool Cat, I yet again don't understate something, you removed the two citation needed templates I put on the article. They were perfectly suitable for that place as the allegations in that particular sentence were un-cited, as there were two separate allegations in oıne sentence I put two templates, yet you removed them. You could remove just one , the one at the middle of the sentence but you removed both. The section is still un-cited and if I put that template again I'm afraid you'll probably remove them again? Why did you remove them, is looking clearer more important than battling biased sentences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.114.193 (talk • contribs)
Please take it to the articles talk page not to my talk page. -- Catchi? 09:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we close the move discussion? I would prefer not to have a move template on a developing current event. Once the current eventness has expired we can then discuss the move idea again (if you still feel it would be necessary then). -- Catchi? 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what "Law's of Wikipedia" are but such an edit is not in violation of any policies I know. That said - it isn't common practice either. Would you be a bit more specific on the nature of the problem? -- Catchi? 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not know if the star was only to be used in the upper right corner of the FA page's. People can be a little crazy about FA stuff, just want to be on the safe side. Max ╦╩17:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally featured star is only used on featured on the upper right corner of the FA page and that articles talk page. Those are the "legit" usages. It isn't illegal to use it elsewhere but is often discouraged. There is no reason to overly advertise FA status of an article. FA status is no big deal which is the rationale behind the FA star image itself. -- Catchi? 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm writing to you because you contributed to the discussion on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, or redirected articles in that category. This decision, as I hope to show, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Please take the time to read the following and respond.
Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)
My reasons for questioning the decision are:
1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.
It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.
3. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.
4. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.
5. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France ([original]). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).
6. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!
I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. Emeraude10:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be renamed back. I would recommend summarizing your argument before starting a {{cfr}}. -- Catchi? 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the colors of the Kurdish project? It's a Kurdish Project, so why no colors like the flag? Who does say that it's WP:NOT? Please, discuss at first and don't change such thing so quickly! --Killaruna | talk 2 me!19:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already discussed. People haven't given a real response and archived. It is not a "Kurdish owned wikiproject" it is merely a list of Kurdistan related topics. See how national colors are not used on other similar wikiprojects. -- Catchi? 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain (at the right place at ANI) in what way WP:V applies to those articles? I left a more detailed question at ANI. I know absolutely nothing about Kurdistan, which is why I have to ask what is going on. CMummert · talk19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to you there -- Catchi? 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
ANB/I can get noisy and hard to work. If you would like, we can continue on user talk pages. After all, no imidiate admin action is necessary. -- Catchi? 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You have already tried the things that I would recommend, so I don't think that there is a lot more to discuss. I don't see any good way to get a community resolution for things like this. CMummert · talk00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks ago I tried to bring up the matter to arbcom. It was declined for being a content dispute. Do you think I should pursue that avenue again? -- Catchi? 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If it has only been a few weeks, it is probably too soon to ask again. I thought about it some this afternoon, but I couldn't think of any good way to proceed unless you accumulate a large number of other interested editors. CMummert · talk01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people including administrators do not want to touch anything "kurdistan" related with a ten feet pole. I was unable to accumulate anybody so far but I probably was not trying in the right location. I would welcome any hints. -- Catchi? 11:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Also people seem to have "flagged" me right now. Any nom I make will likely be opposed regardless of the rationale. -- Catchi? 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why my comment was removed after 7 days. Artaxiad had caused additional disruption with sockpuppets and has threated to create more. Should I start a second ArbCom case? -- Catchi? 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A clarification that does not get an arbitrator response within 7-10 days will usually never get one. Artaxiad is already banned for one year, the most that could be done would be to ban him indefinitely, but any admin can do that once Artaxiad has "exhasuted the community's patience." He appears to get around the ban by editing through open proxies and from a library and two universities in toronto. Short of banning Toronto from editing, there's not much else that can be done. He is basically in the category of persistent banned user like Bonaparte, Lightbringer, Jason Gastrich, and others. Just keep stomping on them when they poke their heads out far enough to be identified. Thatcher13123:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thats fine then. I would have welcomed arbitration committee saying something like "Artaxiad exhausted the community's patience" but I guess I'll settle with the solitude of silence :) -- Catchi? 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Template:Military-Insignia
The problem is the categorization of articles with Category:Kurdistan and its sub articles without any kind of sources. This is my approach (the four bullets) and this is theirs. With that kind of clear lack of WP:AGF I am not certain what avenue I should pursue. -- Catchi? 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You have mass reverted my recategorization of a number of articles. I was wondering if you had a rationale for this action. I was merely recategorizing articles from a "Kurdistan" (which has unverifiable borders) to "Iraqi Kurdistan" (which has verifiable borders). In the absence of a reliable source, those entries can only be categorized as being inside of "Iraqi Kurdistan". -- Catchi? 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The simple answer is this: you cannot just try to empty a category unilaterally. You have to go to CfD or some other place. I've reverted your mass-deletion of the category for now. If you would like some help, here's a map of Kurdistan from National Geographic. Khoikhoi22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can "mass decategorise" at the speed of categorization at my whim if the categorization is not done properly in a verifiable manner. Can you provide a verifiable and reliable source that those cities belong to Kurdistan? That website is a fansite and fails to meet WP:RS. Which issue of National Geographic is it from? Since I have been waiting for this reliable source for the past 2-3 months... I will depopulate those categories as per WP:V in 4 days unless I see a verifiable reliable source. After that please do not revert until you find a verifiable and reliable source. -- Catchi? 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can. It's August 1992, Vol. 182, No. 2. Struggle of the Kurds (Saddam Hussein’s atrocities in northern Iraq have focused world attention on an ancient people seeking autonomy in their long-divided homeland.) [42]Khoikhoi00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Kurdistan" is not even mentioned once. That article clearly does not discuss boundaries of Kurdistan. I ponder how you came up with that link? -- Catchi? 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Where did that map come from? What is it based on? Did Ed Kashi drew it himself? If so is he a reliable source in determining the borders? -- Catchi? 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It comes from the National Geographic article, so I'm sure that someone associated with NG drew it. You don't seem to understand what the issue is. It doesn't matter what the borders are of Kurdistan are because it doesn't have exact borders. However, cities such as Muş, Van, and Dahuk are included in the shaded area, so we can add the category to their relevant articles. National Geographic seems to meet WP:RS. If it doesn't, please explain why. Khoikhoi00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain. I'll acquire that issue of National Geographic and read the rest of the material to comment on the issue any further. As far as I care the issue is on hold. Meanwhile please delete those copyvios. -- Catchi? 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the list can be improved to hold more information such as which lake the city is on, which state and country its on and etc. Perhaps population too. It may also be renamed to List of cities along the Great Lakes. Each city should ideally also contain a citation that it is on the Great Lakes. -- Catchi? 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It is common practice to credit at image description page and not every instance of image usage. It isn't an absolute requirement but such linkage is ugly. -- Catchi? 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I realise it is very ugly, and I would never add it in such a way on my own cc-by images because I don't really care, but in this instance I begged a Flickr user to give up his beautiful images to illustrate the article, and it is an important incentive for people to see their name on Wikipedia. I know it's common practice, but I would appreciate it if you didn't remove it, however ugly.
It might not look good but if we don't do that we often wouldn't have gotten the images in the first place. Moreover, it doesn't limit those images to be free images. I say it's only fair to the image creators that they be attributed were people can see. But most importantly, we expect other reusers of the image to do the same, since most websites don't have image description pages.
I also reverted you on Commons, since the image policy there is different and it is standard practice there to credit images as much as possible.
I am a commons administrator and am unaware of this. Creative commons images are not required to be "credited" in articles. -- Catchi? 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh thats fine. I am glad the confusion is over. On wikinews for credit I would recommend against linking to the flick page. Instead the image description page should be linked. If this isn't common practice I'd like to propose it. Where would be a better place to do this? -- Catchi? 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why would you recommend against it? If you want to propose a new policy on Wikinews, you can visit our Water Cooler, and maybe read and join our discussion about it here.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Just a note to say I moved the credit into comment markers instead of having a link. Links are generally only used for fair use images by professional photographers, not images under cc attribution licenses. The credit is now viewable both on the image description page and in comment markers on the article itself; if people want to know more about the image they will likely click on the picture and see the credit anyway. Regards, — Editor at Large(speak)18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merhaba
Siz sanırım Türkçe wikipedia nın da bir kullanıcısıydınız. Ben King beni IRC kanalından King ben de türkçe wikipedia da kullanıcıyım. Neyse bir göz atıyım şu İng. Wikipedia' ya demiştim. Adınızı gördüm, tanıdık geldi. İyi çalışmalar. --212.156.170.15819:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch this article, it is under heavy vandal attack. -- Catchi? 00:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like the article is getting vandalism anymore, but I added to article to my VF and the IRC watchlist. --Y.Ichiro (会話) 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 3rd planned protest (on 5 May - Today) so it will stay as a current event longer. -- Catchi? 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Current event
Please don't place news on the portal if you can't provide a legitimate source. Your edit has been reverted. Happy editing. Chris04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted. Sorry, I forgot to add the source in excitement. -- Catchi? 04:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.
”
Anything unsourced can be removed. Large additions such as the one to Iraqi Kurdistan are also a suspect of being copyright violations. -- Catchi? 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
“
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding <nowiki>{{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.
”
I don't know if the additions to Iraqi Kurdistan are in copyright violations or not, but I could put them back on the article and get sources for them. I started the Demographics of Iraqi Kurdistan page for this article, but it was merged with this article. I am thinking of putting this information on that page, so we have more time to get sources for it and so it’s not on up on this particular page without sources. --D.Kurdistani02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving the unsourced content to the talk page, improve it and put it back to the article when you are comfortable (as your text suggests)? I dislike {{fact}} and etc because they cluter the article in question unnecessarily. -- Catchi? 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
And we've merged the character articles. Current consensus has been to do as such, and so far you're the only one who is pushing for individual articles. Feel free to bring it to the talk page. -- Ned Scott21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your word isn't absolute. I see no evidence of a consensus to remove article content. -- Catchi? 22:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I know you'd love for me to not be involved in all this, CC, but I still very much am. Regardless of this discussion here, it's still a no go for episode articles or character articles. WP:PLOT, WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, you know, the usual. Wikipedia-wide consensus trumps your preference. -- Ned Scott04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please mass blank every such article on wikipedia starting from Jean-Luc Picard to every article on every Star Trek episode. No evidence of this "Wikipedia-wide consensus" exists or else why the heck are there articles about star trek episodes? Please do not fool yourself. -- Catchi? 05:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Air episodes - Juhachi
There was much discussion in the past on the removal of these pages. Don't tell me you've forgotten the pages and pages of discussion on this.--十八22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that supports mass blanking/removal/vandalism) of these pages. There are plenty of Star Trek episode articles as well as many other series. Either they all stay or they all go. -- Catchi? 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, would you mind postponing when these episode articles are to start? I mean, many of them don't even have any summaries or very little content; if we can wait until content could be filled, then perhaps we could keep them? Kinda the same thing with the character articles as some have very little info and are just stubs (and were stubs long before that between June 2006 and December 2006 when I merged them into List of Air characters. All I want is a two month postpone, and I guarantee you all of the articles will be filled with info akin to the Kanon character articles and Kanon 2006 anime episode articles. Just two months with these pages blanked; that's all I ask.--十八22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason to "postponing" this, though I'd be willing to talk rather than a senseless revert war. I would however welcome you to restore the articles in the time being so as not to unnecessarily keep many maintenance processes unnecessarily busy (such as orphaned fair use images deletion). Should the conclusion agree with your discussion, articles would be easy enough to revert. This would also allow people to review and compare the content of the articles with lesser difficulty.
I see no policy or guideline supporting mass blanking of episode articles. That includes WP:EPISODE. The "Merging" of episodes removed a lot of article content. There already is enough information "collectively" to make up more than an article. Unless there is a consensus against TV Episodes in general, I do not see any reason for the blankings. I would encourage you to restore the articles and help expand them with information we would expect on a featured article.
I disagree with that merge. WP:FICT has been cited as the rationale for their blankings even for the main characters. Aside from the two characters (Sora and Patato) can be considered minor as per WP:FICT, the others have dedicated episodes/arcs about them. There is far more than enough room to expand those articles. As for the the two I mentioned, it feels ridiculous to create a list just for those two characters.
I am walking away from the "revert war" before it starts hoping that there will be a sensible discussion involving the entire wikipedia community since I want this discussion to have implications on every similar article. Or alternatively (as you suggested after an edit conflict at my talk page) and more preferably a join collaboration in expanding the articles in question since you seem more than a sensible person to me.
Okay, I won't lie; I would want these character articles and episode articles on Wikipedia, but you didn't even help in expanding them after their creation last summer, and they stayed stubs for about 6 months. I was really disappointed in this as Air is one of my favorite series and at the time I saw that blanking them would be okay for the time being. You want individual character and episode articles, fine, I do too, but the way you went about it seemed wrong in a way. For one, you're relying too much on the anime information while the game info should come first, this is in regards to character summaries in the character articles. See the Kanon characters for examples.
However, I am still against the creation of Air (anime), since all that info can now be found on the main article, and I am further against the use of {{Air}} as with {{Key}}, this reduces clutter and makes things more compact and easier to navigate. Aren't we on Wikipedia supposed to reduce redundancy?--十八22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry, I got distracted with "real life" and "commons" (I became an admin on commons and it practically consumed my time) related tasks. I completely forgot about those articles in question. I have more free time now though I will be "freer" in 3 weeks.
I have my reservations for both Air (anime) and {{Air}} - but thats not really critical or crucial to resolve right away I will however place my rationale below. I do not expect you to respond or agree with it. Its just my perspective.
Just for the sake of clarifying my stance on the template: I do not mind a {{Key}} provided it is restructured by series. It looks hard to follow at the moment. {{Navigation}} can be used for each of the series for example. Probably it is best to redirect {{Air}} to {{Key}} if we are going to stick to a single {{Key}}.
My approach to the issue is that Air (anime) (such as how anime was created, how was it criticized and etc) should focus on the anime while the Air (visual novel) focus on the game. For example the Game (older versions at least) is considered Erotic, the anime does not have any trace of Erotic scenes - not even pantsu shots. However Both anime and game are in the same genre. I haven't played the game much mind you (It was way too boring for the first 1 hour of clicking between 4 or 5 scenes).
I am not much of an expert in article writing so I would welcome your preferred examples to go about expanding the articles. I'd like to note, I am quite pleased with your approach to this even though we are at a disagreement on certain points.
Let's work on these articles one at a time. I propose we start with the first air episode, Breeze right away while leaving everything else (other Air articles) alone.
Okay, I'll say this: I'd be more willing to accept an Air (anime) page provided that more info about the anime itself was included, such as what you said with how the anime was developed, or how it was criticized. DVD sales could also be included, and now that the anime has been licensed, the latter two may not be too hard to find, but then anime development may be difficult to find into on and to cite. Currently, there is nothing on this version to make it it's own article as all that info can be found on the main article under the Anime section, and the Story arcs section which seems much more relavent to cite its inclusion in the game rather than how it was distributed in the anime that came after it. I'm talking about precedent here, so the game should always come first.
Moreover, I can see that you were accepting a bit of my cleanup strategies, such as with this revision, and going along with the merging to Sora (Air) and Potato (Air) into Yukito Kunisaki and Kano Kirishima, so I can see that we may be able to work together provided we reach a concensus.
About {{Air}}, I would much rather use one template, {{Key}} to apply to all of Keys works in order to avoid redundancy and make it easier to navigate with a single template to edit rather than 6 (Key has 6 games now). The Key template once was organized according to series, seen here but I reorginized it to the current version because it looked better this was with how it is originized now. Also, to reduce clutter, this version was replaced by including Category:Kanon characters in the template, and the same could be done for the Air characters I believe. And then only Kanon and Air have enough articles to constitute organization by series, as Clannad alone only has 3 and the other 3 games only have a main article, and soundtracks since the other three don't even have anime adaptations to them.
As for the proposal you just gave me on my talk page, it's a sound idea, but the only reason I wanted a 2 month postpone is because I am in college right now and I will have no time to really delve into this massive project until the summer. My belief is that if all of the articles were done at the same time (as in work on them in namespace and then copy/paste into article space when finished with all of them), users such as Ned Scott would not have much to work with in terms of the guidelines set out in WP:EPISODE. Right now, most are stubs without references, so he has enough info to warrent deletion.--十八23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anime is hard to write about. Even most significant series lack from a good set of secondary sources. Such sources are typically in Japanese and are written on magazines and etc only. Oh My Goddess! talks about the series in general while linking to the relevant articles with much more content. We could follow a similar model.
I am agreeing with the mergings of Sora (Air) and Potato (Air) but I am pondering if it really is the best decision. Sora is actually Yukito so the merge makes sense. Potato is a stray dog and does not belong to anyone. While it is a minor character it is the only minor character so leaving it as an article would in my opinion be fine since everyone else can be complete articles.
See: {{Command & Conquer series}}. Note that several content on the article links to the same article but different sections. That is allowed. It is easier for me to use navigation templates organized by series. We could have one template for Kannon, one template for Air and one template for other. I am willing to compromise on this as much as you are. All I wish is the best possible template. -- Catchi? 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
To admit the truth, I haven't payed too much attention to your cleanup (all I noticed was addition of content which is good enough for me typically). Now that I review it more closely I still agree with it mostly. I would recommend using European dates (28 August2005) rather than US (August 282005) though thats nothing major to sweat about.
I find Ned Scott's involvement a bit unhelpful. But I have a personal policy not to discuss contributors so I will leave it at that.
Most of the stubs actually link to the official website (which I admit has very little material). The episode itself is also a very good source. I could counter that argument with that but it isn't really important at this point since we will process them all one by one.
Regarding {{Command & Conquer series}}, the organization there I think is helpful, and we might be able to apply this to {{Key}}, with these sections: Kanon, Air, Other games (this would encompass the other 4 Key games, plus the 3 they made at Tactics), Key Sounds Label, Related.
Regarding the merging of Potato into the Kano article. While I agree with you it makes more sense for Sora to be in the Yukito article, there is no reason to create an article for Potato per WP:FICT. Thus, I did what I simiarly did with the Makoto Sawatari article in merging the Piro info into there because Makoto's the one that is closest to Piro anyway. Kano, by the same token, seems very close to Potato, and besides, Potato only appears in connection with Kano's story and as far as I remember, is unseen later on in the story after her arc is completed.
Yes, but Potato is a seperate character and WP:FICT would recommend listifying it. Which would be a one character list - would be silly. So it should be an article IMHO despite WP:FICT. Potato was seen after that arc. Throughout the entire series Potato was there for the kicks even at Kano's arc. It is a minor character but the only one.
Such users will never disappear. People have their reasons, I have mine. I already stated my views and I am tired of repeating myself to them for the past 2+ years. I do not want to name-call them as "deletionists" since I am often identified as one myself (contrary to how it may appear to you ^_^;).
It still doesn't make sense that Potato should warrent it's own article. That would simultaniously go along with WP:FICT and go against it. The only solution is to merge it into the Kano article; this is one thing I'm absolutely adament about because even citing Potato as a minor character seems a stretch since it's only there as a moe prop for Kano; it didn't even really do anything that directly related to any of the storylines.--十八00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can compromise at this point. I would however reccomend a redirect to be left back. -- Catchi? 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was pondering if you could check that source. It seems to be an unrelated discussion. I agree with Jimbo that {{fact}} is overused and would like to put this on my own userpage as a word of wisdom. -- Catchi? 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I, Whytecypress, award you this barnstar for civility and determination in face of uncivil criticisms to your efforts to create a User Ranking System. Live Long and Prosper. -- Whytecypress17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the award. I was wondering what you meant by "User Ranking System" -- Catchi?
Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish Coast Guard.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users may get blocked for this purpose as a result but that isn't the point of arbitration. The point of arbitration is to resolve a dispute. This approach would bring better results from arbcom both for the accuser and the accused. -- Catchi? 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, you don't have to notify yourself. Although, since I'm here, one of your links is red and may need to be adjusted. Regards, Newyorkbrad21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation requests are deleted if they fail to start due to a lack of participation. -- Catchi? 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Then you might want to say "I tried a formal mediation request but it was deleted because X declined to participate." Right now it just looks like a typo. Regards, Newyorkbrad22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added something along that line to the rfar case. Btw, are you ever online, I'd like to discuss this issue with you since I feel ArbCom will decline this again. -- Catchi? 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake,
I tried to carry your and Olgun's all edits to my last version, but possibly; either there was a coincide of our edits or I made a mistake there.Sorry again.Must.T C11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I though it was a honest mistake. Ah, edit conflicts are painful :) -- Catchi? 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is probably a bad idea because it will not receive much traffic. Namely, people respond to RfCs in related subject areas after posting their own RfCs, and people watchlist RfCs in subject areas they are interested. This is much less likely to happen if RfCs are divided by function rather than subject area. For example, people who have more insight into issues about Kurdistan and who care enough to comment would be the people interested in politics and history. Also, such a specific page will likely have fewer RfCs in general, so fewer people coming to the page. —Centrx→talk • 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was placed on "History and geography" RfC before and not a single soul bothered to comment on it. I was recommended to create that new process on IRC. There is no RFC process to discuss categories at this point hence why I started that specific thing. For the past several months I have been trying to gather community attention on this problem while making an effort to not escalate the matter myself. No one seems to want to even comment on the issue. People I asked for assistance said they wouldn't touch this controversial issue with a 10 foot pole. This shouldn't be an article dispute since it involves a lot of articles. It should be treated differently IMHO. I would welcome any suggestion though. -- Catchi? 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to file a complaint about me, please use the proper process which most certainly is not CfD. -- Catchi? 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What complaint would that be, Perry Mason? It's called "theorizing about your motives" -- in other words, a possible explnation for your pointy nomination. --Calton | Talk14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Perry Mason. Please either WP:AGF. How is it pointy? What point am I illustrating? No one, including you, is disputing that the borders are undefined and that the issue is controversial. My nom is inline with WP:CAT's general guidelines. If you still feel this is "pointy", take it to WP:ANB/I or community sanction board. If my intentions are truly disruptive I should be blocked. -- Catchi? 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please either [sic] WP:AGF - Note that's "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Your history of POV pushing -- both in general and on this issue in particular -- is evidence to the contrary: citing WP:AGF isn't a "Get Out of Jail Free card", you know.
