User talk:Mostlyharmless/Archive 2

Contested speedy[edit]

I would suggest talking to whoever placed the speedy tag on the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Davies[edit]

Rodney Davies has not played one NRL game. How is he notable? •Florrie•leave a note• 11:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fear the can of worms. Cheers, •Florrie•leave a note• 12:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Davies is certainly one that should not go. As per the media attention and material that has been written about him the article should be expanded, perhaps showing details of this article. I shall do this over the coming days.Londo06 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a contracted player for the 2008 season, that doesn't begin for another six weeks. He has a profile on the Broncos website and they don't give those out to kids. I will work out of a couple of articles to show that he does indeed have notability. I also understand that wikipedia doesn't need to be filled with could be, will be, might be players of any sport (notability, crystal ball, etc.) but Rodney Davies is certainly not one of them. Londo06 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was a contracted player for 2007 but did not play at NRL level - a pre-season trial does not count to an actual NRL career - despite the article's praise. •Florrie•leave a note• 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Slartibartfast[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Slartibartfast, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slartibartfast. Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Can You help in Preventing MezzoMezzo who is regularly nominating Articles from Barelwipage for Deletion which You edited.He has choosed Only those who are actualy not Salafi/Wahabi or suitable to him.He has a Long History of distorting facts.ThanksShabiha ^{(t • c)} 14:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj Amin Elahi Ethnocentric censorship[edit]

Dear Mostlyharmless, sorry to say, but the things Teleomatic has written are not correct and sorry to see you changed you view. What you first wrote was very correct. The references are very valid. I have made over 1200 constructive edits on wiki. I have started dozens of new pages and have included hundreds of citations that have never been challenged by anyone.

Teleomatic has alternative motive for personally attacking me so many times. By the way, there are 8 "keeps" on the page with many individuals who have a long history on wiki.

1. New York Time (the world largest circulating paper) has his obituary and states "Thousands of people mourn his death around the world and are united in prayer."

2. I have read many article in Kurdish about him and he is the greatest Kurdish musician. But, many of the article are in Kurdish and not English.

3. If you look at the www.TanburSociety.com website that is endorsing Hajj Amin Elahi’s music, you will notice that they are official members of the Recording Academy, which is the same as the Grammy Awards. The Grammy Awards are the most prestigious venue for musicians in the world. If it was not true, why on earth would an official Grammy member state "Hajj Amin was a master at the art of tanbur... His style which is known as the “Hajj-Amini” style has become universally accepted by many mainstream tanbur players...".

4. There are two valid books listed, one of which even tele agrees he is mentioned a few times.

We have to be sensitive to foreign languages, especially here in the United States. President Bush said Africa was one country, and most Americans believe the same. Most individuals in the United States think the Japanese, Chines and Koreans are the same, but we both know there is a substantial difference. People here know absolutely nothing about the Kurds, and the poor people don't even have a land they can call there own. It would be an absolute crime against humanity to try to wipe out an article about one of the greatest musicians they had. It would only show the level of ignorance and the high level of ethnocentric censorship.--Octavian history (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that 99% of the text is in Kurdish. That is the problem, and why what you first wrote made so mush sense.--Octavian history (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once I read it, I remove it because the subject is never ending. I am doing it according to wiki rules about removing text on your own page. I have know about this musician my whole life, but most of everything is in Kurdish.--Octavian history (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just replaced the personal attack he did against me. He is calling me a lier. I removing the very offensive personal attack & accusation that I "bluff". The definition according to Webster is "to deceive". Wiki rule "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." You are obviously siding with tel, but you should not replace personal attacks. There are thousands of people vandalizing wiki every minute and you and tel have to waste SO much time trying to delete one of the greatest musicians. Very ethnocentric and a shame to spend so much time trying to censor wiki. You are helping tel to destroy the little history the Kurds have.--Octavian history (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicions[edit]

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidences[edit]

