User talk:Maxim/Archives/3

deleted icon from TextMate page

Hi there. You yesterday deleted the icons from the TextMate article, without either alerting the talk page of the article, or in fact touching it in any way; you left ImageRemovalBot to clean up the broken links (which is extremely annoying as bot edits don't show on watchlists). Anyway, I'm happy that you want to delete stuff for no reason, but you could save yourself the trouble, by just putting a note at the talk page instead; the fair use rationale is pretty simple for someone to add, but now we have to go find another copy of those images to upload back. --jacobolus (t) 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think the proper protocol was followed, as I'm pretty sure there was no weeklong notice placed either at the images themselves, or at their uploaders' talk pages (see WP:CSD#I6). Speedy deletion of anything should be done cautiously, not rampantly. --jacobolus (t) 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for voicing your concerns. I follow the necessary procedures, but frankly, process is rather evil. You can enable bot edits in your watchlist. You should also try to assume good faith. And I merely delete image that nobody has cared for in seven days. Thanks, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the point is that no one was notified that this image would be deleted before it happened. And since Wikipedia deletes (at least user-visible) metadata and page history for deleted images, the result is a large wasted effort, with no positive benefits, and potentially catastrophic negative side effects. It's quite frustrating. You may be acting out what you believe to be best for Wikipedia, but the results are predictably the opposite. --jacobolus (t) 06:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for you, or some other person with administrative rights, to restore such wrongfully-deleted images? For reference they were at Image:TextMate.png and Image:TextMate-original-icon.png --jacobolus (t) 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They're not wrongfully deleted!! They're missing fair use rationale, and if you want the image, you should upload them yourself. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fort San Felipe del Morro

Somehow, in removing a jpg, you changed Fort San Felipe del Morro to be the same as citadel. Delfeye 02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a bug that has since then been fixed. _→AzaToth 14:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please restore protection at Eugenics in Showa Japan

Discussion appears to have gone nowhere as the edit warring has just picked up right away after protection expired.

Any advice as how best to proceed to resolve the dispute (I've instigated an RFC, but it has gotten little attention, as usual) would be appreciated.

I have suggested that FlyingTiger initiate Mediation steps.--ZayZayEM 02:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• PLEASE. Mediation has been filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan --ZayZayEM 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Separation of powers

Bonjour, j'ai vu sur ta page que tu maîtrise le français, c'est plus facile pour moi car je parle mal l'anglais. Aussi, au sujet du message que vous m'avez envoyez et le revert sur Separation of powers, à l'évidence vous vous êtes trompez : à l'origine je contribue sur le wikipedia français, et un vandale, connue ici (Miriam83), y est intervenue, alors j'ai décidé de vérifier sur ce wiki ces autres modifications. Là (sur Separation of powers) il s'agit d'un autre vandale, certe, mais vérifie bien tu as "reverter" sur la mauvaise version. --86.69.230.26 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[Image:Streptococcus oralis on Wilkins-Chalgren Agar.JPG]

Why delete the image. It was taken by uploader (my wife) and she had put a license on it. It only was not placed in a tag because she did not how to do it.

It seems inappropriate to me to auto-delete images without looking at the text. Woefully discouraging.

Note on: WP:CSD#I4

" Lack of licensing information. Images in category "Images with unknown source", "Images with unknown copyright status", or "Images with no copyright tag" that have been in the category for more than seven days, and which still lack the necessary information, regardless of when uploaded. Note, users sometimes specify their source in the upload summary, so be sure to check the circumstances of the image. "

--Djihed 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that one. However, I strongly suggest you upload it specifiying the source in the image description. Also, I don't delete image automatically; I inspect every one carefully, but I make some mistakes, unfortunately. I'm sorry. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ok - that's alright, but could you please restore the image. --Djihed 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maxim, again, could you please restore the image. --Djihed 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd prefer it be properly re-uploaded with all the details. Sorry for not getting back quicker to you, my talkpage is very full (and everything older than three days is archived).

I'm not sure whether she has the picture any more. I'd be really nice of you to restore it, I'll make sure that it gets the proper license tag. About details, the old page already has what is needed AFAIK (camera make, model, etc?), otherwise, what other details are needed?. --Djihed 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Perhaps I could ask you to explain why you removed the image Dining.in.hell,toon.jpg from the Project (as noted here). I had permission to use the image fromthe artist, it had a Fiar-use argument that I thought appropriate, and I am curious that, if it was defective in some way, how to re-upload it in such a way so as to avoid the previous errors. Is there a reason it dodn't show up in IfD noms?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You licensed it under a non-commercial or education use only license. Those are ineligible for Wikipedia.

Okay, I guess I am unclear how to tag the image. I would think its fair-use, because I have obtained permission to use the image. How should I license the cartoon? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just add {{fairuse}} then an appropriate fair use rationale. My tip is not to select from the drop-down list. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to know where there are any political cartoon images or the like in WP? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I kinda have no clue, I'm not an image search engine. ;-) Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, I think you can, I think you can, I think you can... :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apples99

Out of curiousity, what led you to block Apples99 indefinitely? --Nik 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive trolling and personal attacks. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where? When? I've gone through his contributions list, and while he seems upset about the deletion of the Panhandlers Union article, I didn't see any obvious trolling or anything that merits the label "personal attacks". For the sake of transparency: he turns out to be my brother, although I didn't know it was him until yesterday. --Nik 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion even after filling up the Fair-Use template, Please explain

As I was informed that I did not give enough information about the fair use of the image(Image:RustyJeffers DVD.jpg), I followed the instructions and fill up and posted the Fair-Use Template and left words on the discussion page. The administration is required to give me an explanation of what further information is necessary for posting that image rather than detleting it without communication. I have been frustrated with your rules about posting a image. I do not know how to post one even though I have got the agreement of the owner of the photo to use it!

Please explain the reason of my inadequacy in using that image.

Thanks.--Alvinyu 09:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted because it didn't specify an article that the image should be used. A fair use rationale justifies a use of an image in a certain article; that's how they work. Yours didn't. You recieved a notice on the your talkpage explaining it, and it had the links. You didn't do anything to the image for over seven days, so it was deleted. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explaination. I did add a fully completed fair-use template and specified the article used in Wikipedia. I also left a message on the discussion page of the image for advice on any information I should give for the use of the image and checked almost everyday without any rely. You just deleted the image without notice. Should I remove the "reputed" code after I have added the completed template for that image to avoid the image deletion without further notice?

Thanks for your advice again. --Alvinyu 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

You saved me a trip to arv to (grudgingly) request he be blocked, so I suppose your way's better than mine. Why some people go here instead of myspace I'll never know... YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 10-26-2007 • 22:37:03

Oh, and according to this, David just did a foolish thing by reverting a revert. It was there when the page was first made, and someone reverted it, and david reverted them, and I reverted david (long chain huh?). Just for clarity I'm not sure he knew what he was doing, but I don't want to argue about my oppinion after all, I'm just some kid in NC. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 10-26-2007 • 22:53:20

Thanks. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Procterandgamble.svg

I'm surprised you deleted this. Yes, there had been a dispute. The miss was that it did not say what page this image was used on. I added this. What else was missing? We really need an image on this article - to make it a top class article. Can you advise if something else was missing as I plan to boldly improve regardless.Obina 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted because its fair-use rationale had issues. Please re-uploaded with a proper rationale. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fracas page image deletions

All of the images on the Fracas! Improv Festival page were deleted, and I am worried that I misunderstood the copyright guidelines they were supposed to be uploaded under. I followed the instructions on the image upload page in order to license the images as Creative Commons images, but they were deleted. The reason given was that I did not give information as to who owns the image, who created it, and what the copyright specifications were, but I did. Can you please explain why these images were deleted so that I can re-upload them correctly? Thanks!

Reed.jacob 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say where you got them from. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I am not more well-versed in how these things are supposed to be done, but how/where am I supposed to list where I got the images from? They are my images. I re-uploaded one of them and tried to create an image summary like I have seen on other wikipedia images. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_fourguys.jpg I don't know if that's the right way to do it though. Reed.jacob 02:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-self}} is a useful template to put in the description, without using the dropdown menu. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the pictures were taken by a professional photographer. He has agreed to let them be used publically, as long as he is credited. That's why I used the Creative Commons license that says the image can be used for whatever, as long as the photographer is credited. What's wrong with doing that? Reed.jacob 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

re: MPRE page

The external links which I removed from the page are dead links. My edit was intended constructively, I believe they should be removed, since it is inconvenient for people like me to click them and be directed to empty pages...

Sorry for the mistaken revert. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:170.215.130.65

You undid some vandalism from this you once. He seems to be back vandalizing articles (same articles in the same way), but now he's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.46.215.122 I've been reverting his posts, but they are getting annoying. Can you help? Mathewignash 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the anon stopped. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing instance of image Govdejongh.png

I attempted to add an image of our Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Jongh) to his wikipedia article and it was recently deleted citing: Removing instance of image Govdejongh.png that has been deleted because "CSD I7 - Replaceable fair use image"); using TW)

This image is available in every USVI Government Office and is also available on his website. I have directly contacted his special assistant who confirmed I was free to use the image on Wikipedia.

My question is how can I add it so it won't be deleted. I'm new to uploading images to Wikipedia but the process seems really complicated unless you took the image yourself. What do I need to do to keep the image up?

You can't use fair use images for living persons. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Kettle hat

I reverted your rvt to Kettle hat because I believe the edit was made in error. Not a big deal, however, you may want to modify your V1 warning on the user's talk page in case this edit was indeed an error. Cheers. BC 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I made a mistake. Thanks for the rvt, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Thanks for keeping Image:4000_interior.jpg and Image:4000family.jpg And please keep this one Image:Rafttruck2.jpg until next summer, when I will have access to this particular vehicle again, as stated in more detail here-- User_talk:Rettetast. I'm new to Wikipedia and am slowly learning. I don't have very much time to spend here as I work 40+ hours a week in a national park.--Lpimlott 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My compliments on your huge effort and a question

Hi Maxim. My compliments on the huge effort you are making to keep Wikipedia clean. I am an admin on Commons where I occasinally also delete a thousand pages on a day, but from what I have seen in the past days, this is your daily quotum. Fantastic effort and thank you for keeping the wiki nice and tidy - or at least trying to.

I've been tagging media that have duplicates on Commons lately. I am using CommonsClash for that. Currently I am tagging about 1.000 media files per day, about 4/minute. I was wondering if this is a manageable workload, or if I should tag fewer or could tag more. In total there were about 35.000 media files to be processed. Currently there are about 30.000 left. Please give me some input so that I do not overburden admins and do not make the most effective use of they time they have. Cheers! Siebrand 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as it all done correctly, you can put up to 4000 per day in a category. I ran a script through it, and it goes quite quickly, so I'm O.K. with that number. Thanks, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV listing

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Ckfilm.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

awaiting reply

Why have you archived this section without replying to it? :( Waldir 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Purely by accident. It was at the top of my talkpage and I'm being mercilessly flooded with messages (I archive anything older than three days).

Hi Maxim. I'd like to ask you about Image:CapeVerde.png. Not being a bit-by-bit exact copy of the Commons' one is a perfect reasoning for an automated process of elimination not to delete an image. But in a human perspective, in this case it seems to me that the image is indeed deletable, since it is visually the same, and might even have less detail than the commons one, which has 8KB while this one only has 7KB. What do you think? Waldir 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It has a different name on Commons. If I delete the image, I'll break the display of the images in articles. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Only about 3 articles link to it. If I change the links on them, will you delete it? Waldir 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and you're an admin, feel free to delete it yourself. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I understand :) I can tell how your talk page is busy, my watched list has been much longer than the usual, the last few days :P Anyway, I replaced the image in the pages it was used in with the commons' one, and remarked the image page with the nowcommons template. I am not an admin here in english wikipedia, so I can't delete it myself. So, whenever you have time, it's your turn to play now :) Waldir 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hello. I added a fair use rationale to Image:Bt en vivo.jpg last night, but it was deleted today. I don't understand how it was invalid. TravelingCat 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! TravelingCat 03:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

more image deletion

re Image:Division of anger.JPG (a book cover with photo to illustrate author bio) was tagged for possible deletion a few days ago here. i took this to mean there wasn't a specific justification for the page in question & fixed it with a link to that page & explanation. as i understand it book covers are justified for author pages, what have i done wrong? the deletion cites I7 but does not say how the rational was inadequate. thx in advance, ben  ⇒ bsnowball  08:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Erich Kästner

Hi Maxim! Due to copyright laws all quotes in the article are supposed to be deleted. In Germany Kästner's son Thomas has recently won several lawsuits against people who on the internet quote from his father unauthorisedly. T.Kästner strongly objects to quotes by his father being published on the www. In the German Wikiquote for instance, E.Kästner is a "No quote". Can I delete? I have several sources which verify T. Kästner's lawsuits. Unfortunately they are all in German, I should say --Fromgermany 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Germany has no control over the English Wikipedia, as it is hosted in Florida. I'll be in touch with legal counsel over this. I'll temporarily protect the page. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I do know that German copyright laws are restricted to Germany but Thomas Kästner has repeatedly stated that he wishes all quotes by his dad and his dad's work to be banned from the WHOLE www and not only German websites. Anyway, thanks for your help/effort/support. I don't want to stir up things. I only want to protect Wikipedia from getting into any legal jumble. ;-) --Fromgermany 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

About image deletion

Sir or madam, I notice that you have deleted the following images which were uploaded by me, even after I had added {{Non-free media rationale}}, would you please tell me what I had done wrong? Thank you!

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dearie me, you did everything right. I didn't. I'll restore everything. Sorry, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Thank you very much!!! ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 14:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:81 leaving Cody Wyoming after world run 2006.jpg

Regarding [Image:81 leaving Cody Wyoming after world run 2006.jpg], I had placed a dispute tag on the page and added comments to the talk page in response to it being flagged for a copyright violation, yet you deleted it without further discussion or review (that I am aware of). I am uncertain: was this usual procedure? Please advise. Thank you, and have a Wiki day! Mmoyer 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted because a free image can be found for what the image in question was illustrated. The notice on the talkpage didn't convince to keep the image. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

More Wierd Image Deletion

Image:Farmers'Almanac1818 ZP.png and Image:Farmers'Almanac ZP.png I clearly stated that fair use rationale was provided on the image pages of the originals. I even provided the link! ...and it was still deleted? Gee, and I thought everyone's contribution was welcome, guess not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XcepticZP (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if this was really published in 1818, then it's public domain now, and was simply mistagged as nonfree. In that case, it could be undeleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale did not justify use of the image in the article. That's why it was deleted. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another deleted image

It appears that Image:1946-10-07 Life-Lady Luck-ad-d.jpg was improperly deleted in the recent round of deletion. Can you please restore it? Thanks. Otto4711 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure.  Done Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

From a WP:MOS point of view, it looks ready; I can't comment on the subject matter, since I'm not a follower. The one question I have is this sentence:

• for ten guineas (ten and a half pounds sterling, or $48.67 USD at that time).

I'm not sure the numbers and fractions comply with WP:MOSNUM, but I'm also not sure how to fix it. You might ask Tony1 (talk · contribs) to look at that specific phrase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:CountryStampedeLogo

You deleted the image Image:CountryStampedeLogo.jpg even though I provided the requested the fair use rationale. Can you explain the reason for this, and if it was a mistake please restore the imgage? Thanks! -Kgwo1972

Mistake. Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Kgwo1972 —Preceding comment was added at 20:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi Maxim

What do you mean with Vandalism on Pyramid? It is an article, not a commercial link. Please explain.