No one, including you, is disputing that the borders are undefined and that the issue is controversial - And, as I explicitly pointed out, utterly irrelevant.
If you still feel this is "pointy", take it to WP:ANB/I or community sanction board - Why?
If my intentions are truly disruptive I should be blocked - You can intend anything you like: only when you escalate to disruptive actions should you be blocked. Of course, relentless wikilawyering in order to suppress, delegitimize, obscure, or discourage discussion or opposition and achieve victory for a single minority point of view is disruptive, so maybe you're onto something. --Calton | Talk15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what to make out of your response. I would welcome if you clarified it.
Creators of the categories such as User:Diyako or User:Diyarbakir also have a history of pov pushing. Unlike me both are blocked from editing wikipedia currently under arbcom remedies. In the case of Diyako the block is one year, in the case of Diyarbakir it is indefinite. Diyarbakir is also known to devote his entire contribs to wiki-stalk me for the past two years. ArbCom merely warned me for my behaviour during my first 1000 edits. Surely my other 30,000+ edits should have some weight.
There had been no discussion on the inclusion criteria or even the very creation of this armada of Kurdistan categories. We categorize cities by country (defacto (Taiwan/Sealand) or dejure (France/United States) alike) not by [alleged] regions that also happen to be wanabe countries. So far, I haven't been given one straight answer on what these Kurdistan categorization is based on nor have I been ever told why they are even necessary. Issue is so controversial, people do not even want to touch it with a "10 foot pole", surely there must be something wrong with this category if people are so hesitant to remark on it. If it was completely uncontroversial and non-problematic I am sure people would be more than willing to comment.
I have been trying very hard not to escalate the issue (escalating it is very easy, all it takes is one person waging a revert war and hell breaks loose - we have seen examples of this in the past). I have been remaining civil patiently for months trying to initiate a discussion. I have went through every single process of dispute resolution I know of. And for that when people accuse me of POV pushing, it is quite frustrating.
I am not sure what to make out of your response. I would welcome if you clarified it. - Clarify what? That's an utterly empty request and dangerously close to trolling.
Creators of the categories such as User:Diyako or User:Diyarbakir also have a history of pov pushing - So what?
So far, I haven't been given one straight answer on what these Kurdistan categorization is based on nor have I been ever told why they are even necessary - The briefest thought would tell you that geographic categorization is based on -- wait for it -- geography. Again, given that "Kurdistan" is a long-established albeit roughly defined geographic area, your dispute, if any, should be with membership criteria for the category. The category is valid, your wishful thinking, willingness to pretend it hasn't been explained to you, and wikilawyering notwithstanding . --Calton | Talk22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake :o sorry :( -- Catchi? 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Diyarbakır
Please do not turn Diyarbakır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into a revert war. You have clearly demonstrated an angry editing style on Turkish articles in the past. Please use the articles discussion page if you have objections. I was reverting to an older, agreed wording that had just been removed. I object to your calling this soapboxing. — Gareth Hughes16:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you have provided ([43], [44], [45]) do not fall under what we consider as a reliable source. While Britannica is reliable, it makes no mention of the capital claim [46]. -- Catchi? 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Storm_Front_(Part_I).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I'd like to wait till an official announcement. Also would you mind citing your additions to a source, not that I am disputing them but it would save us time. -- Catchi? 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I put in discussions was that someone could take care of the technical stuff, becuase im not a hardcore wikier. But deleting it is a bit extreme, as i gave the source...I did not want to get into a revert war, so would you put it back and if you will not, please tell me why notKorrybean02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry CNN.com owns the copyright to that material. You can merely leave a link to the material. Also a PKK tie appears premature at this point. I have however initiated a 2007 Ankara bombing prior to your post. -- Catchi? 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I ran across your little "Where I've been" thing on your user page, and I stole it and modified it for my own page (with a link and credit to you, of course). I hope you don't mind. Horologiumtalk - contrib06:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Many people have been using it for quite some time :) -- Catchi? 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had a bit of time to think about this now. I think there are legitimate reasons for keeping this article mostly as it is. Each of the four "Kurdistans" (Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Turkish) have significantly differing post-Ottoman history and politics, and present somewhat different issues. There's more than enough content in both Turkish Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan to justify the separate existence of those articles. Having said that, I think we could probably move some of the pre-1918 content in Turkish Kurdistan into the main Kurdistan article, along the lines of how Iraqi Kurdistan is structured. -- ChrisO15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-WW1 histories as you point out should be merged. Turkey was formed after the fall of the ottoman empire and officially started to exist after the Lausanne.
The content regarding the treaties should be merged as soon as possible. I would welcome you to do this. The serves treaty proposed an entire Kurdistan country and was never just a "Turkish Kurdistan" part. Lausanne made "Kurdistan" to cease to exist as a proposal.
After those two merges you'd be basically left with a single paragraph.
Do you not consider edits such as this an enormous waste of database and bandwidth resources? What is the point in many hundreds of edits to make what is simply a cosmetic change to a historical signature? Thanks/wangi19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to keep my signatures uniform. All those comments belong to me. This will minimize confusion. It is not an enormous waste of database and bandwidth resources. It would make a trivial change. -- Catchi? 19:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you should set your AWB to run though just article space. You caught one of your sigs in my archive pages. Not that I particularly care, it's just that others might. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think anyone sane would complain about their talk archives receiving this cleanup. -- Catchi? 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"anyone sane would complain about their talk archives receiving this cleanup" - you're completely missing the point of what signatures are for. They are to identify and date your talk page contributions, nothing more. They are not a style statement. There's nothing wrong with the way they were, you're just wasting server resources to update to your latest "best sig ever" - it's pointless. Thanks/wangi07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we don't allow things like templates for sigs, because every time you changed the sig it would then have to update for each page. I'm surprised this got approved. Mass edits for a stylistic sig change is not something you're supposed to do. -- Ned Scott09:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain me one thing. How is you reverting the bots edit productive?
I believe sigs templates are disabled due to the immense transclusion load which would need to be updated on all pages at once. The bot is not editing all pages at once.
Please do not dictate what I am supposed to do. Preferably I'd rather not have any dealings with you as per my past experience with you.
Most of the reverts are to archives. Look, you don't get to do this kind of crap, and it's not going to be tolerated. -- Ned Scott10:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually problematic, even though you might consider those who disagree as insane, to change the archives. The archives are meant to be historical sources, and it is not a coincidence that these pages have the text "do not modify this page". Subsequent editing of archived debates does constitute historical revisionism. Bertilvidet14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historic revisionism? Give me a darn break. Its a cosmetic signature alteration. The bot is specifically approved to carry out the task. -- Catchi? 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Give it a rest, that approval was for "testing"... Clearly it's been tested now. Perhaps try and understand people's concerns. If it's "cosmetic" only then why bother? You clearly need to gain further approval before running this bot again. Thanks/wangi15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are cosmetic so I do not have the slightest idea why people are revert waring over it. -- Catchi? 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's it. Cat, stop acting like a 4 year-old. It's clear you're making pointless changes that the community does not support. How do you think you lost your access to the vandalism-en-wp channel? Why have you been blocked so many times? Stop arguing and edit warring with people over such a stupid thing and grow up. -Pilotguyhold short19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I think I lost access to vandalism-en-wp hmm... Essjay said so. Do not get me started on Essjay. I decline to respond on such an insulting post any longer. -- Catchi? 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop editing archives. Stop changing your signature on talk pages. You have already been told by numerous people that this is a bad idea and have provided no justification of why it is appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe I was ever required to provide justifications to my edits. -- Catchi? 19:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you should provide justification for all edits, in the edit summary, but that is beside the point here. —Centrx→talk • 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fresh page is creating a brand new username dissociated from the old one, not migrating all contributions, using a similar name, same user page, and same modus operandi, and re-attributing all comments in existence. Everyone knows it's the same person. —Centrx→talk • 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is MY time to waste by me (its my own "stupidity" if you will).
Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken was intended for redirects to articles and etc not for a signature correction. I may alter the signatures in a manner that links to my old userpage and user talk page while altering its appearance if you insist.
People who vandalize pages or edit war are wasting their own time too, but that does not mean that the edits aren't reverted or that they aren't blocked. 1) You are editing your own comment; 2) while the redirect policy there was designed for articles, there is no reason why it is not just as sensible here; 3) Wikipedia:Signatures explains the purpose and use of signatures, that custom signatures are an allowance not some essential feature of the encyclopedia and the purpose of which, for example, does not include editing all the talk archives you have ever commented on to fix up your own signature. 4) Template:Talkarchive was created to tell users that they should not edit the contents of archives. This includes all parts of archives except the headers. Edits to archives are only to add or change header information, to archive additional sections, to re-organize them for different sized archives but without editing their contents, and in special cases, such as with fair use images and personal names to remove information. These are analogous to re-organizating files in a folder, or writing meta-information at the top of a page, but not to changing the body of text on the page. None of this covers fixing up your own signature so it is just how you like it. Do you have any justification for doing this other than wanting to waste your own time? If you want to waste your time, you can make as many edits as you want to User:White Cat/Sandbox. —Centrx→talk • 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to bother reading this. -- Catchi? 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 15 minutes. Please spend this time carefully reading over the comments made by many users regarding your signature edits. These continuing edits are disruptive and do not benefit the encyclopaedia in any way. Thanks/wangi20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find you block entirely against policy. I am not going to be intimidated by this. -- Catchi? 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, any more edit warring like this and you'll end blocked again, for a longer period. As I said above these continuing edits are disruptive and do not benefit the encyclopaedia in any way. You are acting against consensus. Thanks/wangi20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any other block and bcrats will be involved. Take it to Dispute resolution or drop it. -- Catchi? 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't threaten people, and bureaucrats have no special authority in this matter, except perhaps for granting a special privilege of a bot, which is not the case here. —Centrx→talk • 20:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using admin tools inaproporately is when b'crats get involved. Blocking people with out a valid reason is a violation of blocking policy. Blocking people you are in dispute with is also a very bad practice. I am the one threatened here with a block. -- Catchi? 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I was only discussing the matter with you, I wasn't having a dispute. You'll not I did not revert any of the bot changes for example. Thanks/wangi08:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You became in dispute at the very least after your block. Should I dare to update my sigs you have threatened to block me. That counts as a dispute to me. -- Catchi? 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request
It appears that everyone except you says you are not allowed to do so, and you have provided no justification why you should be allowed to do so. Regardless, it would appear that you are not blocked for merely "altering your signatures", but for making mass edits against consensus, in this case overwhelming consensus. —Centrx→talk • 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus. Create a policy or guideline and get it approved by the community. Right now a bunch of people such as User:Ned Scott, You and several others have found a yummy mean to bully me. Frankly I find your involvement disturbing. People are disagreeing only for the sake of disagreeing. -- Catchi? 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA. Please stick to the substance, not the persons. What is relevant is how we preserve archived material. And obviously subsequent editing of it changes history. Bertilvidet20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please... You accused me of historical revisionism with my edits on my signature. -- Catchi? 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is why I said people might get annoyed. Think about in simple terms. What need do you have to change your signature? Is it going anywhere different (beyond a redirect, that is)? If it's merely a cosmetic thing, why bother? I can understand wanting consistency, as I'm obsessive over little things, too, but when it annoys this many people it's better to just let it go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe... But I wouldn't be "obsessive" if I just didn't seek perfection. The whole issue is lame I agree. -- Catchi? 21:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And since the issue is lame, don't you think it's best not to antagonize other editors who don't agree with you? There's more of tehm than there are you. Best to bow to the opposition when the battle is pointless, at least where words are concerned. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not ever surrender. Wikipedia is not a community where people bow to others. -- Catchi? 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Admirable, I must say, but still not wise. Regardless, I wish you luck. However, it'd probably help your case if you didn't do what people are complaining about while trying to get approval for it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disengaging is the prudent course of action in the meanwhile. You are right. -- Catchi? 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole signature issue
White Cat had a username change recently. He is changing his signatures to link from his old username to his new one, and fixing some sigs which had images (which is frowned upon). Some of these edits are on archived pages. Archived page guidelines say they shouldn't be edited; generally assumed to mean the comments should not be changed and new comments should not be added. Images are often removed from archives, or changed to other versions - what White Cat is doing is changing his sig. This change does not affect the discussion in any way (unless someone was speaking about the signature in particular). He has the right to change his sig, which is not a part of discussions on archived pages, just as others have the right to change theirs and to change images in archives and even to revert changes by others if they think they are inappropriate.
However, attacking a user and blindly reverting everything, plus blocking him when he continues to make changes to his own signature, is quite uncalled for. If the issue is particular users not wanting their talk page archives edited, those users should revert the changes themselves - if White Cat changes them back then complaints from the user whose page White Cat edited are in order. Personally if his fix was reverted by someone else I would change it back, as UBeR did here. Blind reversions of other people's talk page archives by a different user just makes the page pop up once again on everyone's watchlist, and is annoying to those who did not mind the signature change to begin with.
This is a signature, which within loose guidelines (not too long, not too large height-wise, preferably no images) is free for the user to create, change, design, modify, etc.. Archives should not be edited for the purpose of changing or adding to the discussion, but modifying something like a signature does not cause problems in most instances. If it does, reverting back to the old signature is fine, yes. Otherwise let White Cat fix his signature as he pleases; the only people getting hurt by this edit war and these discussions are the users who are getting angry and the people going out of their way to revert him. — Editor at Large(speak)22:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Editor at Large, although I would suggest you try a less combative attitude; even if you refuse to stop changing your signatures, users who disagree with you will be more willing to let it slide if you politely explain your reasons, rather than immediately attack their sanity and accuse them of bothering you. :)
I occasionally update my old signatures to point them to a subpage redirect (for link sorting), but I do it semi-manually and over a long time. I've gotten a few questions about it from time to time, but nobody every challenged it. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:49:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting. -- Catchi? 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I've often thought people advertising things in their sigs, be it talk pages or new policies or whatever, should use redirects to avoid polluting "what links here", and keeping track of things a bit more. A new redirect for each month, maybe? Carcharoth12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I want to clear "what links here" to User:White Cat, User:Cool Cat and User:Coolcat that way I can better keep track of any referance to my former username(s). Pathoschild does this sound reasonable to you? -- Catchi? 12:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
White cat was my original internet nick. White cat was taken at a point so I had to switch to "Cool Cat" at a point some 7+ years ago perhaps. I am returning to my handle name. -- Catchi? 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Your bot
Would you perchance be able to use your bot to perform the same task for me as it did for you. Ie changing links from my old userpage to my new one. There are only about 350 or so, but I'm not running AWB. ViridaeTalk00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to but I am prohibited of making such edits manually now let alone automated. Fixing signatures will only get me blocked. So although I want to help you my hands are tied. -- Catchi? 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Burundi was properly colored. Thats the blob to the south but Rwanda was not. I fixed that.
Tonga and Samoa are not visible on the blank version of the map (as far as I can see) so I cannot color them. Because it is at the middle of nowhere (Pacific) I am unable to pinpoint its location. If you can provide me which ones I am to color, I can do it.
You may need to refresh your browser to properly view the changes
Actually, if you look at a map of the Pacific, you'll see that Samoa and Tonga are the only things visible east of Fiji (at least on the rhs of the map. :-) Tomertalk18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... [47] does count Palestine as a member. Would you mind reviewing that map and the list? -- Catchi? 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The list includes Palestine, which is not only not a member of the UN, it is not (and never has been) a country. Therefore, the West Bank, presently marked in green on the map, probably should not be. Marking the WBank as a stand-in of sorts for Palestine, assumes the outcome of status talks which are, presently, completely stalled. Cheers, Tomertalk22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The West Bank is currently considered under international law to be de jure a territory not part of any state. The United Nations Security Council,[1] the United Nations General Assembly,[2] the International Court of Justice,[3] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[4] refer to it as occupied by Israel.
Not sure if I want to do that. We have a source (official one) that calls it to be a member. I'd like to know more about special circumstances involving Palestine before taking any action. -- Catchi? 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "[n]ot sure if I want to do that." We have an official source that calls it a member of an organization...but that's Palestine, which is a group of organizations, not a country. Regardless, even if the outcome of status talks assigns the West Bank (occupied 1948-1967 by Jordan, occupied 1967-2007ff by Israel) to a new country called "Palestine", the West Bank is not presently Palestine, it is presently the West Bank of the Jordan River, and therefore should not be colored. It presently is. Tomertalk23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:BSA ranks, by Gadget850, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:BSA ranks fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
template is orphaned; articles were merged
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:BSA ranks, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:BSA ranks itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 215:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:CSA ranks, by Gadget850, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:CSA ranks fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
template is orphaned and has been for quite some time
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:CSA ranks, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:CSA ranks itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 215:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MFD and ANB/I stuff aside, lets try to come to a common ground. I consider you to be a valuable contributor despite our disagreement on this rather trivial matter. -- Catchi? 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I have nothing against you, Cat. I simply don't understand why you desired this deletion. If you could humor me by providing an explanation, perhaps I might come to better understand your viewpoint. —David Levy22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly there aren't any "pressing" reasons.
I merely want to cease being Cool Cat. Ideally I would like all references to "Cool Cat" become "White Cat". Our software does not allow a user to simply change a username many remnants of old account is left behind.
I was planing on doing this in several phases:
Phase 1: I was going to alter every single sig to "White Cat" - That didn't go well User:Centrix is slowly reverting every edit of User:WOPR despite being asked not to do so a few times.
Phase 2: Deletion of old userpages - This was done, although it didn't go as smoothly as I thought.
Phase 3: Rename username on all other wikis. This was partially done. I have been renamed on commons, en, and tr as well as hundreds of other wikis. I am a commons admin so I edit practically every wiki to delink images I deleted for example.
Phase 4: Alteration of userpages and rename of everything to "White Cat" including username photo - is mostly done
Phase 5: Altering pages like RFA, RFC to "White Cat". I may also alter an "RfAr" page (rename the case) after arbitrators' approval. - Not done
Phase 6: Change references to "Cool Cat" in older discussions to "White Cat" - Not done
I placed the entire plan on hold until the dust settles.
Does this answer your concerns? Is there anything else I should explain? I have no interest in conflict despite being in the center of it at the moment.
Given the current situation, do you truly believe that this deletion is a good thing? With much of the above plan not yet executed, does it really accomplish anything of benefit to you or anyone else at the present time? Do you acknowledge that the opposition is derived not from a desire to be mean to you, but from genuine concern that this will cause harm (at least for the time being)?
I understand your frustration (to some extent, at least) but it's disconcerting to see you repeatedly state that you don't care about the community's inconvenience because it isn't your problem.
If you would agree to some sort of compromise (such as the creation of a temporary page at User:Cool Cat until the rest of the above is sorted out), it would go a long way toward resolving the conflict. —David Levy23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it'd be temporary (I reserve the right to get it deleted later ;) ) I'd be fine with it. I really do NOT want a redirect. I also desire not to fork this thing at all anymore. Everyone just wants this issue dead as I see it. I do not even understand why it exploded.
Current situation in my view is ridiculous. No one but Ned Scott recreated the page. I think by persistently revering, he is damaging the project. He has a history of trolling me, at least on commons.
I do care about the community. I do not care about people visiting the red link and getting inconvenienced to click the talk page (User talk:Cool Cat).
I do not really understand the concern. It wasn't clearly explained to me. People started yelling, threatening, and blocking... Things got out of control pretty fast. From what I understand...
People are concerned that in discussions changing my signature may have affect the integrity of closed debates. I think this is not a realistic concern because almost all comments I posted and signed were discussions of a topic. My signature or username was never a subject of discussion as far as I can recall (aside from the latest nonsense).
Several people are concerned that I was trying to hide something. I also think this is unrealistic because I would simply register a new account to clear my history. All actions I have taken so far is intended to take responsibility of things I have done in the past. My username rename is probably among the most well known things on the wiki. Anyone who is anybody is well aware of it now.
Some people have been policy-lawyering by reinterpreting unrelated policies and guidelines and acting on them. My latest block for example was uncalled for (IMHO).
How do you recommend I proceed to achieve what I want (the phases I mentioned above) without irking people. I didn't expect anyone to care about this.
I recommend that you ask BigDT to remove the cascading protection from User:Cool Cat. Then you could create a temporary page (not a redirect) containing a statement to the effect of "This editor is now known as User:White Cat." (with the understanding that this is to be deleted at your request). Then we could discuss the remainder of your plan (and hopefuly resolve any remaining disagreements) without having this dispute stand in the way.
For what it's worth, I don't believe that you ever intended to hide anything. I do, however, see how this could be an unintended consequence of your actions. The concern, as I understand it, is that the signature replacements obscure the fact that other users' references to "Cool Cat" pertain to someone whose messages now bear a different username. This could be addressed by changing such references to "White Cat," but I suspect that there would be significant opposition to this as well.
Regarding the User:Cool Cat deletion issue, I would be satisfied if all of the incoming links (excepting ones that pertain to this controversy) could be updated to lead to your current user page instead. If there is no consensus for changing them completely, perhaps they could be piped to retain their original appearance (Cool Cat). —David Levy00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that but I do want to give the issue at least 24 hours after the ANB/I discussion closes (gets archived). I don't want to escalate the issue.
I do not believe people will be as hostile to the possible signature alteration suggestion and etc in about 15 days. I talked to ST47 about using the bot to fix signatures provided there is consensus for it. He said it would be approved if that was the case.
Making sigs retain appearance is relatively easy (I am proficient with AWB to do this) but most of my former signatures did not even contain the word "Cool". I used to be "Cat Out" then "Cat chi?" my current sig. I want all my sigs to link to User:White Cat/07 to clear/organize "what links here". I have been almost never adressed by my sig. People generally just call me "cat" (people are lazy).
I'd like to follow your guidance on this. We may be able to discuss this better on IRC if you are available there.