I read what you said regarding your comments about systematic deletions. It must be purely coincidental that the same group of people are voting the same way for the deletion of the same articles [1] [2] [3]. Now, I'm no expert on this subject and they may all be right - certainly, one user put forward a good argument. But there does seems to be something "systematic" going on and, given that this appears to be an internationally important topic (Iranian accusations of a proxy war by Americans seeking to stoke up ethnic tensions and terrorism within Iran), I am curious as to why these topics are being deleted and why no alternative is being sought. I'm not making accusations, just baffled.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm[edit]

You have a banner complaining about WP becoming a mess, and at the same time, think that stub articles for notable subjects should be allowed? That makes no sense. The best way to prevent POV pushing is to make sure every point in an article is cited. Otherwise, there soon will be no Web outside wikipedia. Wiki will be bigger than the ROWWW. (rest of World wide Web). Sort of like having the entire universe in a drawer, where does that come up? Slofstra (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure if I should answer here or there. I have no opinion on the lack of enforcement of WP:NPOV but will keep an open mind. Wrt stubs, I have to agree with you in that a one line, cited and referenced stub is far better than a wordy, uncited, unreferenced article. I think you made the point that the latter looks better and is less likely deleted. I'm embroiled in an AFD I initiated but in retrospect gradual trimming of the unverified stuff in that article might have worked better for me. Anyway live and learn. It strikes me that more enforcement of WP:V and WP:RS will naturally bring about more WP:NPOV because pure POV writers often can't be bothered to cite, not to mention that POV and WP:RS are somewhat, not entirely, mutually exclusive. So long and TFATF. Slofstra (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Points[edit]

FWIW, I agree with you. Shot info (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU case moved[edit]

Hi, I moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. As you may know, we use the name of the main account as the case name (it makes it easier for us to keep track of the recent requests). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Human Rights Watch[edit]

I think the entire section of "allegation of bias against India" in Criticism of Human Rights Watch article suffers from WP:UNDUE. The section was written to push POV using weak sources. Some person can analyse anything on an organization, but their analysis is given much importance here. Especially an article about Human Rights Watch, why so much importance is given on a single source? On a single person? It is WP:UNDUE. The entire section should be deleted as per WP:UNDUE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping on each other[edit]

We need to stop deleting each others edits and find a consensus. We are both apparently well versed on the issue but share fundamental differences in views. Your views on global immigrant labor are well founded and important. The 3D concept of higher wages is well founded and validated by economic labor equations. Your continued insistence that 3D work is only low wage and untouchable contrasts greatly with the real world truth that most of these jobs pay in excess of 100K per year. You repeatedly delete any reference to 3D having high wages, giving the impression you have an agenda or merely refuse to recognize there is more than one reality here. Please respect these differences and restore the deleted content. Can you please provide your qualifications either academic, professional, personal experience or otherwise, to be editing this page.Granite07 (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning Granite07 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3D[edit]

Could you explain what you mean by this:

to provide a framework with which "dirty, dangerous, and demeaning" could be written about. There is a quite definite and specific way in which this term is used, both in non-academic and academic settings

What is the "definite and specific way" in which the term is used, particularly in academic settings? Does the word "demeaning" have particular significance compared to demanding or difficult? Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply mean that the term is used as a whole, ("dirty, d.." rather than talking about it's constituent parts (which would mean talking about thousands of jobs over thousands of years), and that this is used to mean jobs which "the general public" won't usually willingly do. These jobs are thus are undertaken by an underclass. The term is often used in conjunction with migrants, particularly those from poor countries, often illegal, but also those with few skills, racial minorities etc. Because these jobs are performed by an underclass, their wages are often (but not always) low. A search of "dirty, dangerous and (demeaning OR demanding)" will pull up thousands of examples of the term being used in the above manner, but very few other types of uses. It was the case that these kinds of jobs were widespread among the general American population, but their decline happened before the term entered currency (the mid 90s), and the term itself describes that shift - 3K refers to jobs that were common in Japan, and the backbone of its growth in 1960s and 1970s, such as shipbuilding, that people are now unwilling to do. "Dirty, d.." is a translation of this term, and has exactly the same connotations Some occupations, such as fisheries fall into this category, but these aren't the subject of mystique, nor necessarily well paid, nor is it inevitable that wages will rise (as have all been claimed). It may be that the term has entered general use in the U.S. and now has a different meaning, but I haven't seen any evidence so far, and Granite has not presented any to support that claim. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please reference your claim that the term did not enter the U.S. vocabulary until the mid 90's. The term may have been in common U.S. use since the early 1980's or earlier.