Regards John

A diff, maybe? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:1993-ApplicationofEnglishLawAct-titlepg.jpg

Hi, Maxim, I'm afraid I dispute the deletion of Image:1993-ApplicationofEnglishLawAct-titlepg.jpg. Originally the image was tagged for deletion on the basis that it was orphaned. I realized that it had originally been in "Law of Singapore", but the part of that article that the image had been in had been spun off into "Sources of Singapore law". When the problem was brought to my attention, I updated the information on the image page to refer to "Sources of Singapore law". Could you explain why, therefore, that there was an insufficient claim of fair use? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored as an error. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for acting so quickly in restoring the image. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crazy Taxi-A Redemption Game.jpg

I thought I had fixed the WP:NFCC#10c problem on Image:Crazy Taxi-A Redemption Game.jpg several days ago. Please let me know what the problem was that resulted in this deletion. Thanks. Anomie 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Error, sorry. Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Anomie 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

...

Just restore my pages or I'll get Z-man to do it again, then report you. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to just be a misunderatanding, someone reverted my removal of the old speedy deletion tag after I undeleted the pages on request. Mr.Z-man 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well.....then....uh...-runs- Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another image deleted

Hi, I see you deleted Image:Russia5000rubles04back.jpg. That image was linked from Russian_ruble article and now that article has all images of ruble banknotes including 5000 front but not 5000 back. Which looks kinda strange. Could you restore the image because it's obviously has the same fair use rationale as other 13 images of banknotes? Anyway, by Russian Legislation currency is not eligible to copyright at all. (Federal Law N5351-1, article 8). Panda34 07:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chasebank.jpg

I did not notice that this image was up for deletion. If you will restore the image, I will add an appropriate fair use rationale.
Thank you,
--JKeene 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You have 48 hours to add a rationale. I will re-delete it if the concerns are not addressed within the alloted time. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review the image to assure that all issues have been addressed.
Thanks again,
--JKeene 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky protection

Thanks for being vigilant watching the Wayne Gretzky article. I have constantly been monitoring the page almost two years now. I've been asking for indefinite semi-protection for a long time now. Thanks for helping out. Flibirigit 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Majorly RFA

Hi, you appear to have double commented - you opposed and supported. :S -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, all fixed up. I see what you were doing; making a statement. Apologies. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative editing

you are causing a lot of wasted effort with deleting images without proper discussion first. very unnecessary. if image is missing rationale, go ahead and try add proper rational? maybe? maybe a week is too fast for anyone to react with busy schedules? looking through all the comments its obvious deletion is unnecessary. Collaborative editing Obrez 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read /talkpage rules, which you obviously did not. Nor did you read the notice on BetacommandBot's talkpage. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the criteria for speedy deletion and it mentions "Missing non-free use rationale." File:Adam carolla radio.jpg had the non-free use rationale, but it was missing one line from it. Speedy deletion criteria does not mention "Partial non-free use rationale" or "non-free use rationale that requires minor edit". In fact, image was already tagged once, and non-free use rationale was put there, before even the format of the tag changed. You did not review the tag. Please restore. What a waste of effort. Obrez 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly

Hello, Maxim. I noticed that in Majorly's RfA, you voted twice. Normally, I'd remove/strikeout/indent the most recent vote, but I can't in this particular situation. In this case, I noted that you had cast a vote in both the Support and Oppose sections. I don't know which one is your true vote, but thought you should be notified of this so you can take whatever action is needed. Ksy92003(talk) 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of 'em are my true votes. ;-) Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that possible? Well, not gonna disagree with an admin :-) Better safe than sorry. Ksy92003(talk) 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting, though. By voting in both sections, and going by the (not really true) metric of 75%, where one oppose vote is worth three supports, you've effectively done an oppose vote worth 2/3 of a normal oppose vote (I think). If you disregard the "not a vote" thing. Hmm. I think the only other permutation possible is two support votes and an oppose vote, which would be 1/3 of an oppose, or even three support votes and an oppose vote, which should, theoretically, cancel each other out. Silly, isn't it? :-) Carcharoth 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that metric only works when the percentage is actually 75%. At the moment, it is running at 90%. In other words, the value of support versus oppose votes varies depending on the current percentage. That means that at the moment you would have to support 9 times and oppose once, to have your desired effect of not really having an impact on the percentage. Given that your duplicate votes are messing up the "duplicate vote detector", I suspect an irate bureaucrat may tell you that a "neutral" vote is an easier way of doing this, and that your protest at the process should just be a comment somewhere (either with the vote or in the discussion). It is certainly interesting though! :-) Carcharoth 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beijing-Spring-Summerlands-51029.jpg

Hi - can I just check on the rational behind the deletion of these images. I had understood that CD covers were acceptable images as per the licensing drop down menu? Could you clarify please?

Many thanks

3seat 06:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FURG. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

CD/Album covers always satisfy fair use when used to illustrate an article about the CD/Album. As a result, these images should not be deleted under FU unless it isn't being used in that way (or it is redundant, too big, etc). They do not require a detailed FU. Simply identifying it as an album/CD cover is sufficient. Rklawton 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. The fair use rationale specifies in which article the image should be used, so a boilerplate template is not sufficent. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The boiler plate for a CD/album cover states the limitations. To wit: the image can only be used in articles or sections about the CD/album. In short, the rationale is built in. If the image is used for any other purpose, then the editor would need to add that rationale to the image's page. However, it is not appropriate to delete a CD/album cover simply because an editor doesn't re-state what the CD/album fair use statement already says. And if, for some reason, an editor fails to apply the correct fair use tag (CD/album cover), then it's still not appropriate to delete the image. Simply add the appropriate tag. Rklawton 22:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Including only a boilerplate template fails WP:NFCC#10c. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification on the policy talk page. You are invited to contribute. Given that the boiler plate specifically states that the image can be used in the album's article, any additional requirement is redundant. I agree that we need a fair use statement for images for other articles or sections not about the album, since this isn't covered in the boiler plate. I ask that you suspend deleting such images until we can resolve this question. Rklawton 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bjppod.jpg

...appears to have been deleted despite having a FU. Otto4711 13:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dcdvd1.jpg

...appears to have been removed despite having a valid FU. Otto4711 13:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored. In the future, can you please remove the bot notice on the talkpage, it's much easier for everybody. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

G8

Hi, I see you deleted some of the articles on Beta's list. I'm not really willing to call it a brainless deletion, but you deleted some pages that I reviewed and sometimes restored, such as Talk:Web 4.0, Talk:Wolfgang Somary and Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. As you can see, some were edited lately, and contained information about why these pages were deleted, and I think G8 doesn't apply for these. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thamls for the reminder. : ) Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it as a "ok, you can restore". If you have some time, I hope you can double check your G8 deletions to ensure no other valuable discussions are lost. These popped on my deleted contribs list since I added a "do not delete" template at the top, to ensure they would be double checked, but there probably are others ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:SummerCDJI.jpg

You seem to have deleted this image even though I used the FU template Template:Non-free_album_cover

Has there been a chance in FU policy? Can you explain why a thumbnail of a CD jacket isn't fair use on en.wikipedia? Thanks. -- Joi 14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see WP:FURG and WP:NFCC. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You poor man :(

You've had 36 messages in 3 days. Cheers, Qst 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 04:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Image

regarding Image:Anniearniel.JPG that was just deleted for copright issues, it is clear and proved beyond all doubt, the photograph was published well before 1923. I have a book in my hands from 1921 with th picture in it, and a newspaper article 4 years earlier with it too. All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. What is the problem? --Kenmenard1983 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You deleted this image (Image:Songsofthecolonies.jpg) even though I had provided a valid fair-use rationale. Please explain. -- Chironomia 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistake. Sorry about it. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You also deleted these two images (Image:DeccaDL5428.jpg and Image:DeccaDL4179.jpg), which also had fair-use rationales. Do you have a way of putting them back? Thanks. -- Chironomia 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You have nominated a recent successful WP:FL. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient for the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. Voice your thoughts on its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Maxim 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Massage Therapy Training Institute

Maxim - Hi. I'm in the process of creating a new article and it was deleted for blatant advertising. This is my first articles submission so I'm just figuring out the process. I'd appreciate any help in correcting my article to be included for submission. Thanks!

tcunard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcunard (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading over the notability guideline first to see if it meets that. Maxim 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you...

Copy the contents of the deleted Hue band talk page to the article creators' talk page so they can see my comments regarding bands, reliable sources, notability and verifiability. Thanks. Exxolon 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Linky? Maxim 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Hueband Exxolon 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Neumatic band: when deleting a page please don't forget to check whether it is linked from something. `'Míkka 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did. ;-) Except I don't like to remove links, since faults in such articles (like assertion of notability) maybe fixed in the future. Thanks, Maxim 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Maxim,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

RedGear Technologies

Hi I'm new to Wiki--if it's not obvious. A few days ago I researched RedGear Technologies on Wiki. The page didn't exsist so I decided to try to create a page and have received nothing but resistance.....why? If I did something wrong why not explain how to do it right instead of simply deleting the page and leaving me wondering. Any explaination would be appreciated. Sorry if I come across slightly pertubed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criswikiacnt (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a deletion summary I always leave. You should really look at the links provided to you, instead of immediately complaining here. You're not the only one that's doing it, and it creates more work for me, and some stress, as I do answer such queries daily. In the article's case, it was deleted because it was advertising. Maxim 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxim, I did browse the links provided. I patterned other pages about other businesses. I tried to write the page as objective as I know how--finding the information for the article at the resources I provided. What was the difference between that page and any other page on a business? Is it possible to do this page "correctly"? If so, how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.87.42 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW I read back through the policy and the only thing that I could see that might violate the policy was a link to the corporate page. But, that's what every other page on a business does. ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.87.42 (talk • contribs) 10:22, November 8, 2007

Please review WP:CORP more carefully, and you may see the reasoning behind the deletion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how no one can just give an upfront answer---(This is the way it is....) I read the policy and don't see it. Refer to conversation above. Did you see my page Cobalt?

Perhaps I was under a false impression of what Wiki is. Seems like there are a lot of hidden agendas going on here. And why??? I just wish someone would be upfront and honest

ANC logo

Hi, you deleted Image:ANClogo.svg for lack of a fair use rationale, but I think that may have been excessive. Instead of deleting it, why didn't you try to find a fair use rationale? It was easy enough for me to find one; you could use basically the same rationale as Image:COSATU_logo.png. It doesn't help to go around deleting fair use images when they're appropriate under the fair use doctrine. LittleDan^talk 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Read /talkpage rules. It's not my responsibility, it's yours, if you're the uploader. And every fair use image needs a rationale. Maxim 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The London Speaker Bureau

You say that The London Speaker Bureau is a club or a group when it is neither, it is a registerd company Why is the entry for National Speakers Bureau allowed when it does exactly the same thing? You proposed deletion for "advertising and promotion" and when I asked what part of the text was advertising you did not reply. --Brendanoc 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I never proposed anything. Maxim 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Streptococcus_oralis_on_Wilkins-Chalgren_Agar.JPG

Maxim, please don't you ignore this. You erroneously took out this picture, and you should bring it back. I'm fairly sure that it is possible. --Djihed 16:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unwilling to restore it. Please re-upload it with proper licensing information. Maxim 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

you realise that you're giving us a lot of work to look for the image to reupload it, provided that it existed, which I don't it still does. You, as an admin should know better than to step in the way. --Djihed 09:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:CapeVerde.png

Sorry to say, but it happened again.. Waldir 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn it. I've deleted it, i hope it's all god now. Maxim 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ^^ --Waldir 10:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Images on Commons with different names

Hi Maxim. Sorry to bother you again but I think you may be mistakenly deleting images which exist on Commons under a different name without fixing the links first. For instance, you just deleted Image:Belln209.jpg which on Commons is under the name Image:Bell 209.jpg. The result is a broken image link in AH-1 Cobra which will soon be removed by a bot who will simply comment-out the image. Pascal.Tesson 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the example you specified looks O.K... Maxim 23:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No actually, I just looked at your last round of deletions and it's full of the same problem. Check the article AH-1 Cobra. The two broken image links are the result of your deletions. Same problem on article Calakmul because of your deletion of en:Image:CALAKMULL.jpg. I think there's something wrong with the bad old ones tool because it never shows the usage of the images properly. In any case, you have to stop doing batch deletions because it's going terribly wrong. Pascal.Tesson 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't doing batch, I was doing it manually. :-S Maxim 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok, but you're still forgetting to replace instances of the image by the Commons name. In about half an hour you won't be able to fix these problems because a bot will have removed the broken links to these images altogether. Bad old ones never shows the en usage correctly so you have to look at the backlinks directly from the image page. Currently you're unknowingly deleting (through these cleanup bots) instances of perfectly good images. Pascal.Tesson 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Image

Regarding your deletion of Image:Co logo express black 3p.gif, I believe that there was a fair-use rationale attached to the image. Could you give me some feedback onto why that fair-use rationale was inadequate? Thanks
Rover007TN 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You must have a link to the article in which the image is used. Hence, I deleted it per this part of a policy. Maxim 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well since it was being used in the Continental Connection article up until its deletion, and since the fair use rationale did apply to that article (although I did make a small oversight and not specifically reference the article in the rationale), is there a way we could reinstate the image, and have me add the 'Fair use in Continental Connection' phrase to the fair use rationale?
Rover007TN 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an image because of an easily correctable defect is disruptive. It would be simpler to just correct the defect. This was just such an obvious case. Rklawton 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems

I'm seeing you're having ALOT of problems with image deletions. Something up? Vampire Warrior 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What? How on earth is Maxim having problems with image deletions? They seem to be working perfectly fine from where I sit. Daniel 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Compared to the number of deletions, I'd say Maxim's doing really well... I estimate about 2-3 comments per 1000 deletions. Siebrand 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Commons dupes

Hi Maxim. In about 1000 edits SieBot will be done tagging the round of duplicates on Commons. Once they have all been taken care of next week, I'll see if it is needed to do another round. At least now the en.wp admins will get the opportunity to use CommonsClash for its second intended purpuse: getting rid of naming conflicts between a local wiki and Commons. Ideally this list is empty :). Cheers! Siebrand 00:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of Suck my balls

I specifically asked that an administrator not delete the talk page of suck my balls without leaving on my talk page a consideration of the proposal that that salted page should actually be a redirect to teabagging (compare eat shit --> coprophagia). Yes, the subject matter is the sort of thing that would attract vandals, but if you could unsalt the page so I could create that redirect, that would be good. Sometimes, I just feel that admins fail to listen, which is why I'm considering requesting adminship myself, as I've been around long enough and made nearly 8000 positive edits.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxim I really don't want to look like stalking you (I'm hitting my usertalk contribs), but you really should go through your deletions of that day, as I said there probably are more pages you shouldn't have deleted right away (or before at least addressing the concerns raised there). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The salted page template says: "Restoration can be discussed at the talk page or deletion review." Evidently that's not true, in this case. There's a paradox with the salted page template because these talk pages do meet the WP:CSD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Where have I been incivil? On this talk page? I don't want to get into disagreements, but I don't think what I said here alone merited a "strong oppose" - I don't even think I was acting outwith civility at all here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"admins fail to listen"[12] appears to qualify.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

why did you delete VoiceCaptionIt

The article was completely factual and modeled after similar pages for Google, Sierra On-line, Microsoft, and dozens of other company pages. There was nothing advertised at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrybowerman (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading up on WP:SPAM. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi. Why do you really not want a userpage? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to want one? ;-) Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:77baloonscrew.jpg deletion from Match Game

If I had known about the rationale issue, I could have easily provided a TV screenshot rationale for this image. Although I didn't upload the image, I did have the talk page of Match Game watchlisted. If you had placed a notice on the talk page about the rationale problem, I could have provided a detailed and convincing rationale for an image which was quite useful in explaining the Match Game xx naming convention for the show.