Yes, I've noticed that most of your signatures contain no visual references to either username. I was thinking of other incoming links (that aren't from your signatures), though I don't know how many exist.
Have you given any thought to linking the old signatures to a redirect along the lines of User:White Cat/(formerly Cool Cat)? Perhaps such a compromise would produce consensus.
Regarding the User:Cool Cat deletion issue, I recommend that you proceed with the temporary page creation as soon as possible. It would be of tremendous benefit to all of us if we could avoid a contentious deletion review.
User:White Cat/(formerly Cool Cat). I like this idea. I very much do. It would help me better sort "what links here" as well. For this all edits of WOPR would need to be deleted too (thats rather easy to do).
I noticed you on IRC but by the time I noticed you were gone (I was sleeping). I am available now.
I'd like the deletion discussions to end before doing what you asked. Double crossing a process really ticks of some people.
Hello again! I'm sorry that we missed each other on IRC, and I'm even sorrier that we were unable to avoid a deletion review. I urged Ned to withdraw it, but he declined. When that's out of the way, I hope that we can resolve all of this controversy. I don't expect Ned to agree to any sort of compromise, but I'm confident that we can build consensus within the community.
If you still wish to chat via IRC, let's schedule a time. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I should be available tonight and tomorrow. —David Levy18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ned Scott is overall being unhelpful. He has escalated this silly issue to this point. Lets talk this Saturday (2007-06-02) at 12:00:00UTC on IRC. Try #wikimedia-commons or #wikipedia-en - both channels are more quiet and troll-free. -- Catchi? 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey ... I dropped in after seeing your comments on DRV. If you want to remove cascading protection based on whatever agreement you come up with here, please do so with my blessing. I only added it to stop the wheel war and I don't really care one way or the other about it. --BigDT05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hold back on that until the deletion review is closed. Double crossing an existing process would irk some people. Btw you are better of posting your comments to me on my talk page as I will be able to more easily notice them. -- Catchi? 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Really, that was more addressed to David. Your old user page is currently a protected title and only administrators have the technical ability to remove that protection. --BigDT14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the drill about protection :) -- Catchi? 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The image description pages currently specify that the images are non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the images are currently orphaned, meaning that they are not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the images were previously in an article, please go to those articles and see why they were removed. You may add them back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot20:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the twenty-three redundant bot comments into the one above; feel free to revert if you prefer them to be separate. (The redundant comments were bugging me.) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:53:47, 01 June 2007 (UTC)
However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using the images under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description pages and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the imaged do not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
June
Adjusting sig
Hi. Is this gonna take a long time? Please consider a less distracting edit summary, at least. Thanks. El_C12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its [almost] done. [48] sorry about the summary thing. I do not want to edit archives or those pages so all done for now. -- Catchi? 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would convert the sigs in that protected MfD for you if there was like two or three of em, but there's way too many for me to bother, sorry. If it's that important to you, I can unprotect it for ten minutes and you can attened to this rather tedius task. Please respond on this page.El_C12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK you can unprotect it for ten minutes. AWB has an automated find and replace function for the task. -- Catchi? 14:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Cat, what the hell is wrong with you? I'm not making up bullshit here, I actually saw him revert you before seeing this post on AN/I. Some guy was a dick to you in the past, and he got banned for it, but that does not mean anyone with a disagreement with you is even anywhere near that same situation. If what we are saying is upsetting to you, then that's your problem, it doesn't make what we are doing harassment. There is a big difference. -- Ned Scott05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked your past 250 edits? How many are relevant to my sigs? You have devoted most of your recent contribs on me. You have devoted a good portion of your commons contribs on me. You revert war against me on my own userspace. Moby Dick engaged in similar behaviour. He was also told that to stalk someone provided you don't stalk them to excess still isn't OK. Moby Dick also used a watchlist. -- Catchi? 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of my edits are for a DISCUSSION about the MFD on User:Cool Cat. How many of those edits are to the same pages? Mody Dick followed you around. Are you not seeing the difference here? This isn't stalking, this isn't harassment. -- Ned Scott05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop running an unapproved bot
Your request for a bot to modify your old sigs was turned down. Unfortunately, you then turned around and started making the edits on your main account, trying to bypass the decision. This isn't going to fly. Continue running your unapproved bot on any account and that account will be blocked. --Cyde Weys15:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am running NO BOT. I have been using AWB to make modifications which I am more than allowed. -- Catchi? 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This party was never founded in the first place. The two leaders made a press conference together, announcing that they would be working together for the next election. No official steps were taken in the next few weeks, and now yesterday their allience is dissolved and they will be running in the next election as two seperate parties.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Democratic Party (Turkey, current), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Democratic Party (Turkey, current) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 208:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar ribbon
Your page about barnstar ribbon is not too accurate because the ribbons have to indicate what type of barnstar you receive, not # of barnstars. # of barnstars only apply when you get 2 or more of the same kind of barnstar. OhanaUnited12:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In military tradition when someone receives an award multiple times rather than carrying multiple times it is represented by various "pins". On my ribbon system when someone receives a barnstar multiple times each "extra" is represented with a star. The type of the barnstar is available if you recognize how they look like but also when you click on them. -- Catchi? 13:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am normally not wiki-politically correct about this. I should have said any organized group such as the police, fire department, or even scouting. -- Catchi? 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, is there any reason why you reverted my edit on your sandbox and userpage? Of course those two pages are completely yours to rule/dictate but since you are crediting me, wouldn't it be better to credit my real userpage? :) -- Catchi? 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, is there any reason why you reverted my edit on your sandbox and userpage?
Why don't you want to properly credit me - yet still credit me? I mean, you are more than welcome to use anything you got from my userpage and crediting me is the ethical thing that you are doing... It doesn't really make any sense that you aren't even showing the basic courtesy of a detailed straight answer. -- Catchi? 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What part of "I've answered your questions as much as I care to" was unclear? Do I need to diagram that sentence for you or explain the difficult words? To recap and expand my answers:
Would you mind not crediting me at all if you are not going to link to User:White Cat/ref please? Do not worry, I won't be "copyright-lawyering" GFDL -- Catchi? 02:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That's most strange. Why do you mind? Please provide a reasonable rationale. Your short answers are only increasing my curiosity... -- Catchi? 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
White Cat, I see you have met User:Calton, you can bang your head against the wall trying to get an answer out of him, but you're not. He thinks he is being witty with his answers and will not answer in any other way but that. I would refrain from further posts with him as it will get you nowhere. If, though, you continue to have problems with him, let an admin know. Take Care...NeutralHomerT:C17:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, me again, I always drop User:Phaedriel's name, as she is a really nice admin who gets things done. You don't have to message her right away (only if you have further problem with User:Calton) and I just an acquaintance of hers, not an admin myself. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend....NeutralHomerT:C18:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why you are restoring pov/nationalistic colors on the wikiproject page despite WP:NOT/WP:POINT? -- Catchi? 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Out of the majority of non-involved contributors (that is myself) most of them are for the colours or don't care. Please stop undoing the hard work of other users just because it tickles your fancy. - Francis Tyers·16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has little to do with my fancy. "Hard work" for what? Creating unnecessary controversy? Wikipedia:WikiProject France has less national colors and it is a "country" wikiproject. -- Catchi? 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
First, I would apologise again for not realising that the edit summary comments were a personal attack. If I had realised I would have blocked the editor for that violation, as well as the 3RR. I did not issue a block in this instance because, although 3RR was violated, User:Qwl was not continuing the revert war and the article had been "cleaned" of their edits. As blocking is preventative rather than punitive I saw no point in blocking an editor who was no longer making those edits, so I decided to issue a warning instead. I hope this explains my actions and non-actions. LessHeard vanU19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh its fine. There is nothing to apologies about. If the disruption stops - I am cool with that. :) -- Catchi? 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[49]. User is still removing the material. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected. -- Catchi? 09:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I already have. It was ignored (only one of the checkusers made a normal check which is inadequate). See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30. My edits contain no advertisement of any kind and it cannot be considered spam. Please do not make dealing with disruption more difficult than it already is. -- Catchi? 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS clearly does not apply. I am asking people to tell me if they have the checkuser logs of a user that was banned by arbcom for a year that can be used for a checkuser of a current case. I am not even asking for the logs themselves. I am not soliciting opinions as no opinion was presented. -- Catchi? 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not "mass messaging" of a random/opinionated group of people hence WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS can't apply. I am not advocating any view by requesting weather or not someone has a log file or not. I am simply asking weather or not they have the logs or not with a detailed explanation on why I am requesting it.
Not every check user reviewes every case, certainly not a closed stale case. I cannot request a checkuser since the logs on wikimedia servers are gone for diyako/xebat and his armada of sockpuppets. I need someone with the right log files in order to file the case.
It makes no difference for me to post something on a sub page in my userspace and link to it on individual userpages. Take it to ANB/I if you like and see if it sticks. I do not have to mail people.
I do not edit war. Wouldn't it also fall under WP:CANVASS if I did that? More people would see my post. -- Catchi? 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
White Cat's request of checkusers has a serious purpose with the aim of improving Wikipedia and seems to be in order. If the Canvassing guideline says he shouldn't contact checkusers to see if they retain private copies of checkuser logs concerning a sanctioned editor, it's wrong and should be ignored. --Tony Sidaway16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against contacting. Proper channels of communications should be used rather than whole-sale spamming of checkusers' talk pages. For e.g. the ArbCom mailing list, private emails or WT:RFCU. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}11:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Kurdistan is also a wannabe defacto country and lacks any definition of borders. If you google for "Kurdistan map" you'll see what I mean. What falls inside and outside of Kurdistan (or its very existence for that mater) is disputed. So it is a problematic term. Perhaps you may want to categorize the maps as being relevant to the Kurdish people as these maps are always about them (weather its Kurdish homelands or ethnic composition). It would have a definite scope and non-controversial title at the same time. -- Catchi? 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I am uncertain. Maybe something along the lines of Category:Maps related to Kurdish people. You may be able to have a better wording in mind since you deal with such categories in bulk. :) -- Catchi? 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats different. On Commons "Kurdistan" refers to Iraqi Kurdistan. Thats possible as a subcat of "Maps of Iraq" in a non controversial manner. Your edit however made it highly controversial :) -- Catchi? 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the commons is supposed to use the English wikipedia decisions on naming. In order to avoid repeating all the naming battles. I don't care either way how the Kurdistan maps are categorized. So I linked to the relevant wikipedia and commons categories and articles. I figured I'd let others discuss it first before I changed anything. Maybe you can ask at the various commons talk pages and see what others say. Let me know what you find out. I suggest asking at Category talk:Maps. Also, there is no need to reply on my talk page. Please reply here. I have your talk page watchlisted. --Timeshifter18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is commons. Commons often use English naming schemes but not always. For instance all plants and animals have Latin names. It may be better for you to post this there, I'll comment after you do. -- Catchi? 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The situation has completely changed since then I believe. There is in no way that those Air episode articles are going to be made ever again. Those articles all lacked secondary sources, and I now would actively promote their deletion if you were to recreate them. As for the character articles, only the 4 main characters should deserve separate articles per WP:FICT, while the others should be kept in the List of Air characters article.--十八11:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not asking about their current situation. I am asking if you are going to help or not. You said you would back then. i see no change in the situation. I have waited this long. -- Catchi? 12:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And I am saying that it depends on a few things. Yes, I am free, but if you go blatently against policy, then I am not going to help you. We've had our share of differences in the past, and we still disagree on some of the finer points.--十八12:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the discussion we had. Your approach to me is almost hostile. You said yourself you did want Air articles to have the coverage of Kannon (or something like that). -- Catchi? 12:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And as I said above, the situation has drastically changed, and my opinion is different now. The Kanon episode articles, and the minor characters for Kanon, have all been removed by me per the policies set at WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. Currently, the Kanon set of articles is nearly identical to the Air set of articles, except Kanon has 6 separate articles for the 6 main characters. Air should also, in my opinion, get 4 separate articles for the 4 main characters, but nothing beyond that. No Air (anime), or Air (manga) articles, or anything else; just those 4 articles. Nothing else has to be made, or can be made realistically without going aganisnt policy.--十八12:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are guidelines, not policies. Will you help or not. Please do not lecture me on policy when I am asking if you will participate in an article improvement drive or not. -- Catchi? 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually forget it, this is being far too unpleasant to begin with. -- Catchi? 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Dictionaries
How dare you call my contribution spam!!! I am a Kurd and I made a lsit of kurdish dictionaries. you bloody turkish nationalist and atoricity commiting bone breaking Nazi. watch out folk this slimy Turk is trying to censor the internet this is not undemocratic Turkey here, no prison cells in wikipedia you stupid Turk! And you buggers want membership to the EEC—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jopling100 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading following images. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description pages and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Are you going to start a request for checkuser case or should I? If it can be proved that those IP addresses were me, then surly it also could prove or disprove if I am a sockpuppet of Diyako or Xebat. --D.Kurdistani00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind discussing why you moved that? Shakespeare's play is "A Midsummer Night's Dream" not "Midsummer Night's Dream". There is a disambiguation link on top of the page. -- Catchi? 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? Read the Talk page -- the vast majority of users who came to that page did so by mistake. Do you really expect that everyone who is searching for the Shakespeare play is required to know that it starts with the word "A" and include that in their search? --Russ(talk)15:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am always serious when I post such a thing.
The talk page conversation is most uncivil and even one of the posters was a vandal (which you have reverted). I do not see an adequate discussion to move the page.
Consider a search for "Midsummer Night's Dream", as you can see the first hit is "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and second one is "Midsummer Night's Dream". If people typo and forget to put an 'A' in front of the title the first line they read will show them their mistake to them.
And yes I generally expect people to either use the "search" function or know the exact title in what they are looking for.
Your comment about search results is applicable only if a user chooses the "search" button instead of the "go" button. Be that as it may, I think the issue should be posted at WP:RM to allow a broader discussion, rather than have you and I go back and forth about what makes more sense. --Russ(talk)16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. Though I,d like to add that the "go" button is reserved almost completely for "exact" titles. -- Catchi? 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and just to be clear -- when I said "Are you serious?" I didn't mean were you serious about wanting the page at a particular title, but were you serious about not understanding my reason for moving it. --Russ(talk)21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, its fine :) -- Catchi? 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
OH! How could I miss that! :D -- Catchi? 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I see you are more active with cfds. I'd like to use my bot to assist you with decategorization and recategorization. :) Is there a central list for this? I would like to work on a particular nom right after you close it making a backlog non-existant. -- Catchi? 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe it is that simple. We generally sort historic sites by country not ethnicity. What if a site is partially built by Kurdish and Turkish peoples?
Consider Ephesus, it has Ancient Greek and Roman origin. It isn't categorized as a "Greek city" though.
I can but why? :) It may be used later on. Does it cause a problem? -- Catchi? 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Why? Just routine maintenance, I suppose. I encountered the page while randomly browsing through templates and suggested deleting it because it is unused and has been for a while. I also can think of no conflict where there have been four distinct (i.e., not allied) fighting sides. If you think it merits retention, would you please replace the "temporary template" message with some basic documentation (nothing too detailed, but so that someone can know how to use it if the need ever arises). Thanks, Black Falcon(Talk)18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done as you asked. I really think the template may be used for a 4-way conflict. There are plenty of those - mostly allied two sides which can be presented individually with this. -- Catchi? 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. :) -- Catchi? 08:34, 14 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? --Kumioko15:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merely fixed an ugly looking template. I do not know much about the Iraq war itself aside from the fact that we have a lot of articles on it. We can merge multiple templates yes. Which templates did you have in mind? I would prefer a chronological listing over an alphabetical one. -- Catchi? 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why should I take the deletion of something in my userspace to the MfD? User:Cool Cat underwent an mfd (closure was reverted 4 times by Ned Scott) and later drv (by Ned Scott). My userspace and how I organize it is completely my thing. I can alter it as I please. I do not even have to maintain archives.
Whats wrong with me reorganizing pages in my userspace? Ned Scott has been repetitively attempting to dictate how I am do organize my userspace.
What's wrong is that you are causing a large amount of drama (as evidenced by the many ANI threads) over something trivial. You said you want the talk page archives to point to your proper talk page. Fixing these broken redirects is the easiest way of resolving that. You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that the literal wording of the rules must be applied at all times. >Radiant<13:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "drama" is a product of Ned Scott's reverts of my edits. I am not the cause of the drama, Ned Scott is. I am explictly allowed to request the speedy deletion of anything on my userspace. Please do not recreate them again. -- Catchi? 13:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
False, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You are mistaking the letter of the rule with the spirit of the rule. Speedy deletion is for deletions that are not controversial; these pages have proven controversial, and hence should not be speedily deleted. >Radiant<13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing controversial about me reorganizing my userspace, the suggestion is rather strange. Please take it to WP:DR or directly to WP:ARBCOM or else, leave it alone. Thanks. -- Catchi? 13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
False. As the ANI threads prove, your means of reorganizing things does cause controversy. I'd suggest you quit playing ostrich. >Radiant<13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to arbcom or whatever process you feel like. I have no intention of allowing Ned Scott or someone else dictate how I am to organize my userspace. I have no intention of stopping editing my userspace. If my edits to my own userspace is leading to drama, so be it. -- Catchi? 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
While 3rr does not cover my userspace, I will do as you ask. -- Catchi? 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
A request
I think the root problem here is that, although I asked you to stop editing your signature, you found a way to continue (changing the links instead of the usernames). Could you please stop doing this? Things will probably get back to normal if you stop editing your signature in archive pages. That's what seems to be annoying so many otherwise fair-minded Wikipedians. It may seem like a small thing, and you may wonder what it has to do with them, but evidently your edits do cause a lot of drama and the drama rebounds on you and not on them. So in your own interests, although it may seem unfair, it is better to stop. --Tony Sidaway18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am hereby employing m:Right to vanish. I request all content in my userspace, usertalk space on all 3 of my usernames to be deleted. I am done here. -- Catchi? 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I will ask Jimbo Wales if this request isn't met within 24 hours. -- Catchi? 18:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)-- Catchi? 18:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there is nothing in the user name change policy that mandates users to redirect their user pages, I do not understand why changing links causes such drama. It is possible that people Cool Cat has prevously alienated are over-reacting? As long as he does not make misleading changes to archive content, is there any real reason to object? Thatcher13118:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't. But I have been putting up with this nonsense for quite some time now. After getting rid of Davenbelle and his socks I was able to edit comfortably for a few months. Those were the happiest times of mine. Now other people such as User:Ned Scott is filling in for the role of Davenbelle. I will not bother waisting a full 2 years with this one either. Who know... he probably is a sockpuppet or maybe he isn't - not that it matters. -- Catchi? 19:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh come off it, Cat, I barely interact with you, revert a hand full of edits, and you freak out. It's your own fault, and it has nothing to do with harassment or stalking. -- Ned Scott05:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my fault that you reverted my edits? Why did you revert my edits? -- Catchi? 06:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. Do you or do you not want all your userspace pages deleted? I'm in the process of tagging (see below), and currently I'm still in the Cool Cat sub-pages, which are all or mostly redirects. If I continue I'll be tagging every single page, including your userpage, for deletion.
{{db|[[User:White Cat]], formerly [[User:CoolCat]] and [[User:Cool Cat]], has asked on [[User talk:White Cat]] for all of his user pages to be deleted under [[m:Right to vanish]].}}
I'll have them deleted as long as they don't contain any substantive edits (if they're just copies of what's in your talk page history that will probably be okay). --Tony Sidaway19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I have ceased monitoring any page on the project so I recommend posting things on my talk page. -- Catchi? 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Am I to understand that you don't want User:White Cat itself deleted? If so, in order to comply with your wishes in a clean way I'll probably edit it so as to "subst" any transcluded userspace pages and then delete everything else in your userspace. --Tony Sidaway19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My userpage is a work of art. It shall be my "head-stone" on this project; just get archives deleted and I'll be fine with it. Me tagging them myself is considered controversial and disruptive so I ask you to preform this task. -- Catchi? 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay I've tagged all of your talk page archives with the following notice, and most of them have already been deleted:
{{db-userreq|rationale=[[User:White Cat]], formerly [[User:CoolCat]] and [[User:Cool Cat]], has asked on [[User talk:White Cat]] for all of his talk archive pages to be deleted under [[m:Right to vanish]]. The history of [[User talk:White Cat]] already contains every single edit ever made on his user talk page since he started editing in February 2005.}}
Oh I want nothing to be migrated. Anything that is in use can stay here. I just wanted pages like my archives and history pages deleted. -- Catchi? 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My sig links can/should stay too :/ -- Catchi? 12:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
"Either obey or obey" is not a part of WP:DR. That would not fix my archive redirects. -- Catchi? 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Also inter namespace redirects aren't allowed I believe. -- Catchi? 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Either obey or obey" is not a part of WP:DR - Nor are they dessert toppings or floor waxes -- which is just as much a non sequitor, perhaps even less so, than that bit of handwaving. Hint: objections should be made about things that are actually said instead of making up incoherent nonsense to rail at.
Also inter namespace redirects aren't allowed I believe - "User:OLDNAME to User:NEWNAME" is an inter-namespace redirect? Are you sure you know what "inter" means? --Calton | Talk14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You altered your comment - No, I corrected my comment, and my meaning and intent should have been and should be clear to anyone with the slightest bit of logical and reading comprehension skills.
I do not desire to continue this - Of course, given your unwillingness -- and probable inability -- to answer direct questions honestly, favoring instead misdirections, irrelevancies, and stuff made up out of whole cloth.