"These jobs are thus are undertaken by an underclass" are you qualified to state this or can you provide a reference.

"would mean talking about thousands of jobs over thousands of years" please provide some reference, I can not find any sources for occupations other than those given in the article.

Please provide some explanation for the fundamental flaws in logic you are defending?

Will you provide your credentials: degree, profession, organization, affiliation?

Granite07 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

You've appeased the giant Buddha. That was probably wise. Cheers! DBaba (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contents box[edit]

Cheers for that help harmless, much better now... do u know if there's any way i can create 2 contents boxes - one for personal bio, the other as an index to articles i have created/edited??A.J.Chesswas (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice to have separate contents boxes within each text box. A.J.Chesswas (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm what I meant was that the contents box following the first paragraph would be better located within the new boxes you've created for my bio and my edits. How confusing!! Do you know what I mean? I can't figure it out. Otherwise will just revert to last edit.A.J.Chesswas (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of NATO.jpg[edit]

Sorry, I removed the rationale you added to that- it just plain isn't valid. The flag used in that way is purely for decoration, there is no critical commentary, and so does not meet our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Ghalib[edit]

I'm not entirely sure I understand why you did this, but if you will look more closely, you will see that the notice on this page IS a notice for AfD, which says Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Sorry if I seemed snippy. We've been trying to get this article deleted and after we waited the 5 days on prod, found out it needed to go AfD. It's frustrating. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab Case[edit]

I've seen your request for informal mediation for the article Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. This would be my second case, but if you'd like, I'd be happy to be the mediator. --Slartibartfast1992 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Fine. It's embarassing to have to leave this case because I look like an idiot in my last case, but whatever, I'd do the same in your place. I was hoping to start today until I saw your message. --Slartibartfast1992 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I won't dissapoint you. But I have to do some homework now, so, if you don't mind, I'll probably take the case up tomorrow, and start researching then. Thakns again, --Slartibartfast1992 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onto the case itself[edit]

To my understanding, the dispute is whether DDD jobs apply mostly to immigrants or actually have no correlation as to whether the worker in said job is an immigrant or not. Is this correct? --Slartibartfast1992 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So the dispute is whether the term itself should be covered in the article or whether 3D jobs should be covered. To my understanding, there is no 3K article though. Well, a logical answer to this would be to have a section dedicated to the term (origin etc.) and have the rest of the article dedicated to 3D jobs themselves. Does anybody not agree with this in the discussion? --Slartibartfast1992 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go ahead and move this discussion into the discussion section of the case page, if you don't mind, since it's getting confusing. --Slartibartfast1992 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)P.S.:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-19 Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning[reply]

Other Subsection[edit]

I don't see why you're so frustrated. All I'm doing is reminding the both of you (mostly Granite though) to cite sources, which is, to my understanding, what you've been trying to get done in the article. I've reminded Granite on his talk page about this, and have told him that anybody (including you) can delete any text that is not cited by a source, unless obvious.

I have said this on the case page, only to find you're frustrated and irritable for no apparent reason. I found in this edit something I find offensive and directed at me (...written by 15 year olds and cranks...), as a response to my honest efforts at solving the problem you're having at Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. Would you care to explain what I'm doing wrong? --Slartibartfast1992 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I've already had a person do this whole overly dramatic "I've had it with you, I leave this article, do whatever you want with the article" thing on my last case, but at least the other person had some reasons to do so.

I'm still waiting for a response. --Slartibartfast1992 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, that still doesn't justify an attack based on my age. And, FYI, I'm doing my best efforts now to explain to him, politely, that I see no correlation between Taylorism and DDD, and that his reference says nothing about this. If you're not going to help me, I'll finish this myself. --Slartibartfast1992 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, since people have made that rash assumption before. --Slartibartfast1992 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falafel[edit]

Just FYI: posted a response to you here to clarify the situation for you. M1rth (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SU WikiProject[edit]

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re frustration[edit]

re my response to your comment, I'm serious, I'd like to try to help out if you want to point me towards an article that needs more eyes. Dlabtot (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On 21 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Togian White-eye , 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.