I request that you restore the image so I can provide this rationale. In the future, a notice on the talk page of an article where an image is used would be appreciated, so editors can provide the required rationale. Such a notice may not be required by policy, but fair warning of an image removal to all editors interested in a particular article would be helpful and courteous. Thank you. Casey Abell 17:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading these guidelines. I don't tag the images, a bot does, it's not my responsibility to tag the images, and I merely delete the image with unaddressed concerns after 7 days. However, I'm restoring for 48 hours to allow to add a rationale; if it's proper, I won't delete it, if it's not I'll redelete it. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 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.

Thanks. :D Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of page

I belive you deleted the page User:Benno briton and Jojo da best's page. Can you please un-delete the page because we shared a page. Now our pages redirect to a deleted page. If you can't undelete the article please send me a mail of its contents.

           Thank You.

Wikipedia isn't Myspace. Myspace is this way. Maxim 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Animal feed

I'm going to restore an article you deleted after its proposed deletion expired; I think I can address the issue that lead to its proposed deletion. If you object, let's talk. ike9898 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On PROD's, I really don't mind. :-) You have my full permission. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

I noticed that you deleted the Amir Abdul-Malik Ali article. I didn't write the text and have no interest in it. But the text definitely comes from reliable sources that weren't added to the text. Nor was it possible to add any sources since the article was protected. I added a comment about this to Talk:Amir Abdul-Malik Ali and in WP:BLPN#Amir Abdul Malik, showing a few sources for some quotes in the article. So the article was not a BLP violation and shouldn't have been deleted for that reason. –panda 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed numerous things that I believed where BLP vios. Afterwards, I compared the revisions, and everything was essentially the same since it was created. I'd prefer if you restart as a fully sourced article. Thanks. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122

Hi Maxim, I dunno if you have noticed, but since you blocked Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) he has recruited at least one meatpuppet (StanPrimmer (talk · contribs)) and identified himself as the user of two anon IPs (see 131.96.70.143 (talk · contribs) and 131.96.70.164 (talk · contribs)). I see that he doesn't appear to have been autoblocked, so I was wondering if you could upgrade his block to an autoblock? Ta

BTW, I don't yet have the links, but I have been informed by someone who is on Young's mailing list that he is campaigning hard to recruit meatpuppets. This effect of this is visible at the current AfDs, and I intend to monitor it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going after his socks, I'm also getting the help of a checkuser to weed it out. And I'll sprotect the AfD's. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Image

regarding Image:Anniearniel.JPG that was just deleted for copyright issues, it is clear and proved beyond all doubt, the photograph was published well before 1923. I have a book in my hands from 1920 with the picture in it, and a newspaper article 4 years earlier with it too. All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. What is the problem? --Kenmenard1983 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ----repeated 12 november because of no response!!!!!!!!Who is Maxim's supervisor??

Sorry, I get swamped with messages, and I'm not always on time... :-( For your question, simply slapping that it's PD isn't enough. You HAVE to state where it's from. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

StanPrimmer

Hi Maxim. I think that StanPrimmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an innocent victim of Young's offsite vote-stacking. He's clearly a different individual, and is stated to be notable in his field. Do you mind if I unblock him and see if we can't straighten things out? Guy (Help!) 12:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this, and I agree. All this Ryoung stuff has stirred up a lot of drama, but I don't think the best response is to block all the meatpuppets. As people have been saying elsewhere, this is severely biting some people who are new to Wikipedia. Even if they arrive for the wrong reasons, we should hope that they will look around, learn a bit about how things work, and then eventually start to contribute productively. Even if this means that tidying up the supercentenarian material (some of which does need to stay) takes longer, this will be better than alienating lots of people. Carcharoth 12:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It is normal to give a reason for unblocking. Maybe even an apology? The way it is now, people reviewing the block log have to dig around to find out the reason for the unblock. Carcharoth 02:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for your "beat the bom" support in my successful RfA. It's humbling to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and don't worry about that image backlog. I intend to help out there ;) Spellcast 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

CHTV Logos

I was wondering if you'd be able to email me (or potentially even restore them, with proper copyright tags) the two images Image:CHTV1.svg and Image:CHTV2.svg. I won't re-upload the images without consent or agreement from other wikipedians. if you can't or are not allowed to, that's ok.  :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored both images as mistakes. And in the future, please don't post your e-mail address; it's not the smartest thing to do. Maxim 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Camber of culdi first.jpg

I noticed that you deleted Image:Camber of culdi first.jpg and I believe the deletion of the image was in error. The stated reason was that the rationale was invalid. At the time the image was tagged for deletion I discussed it with the tagger at User talk:Betacommand and there was an issue with the rationale pointing to the wrong page Camber of Culdi vs. Camber of Culdi (novel) which was corrected at the time. The image was also linked to Deryni novels by someone other than myself. While I had uploaded the image and provided the rationale for Camber of Culdi (novel), I didn't feel comfortable adding a rationale for Deryni novels and am unsure if the use in that article also qualifies for fair use. Regardless, there was a proper rationale for the use in Camber of Culdi (novel) and I believe that I noted on the image's talk page that the image should not be deleted in that article. I removed the deletion tag from Talk:Camber of Culdi (novel) but not from the image itself nor from the talk page for the second article since that use was still in dispute. Is it possible to restore the image itself and the use in Camber of Culdi (novel)? --Rtrace 14:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I made an error deleting this image. Thanks for asking so politely so I'd restore it. :-) Maxim 02:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring.--Rtrace 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Muh-hund-originallit.JPG

Why did you delete Image:Muh-hund-originallit.JPG and Image:Muh-hund-original-rondellliten.JPG? The artist of the images publicly gave permission for them to be used on Wikipedia and that was included in the fair use rationales. Please undelete them ASAP. Fnagaton 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the images because their fair use rationales (which don't even exist, another reason to delete) failed WP:NFCC#10c. Maxim 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationales do exist though. I know because I read the fair use rationale on the article talk page. Fnagaton 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Knotts Gate.jpg

Hi, I realize that the image was copied to Commons, however, on this page, it says if the "Image description page contains a request not to delete the local copy" then it can't be deleted. I, in fact, put that request on there today and wrote on the talk page asking if I was supposed to replace the tag or not. Since you deleted the image can you restore it or do I have to upload the image again? Thanks. Phydend 01:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your message. In the future, feel free to remove the tag. I have restored your image. Maxim 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Phydend 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jason image

You deleted Image:Jasonf.jpg because it shared a name with an image on Wiki Commons. The image on Wiki Commons is the exact same image, and it certainly isn't a free image in the least--as it was a promotional image released by New Line. That user who uploaded to Commons should not have done so, and it appears it is about to be deleted in commons because if insufficient copyright status. Can this be corrected?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, and I've done so. Thanks for telling me that, I didn't notice that problem when I was deleting. Maxim 11:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's cool. Thanks for fixing the issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Hinch badge.png

You deleted Image:Hinch badge.png which had a full fair use rationale. It was tagged because the article name was not included in the rationale template. This was quickly fixed. From reading earlier sections here it would appear that I should have removed the tag. I did not do this as I mistakenly thought that this could only be done by someone else, omce they had reveiwed the rationale. Can you reinstate this file please?Weejack48 08:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and I've done so. In the future, can you please remove the tag that the bot puts on the image after you fix the rationale? Thanks! Maxim 11:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

About image deletion

Sir or madam, I notice that you have deleted the following images which were uploaded by me, even after I had added {{Non-free media rationale}}, would you please tell me what I had done wrong? Thank you!

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]^{Talk to ►} Kevin 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please, please... xinfinity remove the tags next time. Usually I make about 5 mistakes like this per about 200 images when I have to use more drastic measures in a HUGE backlog. 36 mistakes.I needed the help of two other sysops. :-S Maxim 20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So next time, after I add {{Non-free media rationale}}, I can remove the tag automatically? If so, I'll do. ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, thank you so much for reverting them!! ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the tag. It will save me, you, and in this case Henrik and CBM many headaches. Maxim 02:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, once again, please check this image for me, thank you... ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 04:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved Resolved Delted Image Conflict

Why did you delete move to the archives the thread regarding the reinstatement of the Image:Co logo express black 3p.gif? I was willing to add the phrase "in Continental Connection" to the already provided fair use rationale if you reinstated the image. Can you please cooperate with me on this so we can all make Wikipedia better and more informative?

For further reference, the original thread can be found here on your archive page [43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rover007TN (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot to reply. I've restored the image so you can fix up the rationale. Sorry for the delay. :-( Maxim 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it. And sorry if I came across poorly, that was never my intention. :) Rover007TN 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:NZ fern.jpg

Hello there, I'm sure I must have received a warning about this having been tagged for deletion, but I must have missed it or I'd have improved the fair use rationale. Would it be possible to reinstate the page and I will beef up the rationale as soon as the page is up? I must admit I'm loth to post images because I almost always seem to fall foul of the rules: they seem so much more opaque and poorly explained compared to those concerning the text of articles! If this is not possible I'll re-upload the image and try to do better with the rationale. But it was rather nicely illustrating an article I'd started (Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry) and I'd be sorry to lose it. Thanks. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored for a few days so you can put a rationale. Thanks for asking! Maxim 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million. Will look at it later tonight and let you know when I have done so. I'm still not rock-solid sure of what is needed on image pages so may need some advice!! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK: I've added the fair use template and removed the deletion tag - hope that's OK. If it needs any more work can you let me know? Many thanks - Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Busybest (talk · contribs)

Question: Why does Busybest (talk · contribs)'s block not appear here but does here? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding here, but I can answer this. The first link is the new user creation log (Special:Log/newusers). The latter link is a link to this users block log. If a user is blocked, it only appears in the block log - not the newuser creation log. Qst 16:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD I8

Hi Maxim, I think Image:Cetacea range map La Plata River Dolphin.PNG Did not qualify for speedy with CSD I8. The commons version does not specify source and authors and is therefor a copyvio. Regards, Codeispoetry 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious the author made it and uploaded it. ;-) And the Commons version's no different from the one here. Certainly not a copyvio, but if you feel so compelled, feel free to tag it on Commons. Maxim 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

.It wasn't the author who uploaded it: The uploader was commons:User:E., the file was created by User:Pcb21, 2004 and User:Vardion 2003. Codeispoetry 07:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

I am contacting individuals in the order of the number of featured lists that they had created by Novemeber 10, 2007. You have created several. So you are among the first. 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) 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:OKC flag.png

Can you undelete Image:OKC flag.png and inform me once you've done that? I'll add the fair use rational that was missing when you deleted it. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Maxim 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image to be restored.

22:19, 14 November 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Murakami(Army of Mushrooms).jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale". using TW)

Image:Murakami(Army of Mushrooms).jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knulclunk (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that you were the deleting editor for this images. I am a watcher for this article and just noticed the image's removal. Could you please restore it, and I will provide the appropriate {{Non-free 2D art}} tags and rationale? As you realize, there is no way to notice a deletion request if the image itself is not being watched. This was an image that satisfied all 2d art rationales, the original uploader simply must have be absent. Thanks! --Knulclunk 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry for my tardiness. :-( Maxim 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Knulclunk (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Lotus logo.png

Hi Maxim. You recently deleted Image:Lotus logo.png because "CSD I8 - Image has the same name on Wikimedia Commons". Which it does. Unfortunately, though, the image on Wikimedia Commons was deleted on the 10th of November. Can you please resolve? Thanks. DH85868993 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to this Maxim, I notice from the above comments that you are not exactly fastidious in ensuring that you are deleting images for a valid reason, or than proper attempts have been made to resolve issues if they remain outstanding. Please make absolutely sure that your actions are correct. The Lotus logo could not possibly be a valid Commons image, as it is subject to copyright and was being used here under Fair Use. As an administrator you have a responsibility to make absolutely certain that you are in the right before you start on a path that will cost other editors time and hassle to rectify. If you continue to perform inadequately your sysop status is highly likely to be challenged. Probably by me. Pyrope 14:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed that Maxim deletes staggering amounts of bad images? If you have, you'll have seen that he has deleted over 5000 images in the last two days alone. It is unreasonable to expect that no mistakes are ever made and his error rate is exemplary, less than 1%. And he gracefully handles those mistakes that happen. Please don't jump to conclusions. henrik•talk 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the image in question. Thanks, Henrik, for the note. I think it really sums up my reply to Pyrope's comment.

Thanks for restoring the image. I've restored it to all the articles that ImageRemovalBot removed it from in the interim. DH85868993 (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:KIFR-FM.png

This 7 day fair use rationale deletion deadline is extremely maddening. Could you please restore Image:KIFR-FM.png and add the following:

• Fair use rationale for use in the article KFRC-FM:

• It contributes significantly to the article, by providing historical information about the station's branding in a way that text cannot;
• It was widely distributed without charge for the purposes of promotion and advertising;
• No free alternative can be made of this copyrighted logo image which would adequately give the same information;
• It is low resolution and does not supplant any market role of the image; and
• It is only used for informational and educational purposes.

Thank you. DHowell 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also restore Image:KBUE-FM.png, with the following rationale:

• Fair use rationale for use in the article KBUE:

• It contributes significantly to the article by identifying the subject;
• It provides information about the station's branding in a way that text cannot;
• It was widely distributed without charge for the purposes of promotion and advertising;
• No free alternative can be made of this copyrighted logo image which would adequately give the same information;
• It is low resolution and does not supplant any market role of the image; and
• It is only used for informational and educational purposes.

Thank you. DHowell (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for so politely asking me to fix it. :-) Maxim 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Reopen Open Hearts (2007 film)

I would consider reopen the deleted article about the movie remake "Open Hears" of the Open Hearts (2002 film) by Zach Braff. The imdb comment states "Zach Braff has put the project on hold", still, it is sheduled to release in 2008 (next year) and the imdb note states "Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely."
So the definition of the movie meets the requirement of being in production, the original reason for deletion of the article. The movie (and its wikipedia internal link) is mentioned in several other articles as Open Hearts (2002 film) and Zach Braff. The imdb Profile of the movie can be seen here. I do not know which information was given in the article, but it can surely be expanded to at least an film stub now. Since the movy will be released next year, there isn't much time left to enter the movie into the wikipedia. Greetings, ColdCase 03:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Per policy, I've restored it. In the future, if a sysop deletes a page citing an expired PROD, just ask them to restore it. Cheers! Maxim 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Image:HamiltonPoliceOntarioLogo.png"

Hi, I noted that you had deleted an image I had uploaded. I reviewed the policy you cited in the deletion log, but I'm unclear as to specifically what part of it you feel applies in this case. -- Alan.ca (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I reviewed the following guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as it appears to be the relevant policy to the CSD you had referenced. -- Alan.ca (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it so you can add the rationale. I'll give about 48 hours to do so, after which I'll redelete it. Maxim 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Malone College Athletic Logo

I believe you were incorrect to delete the logo Image:MaloneCollegeLogo.jpg as it most certainly meets fair use rational for Wikipedia, and the fair use rationale was clearly spelled out. Other examples of fair use logos are:

1. Image:FloridaAtlanticOwls.png
2. Image:NotreDameFightingIrish.png
3. Image:University-of-Nebraska-Lincoln-logo.png
4. Image:UCLA Bruins Logo.png
5. Image:BostonCollegeEagles.png
6. Image:MichiganWolverines.png

When I uploaded the logo, I used the fair use rational from a collection of colleges just like these as an example. Since the other college logos obviously meet the standards, Malone College Athletics should as well.---- Paul McDonald (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you fix the image, you should remove the tag, as I sometimes miss them and delete inadvertantly. Just as an aside, you need to add an article name to Image:FloridaAtlanticOwls.png and using it in 8 or 9 pages is abuse. Maxim 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a better idea--how about you check first before you delete anything. You could have easily reviewed the history before deleting the file. It's obvious from reviewing this page that you are pretty darned trigger-happy at deleting things. Many of them do need to be clarified and many of them should be deleted, yes. But please--think first.