So, to repeat: add "#REDIRECT [[User:White Cat]]" to User:Cool Cat. Presto, done. And yet, you not only don't, you've taken active steps to prevent it and spout nonsense when asked why. More than a little suspicious, if you ask me. --Calton | Talk00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then take it to ArbCom. -- Catchi? 06:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Kirk.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kirk.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kirk.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ejfetters 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I find this entire interaction to be distasteful. It would have been much much easier if you simply stated that there was a better replacement image rather than wasting my time with fair-use rationales and etc. In the future please just simply tell me what it is that you are doing without involving redundant policies. Thanks. -- Catchi? 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for upsetting you, it was not my intention. I stated on the images for deletion page it should be replaced with a screencap and waited a bit, but I figured I would try to be of help instead of saying what to do, and just upload it for you. I will try not to upset you in the future, sorry. Ejfetters 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. I look forward in working with you again since I now realize you were trying to help while going by the book. :) -- Catchi? 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh the image is deleted yet it is on commons. Fun. Admiral Alan G. Kirk. Not James T. Kirk :) -- Catchi? 16:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I find it odd that you are including in your evidence things that I'm openly admitting to on the talk page itself, such as the minor dispute with Freak. Are you that desperate to try to discredit me? Reposting stuff that I just said, trying to spin it around? Sorry, it's not going to work. -- Ned Scott04:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Civility should be observed at all times especially on an RFC claiming that you are breaching the policy. I do not "discredit" people. I am merely posting a comment you made as additional evidence. Frankly I am confused with your comment. Would you mind elaborating? -- Catchi? 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Turkopedia
Merhaba WhiteCat!
I want to create an encyclopedia on the Wikia website called Turkopedia. It will be in English, and will be all about everything to do with Turkey and Turkish people.
Unfortunately I need at least 20 people (including me, so there's 19 people left) to assist me in this project. Would you like to take part?
Would it be okay if I went through the RFC and trimmed out stuff not directly related to your dispute? I think you would stand a better chance of achieving something useful if you did that. --Tony Sidaway18:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could do that but I have some concerns... If you can address these, I'd be more than happy to do as you ask.
I want this to be resolved without the involvement of arbcom but that appears increasingly unlikely as Ned Scott's behaviour hasn't been improving at all and has been getting worse. His attitude is outright hostile now. He is displaying incivility even at the talk page of the RFC. When I point it out, he complained about it again in not a very civil tone.
Also, my complaint about Ned Scott isn't just about his behaviour towards me but his general behavior towards others such as yourself. If this does go to arbcom, I want to be able to present a "complete" rfc.
How about separating the evidence to two sections/lists? Would that be an acceptable compromise?
Not at all. You bring up things that are not issues and attack my character for your sig changes, and that's what it comes down to. My behavior on Wikipedia is fine, and finding a handful of examples out of thousands doesn't change reality. I might be harsh with you, but given the total nonsense you tend to put the community through, I'm doing pretty good. There will be no resolution, and no, there will be no arbcom. You've turned an RfC into an attack, plain and simple. You've blown up a minor issue way past what it should have been. I've taken minimal effort to defend myself in the RfC, simply because it's not worth the time. If you think you can throw an arbcom case at me, I'll be glad to prove you wrong on every point of your complaint. -- Ned Scott02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. -- Catchi? 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to, you do not need my permission for that. I trust you more than that. :) -- Catchi? 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I really think you should get rid of everything not directly related to the current dispute. There is a feeling that you're throwing the kitchen sink at him. Those matters are not really to be resolved on this RfC. --Tony Sidaway19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pretty much. It seems that Cat is using RFC as a step-towards-Arbcom, rather than an attempt to actually resolve anything. Regardless of whether that's his intent, it just looks iffy. I'm not sure how responsive the medcom is these days, perhaps one of them could intervene? >Radiant<12:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps you could add a section at the bottom, "statement by Tony", that briefly explains what is actually going on here, without all the superfluosity. >Radiant<13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to mediate so long as Ned Scott maintains his current uncivil tone. Mediation can only work in a civil environment. -- Catchi? 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is my third and final request. The RfC will fail unless you permit me to edit the complaint to make a coherent description of the current dispute. If you do not grant me this request, I will have to remove my certification. --Tony Sidaway15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You are more than welcome to, you do not need my permission for that. I trust you more than that." means you are more than welcome to edit the rfc with or without my permission because I trust you. I do not understand why you put a "I will have to remove my certification" up there? -- Catchi? 15:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My fault, I didn't see your reply to my second request. I was saying I'd remove certification if the RfC remained in its current (unsatisfactory) form. --Tony Sidaway16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It was partially my fault too since I did not update the thread here and at my talk page. Simple misunderstandings... :) -- Catchi? 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have been closing requests in this area and that your bot has been actioning them. You may not be aware that your actions, such as here, are in conflict with the instructions on the page. I have no doubt that you have good intentions, but I'm going to ask that you please stop closing these requests and please stop performing the moves until such time as these requests are closed properly and listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. If you would like to discuss this, please respond here (not on my page) as I have added this page to my watchlist. --After Midnight000113:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Practically all of the cases were simple capitalization fixes/typos. I did not think further discussion on the specific cases were necesary. In the future I can wait for debates to be moved to that page in question. I just wanted to accelerate things as the backlog was filling up unnecessarily. I can however do as you ask though I really feel cutting back on bureaucracy would be beneficial. -- Catchi? 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not one of too much bureaucracy. Speedy exists so that something doesn't need to wait the entire 5 days for a decision, but speedies do still need to wait the 48 hours prescribed. Items are not considered backlogged until after the 48 hours is completed. Like I said, I know your intentions are good, so I don't want to make a big deal of this, it is just that sometimes even the obvious ones do receive legitimate objections during that 48 hour window. --After Midnight000117:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Wikimood meter
No, they should stay as they are. Besides, "depressed" is a less-intense emotion than "frustrated". I labelled these wikimoods so that the emotions are more intense the further they are from the zero point. -- Denelson8323:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A template you created, Template:Archive2, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you went ahead and turned the page into a redirect. If it isn't going to be used, do you have any objection to me simply deleting the template? Cheers. --MZMcBride17:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not. Go right ahead. -- Catchi? 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Japan taskforces
In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Fullmetal Alchemist Ep 51.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fullmetal Alchemist Ep 51.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Temp page, as in the title, the actual page is at Floyd James Thompson and has been active for some time
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Floyd James Thompson/Temp, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 220:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free use disputed for Image:Star_Trek-First_Contact-Phoenix.jpg
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Star_Trek-First_Contact-Phoenix.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to the above images. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description pages and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus OmniaTalk02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFC
Hope you don't mind, but I've removedNed Scott's RFC from the list of open RfCs, because I think it's resolved and it wouldn't make sense to flaunt that dead dispute. Please do restore it if you disagree. --Tony Sidaway20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the "dispute" is over. Time will tell if it has. -- Catchi? 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed people are still editing that page. I do not know what to make of it. :) -- Catchi? 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, User:Melsaran edited it, the first in ten days. That's why I thought it as well to give it some kind of formal closure. I hope that you and Ned will be able to co-exist from now on. I know that both of you will inform me if this proves difficult. --Tony Sidaway21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope
Sorry, but I don't know anything about anime, and don't really have any interest in it. There are lots of people who know Japanese and are into anime, though, so keep looking! Madler 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry/What articles?
Would you be interested in help expanding a series of Anime related articles? I need help from a Japanese speaking person to add material from Japanese sources. -- Catchi? 17:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It would mostly depend on what articles you're hoping to expand. I'd be happy to help if it's an anime that I know something about, but I, unfortunately, don't have the time right now to read up from scratch about anime I've never heard of. Feel free to post a list of articles on my talk page and I'll let you know. Thanks! -Sarfa23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A concern was raised that the articles in question did not have adequate out of universe material such as information on the production or information on the cultural references such as the reception it received. Information on ratings, awards a particular episode received would also be a helpful addition.
If you could help perfect just one of the articles, I could use it as a metric for future reference. Of course I would more than welcome any additional help as well.
Thats part of the problem. Information is mostly in Japanese as the show it self is of Japan origin. I bet there are Anime critics out there (there are critics for everything) but I do not know how to acquire that information. Just like their western counterparts, I bet there are sites documenting ratings of spesific shows. But I do not know where these sites are.
As for the movie, I am uncertain where to look for them. Have you tried checking out featured movie articles?
I really want to work on the episode articles first since movie article is less problematic.
Yes, but I have no access to such commentaries. :( -- Catchi? 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me to help! I will try to add stuff that is Wikipedia-quality, but my translations, as some of my friends say, are not entirely correct or have slight meaning variations. Having someone double-check my edits would help...GreenRunner000:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is ok. I will check after you :) -- Catchi? 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Username change
Hi I was wondering what tool have you used. I want to preform similar edits for my former username. -- Catchi? 10:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. Would you consider the use of a tool for the task disruptive? -- Catchi? 10:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving at a fairly face pace and I'm leary of trying not to be disruptive. A bot is considerably faster than me, so it probably shouldn't be used for a task like this. I'm also getting rid of my old name because of real life, not because I don't like prefer the name anymore, so that may or may not be a factor. — Moeε11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bot edit would not register on the watchlist of peoples and would be safely ignored by people aside from those who want to explicitly see it. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything by the way. Bots would be more efficient in dealing with the task. -- Catchi? 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure a bot would be approved for this work, but you're more than willing to try again (as it's my understanding that you tried once). I know you weren't trying to accuse me of anything :) — Moeε13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now some people has the belief is that signature alterations is something completely controversial. Their belief wont change if enough people say the contrary. Bots can only be used for non-controversial tasks and for me sig corrections are jaw-dropingly non-controversial. I was wondering your personal stance. -- Catchi? 13:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's mostly non-controversial, the only issue with it is that it wastes time to do so, but it's my time to waste for the sake of privacy. For bots, approval for a single task like yours, is probably unneeded and would probably get shot down for bot status. You probably shouldn't get more trouble if you start it again, but I'm not making guarentees. — Moeε13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot people had painted a different picture during my second request for bot approval which was shot down immediately. The discussion didn't even lasted half a day. I want a 3rd request with this "consensus" that sig fixes are nothing controversial. I am pretty much unsure on how to gather this consensus. I do not want to start a poll on this. -- Catchi? 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If they feel that strongly for bots to not change them, maybe you could just continue manually. I never really got any guff from it, you really shouldn't get any either. If you feel inclined to remove your old sig, there shouldn't be anything to stop you, but getting a bot approval may just be a waste of time and get unwanted results. Just remove some manually every day in non-masses and ease it in so no "disruption" is possible. — Moeε14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September
Image:Kurdish Kingdoms of Corduene-Sophene.jpg
The stuff you removed ([52]) was swearing in Turkish. "Not land, you'll get arm sized dick". Thought you would want to know.
Also why are you categorizing images from commons on en.wiki? (Your categorization is a bit controversial even if you did not intend this btw)
I moved this from my talk page to here to keep it in one thread. I will watchlist this page for awhile. Thanks for the translation. What categorizations are controversial? I try my best to follow precedents. I occasionally make unintended mistakes, and people correct them. There is discussion concerning commons and wikipedia image categorization at
Kurdistan is a controversial term. Much like Palestine, though only worse. What falls inside Kurdistan and what doesn't is not really defined anywhere. The borders are ambiguous at best. Some people seek to form an independent Kurdistan country though to this date no one has made the official claim of independence.
So putting a map on a "Kurdistan" related category is not problem free and somewhat problematic. What I mean is by putting anything into that category we are declaring Kurdistan borders - something not even CIA dares (the call the place Kurdish-inhabited region and hence cleverly avoiding a "Kurdistan" term).
(unindent) It is really not important to me either way. Feel free to categorize the Kurdistan-related maps in whatever way you want. I was following the previous naming precedents in the related articles. I did not participate in those discussions. I was just categorizing maps. From Kurdistan (disambiguation):
Kurdistan may refer to:
Kurdistan, a geo-cultural region consisting of parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan
It seems that in English "Kurdistan" means the whole region. But I could be wrong. But I will not object to any categorization scheme you come up with concerning those maps. Just go ahead and do it.--Timeshifter13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Looks good. I do want to further inquire that perhaps it may be even better to merge ethnic map categories perhaps? I mean a category for just 3 images feels a bit excessive. -- Catchi? 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There are more maps now. I keep finding more on the related pages. It kind of defeats the purpose of categorization to merge ethnic map categories. People would have to click each map to see which ethnic group they applied to. --Timeshifter15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, why not use Category:Kurdish people then? Categories can be passed values to sort all maps together. -- Catchi? 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Kurdistan is working," said Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdistan Regional Government's minister of oil and gas. "If we sit down and do nothing we are not doing our job. We are doing our job for the country."
So I think this category breakdown is clearer for the average reader of wikipedia and the news. And it avoids the confusion surrounding the old and new meanings of Kurdistan. See the geography section of w:Kurdistan. I believe wikipedia is supposed to lean toward the common names today. --Timeshifter17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no solid Kurdistan today.
There is a "geographic" Kurdistan which some people wish it to be a country. Turkey for example does not recognise this as a geographic region. Turkish diplomats will abandon any international event of any kind if a map of Kurdistan is displayed. Past such incidents have resulted in apologies of highest degrees. (hence the controversy)
There is a federal state in Northern Iraq (your example) which neither Turkish Kurdistan or Iranian Kurdistan is a part of. There is no such territorial clam by anyone. Iraqi Kurdistan claims to be a part of Iraq so it should be treated in a maner how daota is a part of the US.
Kurdistan province (Iran) (actually "Kordestan"), an official province of Iran which has nothing to do with the Iraqi entity. It is merely an administrative province and should be treated as such.
I agree with everything you said. But "Kurdistan" is still a common name representing a region inhabited by significant populations of Kurdish people. Are you suggesting that wikipedia not use the name Kurdistan because the Turkish government does not like it? The articles make clear everything you said. What exactly do you suggest changing concerning categorization? --Timeshifter19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines#8 Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; A list might be a better option.
That was what I had in mind... Kurdistan does not equal Kurdish inhabitance. There are areas that Kurds live that are not covered in the maps such as Nashville, Tennessee. Kurdistan as a term should not be used leisurely as Kurdistan is still a political and controversial term today. Anything included in it is just like a political statement of endorsement (which isn't the point of categories).
Category:Kurdish people contains no images and I do not understand why these can't be categorized under it.
(unindent) There is no statement of endorsement. It is just a long-used, cross-border regional category. From the introduction of Category:Kurdistan that someone copied from the Kurdistan article:
Encyclopædia Britannica: Kurdistan - traditional region, an extensive plateau and mountain area inhabited mainly by Kurds, including large parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia.
Columbia Encyclopedia: Kurds - a non-Arab Middle Eastern minority population that inhabits the region known as Kurdistan, an extensive plateau and mountain area in SW Asia (c.74,000 sq mi/191,660 sq km), including parts of E Turkey, NE Iraq, and NW Iran and smaller sections of NE Syria and Armenia.
Dictionary.com: Kurdistan - An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia.
Many category names cover controversial topics. There is no endorsement by wikipedia. Just like there is no endorsement implied by the names for many categories covering controversial issues. People have to read and make up their own minds. For example:
Do we tag the invasion of Iraq or Normandy under war crimes? Of course not, it would be controversial to do so even if some people may agree with the assesment. Category:Torture in China: the inclusion of the torture technique is done in a non-controversial way. Existence of a dispute over a spesific territory can be established non-controversially. No one is disputing the territory dispute over Kashmir region (Pakistan-India conflict).
All of the sources define the region ambiguously and are not even in an agreement on which counties Kurdistan supposed to occupy. There is no single source that regulates the borders of Kurdistan so any inclusion should be committed with that in mind.
Even the "by country" example of yours is problematic because you are implying country status to Kurdistan by doing so. Note that the sources you found claim it to be a mere traditional region. Tradition alone is a poor inclusion criteria as you may agree.
If the intended scope is Kurdish people, feel free to tag accordingly. It is entirely possible to evade the controversial term "Kurdistan" by naming it "Kurdish people" related instead.
For example "Image:Kurdish Kingdoms of Corduene-Sophene.jpg" seems to be about Kurdish kingdoms and not Kurdistan. Tagging it under Kurdistan is not self evident and on the contrary problematic. Tagging it under "Kurdish history" however would be encouraged, at least by me.
It is currently tagged under Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions. As for Category:Kurdistan it is not controversial that it is a common name. Just like it is not controversial that the word "apartheid" is a common name. So apartheid is in wikipedia article and category names. Same is true for "war crimes" and "torture".
But some of the articles placed in those categories cover controversial subjects where the allegations of apartheid, war crimes, and torture are very much under dispute. Yet they are placed in those categories. Wikipedia does not endorse the allegations by placing the articles in those categories.
With Kurdistan it is actually a lot less controversial. Because it has at least a century of use as a common name for a geocultural region. Wikipedia is not endorsing anything by putting Kurdistan in article and category names. There is more talk at commons:Category talk:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions. It is only one name being used.
Are you at a disagreement with me or not, I am quite confused. "Kurdistan" is a highly controversial term much like "Nazi Germany" and should not be used leisurely. This is a general statement. Do you agree with it or not? -- Catchi? 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Your point? I said "should not be leisurely used", I did not say "ban the usage". Should I reference to current German president as the president of a Nazi Germany just because it is a "Common name"? No one claims that the current German president to be the head of a Nazi Germany. No one claims Kurdistan to be a country. I do not understand why we as wikipedia go out of our way to treat Kurdistan like a country. -- Catchi? 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not treating Kurdistan like a country. Neither does wikipedia. And where does wikipedia say that the current German president is the president of Nazi Germany? --Timeshifter20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying you are. I am saying that the terms should not be used leisurely. -- Catchi? 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:Ah! My Goddess (TV) logo 1.png
Image Copyright problem
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Ah! My Goddess (TV) logo 1.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image source problem with Image:Ah! My Goddess (TV) logo 2.png
Image Copyright problem
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Ah! My Goddess (TV) logo 2.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT13:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea might have some merit. However, a WikiProject is probably not the best way to go. What we're probably talking about here would be something along the lines of policy, not project. As such, it would probably be best to propose it at the Wikipedia:Village pump, possibly as a suggested policy guideline, with a page written out describing what you think the actions, qualifications, and limitations of the group would be. Be aware that a lot of people would react negatively to anything they perceive as being "beauracracy creep", and that this has a real chance of becoming that. Alternately, you might contact the people at Wikimedia Commons about setting up such a group there, as all free images are allegedly being tried to be deposited there anyway. John Carter15:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing policy is that "unfreee images must not be tagged as free". And the wikiproject was intended to reinforce that..
The images are on English wikipedia so they need to be tagged here so that they can be moved to commons. I actually am a commons admin and I do hope to set this up on commons too though freely licensed non-free media is not much of a problem on commons as they are shot on sight unlike how it is on en where they are overlooked.
I do want the project to be run by a selected group of people despite the objections. During the transaction on Spanish Wikipedia (at which the community decided to disabled uploads and moved every free-image to commons) we had to deal with so many freely licensed non-free image uploads. This transaction should not be a bother for commons people. There is no point to the tagging if it is going to be conducted by the same people who falsely use the free license. Of course the group would not be a cabal but I think what I seek with this is not all that obscure. WP:MEDCOM has elections for example.
I would welcome if you resurrected the idea either as a policy/guideline or as a wikiproject. I want to avoid any direct involvement as it would be treated with out most hostility, something I got used to. I would prefer to "join" the idea rather than "found" it at this point.
I unfortunately am a lot less well versed regarding the policies on images than many other people, including you, so anything I wrote would almost certainly be fairly useless. It sounds to me, based on what little I know, that you are simply requesting that there be some sort of review procedure, with well defined "steps" along the way, before having a "final" tag of free image placed on an image. That does sound a bit like a policy matter to me, though, so a project without the defined policy in place, including selection parameters, would probably be less than useful. Three people who might be useful (more useful than me, anyway) for maybe trying to helping you define the details of the idea would probably be User:Radiant, User:Steve block, and User:Extreme Unction, who between them had created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines some time ago. If you could create some sort of basic proposal page for the idea, though, including whatever specifics come to mind, that would probably help a lot. John Carter17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was told to perhaps give the idea a second chance.
What do you think? -- Catchi? 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think what you're proposing is redundant to Category:Wikipedia cleanup. What Wikipedia needs is less process, not more; therefore what we need is some admins and bots with decent judgment that simply remove the invalid images - not an Official Team to Investigate. >Radiant<12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing a process. I merely am proposing a convenient way to tag good/bad images. There is too much bureaucracy at the moment, this is intended to cut back on it.
If I wanted to delete a potentially unfree image I have to nominate it for deletion rather than a tag and run. Any free image tagged like this can be salvaged under fair-use if applicable. But all this is overwhelming number of bureaucracy for a single user. Anyone can further review potentially bad images and either relicense them or delete them in a fast and efficient manner.
Moving a good image to commons itself is a lot of work. First you need to find a good image. You then have to save it to your drive, then copy the contents of the image description page (and its other contents such as image history) and upload the image to commons with all that. Later you need to categorize the image on commons. All of these steps can be handled by a bot aside from the first one (finding). A good free image category would do just that.
Some images are being repetitively reviewed. I have no way of knowing if you or someone else had already reviewed it. It would be wiser to review images that have never been reviewed rather than reviewing the same image repetitively. That is the other reason why tagging images is a good idea.
The idea is that no free image should be left on English wikipedia. That is the ideal situation. Right now the situation of the free images is terrible therefore Category:Wikipedia cleanup isn't working well. You are right though we do need more admins, good users and bots that check image copyrights. What I merely suggest is that they do this in an organized manner.
You are on shaky grounds having a selected group of people running the project, that was one of the issues with Esperanza. I'd concur with Radiant that you utilise existing clean up methods to achieve your goal, maybe raise a discussion at Wikipedia:Images for cleanup? Steve blockTalk12:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shaky grounds? For what? I am uninvolved with Esperanza. See post on my userpage why existing tools are more bureaucratic than the proposal. -- Catchi? 13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the comment was trying to connect you with Esperanza, simply saying that having chosen individuals running it would be similar to Esperanza, and maybe one of the reasons it was deactivated. If having selected people won't work, as they indicate above, maybe another way of doing this would be to have a defined process an image will have to go through, similar to the "B-class" assessment criteria of WP:MILHIST and other projects, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Quality scale. If you could define some "steps" an image should go through before being finally declared a free image, and maybe add some parameters to a template to the effect that a given image hasn't formally gone through that process, that might potentially work. John Carter13:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to not make a big deal of it and avoid bureaucracy. Copyrights are complex and you can't really have an assessment scale.