--Maxim_(talk) 12:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I'm the author of the article Myrzakulov equations and I'm not the author of these equations. But I would like ask you to keep this my article. Ngn 92.46.65.69 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Go away with your self-promoting canvassing. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?[edit]

Thank you for your question on my page about whether I would consider doing something to make my username not red. I didn't know my red username was a red flag that brands me as someone not serious; you're the first person to tell me that. It's an interesting question, but strikes me oddly, as I would hope you (or anyone who edits at Wikipedia for that matter) would be intelligent and unprejudiced enough to be able to judge my comments and edits on their merit, rather than dismissing them out of hand as coming from a vandal or (I forget what other appellations you mentioned) simply on the basis of the color of my username. Actually, I think I may keep it just like it is, even having been warned. A great number of people have treated me well and taken me seriously in spite of my being branded with scarlet letters; if I keep the red letters, then I'll be able to tell who values me for the value of my contributions and who would value me only if I took on protective coloring. I'd prefer to work with the former and avoid the latter. Thank you. (In Proud Red Letters) Woonpton (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took your message to heart and did the redirect, and then I came to leave you another message to see if I did it right, and already I see my username on the message above is blue, so I guess I must have copied and pasted the instructions correctly. I still don't understand why personalizing one's user space makes one appear to be a more serious editor, since the user space doesn't have anything to do with one's contributions to the project; it seems more like a myspace kind of thing to me, and since I'm not much of a myspace kind of person, it just hadn't occurred to me to do anything with it. Anyway, thanks for alerting me (although I'll miss my bright red name; I rather liked it.) Woonpton (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthrosexual[edit]

Can you please help prevent this article from being deleted by send me or adding the sources you mentioned when you spoke your opinion on the AfD page.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hahah[edit]

If you think thats pov = there is a whole project you can check if you like :) - and for my concern i am amazed at how nobody in the nz project ever got freaked by red category talk pages and no project tags (am slowly working to fix that and i am not a bot :( ) - enjoy! Satu Suro 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your own sanity never make an offer like that - the major articles in the indonesian project have it everywhere - but hey life is too short - enjoy the daisies or whatever - thanks anyways Satu Suro 03:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Mostlyharmless has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eichmann trial news story, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note[edit]

Per this, we resolved to use templates (with wide agreement from wikiproject terrorism, wikiproject templates and others) for the Guantanamo articles to reduce redundancy, and allow people to deal with any POV/Coatrack/etc concerns simultaneously across 900 articles", rather than tweaking the wording on "explaining what an ARB is" on a single detainee's article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about the lack of an edit summary[edit]

...over at the Capitalization page, I hit the wrong link. I think your proposal is reasonable, and deserves further conversation; I don't think we're anywhere close to consensus yet, and if so, the guideline can't change yet. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Chely du Tarn[edit]

Hi, thank you for nominating this picture.

Also, thank you for letting me know. I hope it will be featured and that this will get the articles some more attention (even the french ones aren't very detailed, and unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge to help writing them...). Blieusong (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Saint Chely Tarn[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Saint Chely Tarn.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arachnis Picta[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Arachnis picta edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meadow Pipit[edit]

Hi, I noticed you had opposed my picture of a Meadow Pipit on the Featured picture candidate page. A new edit has just been posted, less noisy etc, which I wondered if you might like to take a look at, and see if you like it a bit better.-- Seahamlass 18:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you wish to comment...[edit]

There is a movement afoot to delete "Category:Mononymous entertainers," at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 31 — item 1.13. (There is also, slightly below that — item 1.16 — an analogous effort with regard to Category:Mononymous porn actors.) Nihil novi (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game's afoot again![edit]

Current venue: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 6, item 1.3: Category:Mononymous persons. Nihil novi (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review requested[edit]

Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __meco (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Takeshi Matsuda[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Takeshi Matsuda, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Takeshi Matsuda seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Takeshi Matsuda, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, PSL[edit]

Yes, great. Let me know if there is anything I can also do. I have the text on my hard drive, so that's atleast safe. The debate was definitely not closed properly at all: this is just a lot of nonsense that this bunch of people are upto. Supriya 05:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And tell me how to go to the deletion review debate - where / which page is it accessible from? Supriya 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are offended by that idea. I will be re-writing the article soon as well... Supriya 05:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Emblems of USA 1876[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Emblems of USA 1876 (original).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mostlyharmless (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:On the conditions.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:On the conditions.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laal[edit]

yeah i saw that thanks. you have to notify people anyway, i'm guessing you were just letting me know, cheers, Tom (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the conditions and possibilities of Helen Clark taking me as her young lover[edit]

On 30 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article On the conditions and possibilities of Helen Clark taking me as her young lover, 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.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven[edit]

Hi Mostlyharmless, just wondering if you could revisit Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ludwig van Beethoven and express your preference for which version should be promoted. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Solid energy.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Solid energy.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akay[edit]

Hi Mostlyharmless. Slightly confused by your edit summary, "sources which the prodder didn't bother to add" - it's not exactly normal for a prodder to add sources. When removing a prod, it's good form to leave a more descriptive edit summary along the lines of "Removing prod, added sources", rather than have a cheap dig at another editor with a legitimate concern about the notability of the article. Had I added sources to this or any other article, I would at least have attempted to format them as inline citations, which you, in turn, "didn't bother" to do. The BBC reference appears to give primary reference to the installation, rather than the artist, and the NY Times piece could in no way be said to give primary coverage to Akay - merely a passing mention, which satisfies neither the spirit nor letter of the primary notability criterion. Did your search uncover any reliable sources which give primary coverage to the subject of the article? Deiz talk 10:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. WP:HEY, you know how to butter me up. Deiz talk 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

Hi,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Emblems of USA 1876 (original).jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 4, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-04. An appropriately American POTD for election day! :) howcheng {chat} 21:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia[edit]

AfD nomination of Perfect rhyme[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Perfect rhyme, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect rhyme. Thank you. -- Atama ^chat 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quotes[edit]

Hi, I take your point about the removal of the scare quotes around the word "liberation" (oops, there I go again!) in the Western New Guinea article, but the Indonesian name for the statue means "Liberation of Irian Jaya" statue, hence the symbolism of the figure breaking the chains of colonialism. I accept the scare quotes are POV, so do you have any thoughts about how to include the fact that the stature has liberation ("pembebasan") in its title? By the way, I took the photo, but I don't think I wrote that caption ;-) Regards Davidelit (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDD Classification and US-centricity[edit]

When you have a spare moment, I would appreciate your opinion on my comment on the DDD talk page. Centrepull (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Hi,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Saint Chely Tarn.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 27, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-12-27. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Howdy,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Arachnis picta edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 28, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-02-28. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Winze[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Winze, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Should "winze" be an article on Wikipedia ? I think it might be better to develop articles about mines rather than only write definitions of winzes in Winze.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nucleos (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benny[edit]

I have left a comment at eds page which may or may not agree with your perception of what to say to POV enthusiasts - wrong place wrong channel for that sort of stuff imho and needs to be told so Satu Suro 02:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow - thanks for asking - ive been too long on today about to get off - I have a real problem with all the papua stuff - I'll give it some thought - and get back to you early in the week - cheers Satu Suro 05:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merbabus list and some others need to be put on a sub page at the WP Indonesia project space - will do that sometime this week and we can work from that - cheers Satu Suro 08:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPC discussion[edit]

This page has been started to review, discuss, and propose changes to the current closure process of Wikipedia Featured picture candidates. The need for this discussion has arisen following complaints and suggestions raised at the FPC talk page in May 2009. This time I believe we are getting somewhere and would appreciate your participation. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AfD of Alcides Moreno[edit]