Or here's an even better idea: you could also easily have left instructions to remove the tag that you put on once it is fixed. You put something on a page, then you want me to remove it so you don't delete the page? Surely this is not a good idea.

As it was, I left notification that I had made changes to the fair use rationale and was under the assumption that you would have reviewed the discussion page notes.

I don't know anything about the Florida Atlantic logo--I was just using it as an example. As you can tell by reviewing the history of the page, I've never made any changes to it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122

Hi Maxim. As the blocking admin, do you think you would have time to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ryoung122? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to comment, but I'll add a short comment here; Robert has used sockpuppets and I've blocked one of his IP ranges for a few months via simple observation and Checkuser confirmation. So I'm not too eager. Maxim 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 17 November, 2007, a fact from the article 2007 Siberian orange snow, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hooray!!!

Replaceable fair use image

I saw that you closed a speedy deletion nomination at Image:Rafttruck2.jpg, claiming that it was nonreplaceable. I'm not sure that was appropriate, though, given that it was just a picture of a truck. It's clearly possible to take a free image of truck, and the uploader himself has said: "will replace when I have access to this vehicle." I've subsequently listed the image at images for deletion. He mentioned your name in a thread on my talk page, so I thought I'd notify you about my new nomination. -- RG² 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to large vehicles as I live and work in a national park. It was decided to keep this image until I can get one of my own. I would like it left there until I am able to. I don't exactly have the time (or money at todays gas prices) to go out driving around taking pictures.--Lpimlott (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning was fairly convincing, but the article has too many fair use images. One's sufficient in the lead, fair-use galleries are frowned upon. Maxim 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read anything about galleries with fair-use images being frowned upon. The images illustrate different

variations of the particular model. Is there another way of incorporating these images until I'm able to get my own?? I would appreciate some help instead of just deleting these. Thanks--Lpimlott (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lpimlott -- please try to communicate and be helpful instead of just being "delete-happy" --Paul McDonald (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

img.AlexFinlayson.jpg

Dear Maxim, The glory of Wikiland is its army of anonymous objectivity. The scourge of it is its verbosity. Please please please give me a 1,2,3,4 on how to correctly upload and certify this photo-- instead of the mumbo jumbo of endless wikispeak. When I am instructed civilly, I cooperate. When I am given infinite lists of regulations and links (poorly written and disorganized) I slink away. My past editors have taught me much, but even the last two have said that photos are a no man's land even they do not understand. Enlighten me. Vidamasvida (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:AsuradaAFK0 Saga.JPG

I noticed that you recently deleted the image Image:AsuradaAFK0 Saga.JPG. I was the original uploader for the image and added Fair-use rationale to the talk page. I didn't realize until perrusing your talk page that I was supposed to delete the template for deletion as well. I hope that you will be able to restore the image please and let me know if there are any additional tags I need to add. --TnoWatanabe (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, I've restored it. Maxim 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. And keep up the good work! --TnoWatanabe (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please warn us if you are intending to delete images

Hi Maxim, you deleted the following images without giving fair warning on the article talk page, so we never had any opportunity to provide the missing fair use rationale.

1. Image:Estonian ID card front.jpeg,
2. Image:Constitutional Pilsener.jpeg,
3. Image:Kõige suurem sõber VHS.jpeg,
4. Image:Pehme ja karvane Ilves.jpeg

Could you please restore those images so that we can add a fair use rationale. In the future, could you please put a warning on the article talk page where the image is used, if an image will be deleted in a few days due to some problem. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the bot's job to notify the talkpage, not mine. However, since anything related to it always bypasses WP:AN to WP:ANI because of its infamy, it maybe bugged. I'll restore these images for a few days to allow you to fix them.

Deleted image

Hi Maxim. You recently deleted (image to right) thumb because it "has the same name on Wikimedia Commons". Ostensibly that's fine, but I now find that the image has also been deleted over at the Commons because it wasn't attributed properly there. Firstly, I never put it there in the first place - I uploaded it to Wikipedia directly; secondly, I'm pretty sure that I originally uploaded it with the proper attributions (it was self-made). Anyway, it's not your fault that was deleted from the Commons, but seeing that you seem to police these matters, I was wondering if there was anything that I can do to stop this chain of events from happening again? It's very annoying to find legitimate content being covertly (to me anyway) deleted. Finally, can the image be restored without me having to upload it again? Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Maxim. Don't worry about this now. The admin who deleted the image over at the Commons reinstated it for me. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Christopher Dodd

This may be a weird request since I was the one who nominated this article for deletion but I am about to write an article on the campaign of Chris Dodd and it would be extremely helpful if this article was undeleted so I could use the information in it in the article I am about to create. Could you please undelete Political positions of Christopher Dodd? --Southern Texas 01:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Maxim 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Two deleted images

Hello, you recently deleted Image:PowerStation3.svg and Image:Transformer3d col3.svg, both on the grounds of WP:CSD#I8: "Image has the same name on Wikimedia Commons". This was true, but both were featured images on Wikipedia, and no longer appear to be. What is the practice for featured images under these circumstances? — BillC ^talk 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Two errors. Fixed. Maxim 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi,

I noticed this image was deleted Image:NGoScreenshot.PNG. What would I need to do to be able to show this image on here? Would permission from the publisher be sufficient?

Wikidan829 (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look around WP:OTRS to send permission - it should be confirmed there. Maxim 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the Barnard's Star images

Please restore the Barnard's Star images you recently deleted at the end of October. I have contacted the author, and he has confirmed in email and on the source web page that he put the images in question into the public domain. The pages where the images were used are Barnard's Star and proper motion.

• Image:Barnardstar2006.jpg
• Image:Barnard2005.gif

(I thought you had already restored these, but they were actually linking from Commons. They are now being deleted there because of incorrect attribution.) --IanOsgood (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look around WP:OTRS to send permission - it should be confirmed there. Maxim 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean I need to start an official deletion review? OK, I did that. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I completely misread this, I thought you got an email from the author. The license and source is all good, I've restored the images. The deletion review wasn't necessary. ;-) Maxim 02:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Hi, Maxim. According to the deletion log, you deleted Image:MichelleD04.jpg because of "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale". I have since re-uploaded the image to Image:24 character dessler.jpg and added a fair use rationale. I was wondering if you could check that the rationale is sufficient. Thank you, Ladida (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Maxim 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ladida (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

C21 Logo

Hi Maxim, I was wandering around and saw you deleted Image:Century 21 logo.png. I didn't upload it, but since its a logo and those tend to be easy to write fair use rationales for, I'm wondering if you can undelete it to give me a chance to take a shot. Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review this request yet? I know you might be busy with the holiday, depending on where you are. Mbisanz (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I accidentaly skipped this request. I've undeleted it. Maxim 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-added to article and rationaled Mbisanz (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gocountry105.png

Thank you very much for restoring the KIFR and KBUE logos. Could you please also restore Image:Gocountry105.png, using the same rationale as for the KBUE image above? (with the article name replaced by KKGO, of course). Thank you. DHowell (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done, I believe. Maxim 01:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

this block

With regards to the above block, didn't you mean usernameblock, not schoolblock?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. In Special:Blockip, there is a dropdown menu of commons block reasons and times, and I've blocked usernames for one year countless times. :-S

User page

Nice to see you finally got one... :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:NextelChallenge.JPEG

Why did you delete this image. That image is the only version that can be found and there's no Free versions of this image avalable. I would put that as a rational but the image was deleted. The image is used to reference the logo of that race on the article NASCAR_NEXTEL_All-Star_Challenge. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I specified a reason in the deletion log. Afterwards, do you wish that I restore the image so you can add a rationale? Maxim 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I uploaded a rational to the image. I hope thats enough to get the image undeleted. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. Cheers! Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot

...to semi-protect Jenkem. __meco (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

SlamTV! Episodes

I noticed you deleted the SlamTV! Episodes pages earlier this month. I tried to dig it up, but I don't know much about the technicals of wiki. I was hoping you could undo the deletion or make the page again with the same info. I will provide the links to the DVDs and the home page for notability afterwards. Thanks.Juggalobrink (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you have a link to the deleted aricle to help me out? I make thousands of deletions, bringing up the subject of the article doesn't ring a bell. Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Shropshire Revolution Images

Hi Maxim,

I notice that you have recently deleted two images that I have uploaded, Freerevolution.jpg and Freerevolution001.jpb because of "CSD I7 - Replaceable fair use image". using TW). I have obviously given the wrong summary or something. Can you tell me what I need to do 'exactly' to keep these images up and in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Many thanks in advance. Robert C Prenic (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Provide a proper fair use rationale, but keep in mind that fair use images of living/existing people/buildings aren't accepted because a free version could be reasonably easily created.

Done, I think. Robert C Prenic (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegalitarianism

I am only leting you know that you forgot close the vote for deleting the page. It was nominated 20. november 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tramp (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think someone else has beat me to it. Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sgrumf

Why did you delete my monobook.js? _→AzaToth 01:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing over it and I clicked csd, because I had just installed it... and then I clicked a button by accident and I noticed that it started so I thought I canceled it, and I inadvertantly deleted it... Complete accident, you're welcome to delete mine anytime you want. :D Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 November 2007

looks like you did a speedy delete on the category Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 November 2007 while there were still five articles in it. Jeepday (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, my JS didn't finish properly... :-( Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of image mainlib.gif

Hi. I work for the Jacksonville Public Library and I am responsible for maintaining the accuracy of web presentations of the library including the Wikipedia page which I created. The image you have deleted twice has been approved by the library to be representational of the Main Library building. Yes there are presumably free images of the library out there - I've taken a few myself. However the best representational picture of the entire facade of the building is the one that I chose to put in Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if instead of just deleting the image you'd let me know what I should do as far as licensing if that is what needs to be changed.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images of existing building are not accepted because free ones can be created; see WP:NFCC. It'd be better if you uploaded a free one. Also, you should read up on the conflict of interest policy. It concerns you. Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do try to be as neutral as possible, esp. when I write about the library. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

DEAR SIR this is regarding the deleted image "Image:Krishna Hospital.jpg" kindly help me how do i add the image the image is of an existing building how do i do it

Pingali (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images of building aren't accepted, because a freely license one can be created. Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You also deleted my image, "Image:Okervil dont.jpg" and I want to know why. It clearly had a fair use rationale on it and I did get it from the record label's web site way back when. -- H3xx (^t/c/_b) 23:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you care to read the link I provided in my deletion summary?

Re: A barnstar

Thank you very much for the kind words, Maxim. :) east.718 at 07:37, November 23, 2007

Your help please...

You deleted wikipedia:Image:Elbe watershed 7.png because it had been ported to the commons.

Unfortunately, whoever ported it did not copy the original creation date.

I am porting it to the citizendium. And I should really use that original creation date. Can you look it up for me?

I mentioned this problem, in general, over on WP:AN/I

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also wikipedia:Image:Jutland peninsula 2.png, if you don't mind. talk) 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also wikipedia:Image:Lake Simcoe Ontario.png, if you don't mind. Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In order:

09:44, 3 November 2004 . . Geo Swan (Talk | contribs | block) 514×484 (22,047 bytes) (Watershed of the River Elbe in central Europe)

10:49, 1 November 2004 . . Geo Swan (Talk | contribs | block) 514×774 (13,707 bytes) (jutland peninsula, europe)

23:03, 18 November 2004 . . Geo Swan (Talk | contribs | block) 534×708 (10,066 bytes) (Lake Simcoe Ontario)

Nice pics, by the way. Maxim 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

And thanks for the compliment. The tool makes it easy.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of image Season3pan.jpg

Hi! You deleted this image on November 22 due to a supposed missing fair use rationale. I was the current uploader of that image and I'm sure I had a correct FUR on it. Did a vandal remove the information? If not, could you restore it and I'll readd the FUR? Thanks. -- RattleMan (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for the tardiness, I believe I skipped this thread by accident. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken

Hey Maxim!

If m:User:Maxim is you, then your signature is broken :o) ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Action about user 68.146.103.228

I do not agree with your decision. Did you read the said user's comments? Wikipedia has a 0 tolerance for such comments WP:NPA . I am wondering what your motive was for not baning him. Granted he was not warned, however in such situations their should be no lenience.--Jab843 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The user stopped, a final warning wasn't even issued. If you dislike the guidlines, change 'em. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of Anonimu

Given the ArbComm case was underway, please at least note your block in evidence. Giving the reasons would also be a good idea. GRBerry 04:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noted it here as a finding of fact that he was continuingly in violation of policy. Will ^(talk) 10:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

More deleted TV & radio station logos

Thank you so much for your previous restorals, could you also please restore the following, using the rationales as noted here?:

• Current station logos:
  • Image:KMEZ-FM.gif in KMEZ
  • Image:KDYA4.gif in KDYA
  • Image:Logo wild1049hd color.jpg in KKWD
  • Image:Logo wild.gif in WWLS-FM
  • Image:K104fm.jpg in KKDA-FM
  • Image:Kmjk logo.gif in KMJK
  • Image:G105logo.jpg in WDCG
  • Image:957vibe.jpg in KCHZ
  • Image:KYSR-FM.png in KYSR
  • Image:KXOL.png in KXOL-FM
  • Image:Abc7la.png in Circle 7 logo
• Historical station logos:
  • Image:Wamy tv 2007.jpg in WZDX
  • Image:WFXT90.PNG in WFXT
  • Image:FOX11- 1991.jpg in KTTV
• Historical network logos: (replace "station" with "network" in rationale)
  • Image:Cbs89 a.jpg and Image:Cbs90 a.jpg in Get Ready for CBS
  • Image:Cbs88.jpg in CBS: Television You Can Feel
  • Image:Cbs86 a.jpg, Image:Cbs86 b.jpg and Image:Cbs87 a.jpg in Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit
  • Image:Abc90 a.jpg and Image:Abc91 a.jpg in America's Watching ABC
  • Image:Abc87 a.jpg, Image:Abc88 a.jpg and Image:Abc89.jpg in Something's Happening on ABC
  • Image:Abc86 a.jpg in Together (ABC Television Network)

Hope this isn't too much trouble. Thanks! DHowell (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We (me and a few nice other admins) are working on this. Please be pateint while this is being fixed. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the images should be restored, but I'm not going to add rationales and revert for 35 images and pages. If someone else feels like helping that's cool, if you wanna, it's cool as well, but I don't have the damn patience, time, and willingness to fix it, as it's really your responsibility. Maxim_(talk) 02:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will add the rationales myself; I appreciate you undeleting them for me. Obviously I can't undelete images, and it would be a daunting task to determine where all the images came from in order to re-upload them, since any source information gets deleted along with the image. I just ask that if I find more in the future, would you mind undeleting them, or give permission for another admin to revert your deletions of similar images at my request? Thank you very much for you continued help. Also, are there any on-wiki discussions about restoring deleted fair use images which have nearly-obvious rationales like these? I am aware of the discussion about trying to change policy to prevent these types of images from being deleted in the future, but not aware of any coordinated effort to restore images already deleted. Once again, thank you very much for your help. DHowell (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu

Hi Max, as the blocking admin of Anonimu, could you please put a notice of the indef block on his user and talk pages. Thanks. TSO1D (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Already resolved, I think. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please restore