For example the photo of buildings and statues in Armenia are covered under a non-commercial FOP copyright. Hence not free enough and speedy deletable (or useable under fair-use). Or the Eiffel tower at night is fully-copyrighted even if you take the photo so it is only usable under fair-use - even that is sketchy at best. While morning photos without the lighting system is PD.
We ought to have a method on tagging good images so we do not repetitively re-review the same images over and over and over and over again. Rather than looking for bad images I prefer to categorize images as "good", "bad" and "at commons". You can actually see the wikiproject in action at tr:VP:MIT.
Have a read of the essay at WP:ESPERANZA, which should explian the issues with a closed shop leadership. I still think you're best off setting it up within the Clean-up remit, as Radiant indicates, but reading your posts leads me to believe you're going to plough your own furrow, which is fair enough. Steve blockTalk16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not seek any kind of leadership. I am uncertain what you mean by "plough your own furrow". I do not mind if the idea is incorporated with any existing system. -- Catchi? 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You stated above you wanted "a selected group of people running the project", which implies a leadership, hence my points regarding the issues with such a closed shop leadership/group of people running it. I'm not sure what it is you do not understand regarding the phrase "plough your own furrow", but doubt there is any mileage in continuing this any further. I was asked for input and have provided it. It's up to you to decide how you want to go forward, you don't need me in your ear for that. Good luck with it. Steve blockTalk09:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eiffel tower
Our article on the Eiffel tower suggests that these images are not copyrighted in the United States Eiffel Tower#_note-15. These byzantine country-specific copyright laws are still confusing for me - could you explain exactly what are the relevant issues for photos of "copyrighted buildings" and Wikimedia commons? I need some help understanding this area. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder you are confused, so is everyone! Copyrights are really complex :)
On Wikimedia Commons we respect local laws first. All images are intended to be "Free for All" or "Free for Most".
US Copyright law is meaningless for photos taken inside France soil as per Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in theory. You can legally take a free photo of the Eiffel tower at night outside of France (French soil and French waters) (to be more specific outside of EU as per EU laws which complicate the matter further). This is of course an extreme case and is a mess inside France alone.
Some countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan do not have a commercially free Freedom of panorama (more info commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama). Meaning even if you take the photo of a building, unless its author died over 70 years ago, it is commercially unusable and hence not free enough for commons.
Of course international copyright disputes are the nastiest and most complex kind.
Here's why I'm confused about the Berne convention (quoting from that article):
"The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals, which means that, for instance, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created."
That seems to imply that if the picture of the Eiffel tower is published in the US (and our servers are in the US) then US copyright law applies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Eiffel tower itself is published in France. Think of it like a statue. Photo of it is a derivative work. That at least is one side of the argument. -- Catchi? 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not, I'd rather be indef blocked... At least tolerate the damn signature. Even my signatures bother you people! -- Catchi? 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to tell us why you'll not amend the anchor part of your sig to prevent the redirect? It's why, for instance, SineBot is resigning your sigs - to it User:WhiteCat/07 != User:WhiteCat. I cannot see that you gain anything by the redirect, and so your preference for an indef block seems odd. --Tagishsimon(talk)17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason why I should explain why and how I sign. I am sick and tired of people finding this convenient excuse to bother me with. I am desperately wondering what next nonsense will be about...
As for the bot, it seems to be buggy and fixing this issue isn't all that hard. My signature does not even have to link to my user or user talk page.
There's no reason, beyond courtesy, why you should explain your /07 sig. Your choice. You say "", but WP:SIG says "At least one of those 2 pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talkpage and contributions log"--of course, your sig does satisfy this condition, albeit through a redirect. You could, if you like, consider that the point of someone like me asking this question, is to gain a better understanding of the way wikipedians use wikipedia, so as to iron out issues such as that you complained to SineBot's owner about. Or you could could choose (your own words) to be a dick. I'm sure you're not. And meanwhile, fwiw, I'm genuinely interested in the /07 thing, because you clearly do it for a purpose, yet I cannot fathom that purpose. Face it; encyclopedia-heads tend to be obsessed by seeking out information. --Tagishsimon(talk)07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, it is just that I am tired of some people (not you) making a big fuss over anything and everything I do. They just find "problem" out of thin air. I apologize for the semi-hostile tone.
As for your actual question IIRC after a discussion with (I think) pathoschild, he recommended a userspace redirect to clear "what links here." I originally used User:White Cat/sig just like pathoschild but later decided to switch to User:White Cat/07 to sort by year as what links here is useful to me to follow discussions I have been a participant of. The need actually arose when I was dealing with User:Diyarbakir/User:Moby Dick/User:Davenbelle for a third time. Finding past discussions had taken too much of my time. It also helps me follow any mention of my username. For instance the latest WP:ANB/I thread already appeared on it. Fundamentally this is its use, at least to me.
No that doesn't work. That doesn't display which ANI archive my post is in for example. Accessing archived comments take up too much time otherwise. It isn't a life and death situation but is useful to me. Also I am more interested in pages linking to my userpage or talk page directly as those are discussions concerning me. Such as the recent ani post. -- Catchi? 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh My Goddess! episodes
FYI, I have closed the discussion and redirected all of the episodes, but not the "movie". Please accept this outcome. If you do find reasonable sources to establish notability of specific episodes you are of course free to resurrect those articles and add the sources. If you do so, please also work towards a less plot-summary, in-universe format. Thank you. --Jack Merridew09:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another victory! I hope this makes you very very happy because it certainly does not make me happy. -- Catchi? 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and about the "not personal" thing, please do not insult my intelligence. I have no reason to believe your presence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott or on this very issue was a mere coincidence. Your (plural) attempt to get even is disruptive and I will leave it at that. -- Catchi? 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that after I posted the comment above, you "fixed" these again. I'm going to block the bot from editing if it keeps doing this. Redirects points to pages labeled "redirect with possibilities" using the standard template should not get "fixed". Michael Hardy16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot was acting in accordance with Wikipedia standard's on double redirects and under an approved RFBA. It should not have been blocked as it was doing the correct thing and I have unblocked it. -- JLaTondre17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, double redirects are problematic to the end user, the readers. The bot processes Special:DoubleRedirects page in accordance with Wikipedia:Double redirects. You are welcome to break the "double redirects" using the method mentioned above or by the use of {{softredirect}}'s to avoid the double redirection problem. Special:DoubleRedirects is a maintenance page almost completely processed by bots so anything showing there will be processed. I am not the only person operating a double redirect bot. Even if I did adjust my bot, someone else's bot would preform the edits. I hope this helps. -- Catchi? 18:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the images. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description pages and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
functionwpTextboxReplace(){varstr=prompt("Enter string to replace:","");if(str){varrepl=prompt("Replace \""+str+"\" with:","");if(!repl)return;vartxt=document.getElementById("wpTextbox1");txt.value=txt.value.replace(str,repl);}}addOnloadHook(function(){if(document.forms.editform){addPortletLink('p-tb','javascript:wpTextboxReplace()','Replace','ca-replace','Replace for the edit window');}});
You just fixed double redirects on Dick Donato. However, the Dick Donato article is under deletion review and the consensus is leaning strongly for restoration. When it's restored, would you please undo your changes to the redirects? Thanks. Wryspy17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to fix them. Which spesific redirects are we talking about? Double redirect fixing is not a topic-specific task and bot's preform the edits in a mindless manner. So I would have to manually fix them. -- Catchi? 18:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the images. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot13:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits do not require a justification last time I checked. This isn't a court. -- Catchi? 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You inappropriately removed another user's relevant and good-faithed comment. It's against policy, so please don't do it again. — [ aldebaer ]08:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is canvassing. That is what is against policy. The post was not made in good faith either and there is evidence supporting this. -- Catchi? 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not canvassing as in WP:CANVASS. I suppose you indeed have somewhat strong evidence if you're not even assuming good faith with him. But please please tell me that evidence, it's what I meant when I asked about justification for removing the comment. — [ aldebaer ]09:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I cannot assume good faith anymore is because of the evidence presented here and at the Ned Scott RFC. User has a strange fascination with my edits. Advertising an AfD to a delete-prone environment that has a good chance of turning into a flamewar can't be a good thing. -- Catchi? 09:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
A deletion prone environment?! I guess you haven't been following up on the discussions on WT:FICT lately. If I had a fascination with your edits then why is it that all of this happened only after you posted on WT:FICT? Why are all these things directly related to the discussion at hand, which you started on a talk page that I was already active on? Could it be that the AfD was in direct relation to your complaint about things not being listed for AfD, and just redirected? -- Ned Scott09:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this is related to my complaint. Among 2 million articles you just had to choose the one I edited less than a day ago. I suppose you are going to call this a random coincidence. Your second edit today had been related to the Porthos article. The following dozen edits were also related to it. You have no edits to the Porthos article or to the Johnathan Archer article so the page wasn't randomly on your watchlist. You aren't just stalking me but also maintaining a highly uncivil tone on the mentioned discussion. -- Catchi? 09:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What on Earth goes on in your head? Of course I selected that article because you felt it was notable. The discussion on WT:FICT is about notability of fictional elements. -- Ned Scott09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you nominated it strictly because I edited it and felt it was notable. This logic is well within WP:HA. You could have picked an unrelated test case, but that wouldn't cause annoyance or distress to me... -- Catchi? 10:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap, Cat, if you are getting distressed over Archer's Dog then you need to take a WikiBreak. Had it not been such an obvious candidate for deletion, I probably wouldn't have chosen it, but it was the easiest way to address your stance on notability. Take the article to a fair AfD and let the community decide. -- Ned Scott10:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the non-stop distress you cause me, I need lots of wikibreaks. Why should I take wikibreaks when you are the source of the problem? -- Catchi? 10:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No the problem is you dedicating your time to cause annoyance or distress to me. It has nothing to do with the article. You keep running into me on at least two occasions since the closure of the RfC. And I would like to note, this is despite me being very very inactive. -- Catchi? 10:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And you suddenly decide to join IRC... -- Catchi? 10:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"No the problem is you dedicating your time to cause annoyance or distress to me." WHAT? And, like I keep pointing out, you ran into me on WT:FICT, which is how this all started. But I don't have a problem with talking about things with you simply because you have a different opinion than I do. You, on the other hand, would have the world believe that I have raped and beaten you. -- Ned Scott10:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) yeah, I joined IRC right now because I felt like venting to some like minded individuals, something I commonly do. Get over yourself, Cat. -- Ned Scott10:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A great many editors on WT:FICT are there because they felt the guideline was too strict (in regards to sub-articles created for style reasons). It's hardly a place that backs up my own view 100%. Part of the reason I mentioned it there was to see how others felt about it, something I attempted a few sections up with another AfD, but it got side tracked. I also mentioned the AfD on the target article of the merge suggestion, and added it to two delsort pages. -- Ned Scott09:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Scott, do you think that maybe the edit summary you used when you nominated the article for deletion was highly inappropriate and added to the tension here? Newyorkbrad09:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal, Brad. If I give a chuckle because we have an article on Archer's dog, are you going to arrest me? -- Ned Scott10:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it was unhelpful because under all the circumstances it was obviously going to be inflammatory. If I ever see anything like that again in a nomination, I may close down the AfD. Newyorkbrad10:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, he does. Every member of the community has that kind of authority where they are free to contain bad-faith activities and disruption. I am not implying anything here, just asking you to be reasonable. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}10:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To return to the original topic for a moment: I didn't know about your history with each other nor was I aware of the RfC. However, removing that comment wasn't the most diplomatic approach either. — [ aldebaer ]15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that the articles have been mass blanked I hope. :) -- Catchi? 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't appeared on my watchlist. But i did revert one case of Vandalism on the Belldandy article. --Dynamo_ace 10:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
See the talk page of the episode list. All the episode articles have been ruled non-notable (and hence removed) until out-of-universe information could be found. I am looking for this information. I welcome you to assist. :) -- Catchi? 10:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that many Anime episode lists have had their episode articles removed, so this isn't a AMG problem. Sadly, i can't really help you on this apart from one thing. I think there were two voice actors for Belldandy in the Dub, if that helps.
I have been having to revert a big flaming on the CC article as well by the way. --Dynamo_ace 10:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Cat! I couldn't help but notice from your user page that you "make tons of edits" to a number of language wikipedia's for which you don't seem to have knowledge of the language. Could you tell me how this works? The only reason I ask is that I think that wikipedia might be a good tool to learn new languages. Also, if you don't mind asking, what do you mean by that phrase at the top of your user page, the one that has aiur? Pocopocopocopoco03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I edit mostly with my bots on those wikis. The idea is that "edits" do not have a weight and I am holding my contribution equal. The Aiur quote is from StarCraft by a Protoss dark templar. -- Catchi? 10:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to Belldandy there is no way I can miss :). By the way you into the series? -- Catchi? 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah megamisama? Yeah, I've been into the series. I noticed the misspelling of "modus operandi", so I figured that I might have a little fun with it. — Rickyrab | Talk21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC) you?[reply]
I have been working on the related articles. Do you know of any sources that has critical comentary and reception related information? -- Catchi? 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was originally working on the episode articles. They had been mass blanked over notability concerns. So that is an area you could help me with. Character articles also need some work. -- Catchi? 22:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I would have considered this an acceptable compromise had it been mentioned once on that discussion. People preferred a forceful and covert deletion request instead... I think it looks fine as it is now. Though the "voiced by" section is a bit charmed and I really would like to seperate the Japanese (original) and English (later) voice actors just like how it was on the original template. This would resolve most of the redundant repetitive (English)/(Japanese) referances in the infobox as well solving the problem I just mentioned. -- Catchi? 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this better for the 'voiced by' lists? It's a bit hard to tell because with the template deleted I can't line the old and new formats up side by side like I normally would. Sorry people didn't discuss these formatting options with you beforehand. If this looks good I'll try to help update the other infoboxes in the series. --CBD11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. On the older infoboxes fields were separated with a field. As it is now it is a bit hard to tell which one is "seiyu" and "voice actress". Take a look at http://www.answers.com/topic/belldandy for example. I really like the new "Profile" and "Information" seperators. I cannot express my gratitude enough, I thank you again for your efforts. -- Catchi? 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I almost like it as much as the original if not more. There are 6 minor things I would love to see fixed. One the width of the infobox should be 250px. Two the text should be aligned right "Species" "Seiyu". Three same text should be <small>ified to save space. Four the "Species" should contain a colon (':') at the end (looks nicer IMHO). Five same text should occupy a single line and not warp to a next line (with previous fixes this should be easier to achieve). Six the same text should link to the relevant articles (ex "Elemental Affinity" linking to Classical element). If these are done it would be perfection. If these are done the end product will be much better than the original. -- Catchi? 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is closer. I couldn't put links on some of the fields without impacting the appearance of other templates, but I think I got most of the issues. Also copied over the shading on the left column from the original template. --CBD00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed two more things. Could the text be bold too... and the back ground colored (you mentioned it). I know I am being picky. I hope I am not being too much of a bother :( -- Catchi? 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There may be an intermediate template for Oh My Goddess for all these "fixes" so that we do not need to repetitively pass the same parameters perhaps? -- Catchi? 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Which text do you think should be bold? The 'header' cells (left column and three 'title' sections) are bold by default. The right column could also be made bold if that is what you mean. I added the background shading to the left column with the prior set of updates. I had been thinking that an 'intermediate template' would make sense, but wouldn't be surprised if there were pushback on that. --CBD18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the text on the left. It looks different from how it looked on the former template. Also consider archiving your talk page. :) -- Catchi? 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I was distracted. We can continue. -- Catchi? 12:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference in the text on the left is likely due to the size. The old template had this text at 95% and then enclosed in <small> tags. The new template has it at 80%, which looks about the same on my browser, but the HTML 'small' setting varies by browser and screen configuration. It should be possible to tweak the formatting parameters to get to the same look as before. People seem to have stopped futzing about with the changes now so the template should be stable. --CBD06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove categories like this, thank you. -- Catchi? 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
When categories will no longer be used, remaining items are removed. There are no longer any episodes to populate the category, so after the orphaned images are deleted, the category will be placed for speedy deletion through the empty category path. TTN20:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the category is no longer going to be used for episodes. Having a movie and five images (the rest are orphaned) in a category marked for episodes makes no sense, so they are being taken out. TTN21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the episode articles so I kindly ask you to leave whats left alone. Please do not complicate my work more than it already is. Thank you for your understanding. -- Catchi? 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The category can be recreated once you have gotten five or so episodes back up. There is always the chance that you will not improve them, so leaving it until you do is not very reasonable. TTN21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Empty categories end up getting deleted eventually. Please give me more time. -- Catchi? 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Leaving unrelated topics to keep it around is not the way to go. Anyways, how does having or not having the category in existence make anything easier or harder? When the first article comes back up, all you'll have to do is click the red link and recreate it. TTN21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion tools are not toys. Deleted pages cant be recreated like that. Please forget about this mater for a while. I am more than capable of nominating an unused category for deletion. I even have an approved bot for the task. -- Catchi? 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
October
Comment
Hello, sorry to bother you--I'm a pretty casual wiki user, and while I'm distressed about TTN's edits, I'm not familiar enough with wiki's structure to be certain where I should be addressing my concerns. I posted here, a couple of minutes after a post you just made, and have seen your comments on this topic elsewhere. I was wondering if there are any other pages where I should cross-post what I wrote on the noticeboard, to assure that it's seen by whoever might be in a position to address it. Thanks for any help you can offer. 24.90.146.24511:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it isn't necessary to cross-post this. If the issue isn't resolved on ANI the discussion will be taken elsewhere until it is properly addressed. Your comments on Ani will be linked to in such a case. It needs some time though. By the way you may want to get an account. -- Catchi? 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and yes, I will. Up until today I hadn't seen a need, since all I did was read articles and correct the occasional typo. Seeing "merge" notices at the top of all of The Wire's extensive episode articles (they're quite far from being stubs, they do have references, and the main article is featured) was quite a surprise, and a nasty one when I discovered that TTN seems to be doing this to every television show that he believes doesn't have enough wiki readers to consistently revert his changes. On the bright side, at least he put the notices up without actually carrying out any destructive merges (yet). --24.90.146.24511:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He merges them alright. Or someone else merges them for him. -- Catchi? 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_2.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_3.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_4.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_5.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-10.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-1a.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-1b.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-1c.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-2.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-3.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-4.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-5.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-6.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-7.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-8.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-9.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
I've never seen a clearer case of unwillingness to understand. Please look at what the page says. Look at the profoundly stupid form in which your bot left the page. Look at my edit that fixed the problem. My edit is consistent with the policies you cite, so you should have no objection to it on those grounds. On the other hand your edit obviously defeats a purpose that helps Wikipedia. "Softredirect" is for a different purpose. Michael Hardy23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see the bot is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. You are creating a self redirect chain by linking to a redirect page (from a redirect page) and hence cluttering Special:DoubleRedirects.
I disbelieve your statement that your bot's absurd edit is required by that page. Damage done by your bot IS your problem. Why do you ask what the purpose is? The purpose is obvious. Don't come to me citing policies that say different things from what you claim they say. I have no problem with fixing double redirects; if that's ALL your bot did I'd have no problem with it. But it did something else. Michael Hardy23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look closely. you are/were linking to a redirect from a redirect. That is a double rediretc as far as mediawiki is concerned. You should not be having wiki-links on a redirect aside from the actual redirect link. Use an html link if you must - or just create a stub. Please stop fighting mediawiki. -- Catchi? 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not fighting mediawiki; you're fighting common sense. You say "That is a double redirect as far as mediawiki is concerned". That defies common sense. Policies exist for a reason.
And if you're against even that kind of so-called "double redirect", why didn't you just remove the link, so the words would appear there with no link, instead of replacing it with something absurd and incomprehensible? Michael Hardy03:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to ANB/I. I have nothing to add here. With the amount of words you have told me you could have simply started a stub. -- Catchi? 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This would be quite simple to fix by simply telling the bot not to edit the page that is the redirect in question. Instead, it can remove the square brackets that make a link. I tend to agree with Michael that the bot's edits in this case defy common sense; they are just the result of your bot's loigc not handling this case in a reasonable manner. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simplistically usage of a template solves the problem: [55]. Why is it so hard to do that? -- Catchi? 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, your bot could do that. The point is that your bot needs to do sensible things in all circumstances. You can't always blame the poor state of the page when your bot does silly things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't improve articles on demand. You mentioned Editors... I have been working on this series alone for quite some time. You seem to be in the know of the series. Would you mind help expand it? -- Catchi? 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to help out, except that right now, I'm working on a series of major upgrades to some of the Kim Possible articles, a series where I have a much better grasp on where to look for sources. By "Editors," I meant to suggest all those interested in the OMG articles; maybe you could ask on the anime-and-manga WikiProject's talkpage if they have anyone who might be free to help? Rdfox 7615:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sadly tried and the end result was me watching the sunset alone :/
I did ask OMG fans off wiki for help. I have been waiting for their involvement since.