As you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (which ended in no consensus) I thought you might like to know that it has been nominated again. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sail curve[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sail curve, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sail curve. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RDBury (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)[edit]

Please stop[edit]

Please stop reverting the link removals of Hu12. For one thing, they are spam. For another, edit warring on a mass scale solves nothing and disrupts the articles and people's watchlists. Them From Space 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the links has yet to be determined. Given the previous discussions, which decided that they were not spam, the links should not be removed until the new discussion reaches a conclusion.-gadfium 05:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop putting them back in, on the proviso that no-one takes anymore out until this is resolved. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come across as harsh; it just ticks me off to see my entire watch list taken up by an edit wars. Hu12 shouldnt have removed them as well, but disruption over multiple articles shouldn't be escalted and the links shouldn't be touched untill there is some sort of consensus. Them From Space 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're being fair. Edit wars don't help anyone! Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the NZ On Screen edits. I am uncertain what to do next. I wonder if there is any weight in the fact that it is NZ wikipedia editors that see merit and validity in the links - as it is information largely relevant to NZ audiences? I honestly believe they add value in most cases - and certainly am willing to remove those that don't. FilmTVFan (talk) 05.24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

G'day[edit]

Hey, just thought I'd drop you a quick note. Despite how long you've been dropping comments at FPC I never realised until NS's Canberra nom that you were a fellow resident of the antipodes, living in Aus and from across the ditch. For some reason (perhaps just a standard assumption I make) I thought you were from the States. --jjron (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. I don't tend to make lot of comments about those kinds of things, since I'm pretty busy with my thesis at the moment. It's easy to make assumptions about people on here, I have to keep reminding myself to not assume the person I'm talking to is male. FPC is a very pleasant distraction - I literally go there to look at the pretty pictures, and occasionally nominate one myself. Keep up the nominations, I enjoy them! Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees[edit]

Hello, I would like to submit this picture as FPC. I just saw that you submitted it before. What did you withdraw the nomination, and how can I submit it again? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I did a few restorations, but mostly in black and white (File:Auto wreck, Maryland, 1923.jpg). I will see what I can do with this one. Yann (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joan Baez and Bob Dylan at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Joan_Baez_Bob_Dylan.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Time3000 (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxhall Gardens FP nom[edit]

Please comment on the edited version of this nom. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australia from space[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Australia satellite plane.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

This section is to mark that you'd like to translate the text in File:Delaware Bay Vinckeboons 14.jpg, to avoid duplication of effort (I've asked more than one person). Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam[edit]

Hey, you left your support struck, but I believe I am correct in saying that the licensing information has been cleared up? Could you clarify whether your support has been reinstated or not? J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder! Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kenyon Cox nude study[edit]

I've uploaded a version which has what I feel are more realistic colours for a graphite drawing. Can you review? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TB[edit]

Hello, Mostlyharmless. You have new messages at Nezzadar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category Invite[edit]

Please add the category [[Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors]] to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks, Nezzadar ☎ 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takeiuchi (the one with 4 post in FPC out of a total of 9)[edit]

and also likes video games... I don't know if RPG games like Nezzadar.

socks puppetry? meat puppetry? I don't know how to check if is it true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to assume good faith, particularly of regular contributors (even though I know you have had problems with Nezzadar in the past). That said, also suspect that Takeiuchi is a sock-puppet of some user. For the moment that user seems fairly harmless, but if I see anything more I'll take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. You're welcome to file a report if you think it meets the WP:SOCK criteria. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME? Talking behind my back eh? If you have a problem with my votes, DON'T POST THE IMAGE. I am certainly NOT a sock puppet! Takeiuchi (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I apologise unreservedly for not assuming good faith about you. I've been on Wikipedia for four years, and it's very unusual for a brand new user to contribute in the way you have, but that still didn't give me the right to assume you might be a sockpuppet. However, I won't apologise for noting your contributions - this is standard practice at WP:FPC - new users with unusual voting patterns are noted in this way publicly. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being harsh before, but never have I been so bashed for posting my opinion on something. No matter HOW new I was to the site, no matter WHAT the subject was. The way you acted was unjust, and uncalled for. Takeiuchi (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I really mean it. I hope you stick around and make useful contributions. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nezzadar[edit]