Hi, could you please restore these images you deleted: Image:Center of the Universe.jpg and Image:Built to Spill Caustic Resin.jpg? I had added the fair use rationale a week and a half before they were deleted (as soon as I was notified of the problem) and even requested on their discussion pages that somebody contact me if the rationale wasn't sufficient. Thanks. Torc2 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done, sorry for the mistake. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki vandal

Our "friend" of Jijona continue with others pages. Today this. Here you can find the pages that he/she vandalize in others wikis. Thank you, RoyFocker (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Already resolved, I think. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm curious

Why did you temporarily remove the non free images here? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To upload the article to Veropedia. See it here. --Maxim_(talk) 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but isn't copying material from the main Wikipedia to other wikis kind of a big no no? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia stored stable version of the best articles from Wikipedia. Free from vandals, editwars, drama, politics, etc. Veropedia isn't exactly a wiki, as well. Maxim_(talk) 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

I, Durova, am proud to bestow these imperial triple crown jewels upon Maxim for superb content contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for your generous time and effort. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Majesty, enjoy these triple crown jewels as a memento for your achievement. May you wear them well. :) Durova^Charge! 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

W00t!! Maxim_(talk) 01:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid

Hello Maxim. I just noticed that last June it was you who added a link to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions to the RfA front matter. I've just started a discussion about it here. Your comments/opinion would be most welcome. Best regards, Húsönd 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Augustine

Just wondering why his article was deleted. He is the long standing drummer for the succesful rock act Thousand Foot Krutch and is in my opinion very notable in the music industry. Please respond. Saksjn (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was only a n00b sysop back then, a better summary could be better. :-) The article was extremely short, it just stated the fact he was the drummer, and the content belonged better in Thousand Foot Krutch. I deleted per WP:PROD policy. I made a redirect, and if you wanna create a bigger article, feel free to do so. Maxim_(talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Peikoff

Howdy, sorry to see you heading out from the project. I'm writing because I saw your block on User:Leonard Peikoff . I figure there is a chance the user is actually Leonard Peikoff, and wrote a note to that effect on his page. In light of your retirement, would you like me to take care of further concerns of this user? I don't imagine unblocking unless some verification can be given of who he is; if he really believes he's going to be an admin immediately, he may well be disappointed, however. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation of his deleted edits, it indeed seems unlikely he is who he says. Thanks for indulging me. --TeaDrinker 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not retired, I'm merely retired of silly drama. Anyhow, he was trolling, and that's why I blocked him. If you want to take care of the user sure, feel free to do that. --Maxim_(talk) 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I boldly added the block template and warned him against further disruption on his talk page. <edit conflict> Dlohcierekim 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• For a note, I blocked a likely sockpuppet, Yaron Brook (also a notable person), and deleted the RfA. Acalamari 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

Sorry to see that you're retiring. However, I was wondering if you would mind copying the contents and history of this deleted page and moving them here? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not retiring. I actually wrote a good article. Pete Muldoon, almost from scratch yesterday. If you read carefully, I'm more tired of silly wikidrama. ;-) Otherwise, I moved the history to the requested page. Cheers! --Maxim_(talk) 13:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikihelp

Thanks for making me a sysop, I think I'm the first admin non-'crat. :) — Rudget _{contributions} 11:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu

I would just like to let you know that you have deleted audio excerpts that were correctly tagged from this article. The bot flagged them up because the composer cited was "Toru Takemitsu", rather than "Tōru Takemitsu". I posted a note about this on the bot's talk page and on the article talk page itself. Please check next time, you have just undone hard work needlessly on a featured article candidate, which is now reduced in quality by these needless deletions. I will now have to take the time to recreate the expcerts and upload the files again. Matt.kaner 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, you could have asked to me to fix this up, I can, and because I'm, well, unfortunately, human, I do make mistakes, and there is no reason to be so abrasive. And to be honest, I have almost zero appetite to help after I'm being approached like that. Have a good day, --Maxim_(talk) 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for snapping, I'm just taking out my frustration (which is really directed at the bot for tagging the excerpts for such a ridiculous reason) on you and I shouldn't have. Thanks for fixing them up, it's much appreciated. Matt.kaner (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Automated Archiving of Wikiproject talk page

Not that I disagree that it needs it, because I mostly agree that it does. However, if you are going to put automated archiving on a talk page you are supposed to establish a concensus on that talk page first. --Djsasso (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I'm just being bold. Users will notice later on, but I don't think it's a big deal, and will do more good than harm. --Maxim_(talk) 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its more the how long you leave something on the talk page that is the issue. But its all good, just thought I should warn you since that is a big warning bolded and in different colours on the bot. --Djsasso (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know. :-p but I think this is one thing where the will be no argument (especially from User:Resolute, who manually archives stuff of 150 KB monthly in different archives. :-S --Maxim_(talk) 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this bot before, its definately more configurable than the one I use on my own talk page. I might have to switch over. --Djsasso (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Huh?

so so sorry, when reverting an edit made to Dr. Seuss you must have beaten me too it and i reverted your edit by accident then warned you, so sorry for any confusion =( Sirkad(Talk) 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know...

On 5 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pete Muldoon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Woody (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu

I have unblocked Anonimu so that he can participate in his arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu. He is restricted to editing case pages only. Paul August ☎ 23:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is cool with me. Maxim_(talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

a vandal

This IP:208.108.138.230 has caused some vandalisim to the Crash Bandicoot series article. Give him a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADBandicoot (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this page, in the future. --Maxim_(talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

quick question about a reversion

Hi, Im a triffle new to wikipedia and i dont necerssarily want to start an edit war, but could you quickly follow the discussion outlined in st thomas about a city newspaper not being allowed an external link on the cities page and if you would agree or disagree with the matter (i wouldnt like to get into a messy issue with it by reverting the last edit), thanks :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You gave me a bad link... and I get a disambiguation page when I seach for St. Thomas... with about 20 different possibilities. :-( Can you give me the proper one, please? Maxim_(talk) 13:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, St. Thomas, Ontario, thank you again for the time Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pong

Hey, Maxim. Get at me via email, I'm horribly inactive on IRC. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

.

Thanks for the . [44], I'm such an amateur. --Stephen 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Images

Can you restore the following images that you wrongly deleted:

• Image:Phantasy Star Adventure - Cover.jpg
• Image:Phantasy Star Adventure-sshot1.png
• Image:Phantasy Star Gaiden - Cover.jpg
• Image:Phantasy Star Gaiden-sshot1.png
• Image:Phantasy Star Gaiden-sshot2.png

Rather than just deleting them, you could have just put in the boiler template for the fair use rationale. That is what wikipedia is suppose to be about...

Thanks.

Apavlo (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't wrongly delete them. It's not my responsibility to fix image. And with that tone, I don't feel like doing it. --Maxim_(talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See this is what drives me crazy about Wikipedia. It was obvious that the images are fair usage, it is just that they were just missing "Fair Use Rationale" and got tagged by a bot or whatever happened to them. Nobody saw the message so then they get wiped out. It would have have taken you 30 seconds to put in whatever template the image needed, rather than just hacking it out. Apavlo (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored them to give you a chance to fix them. Cheers! Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These image removals were far too quickly made without sufficiant notice or time given to correct any percieved mistakes. As per correct Wikipedia rational, a warning tag should have been given with enough time to correct any errors. Please do not jump the gun in the future. Artemisboy (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you have seven days to fix it, and I waited for seven days. There was a warning tag as well. The creator also gets a messages at his/her talkpage about it. I didn't jump the gun, but I appreciate your concern and suggest you go here to try to fix the policy if you don't like it; personally, I feel that seven days is more than enough to fix it.

Thanks! Can you check that I fixed them correctly? One of the problems is that there isn't a template or easy way to put this information in. I thought that just by selecting that the image is a screenshot, that's all you need. At least that's what I've done when I've uploaded other files, I wasn't the original uploader of these.

Oh, sorry but can you also restore File:Phantasy Star Gaiden.jpg? Thanks! Apavlo (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

Well done on all the bad-image deletions tonight! Recent Changes is full of your edits! :D

Cf38 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

signature

Hi - may I ask how you created your signature? I would like to change mine but I don't know how to. Shiva Evolved (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Go to your preferences, and on the first page you see you should find the signature. Paste what you want in there (in my case, '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]_{<small>[[User talk:Maxim|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</small>}</font>'''). Feel free to "steal" it, but remember to change my names to yours. Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Shiva, if you do customize your signature, do not forget you will need to click the "raw signatures" checkmark, or they will not work. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to both! Shiva Evolved (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cliffjumper-moviedeluxe.jpg

Greetings. I see you closed the Image:Cliffjumper-moviedeluxe.jpg replaceability concern with {{rk}}. Could you comment on Image talk:Cliffjumper-moviedeluxe.jpg as to your reasoning? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that was an error of judgment on my part.  ;-) I've restored. BTW, good to see you back. :-) Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A peek in Special:Undelete?

Hi Maxim,

I'm an administrator on Commons and I was wondering if this image you deleted some time ago had any valid source here. You can answer here or on my talk page on Commons, I'll read any of them. Thanks in advance :). PatríciaR ^msg 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, another one bites the dust then, I'm afraid. Regards, PatríciaR ^msg 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season

Good day. In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season, you were good enough to explain your reasoning for the decision. (I hate when it just says "The decision was keep/delete" without any mention of how they evaluated the arguments.) I am perplexed, however, by how your decision seems contradictory to your explanation.

You stated that you felt "the arguments based in policy and guidelines are much stronger than the ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline". My argument to keep was based on WP:V and WP:DP policies as well as WP:NOTE guideline. The arguments for delete were that there was too much detail, the subject was not important, and there were no NCAA hockey season articles.

Could you please point me to what exact policies and guidelines showed this to be a deletion. Thanks DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:N, and WP:HOCKEY's guideline, which are, IMHO, are more important, as they are specialist guidelines, and I feel the WP:HOCKEY is most applicable hear. It clearly didn't meet it. Maxim_(talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've searched WP:HOCKEY but, being unfamiliar with the project, cannot find the guideline. Can you give me a more precise link? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred Higginbotham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Webb Schools

May I ask, why did you delete Talk:The Webb Schools back in July? You said "(Non-notable (A7) (talk))", but the article itself wasn't deleted or even proposed for deletion. Someone has recreated it since then, and I'm inclined to undelete the old edits. Is there a reason the hsitory shoulnd'tbe restored? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my first day as admin, my deletion summaries were quite poor. That was basically deleted per CSD G8. Feel free to restore the history. Cheers! Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We've all made similar mistakes. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Image got deleted?

Why the Image:Ubi.jpg was deleted? I've followed the instructions to add at the image page the reason why it was used in the only article where it was used, so I don't understand why it was deleted... Crazy Murdoc (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad.

Thanks for the fix Crazy Murdoc (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player

I was just wondering if it would possible to add an optional field to the hockey player infobox for WHA Draft information. I have been creating articles on some WHA players in the last couple days and the only draft info I've been able to add to their infoboxes is the NHL info. That really isn't relevant for a player who never played in the NHL, but did play for the team that drafted him into the WHA. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I accidentally salted it, serves me right for editing at 9 at night. =p Do you want to do it, or should I. I've unsalted it. Maxim_(talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I was able to figure it out myself. Thanks for unsalting! Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I was intending to create an article on Neil Clark (writer) but I see that such an article used to exist but you deleted it after a prod. I think he is fairly notable. Could you please restore the article so I can see what the details were before and such? Thanks very much! juicifer (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikicide

You deleted Wikipedia talk:Wikicide under WP:CSD#G8. However, the exception "deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere" applies to this page. (I found it, incidentally, because this was the earliest VfD currently mentioned in WP:ADD). —Random832 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard block of /15 range

Hi Maxim. Would you consider lessening the block on an a /15 range you hard blocked for 6 months. That includes User:78.107.0.0/16 and User:78.106.0.0/16? I realize I don't know the history, but certain IPs are certainly getting caught up in it: User talk:78.107.204.152. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed up the block; as there's a spambot running on the range, I initially hardblocked but I've changed it so only anonymous users get blocked and account creation is enabled. Btw, I like your username; it's similar to my old one, "evilclown". =p Maxim_(talk) 13:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting local versions of Commons images

Hi. please make sure that all the necessary information has been written onto the Commons image page before you delete the local copy. E.g. Image:Ann Bannon in 1955.jpg, Image:Ann Bannon in 1983.jpg and Image:Ann Bannon in 2002.jpg no longer specifies who took the image. Information which I assume was available on the local image page. /Lokal_Profil 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's the standard practice to say the source is en.wiki. And otherwise, they have OTRS permissions, so that's an non-issue in this case. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say standard practice since unless the image page states who actually made the file it's considered to be without source. if the only info is that it used to be on en.wiki but that page has now been deleted then there is no way for a someone who isn't an admin on en.wiki to find out who made the original image. For the specific case above there is an OTRS permission but nothing on the page indicating from whom it is or who owns the copyright. /Lokal_Profil 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Review of 2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season deletion rationale

Good day. I have asked for a deletion review of 2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season since, as you recall, I did not find your closing rationale to be valid. I would appreciate it if you would participate in the deletion review. Thanks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vaughnlogo.jpg

I know I did a FUR for this and I'm 95% certain it was correct. Can you check the deleted FUR from the image and paste it on my talk? Exxolon (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Hope that didn't cause too much inconvenience. Maxim_(talk) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jacques Plante

Hey, I noticed you had Jacques Plante lined up for work at some point. I thought I'd let you know that I uploaded Image:Jacques plante.jpg to Commons a few months ago.-Wafulz (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice image, like it very much. It perfectly illustrated a section. Thanks a lot! :D Maxim_(talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections

Please do not fully protect pages in my userspace without asking me. The bot is no longer running, and even if it was nobody can edit the voting pages, and even if they could I don't see why it's necessary to stop me editing my own userspace. This is a wiki. If you really must have a protected page with results on it, go make one in project space, but better still just do nothing and let people use this as a wiki like they're supposed to. Last year nobody seemed to think this necessary – Gurch 11:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for this action, I should at least have consulted you first. I see Ryan P. has unprotected it. --Maxim_(talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use rationales lacking article links

Hi Maxim. This deletion popped up on my watchlist when a bot removed the image from the article. My view is that this sort of deletion (lacking an article link) is a waste of time - it is quicker to fix the rationale than to delete. I've looked at the deleted revision, and all that was needed was to add "Signs (journal)" to the article parameter in the rationale template. Would you mind if I undeleted and fixed this? I also took the liberty of looking through your logs for 15 December, and I noticed a large number of other NFCC#10c deletions (1163 image between 15:10 and 15:43 - over 1000 images in just over half an hour). Would you mind if I took a look through those and got some help with fixing them up? I see you deleted them all rather fast as well - did you have time to review all of them? I've commented at WT:NFCC and ANI before (I can provide links if you like) about how speedy bot-like clearing of image CSD tag backlogs just leaves more work for those clearing up afterwards (partly because there is a need to check that there are not other problems with the image). I hope you don't mind me bringing this up again at WT:NFCC. I'll pop back here with a link. On the other hand, providing a clear deletion summary like you have, is extremely helpful when people (like me) decide to do the thankless task of adding such links to satisfy NFCC#10c. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As promised, a link to the discussion at NFCC. I've also clarified some points there, as it is really the images that were using a rationale template that I'm interested in. ie. NFCC#10c is too broad and should be split up. Currently it encompasses both images with rationales (but lacking a link) and those without any rationale whatsoever (normally just a nonfree copyright tag). Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Angiogenesis

Hi Maxim: As you have deleted the two images (angiogenesis_heart_1 and -2) re. angiogenesis in the heart, I now re-inserted them, because there are no copyright problems at all: I created these images, they are the result of my own clinical research, and I own the copyright. I indicated that according to the copyright rules when I re-loaded the images. Would that be okay? Thanks.Thomasjst (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you reupload them under a proper, free license, and preferable to the Wikimedia Commons. Cheers! Maxim_(talk) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did! Cheers, too!Thomasjst (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hockeydb

Hey Maxim, I had to revert your last edit to the template. It was screwing up the bullets in articles- the template would not work within a bulleted list. Feel free to take a look.-Wafulz (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The same thing is happening with Template:Legendsofhockey. The bullets aren't working. See Andre Lacroix (ice hockey) for an example. Flibirigit (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. --Maxim_(talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scrubscard.png

Could you undelete this image? I didn't notice it was put up for speedy before, but I'll add some rationale for it when it's restored. Let me know when you've done it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've restored it. --Maxim_(talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wentworth NSW pics swap

Hi Maxim, In Wentworth NSW I swapped around the 'Darling St' picture (in the info box) with the location map (in the gallery), because I think it makes more sense to have it that way. I also added a 'Gallery' heading and subheading. These changes were removed by the bot. May I suggest that you instruct the bot to change them back? cheers Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.217.40 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on the error, I've reverted to the proper version. Maxim_(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxim - don't forget the Darling St/Location map swap! cheers Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.217.40 (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it... --Maxim_(talk) 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

On C++ 'vandalism'

err, Hi Ive deleted the part of C++ page you reverted back becouse its factually incorrect, and i think providing no information is beter than giving misleading one. I tried to indicate taht in discussion page (as i dont feel like i could write that part well enough myself - as far as my english is considered). Please remove that part of C++ article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.86.225 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on the error, I've reverted to the proper version. Maxim_(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and Season's Greetings

Thank you so much for notifying me that the info from the Palden Lhamo article has been included in the DYK section today. I hope you enjoyed the reference! All best wishes for 2008. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of SR Song Play.jpg

Hello,

May I request that you undelete the image mentioned above from the article "Symphonic Rain"? Firstly, it is merely a screenshot from the game, and secondly, is quite needed to explain how the game engine works alongside the description (if you read the accompanying text).