What is exactly required in terms of improvements? --Dynamo_ace 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, we need more out of universe information for sure, as well as citations (such as in universe citation as well as out-of universe ones). We need a lot of improvement if we seek these articles to be featured. My strategic long-term goal is to make all of these articles featured. -- Catchi? 22:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My recommendation is to follow the example of the FFX charcather articles i think, those have "Survived" for a long time. What about the interviews in the magazines and TV specials? I myself could provide Widescreen pictures of the charathers if need be. And we also need a spoken word version of some of the articles. --Dynamo_ace 11:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Interviews and TV specials on the series would be most useful. Spoken versions would be useful after we get featured articles... After all the content will change significantly to that end. Screenshots are fine but first we need content to compliment the screen shots. -- Catchi? 11:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The first place to go for interviews is the first DVD on the anime series (Either US or UK version). --Dynamo_ace 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamo ace (talk • contribs)
Sadly I do not own the dvds. Do you? -- Catchi? 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I do have some of the DVDs, I'll have a look when i have some time. --Dynamo_ace 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamo ace (talk • contribs)
Hi, I noticed your username appears on this category and would like to invite you to take part in a general improvement drive on all articles relevant to Oh My Goddess! including character articles, episode articles and others. -- Catchi? 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Answering the call
I just wanted to let you know that I got your message, and I would like to help. I'm more of a grammatical "cleaner" who fixes writing errors, but I'm willing to take a look at the articles and see what I can do within the confines of my free time (which isn't much, but I'll do what I can). talk toSailorAlphaCentauri17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, any help is most appreciated. If you could add citations as well as spelling and grammar corrections this would be most helpful. -- Catchi? 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Porthos-frengi.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Porthos-frengi.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're mistaken about Operation Steel. It was in 1995, not 1994. All of the sources on the page say so. So do news archive reports...I think you have some incorrect information. PBP20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you are incorrect. See [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], and every news source from 1995, all of which state that Turkey went into northern Iraq in 1995. I started the article using sources from 1995. And yet you bring up a single source from a non-news site that says it took place in 1994. It's my five sources (and I could go on) versus your one. PBP22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hürriyet ([61]) is the largest newspaper in Turkey. Which in turn sources Saygün Öztürk's "Sınır Ötesi Savaşın Kurmay Günlüğü" - Translates as "An Officers Diary Cross Border Wars".
Your first source is a non-peer reviewed query to the NYT and is not a reliable source. I haven't reviewed them, but looking into it.
No, it's an article from the NYT. How is that not reliable? Do you know what LexisNexis is? Look up information on this incursion in 1994--there are zero results. Accept it--the date "1994" is a misprint, since no other source in existence claims the raid was in 1994. PBP22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There might have been a more minor campaign in 1995. But the information presented is for the one in 1994. -- Catchi? 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am merely seeking the most accurate information. Please calm down. Looking now. -- Catchi? 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing there that establishes Operation Steel to be in 1995. No element of the operation is even mentioned. I'll need a more clear link for WP:V purposes. The memo could have been sent the following year of the operation or it could be for a smaller operation in 1995. There are countless mini cross-border operations aside from the big four we have articles on. You are right 1994 may have been a misprint but I need evidence to this end. -- Catchi? 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are two more sources that conclusively prove the incursion was in 1995: [62][63]. Please do not drag this out any further...this is a rather trivial issue, yes, but you seem unwilling to accept the truth. I have provided seven sources that say "Operation Steel" was in 1995, yet you provide one source that says it was in 1994. No other source refers to such an operation in 1994, therefore your source is mistaken. It's like saying the Iraq war started in 2002 instead of 2003. It's not reality. Please accept that the incursion was in 1995, or I will get an admin's intervention in this matter, and they will with certainty side with me. Please. PBP02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, firstly admins have no authority to interfere with content related disputes. Calling one in would be pointless. As for the [64] you provided, it seems to adequately establish the campaign in 1995. You can alter the dates while <ref>'ing to this source. -- Catchi? 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The method you employed for having those categories deleted (by misrepresenting the time they had been empty) is unacceptable. The merits of "Kurdistan" nonwithstanding, you employed deletion templates in such a way as to perform an "end run" on consensus by essentially tricking someone into deleting them under false pretenses. A user with your experience should know better, and this type of action is simply not proper. This, in conjunction with the many other dramas you've been the center of over the past two years is making it difficult for me to assume that you're consistently editing in good faith or using good judgment. Reconsider the means you're employing to edit the project, this can't continue. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved with any drama. No idea what you are talking about unless you count every disagreement I have as "drama".
I have been harassed for the past 2 long years. My only mistake was seeking community help. Community was more than slow in dealing with a user who dedicated his entire contribution in harassing me. That indef block could have happened two years ago.
Merits of "Kurdistan" nonwithstanding, User:Diyarbakir, my harasser (one of the indef blocked sockpuppets anyway) had added this kind of categories to the articles on occasions simply to bait me (this evidence is present on the checkuser case I believe). I looked the other way for ages so as not to create what some may call "drama". After waiting for so long I decided to make a few edits. I haven't just mass removed the categories instead I recategorized on many occasions from "Kurdistan" -> "Iraqi Kurdistan".
I have requested an inclusion criteria for these articles numerous times. I have attempted a discussion numerous times. They were all ignored. The only time a response is indeed posted seemingly is when one of these categories get deleted or nominated for deletion.
And for my highly slow-paced consensus seeking attitude I am accused of bad faith.
Problem is, the original uploader on English, User:Punkguy182, has claimed that he is "Hal Horowitz" — http://www.halhorowitz.com — yet on his user page he says he is a web developer. It is highly likely that this user is a reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3 — and others.
So my request to you is to look into the possibility that commons is now hosting a copyvio. I have tried to find it online, but have not.
This has been reported but not acted upon; note a second image that I did find.
Please do not remove images you nominated for deletion from articles. A bot will handle the task more efficiently should the images get deleted. Not every deletion (even speedy ones) get deleted. -- Catchi? 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop mass deleting and removing rank insignias indiscriminately. Medals of the US federal government are public domain just like all Federal works by the US. -- Catchi? 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not removing images indiscriminately from articles. I'm removing copyvios from articles. While medals issued by the US are certainly public domain, photographs and drawings of 3D objects are entitled to copyright protection, just like photographs and drawings of public domain objects like landscapes. Medals issued by other governments may have an additional level of copyright protection (in the design of the medals themselves). The Husnock situation has been discussed at length in many places over time, including most recently here, here and here. Just because a copyvio image remains on Commons does not mean I should leave it in place in Wikipedia articles. If you have further questions on this complicated situation, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! --But|seriously|folks16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but commons cant see all that (the discussions). I also do not see a speedy deletable images. Please restore them back to articles and initiate a case at commons:Commons:Deletion requests as this is as you point out a complicated case and not obvious. If it is really a copyvio, it will be removed by a bot and can be restored just as easily if for any reason the images get undeleted. Process is very important if we are juggling 2 million images on commons. I would ask you to have a bit more patience with it. -- Catchi? 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy to let Commons take its time deleting the images. My primary concern is with en.wiki. There is consensus here that most of Husnock's images are copyvios and that he generally misrepresented his sources (where he identified them) and as an admin here, I am entitled (if not required) to remove them from articles while Commons takes its time deleting them. Husnock uploaded thousands of images to en.wiki, and probably 80% of them are copyvios. I have been working my way through them, looking at each one and making a determination whether it should stay or go. As you can see from Husnock's upload log, I have left hundreds of images in place. (I'm working from the most recent uploads backwards in time.) Anyway, as I said above, I have no problem with Commons taking the time to get up to speed on this issue and take action. But we have already worked through it here at en.wiki, and these images can't be used here. If you have questions, please feel free to ask me. If you simply disagree and do not feel like discussing it, please feel free to take images to deletion review, WP:MCQ or WP:FUR, or you can start another thread at AN/I if you want. I won't be offended! Cheers! --But|seriously|folks17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a case where commons community rules that these images are not copyvios... By removing them like this in advance you are complicating things for commons and commons people. You are actually strongly discouraged from removing images until discussion concludes in commons when there is a chance that images may stay. There is no reason to rush things and we do have bots that can take care of the task more efficiently. I as a commons admin do not see an acceptable reason to speedy delete these images as it is not obvious. They may be still deleted via a commons:Commons:Deletion requests discussion. You can make a bulk nom. -- Catchi? 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with bulk nomming them is that they have different issues and were uploaded / transwikied by different commons users. I've been nomming them individually as I come across them based on their use in en.wiki. For my information and guidance, do you know of a policy at en.wiki relating to use of / removal of Commons content? As I'm sure you are aware, many persistent infringers turn to Commons as a place for uploads that have been deleted from en.wiki. I have no idea whether it's true, but there is a belief out there that few people patrol images at Commons and that less obvious copyvio images are therefore less likely to be deleted at Commons. (This is typical of the information I see circulated. Incidentally, the recipient of this particular message is a reincarnation of Husnock, the one who caused all of this.) Also, are you saying that I have been removing images without nomming them? If so, it's unintentional. I'm trying to be careful, but it's possible I've missed some. I am required to remove redlinks from deleted en.wiki images. Finally, if you would like to discuss specific images, I'd be happy to do so. Just leave me a note here as I don't often check my Commons user page. Thanks! --But|seriously|folks19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what I am saying is unless a nomination isn't an automatic deletion, it should not be mass removed. We have bots that can preform delinkage (removal of images from wikipedia, wikisource and all other wikis). It does not matter how many people have moved/uploaded images to commons. Bulk noms can be conducted in a topic spesific manner. On commons we take copyrights more seriously than on any other wiki. People on commons are (for the most part) specialized on image related issues. Unless a deletion is obvious (these aren't obvious) deletion must follow the commons:Commons:Deletion requests process. So PLEASE follow that. I will not be nominating these images for you as I normally would (I am a bit busy with other matters). -- Catchi? 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I am confused why you decided to roll back many of my edits at Commons. The templates I replaced specifically say: "If there is no proof for the public domain status of this work, please replace this tag by {{nld}}" (PD-USGov-NARA) and "Please check the copyright status of this work and replace this tag with an appropriate copyright tag" (Military insignia). I'm the first to admit I'm not an expert at Commons, but if you don't want the tags replaced with {{nld}}, the template shouldn't tell people to do that. Also, there is no appropriate license tag, as these images are copyvios.
I am also concerned about your interpretation of copyright law. Specifically, you reverted my edit to Image:Txlmoh.jpg, inserting a template that indicates that it is PD because it is a work of the US Government. But it is not a work of the US Government. It is the work of the State of Texas, and therefore protected by copyright.
Like you, I am busy and don't have a lot of time to deal with the Commons issue right now, but just to show you the degree of this problem, I took the time to find the source for a few of the stolen images. Maybe these examples will help:
Seriously, you can do what you want at Commons, but we cannot allow copyvio images to be used here at en.wiki. You can keep them as long as you want, but we will delete them when we see them used here, per consensus here that they are copyvios. Take care! --But|seriously|folks02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the date given on the template. Is the upload after the given date? No. Therefore these are not speedy deletable.
Stop treating me like an alien from outer space, it is quite rude. There is no "we" or "you" (plural) here.
I told you already. As a commons administrator I do not see them as speedy deletable as it is a close call. In other words I need opinion of other people on commons. My decision is not absolute and I told you at least four times to use commons deletion requests. You are making life unnecessarily difficult for yourself. You will need to restore those images if commons consensus rules them not to be copyvios as per WP:CCC if not common sense. I will not clean up your own mess.
We have a working system in dealing with possibly problematic images and what you are doing is only complicating that. If you do not have the time to file a commons deletion request, perhaps you should not be removing images from articles. It takes less time to make a bulk nomination on commons than remove images from individual articles. At most it is the same amount of work.
Please do not attempt to use me or commons as a means to resolve your personal dispute with Husnock. If the images are problematic you can simply file it on commons deletion requests and community can decide. -- Catchi? 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That was uncalled for and warrants an apology. I have no personal dispute with Husnock. AFAIK, I never heard of Husnock or his apparent reincarnation OberRanks before a week or so ago when I became aware of the hundreds of copyvio images he had left us.
What does the upload date have to do with my edits? The sentence about replacing the tag with nld is set apart physically and in a different color from the sentence about uploads after a certain date. I think it's an extremely strained interpretation of that template to claim that it should only be replaced for recent uploads. How long should a deprecated template remain? I just posted about this question over at Commons. Feel free to join in that discussion.
Also, as I told you before, I thought I had tagged all of the images I removed for one or the other of the Commons deletion processes. If I missed a couple, I missed a couple. I'm dealing with several hundred images here. Please stop making me out to be some kind of scofflaw.
Finally, I have asked you for some authority that consensus at Commons trumps consensus at en.wiki. I would think that would have come up at some point. If there is no policy on that, then I am properly removing copyvio images from articles based on the en.wiki consensus. --But|seriously|folks08:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I told you at least 6 times so far. You NEED to use commons:COM:DEL. These are not obvious cases and hence are not speedy deletable. When an admin contests nld that is for the most part the end of story as far as speedy deletion is concerned. In such cases we use commons:COM:DEL. The discussion on en.wiki has no binding bearing on commons. Discussion over the copyright status of commons images should be conducted on commons. I really am tired of repeating myself.
Deprecated templates stay forever. It should not be used at all any more. As for past uses they should be processed. Most rank insignia are ineligible of copyright much like flags of countries. Country flags had a similar license confusion and commons community is familiar with such cases of problematic licensing.
I gave you the sources from which the images were "borrowed". Please explain to me how copying images created by another website is not sufficiently obvious to require their speedy deletion. While you're at it, you could also explain to me how simply removing SD tags is preferable to replacing them with the proper tag, as I am careful to do at en.wiki. Because if I happen to be correct that these are copyvios, your conduct is preventing them from being reviewed by others and keeping them here. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to better clarify what I am doing to you. Here it is.
Why I closed as keep:
Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright. For example the flag of Canada pictured here is in the Public Domain no mater who draws or redraws it. I can "steal" it from any website, or use any scan of it at my leisure legally. en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case is the foundation behind the logic of this approach. So if the source object in question is ineligible of copyright all faithful reproductions of the image are also ineligible.
"Stealing images" is not a crime provided the images have a free copyright status. The site you linked for certain does not own the copyright for the images in any case. The copyright in any case would be held by the millitary or government of the country that own the rank insignia.
Nazi era material may also be free of copyright since any "image shows (or resembles) a symbol that was used by the National Socialist (NSDAP/Nazi) government of Germany or an organization closely associated to it, or another party which has been banned by the en:Federal Constitutional Court of Germany." Who would you go to file a lawsuit?
The designs of the images are very simple by very nature of rank insignias and are hence ineligible of copyright.
These above were in my mind for consideration when I closed the speedy nom as a keep. Hence why I closed the speedy deletion as a "keep" or "too close to call" at worst. Commons have dealt with images from en:Flags of the World site. They were eventually deleted after free alternates were made. While FOTW images were never copyvios, we are nice enough to redraw better alternatives and delete them afterwards. This is why most flags have an SVG version actually.
Why have I not retagged:
If I had that kind of time I would be processing commons:Category:Unknown. I am only expected to either delete or keep the images. I am not even required to inform you of my decision or even talk to you at all.
My decision was a keep and it would not be right for me to file a commons:COM:DEL request on something I closed as keep (per coi).
Also as a result of all this you are now more familiar with the commons process in handling non-obvious cases. I learned about it in a similar manner. On en.wiki an admin removing a PROD notice as keep does not have to replace it with an afd. For the most part a nomination is the problem of the nominator and not the processing admin.
Process on commons and why it is important:
On commons "reviewing" of non-obvious cases are conducted through COM:DEL. Majority of cases on COM:DEL are alleged copyvio cases. Speedy deletion is only and only for obvious copyright violations such as TV screen captures or corporation logos.
During a deletion discussion the images in question should NOT be removed.
commons:Commons:Deletion requests has a lot of images being discussed. If they all were removed from articles as you did with the rank insignias, this would have created an unnecessary amount of workload. Images may be deleted or kept. This is not a big deal and happens daily.
We have bots that will automatically remove links to images from articles of deleted images from commons. Manually doing it is unnecessary and problematic.
We however do not have a bot that will readd images if the discussion ends up as "keep".
Also on English wikipedia images that are suspected of violating copyrights are not removed from articles until they are deleted. Typically the closing admin removes them or sometimes there are red links.
Process on commons should be observed. We deal with over 2,041,655 files on commons. Thats over 40,000 images since last threshold pass (2 million) on October 13. It is common to have 5,000 new images a day. These processes are designed to handle this work load with minimal use of resources.
OK, a lot of that does make sense to me. I would argue that these stylized, "cartoonish" if you will characterizations of patches and badges are sufficiently creative to acquire copyright protection, but that's a discussion for another forum. I thank you for taking the time to fully explain your position and how things work at commons. (I know from my adminship here what a pain that can sometimes be.) Sorry if I was being think in the head. --But|seriously|folks16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we understand each other better now. I put serious amount of thought behind any admin action I take and sometimes forget to appropriately explain myself. Sorry about the late explanation.
I would encourage you to restore the insignia images here on en.wiki until the commons discussion concludes. They would be re-removed with an appropriate link to the commons discussion by a bot if they do get deleted. Do you see the advantages of this?
All of the comments on the mediation page and on the disputed talk pages refer to Coolcat. It may be appropriate to delete these old mediation requests as useless cruft, but altering their contents is misleading and pointless. This has been discussed on ANI, and you were told to stop making these changes. —Centrx→talk • 15:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. People were told off to drop the matter even at an RFC level (the rfc) as well as numerous times on ANI (one example). Please stop. -- Catchi? 16:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I will be removing referances to Cool Cat as per privacy reasons. I do not know about you, but I really dislike rl stalkers. Your action clearly is without consensus. You haven't even bothered to engage in the most basic dispute resolution and made a point to avoid it. You have not even bothered to commented on the arbcom case for example. -- Catchi? 16:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing private about the name "Cool Cat", your new username is directly associated with "Cool Cat" in several places, and your actions have increased those associations. You are lying. —Centrx→talk • 16:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had you not mass reverted me very few people would have noticed the change. All you have done has been to put me in great rl risk. I obviously am not going to discuss you with the "informative" detail as to be frank I do not trust you. I have forwarded some of the details to arbcom rather reluctantly as I am very very protective of my privacy. Assume I am not lying for the sake of the argument. How is your edits helpful then? -- Catchi? 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The only way changing text on Wikipedia would protect your privacy is if that text itself contained personal information, such as if your old username were your real name. If someone had personal information about Cool Cat, they hold that personal information and can act upon it regardless of whether you change your username on Wikipedia. If there is some personal information associated with the name "Cool Cat" which you do not want to be discovered by Wikipedia editors who interact with "White Cat", then the way to prevent that is to create a wholly new username severed from connection with "Cool Cat". Otherwise, anyone can easily look at the old contribs of your user and see your old username--and those contribs are much more obvious because of your signature changes,--not to mention that you list your old usernames directly on User:White Cat. —Centrx→talk • 16:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to throw away all my contribution merely to satisfy your sense of whatever. Indeed it is possible to "dig deep" and find that I used to be "Cool Cat". I want to make it less obvious for example rather than being the page title. I may switch accounts only after referances to "Cool Cat" are removed or minimized. By mass advertising it of course you are not helping. -- Catchi? 16:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to "throw away" your contributions in order to prevent "great rl risk", which is your present justification for altering archives. If there is no real risk, then you have no justification. We courtesy-blank rather than move AfDs that contain a person's real name and hateful or personal information against his will, so I don't see why we would move a page that contains no personal information and that was created by the person himself. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you want to force me to leave wikipedia will not mean I will go just to satisfy your sense of whatever. If the AFD's title puts the non-notable person at risk, then it can be oversighted. Please do not confuse it with WP:BLP violations on already famous people with this case. Completely different issues are at work on an article and a discussion archive page. How do you know there isn't an article on me? I am not saying there is one. All I am saying is pages I edit and comments I make on wikipedia (my wikipedia persona if you will) should not be tied to my real persona or at least the connection should be as vague as possible. Even if there was an article on me this is possible to achieve. -- Catchi? 17:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not care if you leave Wikipedia, and creating a new username does not require you to leave Wikipedia. Simply, if there is real risk the way to prevent it while continuing to use Wikipedia is to create a new username that is not associated with your old usernames. Potentially libellous or privileged statements pertaining to a person's real name are more serious than no such statements pertaining to an anonym. —Centrx→talk • 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that you care little about what happens to me or anybody. It is obvious with how User:Moe Epsilon was treated. I am uncertain what you mean with your last sentence. -- Catchi?17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence is about the comparison between AfDs with junk in them, that the content of such AfDs is more serious than the presence of the name "Cool Cat" somewhere on Wikipedia. Also, I am not a ruthless killing machine. —Centrx→talk • 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
Cool Cat, this is a formal warning for you to stop your disruption of the project, specifically your efforts to whitewash the past and modify inert archives. This is getting ridiculous, and if you continue, you will be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a block will be contested at an arbcom or foundation level as my privacy has real world implications off wiki. -- Catchi? 16:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no realistic chance that your connection to the name 'Cool Cat' will ever be dissolved, especially in light of your increasingly bewildering editing to update connections between the accounts. If you were actually interested in privacy, you would stop editing under your latest account and start afresh, never touching any of those other accounts or edits. Since you haven't, and in light of your edit history, there's no risk that the Arbcom or the foundation would ever seriously consider you're operating in good faith if you were to cry 'privacy!'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to block him for something as banal and harmless as renaming archives to match his current user name, it would not look good for you. Maybe you should read this AN/I section which indicates several administrators consider the making of an issue out of this to be disruptive and pointless, and reconsider your behaviour on this talk page in light of that. - Mark16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! While a discussion is going on related to the borders of Kurdistan, you reverted and added your "source" without any explanations and discussions! Ill be glad if you find some time to discuss at articles talk page if a POV by a "Dictionary of English language" is a good enough (and reliable) source to justify your revert on political geography. Especially if the other descriptions in the same page cited by you are marking different borders. Thanks in advance and sorry for distarbing you here! Andranikpasha00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that the borders of Kurdistan are defined by Heisenberg'suncertainty principle. There are many definitions that are at a state of flux. "American Heritage Dictionary" is a peer-reviewed notable, verifiable, reliable and neutral source. So it is fair to establish borders stretching as far as Armenia. CIA's map (this is being treated as a map of Kurdistan even though it isn't labeled as such) also has a chunk in Armenia as well. -- Catchi? 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The bot itself is not capable of doing that. Why do you seek this? I can come up with a better answer or solution then. -- Catchi? 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason why you removed the flags and removed the section on US? -- Catchi? 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, section titles should not be wikilinks. I remember reading it somewhere, but I don't know where. It might be some technical thing. DenizTC15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing. I was asking why you removed the flags in general, not just the ones in sections. -- Catchi? 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reasons for flags there, it is a short section, we already have the EU etc wikilink, it has distracted me, can distract others as well, we don't have a table or long list there, and it does not convey much. I won't revert again, but I think this way it is better. DenizTC16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said it is a short section. In the link you gave me, there are like a hundred (maybe more) states there (it is like a long table), so flags are useful to identify stuff. Here we have like five countries, the flags are unnecessary/not much helpful, and at that moment they had distracted me, and I am also a wiki reader. Also I think 'other counties' should stay together. We had also an issue of US-UK alliance, which was introduced with two flags. When we have more countries, we can change back, I don't know how many. Like I said, you can go ahead and revert me, I am not going to revert, but like I mentioned, I prefer this version. Also also also DenizTC16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I really like the page a lot. I do feel however it would be better at the multilingual meta.wikimedia rather than here on en.wikipedia. -- Catchi? 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for creating a mirror Deceased Wikipedians there. I'd thought several times about doing that but I wasn't familiar enough with meta.wikimedia to know where to put it. One question: do we maintain the english version or simply redirect to the meta site?--Alabamaboy21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can simply use {{Softredirect}} on wikipedia side. All information should be kept in one location. -- Catchi? 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I have also moved left over images to commons. En.wikipedia copies should be deleted. -- Catchi? 21:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I now see that you brought up a MfD on the item. I don't have a problem with having the memorial page on meta and a redirect to that works for me. However, I see Newyorkbrad's point and we can leave both of them up for now. I'll just be sure to update and watch the meta page along with this English WP page.Best, --Alabamaboy21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MfD was merely intended to gather consensus for the move (well I have done it in a bold manner anyways). The intention was not a delete at all, if you check my nomination I make no mention of a delete. It would be very demanding to pay attention to seperate discussions on two wikis. We will end up having parallel discussions on same topics. -- Catchi? 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Computer (08)
Hello.
I'm sorry, but I've denied the request for task 8 of your bot. The complete reason can be found at the BRFA subpage, but the short of it is that there is little hope that consensus would form that this task was required, especially since other tools already exist to perform that function.
I am kind of confused. If a tool is used for the task, it would add ridiculous amount of noise to RC unlike bot flagged edits which wouldn't. I could use the tool through the bot's account and not flood RC for example. Having something like 20 reverts per minute would annoy just about everybody. -- Catchi? 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I have. Half of the concern is over how necessary it is and that admins can manually preform this. Of course this can be manually done like any bot edit but in the cases of a more dedicated attack that'd overwhelm an average admin or ten a bot would be useful. The idea is to have the access ready for the times it will be needed. Imagine a case where a vandal/spam isn't noticed for-say a week. Although very rarely, this does happen. In such cases deploying a bot could save time.
Any abuse as mentioned would be a permanent ban of the bot so I do not think that is a serious risk. I certainly am not that much of an idiot. Mass reverts always need to be based on solid consensus on obvious cases for the sake of sanity. Bot operators are responsible of every edit by the bot so I would have to deal with every mistake manually. No bot operator would wish to deal with hundereds of mistakes.
The bot can be made so that it reverts an edit on a certain time frame...
Also the bot has an advantage normal admin revert lacks, a proper edit summary.
I am also saddened by the semi-panic closure of the bot request. I'd wish it to be fully discussed. I only wish the idea be given a full thought process. Weather it gets accepted or not is a community decision. The location for this kind of discussion should be at the bot request page.
You don't have to (be saddened). You are more than welcome to acquire consensus (VP really is the best place for that and come back to BRFA with it. That's generally the best thing to do: it allows the BRFA to concentrate strictly on the technical side of things. Bot requests are denied without prejudice, and you're welcome to try again— but I would strongly suggest you come with a good consensus behind you that this bot function is useful and harmless, and that it is desired. — Coren(talk)12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not mind I'd like to keep the thread on two places. You can merely respond on my talk page and I'll copy my and your response here. It's hard to keep track of it otherwise for me. -- Catchi? 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not really remember. Machine speech is disliked and I discontinued doing this. -- Catchi? 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
PKK and Belgium
Hi, White Cat,
Sorry, but I can't find anything about an official declaration by the Belgian authorities about the clashes between PKK and the Turkish Armed Forces. Your request is not forgotten and I keep searching, but I just wanted to inform you of my failure upto now....
Hi White Cat. As you cann see at the bottom of my usepage, I have been approached about an image suspected to be non-free. In fact, it is an image clearly lifted from Google Earth. I feel it can't be used, but I am only a humble editor and so I'm not sure what to do now. Can you tell me where to report the suspected transgression or what else to do? Thanks. athinaios00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google earth images are not free and have no business being here unless being used on the article on Google earth. The uploader can seek a similar free image from NASA archives. Google earth images can be speedy deleted by using {{Db-copyvio}} -- Catchi? 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Your user page
Greetings White Cat! I'm currently revamping my user page and I like yours so much that I'd like to use it as a model for mine (format, etc.). I thought I should ask your permission before doing so. Please let me know if this is all right with you. Fullmetal2887(discuss me)02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to! It's licensed under a free license after all! :) -- Catchi? 06:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
your comments regarding episode articles on the admin board
After becoming embroiled in the seedy underbelly of Wikipolitics following TTN's attempt to merge all Angel episodes, I was starting to become discouraged from editing. What initially attracted me to Wikipedia was the idea that working together, we can incrementally create a great article - but some experienced editors on the discussion that followed made it sound as though official policy was merge/delete everything except GAs.
Thanks for your kind words. I have been trying very hard to get this problem addressed, There are over 15,000 edits to be reviewed as this mass deletion had been actualy going on for over a year. People started with less popular shows. -- Catchi? 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I do want to add that I am just one person, feel free to participate in the discussion agreeing/disagreeing with any of the points mentioned. -- Catchi? 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Archive
Mind archiving this page? -- Catchi? 15:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you always this unfriendly and closed to any advice/request? -- Catchi? 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not, I'm just terse since these questions didn't seem to call for much elaboration. The emotions behind short text unfortunately are easily lost in writing and (re)reading. 68.39.174.23800:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well my concern is that overly long talk pages become harder to use. People with slow bandwidth would have a hard time contacting you. Given you have a decent amount contribution I was merely trying to help you and people trying to contact you. -- Catchi? 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg listed for deletion
Thanks 4 the extensive summary. It is a lot of work. What would be your position in creating a sub-page and moving the birth date and name related information (including the images from commons) to this article and give a short summary and a link to that article. In-favor of this move is the current size of the article and there will be separate "talk" page for this very controversial issue. There are couple threads in the main article, and it seems this repeats every couple months. --Rateslines17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I did not add the name section. Thanks for the kind words. I merely dissected a source I found on his birth date. I don't think a seperate article is necesary as I feel all that can be said has been said extensively. Of course I may be wrong but I want to wait until more information is available. The breakaway of the Kurdish uprisings related section was merged back later on. We do however need an article on this "Rumi calender" as I do not have the slightest idea what it is. It would be a fine addition though. -- Catchi? 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
"Rumi calender:" There is an article related calenders, I will look into it and see what is it's extension. I have been for a long time thinking a sub-page related with ""Personal life."" I was thinking moving controversial issues, wife, name, birth date, (even the claims of ethnic nationality and even the claims of his sexual orientation) could be covered under this page. This will create a substantial coverage and may be an answer to your "until more information is available." Also, it will bring stability to the main article. Instead of constantly removing these controversial edits, it give a medium to these arguments with a warning message at the top. I think this is needed for FA status (stability of the article). --Rateslines18:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every claim is worthy of this article. They need to be from reliable sources. This article should be about the personal life of Atatürk. You may want to break away anything else (such as reforms) instead. What do you think of this? -- Catchi? 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ottoman empire used two calenders Hijri (Islamic calendar) and Rumi. Rumi may be this "Turkish calender linked as a red link. -- Catchi? 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you intentionally ignoring my comments? I strongly discouraged an article like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. At the very least you should discuss such major changes. -- Catchi? 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"Are you intentionally ignoring my comments?" Of course not!!! I'm not 24 hrs online. I have been thinking of creating a sub-article for extending the personal life 4 a while. The original article reached 110K and did not have enough space to grow before people begin to cry. There were threads about the size I did not initiate those threads so I'm not making it. You were right, there was not enough text collected under the main page to initiate, such a section, before your additions.
Your extensive addition gave the perfect beginning. It had citations, normal text development... So and so.. Hope we can do the same type of analysis for other controversial, but important, "Personal" issues. I was even thinking putting a family tree (graphical) under this new sub-article, but they will all take time. This is not my full my time job. :-)) His family background has been controversial for many years. I sincerely believe the value of this page. I'm not rejecting the point of reliable sources. I think it is time. --Rateslines00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
110K isn't really a gigantic size for an article. Most featured articles are around this size. The 32k limit was for browsers in 2001, it is now a symbolic limit these days. Articles are now broken apart typically when they exceed 100k significantly. So there is no urgent reason to break the page apart.
I really think an inverse logic should be applied to this. Generally stuff broken outside of bio articles are specific incidents like his involvement with the independence war, ww1, or his presidency. Anything else should stay on the page.
"Anything else ..." what is anything else if not his personal life. Besides If we are not going to create an article which looks like "Senin kanin akarmi? Sen ataturk degilmisin?" There is going to be personal issues of this person. I prefer his global achievements should stay in the artile, not the reasons of his failed marriage or how did we f.. up his will (selling AOC or killing the independence of TTK or TDK). WWI, independence, presidency are his major achivements. I'm also favor of having sub-articles for these too, DO not get me wrong. I have not guts to engage these issues. Specific response: (1) There are featured Bios that has personal sub-articles. (2) Having "sub-article" does not us prevent us giving conclusion (summaries) of these in the main article. It is not a break away article, you know. (3) "Symbolic limit" technologically you have a point. However, I tried to print the page it is 39 pages. That limit has also includes an readability side. By having sub articles we cam create a balance between dept-ease of understanding (dept in sub, ease in the main). The size limit is a good idea, because gives us chance to organize ourself.
Anything else can be any other section I did not mention like the cultural referances one I just created. On wikipedia stuff expanded off of bio articles are typically more important stuff like global achievements. Popping out the personal info is typically the last resort. As for the commercial it is a work of fiction and is not related to Atatürk's life, hence why it is a seperate article. -- Catchi? 02:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"As for the commercial it is a work of fiction" I'm not denying it's significance. I'll be happy if it sticks in wikipedia. I was not trying to change the topic. As I said before; if someone engages to write Independence War or WWi from soley Ataturks perspective I can be a minor co-editor. I do agree extending personal life can be left to some other time. Look! we work what we are interested in. Such as what you have been working on. But I did not find a cooperative work on Ataturk which takes my interest. I do not want to engage a big project as a major editor. This brings us to my question: What is wrong in your perspective (besides the subject is controversial) if I want to develop his personal information. You have to understand that this sub-page is not a spin of. It requires monitoring, but so if we keep it under the main page. One last time: I got all your positions, except if I'm willing to engage this task, WHY not? Why can't you help monitoring it? It seems it is perfect time for this page, given current conditions. That is all I guess, we exchanged everything related to this issue. Rateslines03:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I guess i haven't expressed myself clearly. What I am saying is you can expand Atatürk's personal life on the main Mustafa Kemal Atatürk page. You can do this by creating sub articles on Atatürk's involvement with world war 1 and/or the independence war. I'd be happy to add Atatürk to my watchlist. Infact I just have. -- Catchi? 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Look. You told me your position. I have clearly explained why your position is not developed with enough consideration. I also pointed that you are not a major editor to this specific article, but I have seen you given good efforts to other articles. With Humanly possible way, within the limits of politeness, asked you "If there is (you will) a major edit, I will be a co-editor" But you have not shown such an interest. I also offered to you "Come and help me." Ataturk's personal life is what I'm interested in and you can't dictate what I like or dislike (any kind of wars including WWI and Independence). ALL your response is "NO NO NO." Do it the way Cat likes. But your constant "you can " or "you can can't" statements are clearly an violation of "WP:OWN" the article. This is so unneeded activity on your behalf. Instead of reaching a compromise on the topic level (I left your edits on the main page, a compromise move on my side) you have choose me as your a ""personal target"". I'm sincerely improving the content. I'm faced with your personal "persecution". Just give me a space. ONE more time. I'm extending my hand. "Help me! for the development of the personal life of Ataturk. Give a little bit space to me." Rateslines13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite baffled. I was merely making comments based on the general manual of style used in wikipedia which your article examples for Lincoln demonstrates. I have spent a great deal of time on wikipedia working on different topics and this is merely the general way of doing things. One can write an entire book simply on Atatürk's involvement on a single skirmish let alone war - it has a great amount of potential for growth than Atatürk's personal life.
I do not see what is there to compromise from all that. You are welcome to explain why you want a mirror bio article for Atatürk's entire life and I can reconsider my position.
I'm not doing something new. Background and personal life of Preity Zinta, Tchaikovsky's personal life. These are not a mirror bio-articles (nor Ataturk's is a mirror). Clearly I'm not in violation of any manual style. Just your personal style. The way you want to shape the sub-articles is your own personal taste. Simply I'm not interested in your personal taste. Only your positive (improvements) to what I want to work on. And for your question part. Your compromise is this: "If you are not willing to engage in rewriting whole any section you TOLD ME to engage (I would compromise and be a minor editor), just "give me a space."" Rateslines15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my style at all. I'll be sorting out those specific examples right away. You seem to be under the impression that you have some sort of higher ground and are not interested at all in seeking a consensus. If you are not willing to see me as an equal, there is no point in continuing this. I won't be constantly defending myself to you or anybody as that is no way to engage in a civil discussion.
I apologize for my attempts to help better shape your privately owned article. You are more than free to do your thing as you see fit. As it turns out, my efforts to improve Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article was a waste of my time.
I contest the Prod. I was not even notified. Being a "press Secretary of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan" is enough to make a person notable. -- Catchi? 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan by me; I strongly prefer to notify groups with knowledge and interest rather than individuals. As a matter of my personal opinion, I have little sympathy for people who decry the fact that they were not personally notified when an article that they are interested in (or began) is being considered for deletion. However, that does not mean I won't act on your request. I will undelete the article and take take it to WP:AFD based on your contesting the PROD ... I'm also of the opinion that the 5-day period shouldn't be used as a hard and fast rule, that time doesn't run out to contest (well - if a year passes ... perhaps then ... reason comes into play then). If you do not have the article on your watchlist, please add it; if you have it, but were away or not in a position to contest previously, I understand. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I deal with far too many articles. My watchlist for the most part is useless for me. It is generally accepted an extra step of good faith and civility to notify the creator. This is typicaly expected from the nominator. {{prodwarning}} exists for a reason (it is displayed on the prod template itself as well). All that aside, I see 2,400 hits on Google establishing notability (IMHO). Mind you this is the English spelling. I do not know the spelling in the Azerbaijani language or in Cyrillic script (used in Azerbaijan). I am not really interested in expanding the article as I know very little about the man or Azerbaijan. I merely encountered his name while writing Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari. He made a statement behalf of the Azerbaijani government in response to the 21 October PKK attacks. I created a stub for him in the hope that it would be eventually expanded. -- Catchi? 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Q Images
Hi, I wanted to bring up another similar issue with the images on the Q (Star Trek) page. There are 2 fair use images there of the same subject now, and quite frankly, I prefer your image because it captures the subject in a more common appearance throughout the series, in the red Starfleet uniform, rather than the God image in the infobox. However, I do think the God image has a better full face view. Wondering if we can't find an image in the red uniform with more of a complete face view to replace them both. I looked at memory alpha, and there was one, but it was from early TNG seasons, and I think it would be better if we got a more current one, from later TNG seasons, or even Voyager. Ejfetters22:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it now. You are right. Red uniform does suit our Q better :) I do think we can use two images on this article. Perhaps an image of Q with his son or wife or both! What do you think? -- Catchi? 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I did find Image:STDS9Ep107.jpg on my initial search. A minor crop of that image would give us a good profile. -- Catchi? 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
DOH! I want to request the merge of Tchaikovsky's personal life to the right article. I may have made a stupid mistake. Mind correcting it for me? -- Catchi? 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Mmm. Perhaps but I think such a review would not hurt anyways. Please take the action you think is best (you can keep the FAR or close it reverting my edits). I'll agree with whatever your decision is. -- Catchi? 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
My advice? - I'd withdraw the merge request (because the personal life article appears to be summarised reasonably well in the Tchaikovsky article at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Homosexuality, marriage and Dostoyevsky) and I'd withdraw the FAR for Shostakovich unless you have specific evidence that the article is not comprehensive. However, the decisions are yours: let me know what you want to do. --RobertG ♬ talk16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I got distracted by Real Life™ for a bit there - I see you've sorted matters: do you still need help? I can see how you made the mistake: the top of the "Tchaikovsky's personal life" article does rather major on Shostakovich, doesn't it?! --RobertG ♬ talk17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the intro needs work. I was wondering how I could be so much in error, now I know. Yes the matter seems sorted. I withdrew the FAR nom but I think I'll stick with my merge suggestion.
I feel bio articles should focus on "personal life" of the person. Individual professional achievements and milestones can be individual articles.
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
MarlithT/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I don't know if you want to step in at all, but as you saw i said elsewhere, if i have to put up this hipocritcal stupidity i won't be sticking around here. You can see more cases in my contribution's list. --Zeal Vurte (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do stick around! Allow me to explain whats going on and why is it going on.
Although I do not know the exact details of the issue you are dealing with, I want to explain a painfully stupid thing. Companies that sell manga are commercial institutions and are very protective of their copyrighted works. There were confrontations between wikipedia and such copyright holders in the past and these had been the basis of some procedures. Had you put the images to a smaller site, such as a fansite, the copyright holders would not have the resources or energy to "deal" with it. But when the images are at a visible 'big' site such as wikipedia, people do complain. And these complaints are often more than a bunch of non-binding angry letters. Copyrights are indeed annoying and are quite stupid and the world would be a better place without them, however they are there and we do need to abide by them per legal restrictions.
We could ask the Mangaka Kōsuke Fujishima to release the images with a free license and if he agrees these images could be used freely. But I have my doubts Fujishima would agree to it. After all he charges people money per each of these which is how he makes a living. But it may just work.
I really do value your work here. List of Oh My Goddess! manga chapters need improvement even without images. Please do not see this incident as a discouragement.
Guess i'll go with what is normal here and cross-post this, even though it's a silly and superfluoes process imo.
I understand the copyright issues, but the images are allowed under a fai-use license and i shouldn't have to counter every attempt of someone who doesn't understand that, to remove them. --Zeal Vurte (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add to that, i'm leaving after seeing Rettetast's reply. Short stay huh? ;) Just as i expected really. See you on the forums and good luck with your plans for the episodes, you'll need it IMO. --Zeal Vurte (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, legally speaking you'd be right. These images can be used almost recklessly under a fair-use license. But the freeness of the encyclopedia would be an issue then. Images, especially non-free ones are a pain to deal with. This issue on fair use images has been an endless debate and I can go into further details if you like...
I'd really hope this wont discourage you (despite what you said). It isn't easy to write comprehensive encyclopedia and there has to be some standards. Upholding to those standards is of course much much more difficult than coming up with or enforcing the standards in question. I myself do not always agree with these overly restrictive guidelines and policies on non-free content.
I however spend most of my energy in creating or expanding articles either directly by editing or indirectly by seeking out interested parties. A series like OMG is far too large for a single person to cover. Your presence here would cheer up Bell-chan ;)
FYI, you probably shouldn't be getting involved in a discussion with Jack Merridew on the Arbitration page, since it's specifically noted in the how to that the request page isn't the place for discussion. It might piss the arbitrators off a bit, and the last thing you want is to not be able to weigh in if and when the case is accepted. (Or have your opinion discounted because "that dude doesn't know when to stop") Besides, you gotta save something for the actual case page itself. :P -- Y|yukichigai (ramblearguecheck) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I just added numbers from a graph. It was not intended to be a response to anybody. I don't have any intention of continuing a discussion. It is important evidence to demonstrate that the problem is of grand scale involving many articles and users. My post is intended to demonstrate only that. -- Catchi? 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom questions (White Cat)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
I am just a mere editor on en.wiki. I am a commons admin if that matters at all... I would not classify any of those examples and etc as a "position". None of them is a big deal.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I feel this is an area where I can employ my experiences. I do not really have a detailed answer to this question as I merely want to serve the community.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I really do not feel I am in a position to question the decisions of arbcom. I really feel it is very easy to look back to a closed case and 'judge' it so anything I put here wont be truly fair. Arbcom is overloaded with cases and they are doing quite a decent job. However I feel there were one case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan) which were handled less than perfectly. There was a second case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2) over the mater which was handled exceptionally well. I do not believe arbcom did poorly on the first case. Remedies could have been better worded and enacted and the second case perhaps might have been avoided - but all that isn't really important. Resolving such a complex dispute is however an exceptional accomplishment for arbcom - it just could have gone more smoothly though. There may be a third case judging from enforcement logs: case 1, case 2.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Had I been voting for a candidate, criteria I would look for at the candidate would be candidness, honesty, sincerity, impartiality, credibility. I recuse myself from judging myself per coi :P. I'd hope the users would vote for a candidate (whoever it may be) that has these fine qualities.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315»04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be working on my response so please disregard this for now. -- Catchi? 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
All done. -- Catchi? 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your statement. That you are proactively addressing any concerns by citing many negative links makes your honesty believable. But do you really have no positive links to show? — Sebastian07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad qualities are clearly well defined in Wikipedia so I cited those. As for my "good qualities", I am not sure how to cite those as there is no fine definition of what is "good behavior"... I strongly dislike "bragging" about myself. People seem to be fascinated with the level of access candidates have... I have none on "Wikipedia" but I am a commons admin if that matters at all. On my Rfa #4 it was said to be unimportant so I did not mention it on my statement. I figured people would ask me what they'd like to know per their own criteria. I was asked some questions but nothing too spesific so far. I am waiting for such questions feel free to ask them per your criteria for example. -- Catchi? 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you just look at what the others provided in the table and provide something similar? It's not bragging to include a few links to contributions or diffs that you can be proud of. Personally, what I want to see is evidence of people skills, conflict resolution, or diplomacy. — Sebastian18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)(I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]
Hello! Back in time you had added a merge template to the Preity Zinta article and its daughter article.
As you requested, the daughter page was merged into the main article as the info really belongs to the main article. Now, what should I do? I proposed the daughter article up to deletion. Is that what I have to do? Shahid • Talk2me13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would violate the GFDL. It should just become a redirect of the page was properly merged. I am glad an agreement was reached. -- Catchi? 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the slow reply, I am quite busy at the time being with study, but when that dissipates I'll be sure to talk you up on the offer; thanks for the consideration.~CortalYXTalk?01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RickK
I was not part of the dispute RickK had. I was completely uninvolved. I was on a vacation back then. To but it bluntly I do not understand what you are getting at. -- Catchi? 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think RickK got blocked for revert-warring. I do not clearly recall the details on that particular case but IIRC he was having an interaction (revert war) with SPUI ([65][66]) not me. He also seems to have wheel wared over SPUI's block. I was NOT the person blocking him and I was not revert/wheel waring either. While I did revert him once, that alone was not the reason for his block. He was only blocked for 24 hours which was pardoned several minutes later. I had taken the time and looked at the 3rr history as this particular case happened before we had 3rr archives. I have this link to the case which I was not a participant. In sum, I did not drive anyone away. My involvement with that particular case can be said to be minimal. -- Catchi? 18:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
How are edits by someone else my responsibility? Please do not get this the wrong way but it appears you are blaming me for SPUI's edits. SPUI might have just as easily picked some other case and things would end up the same way. I did not invite SPUI. In fact I did not even know SPUI... In fact I never liked SPUI. -- Catchi? 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi I have Commons:Commons:Project scope concerns on this image. Also the license is problematic as it needs to be GFDL per screen capture. -- Catchi? 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
How is any of that in the project scope? -- Catchi? 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a question for Commons. As I said, they seem to have a number of these and I have no idea what's been discussed with respect to them over there. --bainer (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be a commons admin which was why I was inquiring. I'll drop this issue for now since this is a non-critical issue and can be resolved later, preferably after the conclusion of the arbcom election. You may want to rename the image given some people may use it in a less than ideal manner. I'll keep you posted on this since I feel you'll have valuable input. -- Catchi? 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The redirection of WP:BANG to WP:POINT was done so as a gag. You are more than welcome to rerediect it to WP:BANGLADESH. -- Catchi? 12:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Username change
Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, is that enough? -- Catchi? 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That looks good to me, it's just an unfortunate situation when two editors in good standing have very similar user names. I think the disambig clears the problem now. Thanks for your co-operation White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a similar disambig on the other users page with his consent. It may appear like a COI if I made the request myself. -- Catchi? 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like your perspective on the following issues
I'd like your perspective on the following issues you mentioned on the arbcom page:
Deletion nom: Civility nomination was on 10 December 2006. The intention was to rise community awareness and perhaps initiate a discussion on the issue. For well over a year Wikipedia:Civility had been a policy people had been quick to ignore. No one is willing to enforce it. The nomination itself was not the best of all decisions I had but it wasn't really disruptive either. I am suprised people have been bringing that up since its been over a year.
Signatue issue: It has been nearly 3 years since I have been a part of the wikipedia community. Some people do not really care too much about the signatures but people had always been allowed to update their own or even other peoples signatures from time to time. As for my specific case, I had updated only some of my signatures. I had not had time to update others as people like User:Centrx and etc started mass reverting my edits. I merely raised it to community attention on ANI. To this date no one has explained to me how my updates to my own sigs damages the project. Every banned action needs a reason after all. I have made every effort to deescalate the matter.
lolcats: I do not believe the issue was ever about "lolcats" as I haven't picked any random image. I merely objected the addition of an image to User:WhiteCat with the image description "TROLL KITTEH NEEDS MOAR DRAMA" to a userpage. The image was placed on User:WhiteCat page instead of User:White Cat to avoid a ban at least in Gurch's words. What more, he uploaded a second such image despite the objections. Such images had been speedy deleted before for trolling and uploaders have been banned indefinitely. Popular target has included people like Jimbo. So why is it that I am treated differently? I do not understand. And an additional note both Gurch and Miranda were temporarily banned and booted from the IRC channels over their conduct during this incident.
The reason I am posting this here is not for a defense - such a thing would be pointless. Instead the intention is a dialog and mutual understanding of each others position.
MfD of civility policy: if your intention was merely to raise people's awareness of the lack of enforcement of the civility policy, it would have been much better to raise this issue at the village pump. Nominating the policy for deletion, especially during your personal dispute with User:Elaragirl, only added drama to what could otherwise have been a productive discussion in another venue.
Signatures: I didn't follow that controversy too closely, but I am well aware that people can and do change their signatures. Here for example is one of my former signatures, which I used under my former User:Tachikoma account: Kyoko. That was before I requested a name change. As I recall, you had wanted to go through all instances of your prior signature and replace those with your current signature, even on pages which had been archived. Some people objected on the basis that changing an archive page is like tampering with history. I think there was also some concern about the block logs on your accounts being obscured. While I personally think that it's a little frivolous to want to change your signature on archived pages, I wouldn't have objected myself. What matters here is that you and several other people got into quite a conflict over a pretty minor issue.
The cat image: while I'm inclined to agree with you that Gurch should not have changed User:WhiteCat's page with out that user's permission, I don't think it was a good idea for you to post about this incident on WP:ANI without first asking Gurch why he had altered someone else's page, and with that particular image, and that particular user. Again, my concern is that your approach to this matter added drama to something that might have been settled between you and Gurch without administrative input.
I hope this message has explained things to your satisfaction. Let me also add that I'm considering striking out the "Strong" from my ArbCom opinion on your candidacy. This is something I've been thinking about since I first posted there, because adding the word "Strong" only makes my comment unnecessarily hurtful at a point when your candidacy is unlikely to succeed. I do hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia following the election. Take care, --Kyoko15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd like to continue this if you don't mind :) I have formated (indented) your comment and duplicated the thread for your convenience.
My dispute with User:Elaragirl was a very minor one. I found her general tone to be problematic, not just to me but to others. There were and still are others (even admins) who are impolite and dicky on a regular basis. I felt back then (and still do) that we need a serious amount of improvement on this issue. I thought nominating WP:CIVIL would generate such a discussion... Didn't work as I had hoped. In any case, I can't change what I did back then... If you take a look at some of the votes on the nom page, they are quite uncivil. What I am curious is what would you recommend I do to get this issue addressed?
Centrx considered all edits older than a day to be 'archived'. He even reverted my edits in my userspace. I stopped making signature alterations soon as people complained (over RC feed getting flooded mostly). However Centrx continued his slow paced mass revert despite this. Centrx continued reverting my edits for months. I initiated discussions with Centrx and even invited uninvolved 3rd parties to talk to Centrx. Sig fixes on archive pages are not banned (to my knowledge). As for the block log. For quite some time I have those linked on my userpage. My old sig does not generate a block log so I never completely understand that concern.
What you said would be what I would have done had my interaction with Gurch had been different. On IRC for example Gurch had been most unpleasant even when I was agreeing with him on an issue. He had actively done so over the past months (Deletion of WP:MIT (a project intended to verify free-images 'freeness' making them more commons compatible) per his speedy nom for example). That is why talking to him on this issue was pointless in my perspective. I have the access to delete the image in question from commons in the blink of an eye. I have initiated discussions merely to avoid a COI for the most part.
I do want to add that the nom page has been interesting so far. A number of support and oppose votes have been most intriguing. A good deal were particularly unhelpful and 'hurtful'. Your vote was not hurtful and on the contrary quite helpful as I have a better understanding of peoples' concerns now.
If you want to discuss the civility policy and how it is enforced, I suggest starting a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That way perhaps you will get the discussion you desire.
Signature issue: like I said, I didn't follow it closely, but the very fact that people (not just you and Centrx) wrote a lot of text about it means that the alterations were controversial.
If you read the top of the WP:ANI page, it says in boldface "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." That's a step that you failed to take. You and Gurch may have a history of conflict, but I still think it would have been better to ask him first about his intentions, rather than post an ANI and inform him after the fact. If you felt uncomfortable approaching Gurch, you could also have asked User:Dmcdevit to ask him, as he was the admin who reverted Gurch's edit. You could also simply have allowed User:WhiteCat to respond for him/herself and not intervened personally. After all, you've said that you and Gurch don't get along. Any of these approaches would have generated less heat than going directly to ANI.
I am kind of confused. Should I avoid discussion of any kind in the future? My edits (signature alterations) came before the discussions I initiated. Had I not taken the issue to ani and instead revert wared, would that be more productive? I just still am uncertain what the community expected me to do. Should same thing happen again, how should I deal with it?
I have brought the issue to ANI for general discussion. Dmcdevit's revert came after my post to ANI. Dmcdevit probably would not know of the issue had it not been posted on the admins noticeboard. User:WhiteCat is an inactive user and like I explained his involvement in this case is simply because of the similarity of his username to mine - that what bothered me most in the whole case.
Signatures: I think most people in the community didn't understand why it was so important to you to change your signature on messages that you had already left on various pages. Changing your signature so that future messsages look different is one thing, while changing signatures on messages that you have already left is another. As you know, people's views on it ranged from seeing it as eccentric but harmless to outright disruptive. If I were in your place, I would have stopped the signature alterations if other people were concerned... but then again, I wouldn't personally have bothered to change old messages in the first place.
The cat image: in this case, I think you should have asked Gurch first before going on to ANI, not after. Any issue that is raised at ANI gets a lot of attention, and the very fact that the discussion is there rather than another venue sometimes leads to heightened tempers, and yes, drama.
Knowing Japanese: despite my name, I don't know much Japanese, because it wasn't spoken much when I was growing up, and I've never devoted enough time to properly learn it. --Kyoko17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add: I'm glad that you weren't hurt or offended by my oppose vote. I generally try to make my oppose comments constructive or at least non-bitey. --Kyoko17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did stop making the sig alterations. I had a total of 2000 such edits after which people started complaining. For the next few months after that one or two people mass reverted those edits contradicting Help:Reverting#Do not ("If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof."). I desired to remove as many references to my former nick as possible over privacy reasons as it may put me in real risk... I can't go to the details for obvious reasons... I don't think anyone needs to cite reasons for trivial edits. Although people had been reverting my sig alterations, none had actually had a serious discussion with me - even despite my attempts in talking to them.
I really think when someone is being disruptive it should be addressed in ani. By the same analogy nothing should be posted to ani as anything posted there is automatic drama. I have talked to Gurch numerous times, talking to him over such issues is pointless IMHO. :/
Unfortunate! I could have used your skills had you developed them. :P
Any oppose vote not intended to insult or annoy me is casted with a positive intention by nature. It is generally not that hard to distinguish that. Otherwise I wouldn't bother posting on your talk page at all. :)
Hello White Cat, I'm resetting the indent to make it easier to write.
Signatures: You should be aware that if you want to obscure your former nick, you ironically just draw more attention to it by changing old messages. This makes all of those alterations appear in "Recent changes". In the future, I hope that you will reconsider making such changes should you decide to change your signature once again.
Cat image: If you feel that it's unproductive for you to personally approach Gurch, perhaps you could explain your situation to another person, perhaps an admin, who could explain your concerns on your behalf.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Terra Prime, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Terra Prime. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
on the large margins of the Iranian peoples
The estimates vary. Not in all countries censuses are taken in which ethnicity is asked, so for an elaborate discussion on numbers you should go to the demographics of those countries mentioned. I myself have named a few sources for my edits the Soviet census of 1989 and ethnologue, all the other numbers are based on sources too. Margins are large because we are dealing with estimates in a large number of countries. I do not see the problem. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello White Cat, I wanted to check if you had further questions concerning our recent conversation. I archived my talk page because it was getting lengthy, and I will be taking a wikibreak soon. I hope you didn't interpret my message archival as a way to brush you off. It just seemed as if you had no further questions, based on your contribs. Happy editing, Kyoko15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None I can think of :) -- Catchi? 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Subspace Node Map Freespace.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Subspace Node Map Freespace.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you upload this image and other images with a free license to commons? You can do so using Commons:Special:Upload. -- Catchi? 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No sweat I have legal copies of all the FreeSpace games except Silent Threat expansion. About the node map. I recall getting it off of the official site. That was some time ago - well over 2 years. It might have been added to the official website despite being a 'fan creation' as you suggested. Volition had done so in the past, especially for missions.
We certainly have this official map that establishes most of the nodes. Everything else should be in line with all briefing connections in the game. It is not OR to duplicate that info. I suppose we could verify all node related info not mentioned on the official map I just linked. We do know a lot about the subspace nodes from the briefings. For example we do know that the Sol (at the end of the first game) and Capella nodes were severed (at the end of the second game). I suppose we could cite exactly which mission establishes node connections. How does that sound to you?
Well, at the very least the copyright status of the image you posted is in question, and so probably is insuitable. A recreated map from a source map is perhaps borderline original research. A better solution would be to just include the original map you cited above, and get permission to do so. Even in that case, the caption to the image was overlong and didn't need to say much more than "This is a jump node map of the Terran-Vasudan region of space." Xihr (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions are supposed to explain the contents of the image in question. That is the very point of them. The reader should understand what about the image is significant. The summaries can be longer if an additional description is needed. Explanation over the alterations to the map (destruction of the nodes) only makes sense. The summary wasn't that long either, a mere 3 sentences. Consider various captions on the article September 11, 2001 attacks and how long they are. Mind that these are description of the photos and not a map. Or consider the article Tibet with 6 sentences as the caption.
A recreated map from a source map is not any where NEAR original research. We do it all the time on a wide range of articles such as various maps on countries, world and etc (see: Image:McDonaldsWorldLocations.svg). If a node between two star systems is mentioned on a briefing in the game, thats more than adequate to construct such a map. There is noting original of using information established in the game itself to construct an image. Consider reviewing this: Wikipedia:No original research#Original_images
We do not need any permission to use images under fair use. Fair use by nature is use without permission for educational purposes. If you mean getting free license permissions that is unlikely to happen.
Please notify me on my talk page so I know you posted a reply.
Since you've shown interest or made some contributions to Vasa (ship), I'd like to notify you that it has been nominated as an FAC. Your insights and comments would be much appreciated there.
Feel free to view the substantial edits I've done to the article, actually. I've improved it, found citations, regulated the formatting on the pre-existing citations, hacked out a bunch of useless stuff, and generally made it pretty. But just remember the only reason Jackyboy even brought this to your attention is because he disagreed with a comment I made in an unrelated deletion discussion. (And no, I am not wikistalking him in return, I was merely curious to see if he had reverted anything else I had edited. That's how I found this talkpage.) Howa0082 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no hurry. Until the rfar concludes, Until then I will make little or preferably no edit to fiction related topics. I'll abide by the decision there. I do not want to make a futile attempt to improve articles in the meanwhile if all those articles will end up getting deleted w/o discussion. -- Catchi? 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No discussion?
Would you please provide a few examples of TTN redirecting articles without discussion? I can only find cases where he has provided warning on talk pages.Kww (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A warning template is no discussion. A monologue is also no discussion. He may be using a merge template but a good number of times he has no edits to the target merge article. On occasions he has removed/blank articles despite a discussion. Please see the arbcom evidence page for the examples. -- Catchi? 21:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the phrase "without discussion" is quite misleading. He seems to always post advance warning, and responds to any discussion from people that state an intention to improve the article. I see no evidence of him refusing to engage in discussion, or failing to respond to comments founded in policy.Kww (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of evidence showing him revert waring. One such example is [67]. I have linked so on my statement to arbcom on the linked case. Please have a read of it as many of the issues you ask me is answered there. You are more than welcome to conduct your own research.
Drumhead discussions with only one possible outcome (any other outcome will be ignored) is not really a discussion. Initiating a discussion or posting merge templates is not adequate to make bulk edits. The very reason we ask people to "discuss" is to promote a collaborative environment. I see not a whole lot of collaboration from TTN. I do see bot like edits.
TTN's use of the merge template is particularly misleading. Also the problem does not only involve TTN. There are others.
I can only return the best wishes - but with this full bag! -- Catchi? 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hope you and yours are having a nice holiday time. I have an almost white cat, called Blue. I'll try and get a pic of her and let you know when it is uploaded here. Thanks, SqueakBox20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
This is very clearly a far worse image than the one you have replaced it with - a typical washed-out Yorck project scan from a 50-year-old book. Please reverse this imediately! I am very concerned that you could possibly think this the better image and would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning, preferably at on en WP. diff on enJohnbod23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. OK so what is the issue again? The other version is higher resolution and feels better. Your version is simply darker. -- Catchi? 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it is much richer and has far better colour values. Your preferred version is washed out. Caravaggio is famously dark - that is why the image is at Chiaroscuro. I am concerned because when I can be bothered to check these bot-changes to so-called "improved" images they are often worse. Do you actually know what works like this look like in the original? I have removed the tag on Commons on the other image - is there anything else needed to stop the replacement process? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivially easy for me to revert the bot edits. I will do this now. I will quote this thread too. -- Catchi? 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I think I have reverted all the en:WP changes. But what can we do to stop futre occurences? I saw the original of this a year or so ago btw. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution is finding a high quality image of high resolution. We have a high quality image with low resolution which is not good. Where is the source of the image located? A nearby wikipedian can take a photo of it for example.
In the future DO NOT revert CommonsDelinker. On the pages you reverted commons delinker a link to this thread was not generated. I could have deleted either version and you would have generated redlinks. Manual reverts of commonsdelinker creates problems and no benefit.
It is in Italy, & not supposed to be photographed (of course). An amateur photo would be worse than either of these anyway; you need special lighting - it is about 2m high. I won't revert Delinker if you don't tag superior images for replacement - deal? Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The museum may have a better quality image for our taking. Museums typically have these DVDs full of the content inside the museum so people visiting can take the photos. So that may be an option. You could contact the museum for a better image as well.
Commons has over 2 million media. We commons admins try to juggle these 2 million images trying to get the best ones for the +250 wikis these images are used at. This isn't very easy as there are so few of us around. It makes our job more difficult and time consuming when people contradict CommonsDelinker. We can't force anyone to obey us but all we ask is to let us work from a central location. So I ask you not to revert CommonsDelinker even if you are 100% right to do so. Just page me or some other commons admin and we will sort the issue centrally. I or any commons admin may make a mistake. This is no big deal and it would be easier for everybody if we do this.
Well I appreciate your prompt response & will do so in the future. The better image is actually far better than the vast majority of our images of paintings, a great number of which are, like the poorer version of this, scans from books over 50 years old with similar faded & washed out values (Yorck project etc), no matter how high the resolution. This painting is actually in a church, as you can see from the file description. I remain concerned that decisions like this are being taken; perhaps you could let me know if you are tempted to replace any more images of old master paintings. I am rather distrustful of Commons procedures here, especially after finding this 1930s reproduction replacing the one of an original (yes looking more faded) in the Met NY, which now is hidden away], only accesible from the file of the fake (sorry repro). It was clear from the discussion on this that knowledge of older artworks is in very short supply on Commons. If this can happen to the most famous image in Japanese graphics, God knows what is going on elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cant remember how many images I juggled today so I can't make any such promises. I do however invite you to work on commons. You could help better categorize painting images and work on the quality. You could even help with the featured pictured thing as well as commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Your expert opinions would be most welcome. -- Catchi? 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I do a certain amount of categorising there, but only see these deletion & replacement tags when they crop up on articles I watch. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to use the undeletion process (COM:UNDEL) if you disagree with a deletion. There is no easy way to monitor the RC feed of commons. -- Catchi? 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Andranikpasha and ASALA
This is counter-productive; I did block Fedayee for repeating accusations of sockpuppetry. It is quite likely that there is offwiki canvassing going on here, but the article is on the noticeboards, so it will sort itself out in due course. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with sockpuppets from the Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense for quite sometime. For example I was rather active on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad: (page history). I helped expose a good number of Artaxiad's sockpuppets. That #Raw_data was generated with my intervention. So yes, I have been dealing with this issue. I merely had taken a long break as dealing with this is more then stressful as you probably agree.
I did not randomly go to Penwhale, he the person placing VartanM under the restrictions and I merely pointed out identical edits by Andranikpasha. All this was before the issue was on the noticeboards.
I merely do not want any of the Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense leaking to that specific article. Now that the problem is under scope, I do not believe we will see any more of the nonsense on that article.
I clearly am not the source of the problem here and would welcome a little more courtesy. That was the first time I used the word "sockpuppet" in months.
Is there any way I can help you regarding either this or some other problem?
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Air_%28tv%29_logo_%28lesser_whitespace%29.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
_04_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04_1.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jm1.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ulubiona2.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Caspod1.gif&oldid=5018388){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bawola_Glowa.svg?uselang=en){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Herb_Straszy%C5%84ski_1.svg?uselang=en){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Caspod4.gif){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kras8.JPG&oldid=5062070){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kras7.JPG&oldid=5062069){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kras6.JPG&oldid=5062064){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kras5.JPG&oldid=5062060){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lezajsk_stalls_1.jpg&oldid=5062044){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Turki2.jpg&oldid=5062002){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Turki1.jpg&oldid=5061997){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Odznaka.jpg&oldid=5061983){kind=link}
![[31]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lezajsk2.jpg&oldid=5061920){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lezajsk1.jpg&oldid=5061918){kind=link}
![[33]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Caspod6.gif&oldid=5062191){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Caspod5.gif&oldid=5062180){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Caspod4.gif&oldid=5062174){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Caspod3.gif&oldid=5062171){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Caspod2.gif&oldid=5062160){kind=link}
![[38]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Caspod1.gif&oldid=5062164){kind=link}
){kind=link}
-2007-05-15T02:48:00.000Z-Image:Air_Movie_DVD.JPG){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T05:05:00.000Z-Image:GAP_Region.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_04_2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_13_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Part_I.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Part_II.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[52]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AKurdish_Kingdoms_of_Corduene-Sophene.jpg&diff=155294708&oldid=155294430){kind=link}
_logo_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo_1.png){kind=link}
_logo_2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo_2.png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