I'm not sure what steps to take, hes unavoidable if I continue participating in FP's and I'm not going to stop participating in that project because of one highly problematic user. I'm not sure if a WP:RfC/U is appropriate or a more severe steps like AN boards... I appreciate your opinion here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow this link[edit]

[4] franklin.vp 02:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at both your edit histories: your behaviour towards Nezzadar is hardly acceptable either. I have no desire to participate in the dispute between the two of you. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pale Blue Dot[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Pale Blue Dot.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Please don't be too alarmed; am not about to leave FPC entirely. It's more about being ready to throw in the towel on the delisting issue. There actually is a viable workaround for that bottleneck: show my personal galleries to curators instead of the main site galleries. In that context it's viable to set a baseline request for 10MB TIFF files. That's been the short term solution and may have to get extended indefinitely.

That stopgap is not the best thing for the FP program or for the site: we'll still have newcomers who get confused by the oldest promotions and try to restore 216 KB files of WWI tanks (or similar material), then get icy reviews from most of the regulars. This hinders FPC program growth, but the unintended consequence makes me look like a star; high percentage of total FPs and preferential attention with the most influential audience.

Altruism can only go so far. If reverse psychology is operating and if attempts to remove the barrier motivate people to keep it, then might as well make the most of those unintended consequences. The Tropenmuseum is sending another digitized Indonesian tapestry to stitch and restore, they've got expert curators and scholars who can probably supply chemical analyses on the dyes that were used. Data on the fade patterns of those dyes could allow color adjustments with greater accuracy than ever before. Better still, it leads to another museum show.

Each partnered museum exhibit improves our credibility with the curators and librarians who can provide better access. That branches in other directions at the long term WMF strategy level. Would be honored to work with you in those contexts, including shared credit for museum exhibits if that interests you. You certainly have the photographer's eye and graphics skills to pick up a little restoration. Thank you again, Durova³⁶⁹ 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova, you're welcome. I'm also glad to hear that there has been some progress with the UK's NPG - I hadn't been following that too closely. I'll give restoration a go hopefully early next year when I get my next computer - my current one simply doesn't handle large files, and my university does not allow me to install the software I need. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drilling optimization[edit]

Hi, I see that you removed the speedy delete from drilling optimization, but I'm confused as to how this article can be expanded seeing as there is no context. The article creator didn't leave any cats, so later editors added a cat (machining) and a stub (mining). Obviously this shows that there isn't enough context for other editors to determine if this is a mining article or a machining article. If it is supposed to be a machining article I would nominate it for deletion anyhow, because any information about drilling optimization should be included in drilling. If it's about mining, then the info should be part of boring (earth). As such, it seems pretty self-explanatory that this article should be deleted. Wizard191 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something can be in more than one category - that it is in both the machining category and the mining category shows that it deals with both. A cursory search of the internet, books, and news sources shows that it is a set of techniques that are widely understood as a coherent category. Just because you don't understand what it is doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot deal with both. While the concept for boring earth and drilling as a machining process are similar in concept (i.e. they both create holes) the actual process for each are quite different and the requirements for optimizing the processes are vastly different. If the article was supposed to be about both that's a very poor idea for the reason just given, but because the article has no context we don't even know, therefore it should be deleted. Wizard191 (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Mostlyharmless! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Marti Friedlander - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter[edit]

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

loved your comment on the BLP RFC, just read it--reading everyones. It is so far down, it is a shame most people wont read it :( I owe you a socrates barnstar, remind me okay? Okip (formerly Ikip) 06:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what movie is your name from? Okip (formerly Ikip) 10:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty, Dangerous,[edit]

Congratulations, you opened the door to further edits of the 3D page. And now, as you must agree, the page is worse than before your large edit to revert all the "mother fucking edits" you could not live with. Good job, you should be proud. Next time you decide to own a page then take the responsibility to monitor it for corruption. Don't just hit and run. You have my utmost respect and I look forward to reading your future insightful academic publications 128.12.170.154 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]