If a screenshot of a game that is beneficial to helping people understand its system constitutes as a violation of "fair use" rules, you might as well remove all the selections under "Licensing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephillim (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If I undelete it, will you fix the rationale? --Maxim_(talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:RFPP

Moved from WP:RFPP by Deskana in order to keep the discussion on topic. Redrocketboy is referring to this

Explain how it is trolling. And also how moving a page to a logical place is nonsensical? Thanks, Redrocketboy 17:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA:Russell777

It shows on this page that you supported a user in his Rfa, is it true, becuase the page history only shows an IP adding it. Please see it here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Russell777, thanks!--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE No Way Out

Thanks for protecting the above article. However, the wrong version has been protected. Could you possibly rollback and protect the article to this version. Cheers, Davnel03 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Davnel, Maxim asked me to explain to you why the article's version will not be changed until the content dispute is resolved. Administrators do not selectively protect articles in a specific version upon request, as that would not be neutral, nor fair to the parties in dispute. Per the page linked: "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page." Thus, articles are protected in whatever version they happen to be in when the protection is implemented. Please take a look at m:The wrong version, which is a humorous explanation that an article is protected in whatever version is currently up, and all disputes need to be worked out on the talk page. (That page should be read fully understanding it is a facetious essay). I hope that helps you understand! Ariel♥Gold 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a legitimate formatting problem in the article here. The last few edits before that were IP vandalism, hence why I need it reverting back. Cheers, Davnel03 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the IP edits done prior to the protection, and they amount to this. This is removal of a bit of information, and the addition of an improperly formatted wiki-link. Not something that is a huge issue, but I will leave this message on Maxim's page as well, and if he feels it is a valid reason to remove it, he can. (copied from a note left on my talk page) Cheers!Ariel♥Gold 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE No Way Out

While i agree with your protection of the page you should have removed the ec match. We dont include spoilers on this site according to the wrestling project guidelines. Will you remove it?LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lifestroke, Maxim asked me to explain to you why the article's version will not be changed until the content dispute is resolved. Administrators do not selectively protect articles in a specific version upon request, as that would not be neutral, nor fair to the parties in dispute. Per the page linked: "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page." Thus, articles are protected in whatever version they happen to be in when the protection is implemented. Please take a look at m:The wrong version, which is a humorous explanation that an article is protected in whatever version is currently up, and all disputes need to be worked out on the talk page. (That page should be read fully understanding it is a facetious essay). I hope that helps you understand! Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Gp75motorsports

This was a manifestly excessive block of a good-faith user who was not being intentionally disruptive. I have reduced the block to 48 hours; personally I don't think you should have blocked at all, but I don't plan to wheel-war over this. (I apologise for not discussing this first; I did in fact attempt to notify you in advance, but accidentally left the message at User talk:Metros instead of here, due to confusion.) I'm not intending to attack you, but I do feel the block was inappropriate, given that Gp75 had made a number of bona fide contributions to the mainspace. Walton^One 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that reducing a block length is still undoing an administrative action. Short block lengths don't need to be reduced, and longer ones can be discussed first. Discussing for a bit (maybe even the full two days) and then unblocking as "time served" would have had much the same result. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation following a complaint to unblock-en-l, and I feel that this block was clearly outside established blocking policy and in extremely bad judgement. I am unblocking completely.

Maxim, there is very little that a user can do regarding "community stuff" (short of personal attacks and so forth) which would be cause for use of admin tools. That is not what administrators are here for. If you want him to stop creating that stuff get a policy in place and then enforce the policy. Blocking in this manner is grossly inapropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

George, you seem to miss that this policy is exactly intended for such blocks. He's clearly disruptive. If the community wishes an earlier expiry date, so be it, but unblocking outright without at least try to consult me is even more inappopriate. Maxim_(talk) 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not clearly disruptive. He did not (as far as I can tell and am aware) harrass people on article or user talk pages, disrupt or edit war on articles, bother people in Wikipedia project space.

By and large, other than personal attacks, most of what people do in their userspace is not disruptive by definition. Some of it is inappropriate and unencyclopedic, but that's a different question.

This is what user conduct RFCs are for. This is what warnings and topical community bans are for. Maybe, this is what a 15 minute block to get attention is for. This is absolutely not what longer blocking, and particularly blocking for a month, is for.

Getting frustrated with users is different than users being actually destructive to the Encyclopedia or community. It's important for administrators to know the difference, and step away from the situation when we're frustrated with it, rather than engage with admin tools in inappropriate manners. Pulling the block trigger, especially on established users who are not doing something clearly abusive, has to be done only as a last resort and with careful consideration.

Please be more careful with the mop. It's not here to stick it in people's faces. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace in DYK?

Hi there Maxim. Was it you who just updated DYK to the front page? I happened to notice there seems to be quite a gap between the line From Wikipedia's newest articles and the first DYK entry. Did a bit of whitespace creep into the update at the last minute? You might like to check. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed, I'm not sure by who, but thanks anyhow :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting deleted page be restored

I'd like to request that Talk:List of Robotech characters be restored. I think it may have been deleted in error (I'm not sure if it falls under CSD G8's exclusion "This excludes any talk page which is useful to the project"), and rather than simply recreate the page, I think it would be better to restore any discussion that it may have originally contained

It was suggested in AFD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Dixon_(fictional_character) - that a page "List of Robotech characters" be created, and existing character pages be merged into it. I think the talk page may have contained some discussion to that effect. If not, then that would be useful to know before I re-create the page, since I have recently created the corresponding article and plan to work on it (as well as try to encourage others to) per the consensus in the AFD debate TheBilly (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done, twas no big deal. --Maxim_(talk) 01:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Randall and Hopkirk deceased

I'll try again. PLease can you tell why you didn't inform me that you were deleting fifty or so of the images. I as always would have been happy to quickly correct it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit better now. Let's get this straight first, I refuse to answer any exceedingly uncivil messages. Second, BetacommandBot tagged the images for deletion. Third, I deleted after the seven days' warning was given to the uploader. Fourth, I can't find any images that deleted from the article. And fifth, if there were 50 non-free images in 1 article, that extremely abusive. --Maxim_(talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No they were all images from the episodes not the actual page. There wasn;t 50 images on one page!! LOL! They were sctattered across the various 26 episodes -hard work which I out into wikipedia to get started. You deleted them around Dec. 15 ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What I am furious about is that I spent a lot of time answering the bot before by adding detailed rationales -I later learned it is the title of the page the bot is looking for -but they were deleted before I could add the titles. There were 26 episode images and perhaps a screenshot for each one ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Theres probably nearer 30 deleted. Starting with All Work and No Pay. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically they all had full rationales like for Image:LateLamentedPartner.jpg but were only missing the titles -which you could have told me to fix. I would have been glad to quickly sort it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you honestly say the images you came across didn't have rationales? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

They were invalid rationales. If you give the list of images you wish to be restored, I'll restore them so you can fix the rationales. --Maxim_(talk) 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Again? Deleting images with incomplete rationales without checking? Oh, sorry. Its still the fallout from that big clearing of a backlog. These images may have NFCC#8 concerns, but they shouldn't have been deleted under NFCC#10c (or you should have cited NFCC#8 in the deletion log instead of NFCC#10c) because it would have been quicker for you to fix those images while you were manually checking them before doing that Twinkle run. I accept that a lot of the images in that deletion run were simply missing rationales, but I was hoping that there weren't large numbers of incomplete rationales that you had deleted. Before I go looking, can you remember whether, on your manual check, there were large numbers of "Lacks article link" images or not? Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For god's sake, Carcharoth, I'm deleting these images per policy, images failing to satisfy NFCC#10c WILL be deleted, all of these deletion were made within policy, this was done before you even approached me, and will you stop constantly following me around?? First the Young drama, then the WT:NFCC stuff, then you making snide remarks at my talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 16:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to reduce the number of "delete" -> "undelete and add article link" cycles and replace them more efficient "add article link" edits. If you said something straightforward like "oops, it would have been easier for me just to add the article link - I'll try and do that next time, sorry", then that would help reduce the delete-undelete cycles. Taking Image:Randall14.2.jpg as an example, if you look at the version that you deleted (see here), you will see that this is an old-style rationale. One that gives 10 points designed to correspond to WP:NFCC. I agree that these images are overused in articles (such as Who Killed Cock Robin? (Randall and Hopkirk Deceased)), but as I said before, that is not a reason to delete under 10c. Finally, I apologise if this feels like I'm following you around - I have lots of people's talk pages on my watchlist. I can take your talk page off my watchlist if you like and work to get policy changed on this matter, but I think the Randall and Hopkirk image deletions are directly related to the issue I raised before. They are part of the same half-hour batch of deletions, and a failure to recognise easily fixed rationales. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this again at WT:NFCC. See Wikipedia talk:NFCC#10c reasons in deletion logs, and the preceding two sections. It's not very active at the moment, but as you can see from the rest of that talk page, I've been active in other image areas. I'd quite like to get this resolved so I can get back to working on historical images here and on Commons. I'm hoping that you will agree that at the same time as manually reviewing the images it would be possible to automate the addition of a reason why the rationale is invalid. That would address practically all my concerns about batch reviews and fast deletions. East.217 described it this way: "[he] manually reviews all the images first, queues up the ones that need to be deleted, and then wipes them out in a single batch using a semi-automated tool" - would inserting one of the three reasons I provide over at WT:NFCC be possible? Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. It always makes me feel good to know that there are people out there that look out for others. Thanks again! (mastrchf91) 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Harsh Warning

In my opinion the warning given to 69.179.2.62 by you was a bit harsh, don't you think so?

Not exactly... that was the appropriate warning for vandalism in that case. --Maxim_(talk) 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic triple crown

It gives me great pleasure to thank Maxim for outstanding content contributions with this imperial Napoleonic triple crown. You are a Napoleon among editors. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, 90 Wikipedians have triple crowns of various sorts, but only eight have received the Napoleonic crown. I wish I had something better to award in thanks for your monumental work on behalf of the project. You really make this a better encyclopedia. Please know that your efforts are appreciated. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 20:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ron DeGregorio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

69.106.224.0/19

I've unblocked the range since it was a few days old and an editor was caught in it. Don't hesitate to put it back if you think it's safer to leave it blocked longer. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Weather in 2005

Question...do you have a suggestion for a new title of the page? If yes (and if I think it's nice, I'll move the page. Cheers, Jonathan 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but the current title doesn't look good to me. Maybe "World weather in 2005"? Maxim_(talk) 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There are already weather in 2006 and weather in 2007. Should I move those too? Jonathan 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE No Way Out

I'm sorry, but I have to ask that either the page be unprotected, or that you recommend where to take this "dispute" to next. Quite frankly, I have nothing left to say. User:LifeStroke420 is clearly not going to to change his stances that the article must be spoiler free and that the only reliable source that can be used is the company's official website. Not to mention that he refuses to cite any sort of actual policy to back up his points, simply stating that it's project policy. Mshake3 (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So you wish to continue the editwar? The protection's there to prevent it. I suggest an article RFC or even mediation of some sort. --Maxim_(talk) 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete based on bot claims, please

You deleted Image:Euskadi escudo.png baed on what a bot claimed. Obviously the bot was wrong. It claimed:

Image:Euskadi escudo.png is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

Please go to the image description page 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 insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 10:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bots can't understand what is a "fair use rationale". Don't listen to bots please, specially on copyright/fair use issues, they are destroying Wikipedia.

And, as I see it, restore it ASAP. (Note: it wasn't "my" image, just that I find this kind of so frequent bot errors, sanctioned by fleshy humans without a second thought, absolutely disturbing). --Sugaar (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the bot was correct. And the bot is correct almost all the time, so am I. :-) And to be honest it's the other way around; non-free media and the whole bunch of it is destroying Wikipedia, not the bot. If you wish me to restore it so you can fix the rationale, I can by all means do that, otherwise, I'm no budging. Maxim_(talk) 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Enigmatic unblock request

See here. I can't figure out what this is in reference too ... a range, maybe? Or what it was about? Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Great triple crown race of 2008

As a Napoleonic crown recipient you might be interested in this. Cheers and happy editing! Durova^Charge! 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

You say in your evidence section that I was one of 8 administrators revert-warring, although my only edit to that page was to disambiguate my name from Sean Whitton. ([45]) I get many PMs on IRC that are meant for him, and confusion still exists on-wiki ([46]). Thanks, Sean William @ 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologize, there was a bunch of reverts and I must have made a mistake jotting the names down. Sorry, will strike. Maxim_(talk) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You've also linked to and named the uninvolved User:George (presumably a typo for Geogre). And there is a header level mistake. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I stepped on toes - I already fixed the Geogre spelling mistakes. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Next update

Were you planning to do the next update or should I? I was just looking to add that hook on the 13 episodes! Royalbroil 14:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We both came at the same time, but you got the {{inuse}} before me. And I clicked on the + when you message me. And the edit conflict. ROFL!! You can choose, make me do it, or do it yourself. --Maxim_(talk) 14:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you? There's an article that I'd like to work on. Thanks! Royalbroil 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Maxim_(talk) 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That dash thing

I see you went thru the Wayne Gretzky article replacing hyphens with dashes. Now many of the season links don't work. Flibirigit (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Many apologizies, and I've noted this for the next time I use the script. Maxim_(talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Linkin Park

I see you changed 3 <br> tags into <br /> tags. I don't see what the point of this would be as it makes no difference in how the page looks and just adds extra unneeded source code. Could you please explain to me the reason for doing this? Timmeh^contribs 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed other punctuation issues, the <br /> stuff's included in the package. Maxim_(talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is what purpose it serves. It just adds extra code to the page and doesn't make any difference in how the page looks. Timmeh^contribs 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about your recent image deletions

Maxim: I appreciate that you are going through the images and deleting invalid fair use rationales per CSD I7. I do wonder, though, about the rate at which you are deleting these images. For example, during the minute of 16:50, 29 December 2007 you deleted 54 images (almost one image a second) and the deletion log shows you have been keeping up this pace for quite a while. Are you using a bot to do these deletions? I also hope you are verifying that BetacommandBot accurately labeled these images as violating CSD 17 before deleting them. Best, --Alabamaboy (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And please don't take my query the wrong way. I've deleted quite a few articles in my own time and appreciate every admin who helps clean out the trash around here. It's just that while BetacommandBot is a useful tool, it has been known to mislabel images on a regular basis.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot is correct, about 99.9% of the time. ;-) The JavaScript I use, located in User:Maxim/simple.js, shows me if an the tagging is disputed (simply put, if the bot is the last editor, the concerns have not been addressed and the image is safe to delete. I can tell you for a fact the stats of this run - the category contained 727 images, of which 23 where mistakenly there, and I split the run of 704 images into two, the first being of 439 images, and the other of 265. The rate of deletion is high because it takes less time to do the work of which result can be achieved by going through 704 manually. And that'd take a week. :-p. This took a 15 minutes. Maxim_(talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't. I advertised that in my deletion summary. :-p BetacommandBot is almost always correct, the problem is the communication between owner and uploaders, which gives the bot the unfortunate reputation, but it's dead useful. Maxim_(talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was mainly curious how you were able to hit such a high rate. I agree that BetacommandBot is pretty accurate, but even at 99% accuracy that leaves a few mistakes per 1000 images. But it sounds like you're handling things well so that shouldn't be a problem. Keep up the great work.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I know I make mistakes, but very few of them. But I fix them and admit them, so I don't think it's a big deal, no? ;-) Maxim_(talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken category link

Hi Maxim - I noted that you recently fixed a hyphen in an article into an en dash. Unfortunately, this had the effect of breaking a category link. Actually, all aircraft articles will be vulnerable to this, so could you please be alert to this if you're making similar fixes in future? Thanks :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted of course, and I apologize for that little problem. Maxim_(talk) 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Hey there! I've noticed you a couple of times on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I would just like to say that I am looking forward to seeing you come back and start editing the Simple English Wikipedia again! We are always on the lookout for more active editors, so if you can spare some time, please feel free to come back over to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thanks, Razorflame (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dashing Maxim

Hey, just a little something I thought I'd point out to you - a clever idea but not always appropriate - this diff on the article Norman Buckley. Three changes were made - the first good, the second to a film name and the third to a category. The name of the film was just unlucky and problems like these may not be able to be fixed (I know close to nothing about scripts and bots) but the change made to the category probably should be fixed. Thanks! :) •97198 talk 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the category seems to be O.K. --Maxim_(talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is now, I've reverted it, but if you look at the revision from that diff you'll see a ", Texas" at the end of the external links section and the article would have (I've reverted it now; it's not possible to look at an old revision of a category) been listed under P (for "People from Fort Worth", as was changed) instead of B for defaultsort "Buckley, Norman". •97198 talk 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Image restorations

Hello. I just wanted you to know that I was in the process of editing a number of images (on military insignia) to remove some speedy tags and I got edit conflicted by your deletions. I was removing the speedy tags as I am of the opinion (I also consulted in -admins) that these images are worthy of some discussion at PUI of IFD instead of being speedy candidates. I hope that you don't mind my bold restoration of these. Please let me know if you want to discuss further. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I don't mind admins restoring my deletion for such reasons, it saves me the work. :-p Maxim_(talk) 15:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gm card.jpg

Hi. You deleted my image Gm card.jpg on the basis of "invalid fair use rationale." Might I ask how my rationale was invalid? With respect, your reason is a fiat, not a reason. Please let me know what information I can offer you to defend my fair use rationale, as I am quite sure the image is not copyright protected. J P M7791 (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You had uploaded under a claim of fair use and with no rationale at all actually. If you own the copyright, feel free to relicense it under a free license. --Maxim_(talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Concerns addressed"?

I notice that you've removed the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tags from images used on 2005 UEFA Champions League Final, and the only reasoning you've given is "concerns addressed".

Now, I understand that you are an admin and you have the final say in the matters, but I simply don't see how the concerns that I expressed are addressed at all, and I'd like to hear your justification for removing the tags without a more thorough explanation.

For one, the "historic" tag doesn't apply to these images since the images themselves aren't iconic, and they don't depict historic events, just an annual sporting event. There's no rationale given, and their replaceability is described as "All other images would be on Google", which doesn't make sense at all.

More importantly, how on earth do these images satisfy WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8? --98.204.112.111 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a rationale, however, they are abusive on second glance and I think I'm going to delete most of them. Maxim_(talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA !votes

Have you decided to blanket oppose anyone who agrees to be open to recall? I don't disagree that recall is a pointless mess, but I'm not sure you want to imitate Kurt by putting essentially the same note on each RfA. Avruchtalk 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

At least consider reading their recall policies beforehand. Not all of them are equally pathetic, and some might even work. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't thought this one out properly. Although I don't agree with AOR, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. Really misguided thinking by me. Apologize. Maxim_(talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hestia tapestry.jpg

You deleted Image:Hestia tapestry.jpg the image I created, because "CSD I8 - Image has the same name on Wikimedia Commons". using TW). Shouldn’t the Wikimedia Commons list me as the creator and have link to my user page? I know these are public domain images, but it seems in poor taste to take credit for someone else's work of scanning and uploading. And I think they supposed to say where the file came from, in this case English Wikipedia. (Doktor Faustus (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Fixed, I believe. --Maxim_(talk) 13:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi mate, Thanks for helping out. You might want to archive the debates using a template, it looks a bit more professional imho - see my posting on AN for a link to the instructions and an example of one I just closed (the only one so far, I'm a lot slower than you!). It is however your call.

If you action a move don't forget to check the incoming links as in most cases there will be double redirects to fix.

I don't need a reply. Cheers! --kingboyk (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Is it really possible to make a personal attack on a robot? Gam3 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AN

WP:AN#Return of Ome Henk vandal. —Random832 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ome Henk deletion

I am not an admin, so I can't produce links to verify this. However, I believe the talk page of the above named article contained references to instances in the past when an anonymous IP vandal used the same tactics to try to get the article deleted, saying it was a copyright violation and that he was owed money. These statements got at least one IP address blocked. I have reason to think that the same tactics may have been taken this time. How would it be possible to try to restore the article? Admittedly, it may be more trouble than it's worth, but it does seem notable. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In CSBot we trust?  :-) I've undeleted the article and semi protected it to avoid more spurious notices in the future, but a good rule of thumb is that CSBot only places warnings on new pages— if there is more than one or two edits before the template then it could not have been placed by the bot. — Coren ^(talk) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary Burns

Sorry - what notability does Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier) assert? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A civil war soldier who's a woman disguised as a man. And a citation. You can PROD or AFD it as well. However, you are an admin, so there's no need to tag, it right? ;-) Maxim_(talk) 17:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ML - Master Lists

I am trying to follow up regarding the ML - Master Lists. I have expanded the previous draft of the descrption of the ML Master List concept, also a reference for it was provided on September 21, 2006, tinyurl.com/2e3xoq. Jonathan00 —Preceding comment was added at 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

dated. Maxim_(talk) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh?

What are you doing? _→AzaToth 20:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Split up the sysop scripts from the regular scripts. I hope you don't mind..? Maxim_(talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Seyfried

Make sure when you do a revert, that you don't revert TO vandalism.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic

Maxim, I was reverting the unilateral edits of Eschoir, a banned Free Republic member who is demonstrating that he has a serious WP:COI problem by defying consensus. This individual has turned the article into his own personal blog, accumulating everything he doesn't like about Free Republic in one place. It's one big NPOV issue. Please look at the article carefully before intervening again. 68.31.191.215 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Structure and interpretation of computer programs.jpg

You've recently deleted Image:Structure and interpretation of computer programs.jpg, which was created before this "rationale for every page" requirement was created. As far as I know, there is no actual fair use violation with the image -- it is a book cover used to illustrate the article about the book -- it simply did not meet the new requirement of having a Wikilink to the article where it was used.

Given that (and assuming it was the only problem), would it be okay to undelete the image and fix the rationale? Also, with the unmanageable rate at which old images are being tagged, could you be more lenient in your handling of old images (perhaps correcting the rationale instead of deleting them)? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Images being deleted early?

Maxim, are you deleting images from Category:Disputed non-free images as of 1 January 2008? I was just about to add a rationale to Image:Aplusmachines ep.jpg -- the tag on the image says that it is not due to be deleted until after Tuesday, 8 January 2008. Bláthnaid 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some a bit early, yes. They're missing rationale outright, so I thought you only wanted to fix the obvious 10c problems... --Maxim_(talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't until at least the 8th. It doesn't take long to add an entire rationale. I'm working through the category, albeit slowly. Thanks. Bláthnaid 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can you consider telling me when you're done, and for the January 2 mess, use the subcats, going from 1 to 12 and telling me when you're done, OK? :-) Maxim_(talk) 15:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you know about January 1st. For Jan 2nd's mess, the problem is that other editors are working from the lists of images divided by category, rather than the subcats. Although maybe I could quit my job for a couple of weeks so I can work through the subcats :p Bláthnaid 16:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting the album image, by the way. However, I've just read the article about the band that released that album, and they don't appear to be notable, so I'm going to take the article to AfD. Sorry for wasting your time on that one :-) Bláthnaid 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through most of the category and fixed a lot of images, so you should be OK to start deleting on the 8th. For Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 is there somewhere to ask for the "grace period" that was discussed on Wikipedia:Task of the day? The category currently stands at more than 10,000. Bláthnaid 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with image upload

Hi - I just wanted your advice on an image that was speedy deleted based on your comments. I have reloaded it with what I think is a suitable fair-use template (in the first version of this image file I used another Brisbane school's logo image page as a starting point). Can you please check and make sure I have covered all the bases or if I need to include more information? Thanks Awinkler (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't help you if you don't give me a link to the image. I can't remember about which one exactly you're talking about, as I delete a lot of images. :-( Maxim_(talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what an idiot!  :) The image is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CHAC.jpg. (sorry I couldn't figure out the internal link) Awinkler (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

May I please know why my DYK nom was sent to the holding bay? -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Because all those hooks would have taken too much space on the main page, and the dyk part would be at least a couple inches below the end of the news. Don't worry, though, as it will be on in the update after this one. --Maxim_(talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of players with five or more goals in an NHL game, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pages undeleted

This situation is all fixed now, but just to let you know: you deleted some archived talk pages on the grounds that there was no corresponding article. Actually, the article existed and had been renamed. Maybe you didn't notice they were talk archives because they were incorrectly named with no slash in the name (i.e. Talk: Nazarene Archive1 rather than Talk: Nazarene (sect)/Archive 1). If you had noticed, I think you could have found the page they belonged with by using "what links here" or perhaps by checking the various pages linked from the disambiguation page Nazarene; or by looking at the beginning of the page history of Nazarene, where it logs a page move to a page which redirects to Nazarene (sect). --Coppertwig (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Disputed non-free images

Yes, go ahead. Thanks for asking! Bláthnaid 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Article deletions

Hi there! I noticed you deleted dozens of articles in less than a minute (mostly expired prods). Please reassure me that you actually looked at the articles before deletion. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reassured. :-p This script simply saves me the trouble of going to the deletion screen and clicking delete. It also took care of the redirects for me. :-) Maxim_(talk) 01:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear! :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The 10000 image backlog

Here are some subcategories that are ready for deletion. These lists have not been updated and contain both images that have been fixed and ones that should be deleted, but you should be OK to delete anything that still has the delete tag on it:

• Promotional images -- full of replaceable images of living people
• Book covers
• Historic images
• Stamps
• Web screenshots
• Software screenshots

Thanks. Bláthnaid 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misssio.jpg

If you'd be so kind as to restore this image I'll do my best to create a rationale for it. (I assumed someone else would, or that an administrator would actually look at the image and the article that uses it and not just delete it. It's a book cover and is used to illustrate this article The Missionary Position (book).)

Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MikeWilks.jpg

Hey, that image wasn't Fair Use any more! I specifically got a non-copyrighted image from the subject, and replaced the original image!

What should I do now? Re-upload the image? --Slashme (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've decided to upload on Commons. Please drop me a note on my talk page if this is a mistake. --Slashme (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Image:Libertineback.jpg" ‎

Hi. The deletion summary says this was deleted for the lack of a valid fair use rationale. In fact I wrote a rather extensive and specific one several days ago, linking to the article, explaining about the significance of the image, etc. (IIRC I both filled in a template and wrote an additional one to make sure the arguments were thoroughly covered.) If there is some reason why this was insufficient or invalid, I'll be surprised and just slightly annoyed, but it looks as though the deletion was semi-automated and gave an invalid reason for the deletion, i.e. that there was no rationale for the article. Could you please look into this? I'm thinking if the process missed the existence of the rationale, then there may be others as well. I'm specifically wondering about your deletion of "Image:Madeleine L'Engle.jpg", which I don't recall checking for a rationale. As she is no longer a living person, a free image is now exceedingly unlinkely. Having spent the entire evening last night checking over, writing and upgrading rationales on images I uploaded myself, I'm a little worried about the possibility of their being deleted in error. Thanks! --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amiga Workbench 1 0.png

Hi, I am wondering why Image:Amiga Workbench 1 0.png was deleted? The problem that there wasn't a fair use rationale listed for each article was fixed by me. I believe that the image was fair use in all the articles it was used in, so if there was still some problem with what I'd done, I think that should have been dealt with letting me know and/or by retagging the image, so editors had a chance to fix before it is deleted. Thanks. Mdwh (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions

Maxim, did you delete every image in the lists I linked to above? As I said, those lists contained both images that had been fixed and images that should be deleted. I said to delete any image that still had a delete tag on it, not every image on the list. Some script or bot might have malfunctioned somewhere and caused everything to be deleted without you knowing about it, because a couple of images like Image:Nabokov-Beheading1.jpg that should have been deleted were removed from articles by ImageRemovalBot [47], but still exist. Bláthnaid 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, I didn't read your message well. I thought that yes, every image was to be deleted... I obviously have a huge load of work to do, now... Maxim_(talk) 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, it's understandable because there was so many that you had to delete. I'm just heading out my door now, but if I can help you out in any way tomorrow, please let me know. Bláthnaid 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo stuff

Because he volunteered. lol. DMighton (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:-) Maxim_(talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Thanks! szyslak 02:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfR

Yes, you did give a longer and good reason. Heh. :) Acalamari 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Guru meditation.gif

I had thought I placed a fair use rationale on that image including linking the pages it used on. Why was it still deleted anyway. Is this in error or do you have a reason. I spent all the time I could on writing the fair use rationale for this only to have it deleted still yet? What in the heck is going on? Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Images from Disney's DuckTales

Hello,

I would like you to ckeck out these articles:

• Launchpad McQuack
• El Capitan

I uploaded screenshots from the DVD and put the proper "fair-use" tags, but I'd like to know whether or not the images Launchpad_McQuack.jpg and ElCapitanDT.jpg have good enough fair use rationales. Do they check out? New York Dreams (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. I suggest you check out this page and take a look at this template. Maxim_(talk) 13:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks! I'm about three-quarters way through your list. I'll be finished it soon. Bláthnaid 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put every image in your list back into their articles. Rollback is very useful! User:SkierRMH added rationales to book covers, so if you look at his recent deleted edits you might see some other images to restore. You can re-delete Image:Boytownsoundtrack01.jpg. I think that will be most of the problem fixed. Bláthnaid 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all involved in resolving this situation. --RenniePet (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NASCAR Fan24's Secret Page!

		The Secret Page Detective Award
		This user has found NASCAR Fan24's secret page! Congratulations!

NF24^{(radio me!)} 02:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring an image

An image that I uploaded (Image:Football_encyclopedia.jpg) got tagged for speedy deletion and you zapped it about 48 hours later. No complaints about the process, but it happened over the holidays, and since I was away I didn't get a chance to add the appropriate rationale in time. My question is whether it makes more sense for me to ask that it be rolled back and tagged, or to upload it again? Anson2995 (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I zapped it seven days later, but that's kinda irrelevant now. I've restored it, and you can fix the issues. Maxim_(talk) 13:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Orpheus RPG cover image deletion

16:11, 10 January 2008 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OrpheusRPG c.jpg" ‎(Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; every non-free image must include a rationale for its use, and per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the article in which the image is used in". using TW)

I though I understood non-free content criteria, but apparently not. What was the reason for the deletion of the cover for the Orpheus RPG?

Lack of a fair use rationale, outright (and consequently the lack of the article the it is used in. Maxim_(talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

Since you think it still has issues, would you mind copyediting it? And, I couldn't find any quotes that needed a citation, so could you please be more specific about that? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did a huge copyedit of the entire article, do you think it's better now? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm still taking a look at it and I'll post some stuff on the talkpage in a couple days. I'm ridiculously busy now, unfortunately, so it might take some time. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image lists (again!)

This is just a note to say that User:East718 has deleted the lists of images that I mentioned on Task of the Day. Thanks for deleting the earlier ones, and kudos for tackling the huge backlog. Bláthnaid 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FUR deletions Image:Journal of the American Oriental Society.gif

You deleted this citing it needed to provide an article for which it was used--which it did in the template. I have used a free replacement image which is suitable for now (although the FUR claim can still be made for a new cover to represent the magazine). I just want you to be more careful since it did follow FUR guidelines... gren グレン 18:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the Angel David RfC

First off, I apologise for saying that your opinion on the case made you unfit to be an administrator. I realise it was uncalled-for, and I'm certainly not going to advocate your desysopping or anything of that nature. As Friday correctly pointed out, honest disagreements between reasonable people are possible, and we shouldn't make this personal.

With regards to myself, though, I was quite hurt by your suggestion that I am guilty of "wikilawyering" (a term I detest). It happens that I am a law student in RL, and that probably influences my general methods of thinking; I like policies to be clear, precise and consistently applied, and I distrust unfettered admin discretion, for the simple reason that ordinary users need to know where they stand. Accordingly I oppose blocks that are not backed up by established policy and practice. This is my opinion, but you are entitled to disagree.

I also don't believe that I refuse to exercise "common sense". Users can disagree in good faith about what constitutes a "common sense" approach to a problem, but in cases like this I don't believe there is one. I personally believe that, as contributors are our most important resource, we should exhaust every possible approach before even considering blocking any good-faith user. Yes, obviously, we should block people for vandalising, or for disrupting discussions or processes and preventing others from working on the encyclopedia. But where someone is making some helpful edits, coupled with a large number of less useful edits, we shouldn't be prepared to block them unless they are actually causing a serious problem. I personally believe this to be common sense.

I have nothing against you personally, and I don't want a conflict to develop out of this. I apologise for personalising the issue, and I hope we can discuss things rationally. Walton^One 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss this note? (Apologies if you just haven't had time to reply yet.) Walton^One 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I did. Lucky it didn't get archived, everything older than 48 h goes here because sometimes get complete floods (40 in 3 days once). I see why conflict between us may develop, as I'm all for admins having more power(s), and that includes blocking through WP:IAR, as I feel that the trolls are controlling the admins. I personally believe that there have been very many attempts to help David, yet they haven't worked, so I think it's time to resort to a block. I apologize for some of my statements, I got overangered/carried away. Maxim_(talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are entitled to disagree with me in good faith. But I don't see that "the trolls are controlling the admins". Those users who are just here to disrupt the encyclopedia typically get blocked very quickly; the difficulty is always with those people who make constructive contributions, but mix them with incivility and POV editing, and those are the people we should not be quick to block (and if we absolutely have to, it should be decided through consensus rather than a single admin's judgment). I don't think Angel David is even really one of those; he's very civil and mild-mannered and clearly a nice person, he's just very young and doesn't really understand how Wikipedia works. But I think you're right to some extent, in that there have been a lot of attempts to guide him along the right path and they haven't worked. Perhaps he should be advised to take a wikibreak for a while; however, I still think a block would be overkill. As much as we say that blocks are preventative and not punitive, they are usually seen as a punishment by the people on whom they're imposed. Walton^One 08:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Logos of ACCESS (TV channel)

If i were to be able to place the appropriate copyright and fair-use image tags on the images that were deleted from the ACCESS (TV channel) article, would you be willing to undelete them? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 05:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've delete the logo in question. --Maxim_(talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, i'm asking if you could restore them. I'd be willing to place proper source and copyright status information on the images. I just think they would be additive to the article. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I meant I restored Image:Access Television.png for you to fix. Maxim_(talk) 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to worry about that. I already have added in a fair use rationale for its use in that article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So, i take it the older 1970s and 1980s logos are not allowed on wikipedia? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I juat wanted to thank you. I was blocked from editing this site a few months ago and you gave me a second chance. Since then, all i have done is look for ways to help Wikpedia cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Equanimity cover FNL.jpg

I would like to contest the deletion of this file, which is the cover of my CD, which I own the copyright to. Additional use of this image can be found at www.diemjones.com. In accordance to your template:

Fair use in Equanimity cover FNL.jpg ===

   Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:
   # It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents.
   # The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
   # It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
   # It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value

Many thanks in advance for your attention to this matter.

la luz,

diem jones aka sufiwarrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufiwarrior (talk • contribs) 08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Maxim_(talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, hey there...

I believe you deleted two images; one called "Chomper.jpg", the other "Ruby.jpg". I noticed that the reason was a disputed fair use rationale. I remember those images clearly. Do you think you could restore them for about twenty minutes? I believe I could fix their problems. If you decide to do this, please notify me on my talkpage that they've been temporarily restored. Thank you. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I'd rather they be restored and then you wait until I notify you that I got your message, as I might not be on the computer at the time you reply. Thanks for understanding. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball delete

Greets, Maxim. When you threw snowballs at the 2008-09 Team season pages, you forgot to throw one at the 2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season page. You got the rest of them, though. -Pparazorback (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And now it's been "hit". :-p Maxim_(talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion already?

Hi Maxim. As you can see from User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries, I've just been making a start at cleaning up some images. But now I see lots of the images I had been looking through on a preview screen have now been deleted. I thought we'd agreed here to give me (and others) this weekend to look through the categories? You said "I'm kinda glad we can sort of agree on that you can't save eveything. :-( As I understand, I should start deleting around 00:00 20 January?" - maybe there was a misunderstanding here, but I meant 23:59 UTC Sunday 20 January, which is 30 hours from now. What's going on? Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI post. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maxim. I see you are back online. I'm not going to be around again until later in the day, but do you think you could possibly find the time to respond here and at the ANI thread? Just something to indicate that you are aware of the threads and whether or not you will hold off on image deletions (I see you are dealing with articles at the moment) until after midnight, Sunday (the time now in big, bold text at the top of the category and subcategories)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And another ANI thread. Don't know where that IP came from. Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for nominating Cape Perpetua for DYK spot--always nice to have people read/appreciate work.--Orygun (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

Hi Maxim. I'm going to make one last attempt to get in touch with you. The list I've eventually come up with can be seen at User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. As you can see, some are deleted already, some aren't. Some have already been fixed by others, some haven't. It will be inconvenient for me to undelete (and sometimes difficult to find the articles the images were used in). I don't mind doing this, but I'm leaving this message here in the hope that you will see it and feel able to reply to me. Thanks. I'll be offline in about an hour. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And a third ANI thread. Please note that I only started the second and third threads because I couldn't get any response from you. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, people are talking, and, well you ain't. This might be a good time to take a break from the image stuff and talk. Tiptoety ^talk 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Johnnewtonchance.jpg

Why did you delete Image:Johnnewtonchance.jpg with the log summary "(Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; all non-free media must have a rationale for its use; per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the name of the article the media is used in". using TW)" ? It had an extensive fair use rationale, including a link to John Lymington, which (at least right now) is the only article using the image. Gimmetrow 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have also reviewed the image description page, and I don't see how it qualifies for deletion (let alone for an immediate speedy deletion). If you dispute that the image qualifies as fair use, it would have been more appropriate to list it at images for deletion or a similar process. I strongly recommend that you restore the image; barring that, I will nominate it for undeletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If I may? What has happened here is that a huge backlog of images has been cleared. I agree that Maxim should have seen the rationale, but from what I know of how he works, he will have spent some time reviewing the images and removed the ones that had been fixed (at the same times, I was visually checking the category and looking for ones that could be fixed easily, or were the more obscure types of fair use). Maxim would then have started a script running to clear the backlog (this is generally accepted among those dealing with the image backlogs, as there are periodically very large backlogs to clear). From what I can tell, he made a modification to his .js page at 6 minutes past midnight, and his script started running at 00:20, and ran until 02:24, presumably clearing the backlog of around 1500-2000 images. It seems that the rationale got added to this image during that run of the script, which is unfortunate. I'm sure that Maxim will undelete once he sees this. For what it is worth, I had spotted that image, and it was on my rescue list here (under section 7). The primary issues seem to be communication (I've got an ANI thread going about that at the moment) and avoiding this sort of "rationale added after the backlog clearing starts" situation. This has happened before, and I thought Maxim had tweaked his script to avoid this. Maybe he will explain this when he logs on. Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'd say undelete. No reason to keep this one deleted. I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Communication request

Hey there. I was wondering if we could please get an acknowledgement/response at this ANI thread? Various editors are trying to open and clarify channels of communication among people who work these image deletion categories. It would help for you to weigh in on the issue and indicate whether or not you agree with the solution that has been put in place for now. Thanks! --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Holst.jpg

Do you know where is the commons copy of the this image Image:Holst.jpg.--Antonio Lopez ^(talk)00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons because it was missing proper source information. This, unfortunately, often happens with images uploaded 3+ years ago; this one was uploaded in 2003, when standards for images licensing were so much different they more or less didn't exist. Maxim_(talk) 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, it got deleted on both wikipedia and the commons. Also would it be possible to re-upload if I do find a source.--Antonio Lopez ^(talk)03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course; I can even restore for you if you find a source, at Commons. Maxim_(talk) 12:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the image on following three sites that use the image, but I am not sure if the links are good enough. I will keep looking if they are not reliable. 123 --Antonio Lopez ^(talk)22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey & Ireland

Thanks Maxim for the award. I'm hoping they'll heed our warnings. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a quizzy feeling that One Night in Hackney may take his Irish edit complaints to 'all' the NHL related articles. Here's hoping that's not the case. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Amy Beach images

I'm curious why several images including Image:BeachMassExampleA.jpg (and ExampleB, ExampleC) were speedily deleted for no Fair Use rationales. Beach's Mass was published long before 1923 and has been out of copyright. There's no need for a Fair Use rationale for the underlying music, and I don't see how the "edition" (a direct copy from the public domain score) could qualify for copyright; certainly the creator of the edition (who was also the uploader) did not think so. In any case I think the images should go to XfD instead of speedy. Thanks. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember those. I think you could actually recreate those images in a much nicer format instead of scanning pencilled musical scores. Have a look at Image:Lilypond-screenshot-adeste.png for a good example. As long as you make clear that the music is public domain, and you credit the book's author for the comparison's (ie. so that it is not original research), then you are really only quoting that book's author. That is no different to quoting a piece of text, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had created the images I certainly would have done them on a computer (my user page and publications give some idea of my fluency on the topic), but I don't think that whether they were done by hand or on a computer affects their copyright status. The work was done by a former student. Though I must say that WP seems to prefer badly done computer generated music scores over even extremely neat handwritten scores to an extent that baffles me. It certainly isn't the case in professional music publications which tend to allow high quality handwritten scores but not unkerned/badly-spaced Finale, Sibelius, or Lilypond graphics such as are seen in lots of online publications (including WP). Thanks! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I agree with you here, but I hope you and Maxim won't mind if I leave it to him to undelete. I normally only undelete when a rationale already existed, or I'm adding one myself, or one has been written. If you think these images are PD, then just say which tag you are proposing to put on them - I'm not clear myself which tag would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Carcharoth, I've restored this image, but do you honestly think I couldn't have handled this myself. Maxim_(talk) 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted image - Mona ahmed book cover.jpg

The Image:Mona ahmed book cover.jpg was deleted "because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; every non-free image must include a rationale for its use, and per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the article in which the image is used in". using TW)

Yet it had a rationale which referred to the article in which the image was used. If there was some problem with the rationale, could it not have been discussed before deletion? ntennis 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored it for now. The image may not be suitable for a claim of fair use, though; please see WP:NFCC, and WP:IFD. Also, consider adding {{Non-free media rationale}} for the image's rationale. --Maxim_(talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Mason (Radio)

Hey Maxim,

I went ahead and expanded on my entry for Steve Mason(Radio) just before it was deleted and was hoping it would demonstrate sufficient notability to keep the entry. Do you think its sufficient enough to save from deletion?

Thanks!

Victorfranco1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorfranco1 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Per policy, I've restored this as contested. Maxim_(talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Don Kingsborough.jpg

You deleted this with the comment (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; every non-free image must include a rationale for its use, and per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the article in which the image is used in". using TW). I'm pretty sure I provided such a rationale, including the article. Please look again, and undelete. GRuban (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I messed up here a bit. Maxim_(talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my request:

You deleted the images Image:Chomper.jpg and Image:Ruby.jpg because they lacked fair use rationales. I have already asked you to restore them so that I can fix this problem. Other users request that you restore images you've deleted so the fair use rationales may be added, and you've granted their requests; why won't you do so with me? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the images so I can fix them. It's not fair to deny me the right to do so, without even an explanation. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which articles were they used in? The Land Before Time (TV series)? Or one of the character articles? These aren't standard non-free uses, so there needs to be some clearer reason to undelete. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, no offense, but I think I can handle such requests. To be honest, it's kinda annoying when you try to act like my spokesperson because I can't communicate clear enough. Thanks. Maxim_(talk) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They were used in the articles for the characters of those names. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wilhemina Will. I must have missed your request to restore these images, I apologize for this. I'm real sorry this happened; I get a bunch of such similar requests that are dealt very quickly, so I sometimes miss one comment in a flood of 10. :-(. I've restored these images so you can fix them. Maxim_(talk) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the images! I was afraid for a moment that you might have had some strange issues with them being restored and repaired. In the meantime though, I think something's wrong with the first one (Image:Chomper.jpg). Image:Ruby.jpg is correct, and I've added her fair use rationale and returned her to her rightful position in the article. But Image:Chomper.jpg seems to be a different image from the one I recall. The one I remember had Chomper alone in it, and was much larger than the image currently occupying that file. Do you have any idea what might have happened? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For working so hard on the article Ray Emery I User Swirlex award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar.