It is common practice to credit at image description page and not every instance of image usage. It isn't an absolute requirement but such linkage is ugly. -- Catchi? 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I realise it is very ugly, and I would never add it in such a way on my own cc-by images because I don't really care, but in this instance I begged a Flickr user to give up his beautiful images to illustrate the article, and it is an important incentive for people to see their name on Wikipedia. I know it's common practice, but I would appreciate it if you didn't remove it, however ugly.
It might not look good but if we don't do that we often wouldn't have gotten the images in the first place. Moreover, it doesn't limit those images to be free images. I say it's only fair to the image creators that they be attributed were people can see. But most importantly, we expect other reusers of the image to do the same, since most websites don't have image description pages.
I also reverted you on Commons, since the image policy there is different and it is standard practice there to credit images as much as possible.
I am a commons administrator and am unaware of this. Creative commons images are not required to be "credited" in articles. -- Catchi? 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh thats fine. I am glad the confusion is over. On wikinews for credit I would recommend against linking to the flick page. Instead the image description page should be linked. If this isn't common practice I'd like to propose it. Where would be a better place to do this? -- Catchi? 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why would you recommend against it? If you want to propose a new policy on Wikinews, you can visit our Water Cooler, and maybe read and join our discussion about it here.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Just a note to say I moved the credit into comment markers instead of having a link. Links are generally only used for fair use images by professional photographers, not images under cc attribution licenses. The credit is now viewable both on the image description page and in comment markers on the article itself; if people want to know more about the image they will likely click on the picture and see the credit anyway. Regards, — Editor at Large(speak)18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Siz sanırım Türkçe wikipedia nın da bir kullanıcısıydınız. Ben King beni IRC kanalından King ben de türkçe wikipedia da kullanıcıyım. Neyse bir göz atıyım şu İng. Wikipedia' ya demiştim. Adınızı gördüm, tanıdık geldi. İyi çalışmalar. --212.156.170.15819:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch this article, it is under heavy vandal attack. -- Catchi? 00:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like the article is getting vandalism anymore, but I added to article to my VF and the IRC watchlist. --Y.Ichiro (会話) 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 3rd planned protest (on 5 May - Today) so it will stay as a current event longer. -- Catchi? 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't place news on the portal if you can't provide a legitimate source. Your edit has been reverted. Happy editing. Chris04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted. Sorry, I forgot to add the source in excitement. -- Catchi? 04:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.
”
Anything unsourced can be removed. Large additions such as the one to Iraqi Kurdistan are also a suspect of being copyright violations. -- Catchi? 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
“
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding <nowiki>{{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.
”
I don't know if the additions to Iraqi Kurdistan are in copyright violations or not, but I could put them back on the article and get sources for them. I started the Demographics of Iraqi Kurdistan page for this article, but it was merged with this article. I am thinking of putting this information on that page, so we have more time to get sources for it and so it’s not on up on this particular page without sources. --D.Kurdistani02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving the unsourced content to the talk page, improve it and put it back to the article when you are comfortable (as your text suggests)? I dislike {{fact}} and etc because they cluter the article in question unnecessarily. -- Catchi? 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
And we've merged the character articles. Current consensus has been to do as such, and so far you're the only one who is pushing for individual articles. Feel free to bring it to the talk page. -- Ned Scott21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your word isn't absolute. I see no evidence of a consensus to remove article content. -- Catchi? 22:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I know you'd love for me to not be involved in all this, CC, but I still very much am. Regardless of this discussion here, it's still a no go for episode articles or character articles. WP:PLOT, WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, you know, the usual. Wikipedia-wide consensus trumps your preference. -- Ned Scott04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please mass blank every such article on wikipedia starting from Jean-Luc Picard to every article on every Star Trek episode. No evidence of this "Wikipedia-wide consensus" exists or else why the heck are there articles about star trek episodes? Please do not fool yourself. -- Catchi? 05:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
There was much discussion in the past on the removal of these pages. Don't tell me you've forgotten the pages and pages of discussion on this.--十八22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that supports mass blanking/removal/vandalism) of these pages. There are plenty of Star Trek episode articles as well as many other series. Either they all stay or they all go. -- Catchi? 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, would you mind postponing when these episode articles are to start? I mean, many of them don't even have any summaries or very little content; if we can wait until content could be filled, then perhaps we could keep them? Kinda the same thing with the character articles as some have very little info and are just stubs (and were stubs long before that between June 2006 and December 2006 when I merged them into List of Air characters. All I want is a two month postpone, and I guarantee you all of the articles will be filled with info akin to the Kanon character articles and Kanon 2006 anime episode articles. Just two months with these pages blanked; that's all I ask.--十八22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason to "postponing" this, though I'd be willing to talk rather than a senseless revert war. I would however welcome you to restore the articles in the time being so as not to unnecessarily keep many maintenance processes unnecessarily busy (such as orphaned fair use images deletion). Should the conclusion agree with your discussion, articles would be easy enough to revert. This would also allow people to review and compare the content of the articles with lesser difficulty.
I see no policy or guideline supporting mass blanking of episode articles. That includes WP:EPISODE. The "Merging" of episodes removed a lot of article content. There already is enough information "collectively" to make up more than an article. Unless there is a consensus against TV Episodes in general, I do not see any reason for the blankings. I would encourage you to restore the articles and help expand them with information we would expect on a featured article.
I disagree with that merge. WP:FICT has been cited as the rationale for their blankings even for the main characters. Aside from the two characters (Sora and Patato) can be considered minor as per WP:FICT, the others have dedicated episodes/arcs about them. There is far more than enough room to expand those articles. As for the the two I mentioned, it feels ridiculous to create a list just for those two characters.
I am walking away from the "revert war" before it starts hoping that there will be a sensible discussion involving the entire wikipedia community since I want this discussion to have implications on every similar article. Or alternatively (as you suggested after an edit conflict at my talk page) and more preferably a join collaboration in expanding the articles in question since you seem more than a sensible person to me.
Okay, I won't lie; I would want these character articles and episode articles on Wikipedia, but you didn't even help in expanding them after their creation last summer, and they stayed stubs for about 6 months. I was really disappointed in this as Air is one of my favorite series and at the time I saw that blanking them would be okay for the time being. You want individual character and episode articles, fine, I do too, but the way you went about it seemed wrong in a way. For one, you're relying too much on the anime information while the game info should come first, this is in regards to character summaries in the character articles. See the Kanon characters for examples.
However, I am still against the creation of Air (anime), since all that info can now be found on the main article, and I am further against the use of {{Air}} as with {{Key}}, this reduces clutter and makes things more compact and easier to navigate. Aren't we on Wikipedia supposed to reduce redundancy?--十八22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry, I got distracted with "real life" and "commons" (I became an admin on commons and it practically consumed my time) related tasks. I completely forgot about those articles in question. I have more free time now though I will be "freer" in 3 weeks.
I have my reservations for both Air (anime) and {{Air}} - but thats not really critical or crucial to resolve right away I will however place my rationale below. I do not expect you to respond or agree with it. Its just my perspective.
Just for the sake of clarifying my stance on the template: I do not mind a {{Key}} provided it is restructured by series. It looks hard to follow at the moment. {{Navigation}} can be used for each of the series for example. Probably it is best to redirect {{Air}} to {{Key}} if we are going to stick to a single {{Key}}.
My approach to the issue is that Air (anime) (such as how anime was created, how was it criticized and etc) should focus on the anime while the Air (visual novel) focus on the game. For example the Game (older versions at least) is considered Erotic, the anime does not have any trace of Erotic scenes - not even pantsu shots. However Both anime and game are in the same genre. I haven't played the game much mind you (It was way too boring for the first 1 hour of clicking between 4 or 5 scenes).
I am not much of an expert in article writing so I would welcome your preferred examples to go about expanding the articles. I'd like to note, I am quite pleased with your approach to this even though we are at a disagreement on certain points.
Let's work on these articles one at a time. I propose we start with the first air episode, Breeze right away while leaving everything else (other Air articles) alone.
Okay, I'll say this: I'd be more willing to accept an Air (anime) page provided that more info about the anime itself was included, such as what you said with how the anime was developed, or how it was criticized. DVD sales could also be included, and now that the anime has been licensed, the latter two may not be too hard to find, but then anime development may be difficult to find into on and to cite. Currently, there is nothing on this version to make it it's own article as all that info can be found on the main article under the Anime section, and the Story arcs section which seems much more relavent to cite its inclusion in the game rather than how it was distributed in the anime that came after it. I'm talking about precedent here, so the game should always come first.
Moreover, I can see that you were accepting a bit of my cleanup strategies, such as with this revision, and going along with the merging to Sora (Air) and Potato (Air) into Yukito Kunisaki and Kano Kirishima, so I can see that we may be able to work together provided we reach a concensus.
About {{Air}}, I would much rather use one template, {{Key}} to apply to all of Keys works in order to avoid redundancy and make it easier to navigate with a single template to edit rather than 6 (Key has 6 games now). The Key template once was organized according to series, seen here but I reorginized it to the current version because it looked better this was with how it is originized now. Also, to reduce clutter, this version was replaced by including Category:Kanon characters in the template, and the same could be done for the Air characters I believe. And then only Kanon and Air have enough articles to constitute organization by series, as Clannad alone only has 3 and the other 3 games only have a main article, and soundtracks since the other three don't even have anime adaptations to them.
As for the proposal you just gave me on my talk page, it's a sound idea, but the only reason I wanted a 2 month postpone is because I am in college right now and I will have no time to really delve into this massive project until the summer. My belief is that if all of the articles were done at the same time (as in work on them in namespace and then copy/paste into article space when finished with all of them), users such as Ned Scott would not have much to work with in terms of the guidelines set out in WP:EPISODE. Right now, most are stubs without references, so he has enough info to warrent deletion.--十八23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anime is hard to write about. Even most significant series lack from a good set of secondary sources. Such sources are typically in Japanese and are written on magazines and etc only. Oh My Goddess! talks about the series in general while linking to the relevant articles with much more content. We could follow a similar model.
I am agreeing with the mergings of Sora (Air) and Potato (Air) but I am pondering if it really is the best decision. Sora is actually Yukito so the merge makes sense. Potato is a stray dog and does not belong to anyone. While it is a minor character it is the only minor character so leaving it as an article would in my opinion be fine since everyone else can be complete articles.
See: {{Command & Conquer series}}. Note that several content on the article links to the same article but different sections. That is allowed. It is easier for me to use navigation templates organized by series. We could have one template for Kannon, one template for Air and one template for other. I am willing to compromise on this as much as you are. All I wish is the best possible template. -- Catchi? 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
To admit the truth, I haven't payed too much attention to your cleanup (all I noticed was addition of content which is good enough for me typically). Now that I review it more closely I still agree with it mostly. I would recommend using European dates (28 August2005) rather than US (August 282005) though thats nothing major to sweat about.
I find Ned Scott's involvement a bit unhelpful. But I have a personal policy not to discuss contributors so I will leave it at that.
Most of the stubs actually link to the official website (which I admit has very little material). The episode itself is also a very good source. I could counter that argument with that but it isn't really important at this point since we will process them all one by one.
Regarding {{Command & Conquer series}}, the organization there I think is helpful, and we might be able to apply this to {{Key}}, with these sections: Kanon, Air, Other games (this would encompass the other 4 Key games, plus the 3 they made at Tactics), Key Sounds Label, Related.
Regarding the merging of Potato into the Kano article. While I agree with you it makes more sense for Sora to be in the Yukito article, there is no reason to create an article for Potato per WP:FICT. Thus, I did what I simiarly did with the Makoto Sawatari article in merging the Piro info into there because Makoto's the one that is closest to Piro anyway. Kano, by the same token, seems very close to Potato, and besides, Potato only appears in connection with Kano's story and as far as I remember, is unseen later on in the story after her arc is completed.
Yes, but Potato is a seperate character and WP:FICT would recommend listifying it. Which would be a one character list - would be silly. So it should be an article IMHO despite WP:FICT. Potato was seen after that arc. Throughout the entire series Potato was there for the kicks even at Kano's arc. It is a minor character but the only one.
Such users will never disappear. People have their reasons, I have mine. I already stated my views and I am tired of repeating myself to them for the past 2+ years. I do not want to name-call them as "deletionists" since I am often identified as one myself (contrary to how it may appear to you ^_^;).
It still doesn't make sense that Potato should warrent it's own article. That would simultaniously go along with WP:FICT and go against it. The only solution is to merge it into the Kano article; this is one thing I'm absolutely adament about because even citing Potato as a minor character seems a stretch since it's only there as a moe prop for Kano; it didn't even really do anything that directly related to any of the storylines.--十八00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can compromise at this point. I would however reccomend a redirect to be left back. -- Catchi? 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was pondering if you could check that source. It seems to be an unrelated discussion. I agree with Jimbo that {{fact}} is overused and would like to put this on my own userpage as a word of wisdom. -- Catchi? 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I, Whytecypress, award you this barnstar for civility and determination in face of uncivil criticisms to your efforts to create a User Ranking System. Live Long and Prosper. -- Whytecypress17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the award. I was wondering what you meant by "User Ranking System" -- Catchi?
Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish Coast Guard.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users may get blocked for this purpose as a result but that isn't the point of arbitration. The point of arbitration is to resolve a dispute. This approach would bring better results from arbcom both for the accuser and the accused. -- Catchi? 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, you don't have to notify yourself. Although, since I'm here, one of your links is red and may need to be adjusted. Regards, Newyorkbrad21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation requests are deleted if they fail to start due to a lack of participation. -- Catchi? 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Then you might want to say "I tried a formal mediation request but it was deleted because X declined to participate." Right now it just looks like a typo. Regards, Newyorkbrad22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added something along that line to the rfar case. Btw, are you ever online, I'd like to discuss this issue with you since I feel ArbCom will decline this again. -- Catchi? 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake,
I tried to carry your and Olgun's all edits to my last version, but possibly; either there was a coincide of our edits or I made a mistake there.Sorry again.Must.T C11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I though it was a honest mistake. Ah, edit conflicts are painful :) -- Catchi? 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is probably a bad idea because it will not receive much traffic. Namely, people respond to RfCs in related subject areas after posting their own RfCs, and people watchlist RfCs in subject areas they are interested. This is much less likely to happen if RfCs are divided by function rather than subject area. For example, people who have more insight into issues about Kurdistan and who care enough to comment would be the people interested in politics and history. Also, such a specific page will likely have fewer RfCs in general, so fewer people coming to the page. —Centrx→talk • 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was placed on "History and geography" RfC before and not a single soul bothered to comment on it. I was recommended to create that new process on IRC. There is no RFC process to discuss categories at this point hence why I started that specific thing. For the past several months I have been trying to gather community attention on this problem while making an effort to not escalate the matter myself. No one seems to want to even comment on the issue. People I asked for assistance said they wouldn't touch this controversial issue with a 10 foot pole. This shouldn't be an article dispute since it involves a lot of articles. It should be treated differently IMHO. I would welcome any suggestion though. -- Catchi? 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to file a complaint about me, please use the proper process which most certainly is not CfD. -- Catchi? 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What complaint would that be, Perry Mason? It's called "theorizing about your motives" -- in other words, a possible explnation for your pointy nomination. --Calton | Talk14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Perry Mason. Please either WP:AGF. How is it pointy? What point am I illustrating? No one, including you, is disputing that the borders are undefined and that the issue is controversial. My nom is inline with WP:CAT's general guidelines. If you still feel this is "pointy", take it to WP:ANB/I or community sanction board. If my intentions are truly disruptive I should be blocked. -- Catchi? 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please either [sic] WP:AGF - Note that's "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Your history of POV pushing -- both in general and on this issue in particular -- is evidence to the contrary: citing WP:AGF isn't a "Get Out of Jail Free card", you know.
No one, including you, is disputing that the borders are undefined and that the issue is controversial - And, as I explicitly pointed out, utterly irrelevant.
If you still feel this is "pointy", take it to WP:ANB/I or community sanction board - Why?
If my intentions are truly disruptive I should be blocked - You can intend anything you like: only when you escalate to disruptive actions should you be blocked. Of course, relentless wikilawyering in order to suppress, delegitimize, obscure, or discourage discussion or opposition and achieve victory for a single minority point of view is disruptive, so maybe you're onto something. --Calton | Talk15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what to make out of your response. I would welcome if you clarified it.
Creators of the categories such as User:Diyako or User:Diyarbakir also have a history of pov pushing. Unlike me both are blocked from editing wikipedia currently under arbcom remedies. In the case of Diyako the block is one year, in the case of Diyarbakir it is indefinite. Diyarbakir is also known to devote his entire contribs to wiki-stalk me for the past two years. ArbCom merely warned me for my behaviour during my first 1000 edits. Surely my other 30,000+ edits should have some weight.
There had been no discussion on the inclusion criteria or even the very creation of this armada of Kurdistan categories. We categorize cities by country (defacto (Taiwan/Sealand) or dejure (France/United States) alike) not by [alleged] regions that also happen to be wanabe countries. So far, I haven't been given one straight answer on what these Kurdistan categorization is based on nor have I been ever told why they are even necessary. Issue is so controversial, people do not even want to touch it with a "10 foot pole", surely there must be something wrong with this category if people are so hesitant to remark on it. If it was completely uncontroversial and non-problematic I am sure people would be more than willing to comment.
I have been trying very hard not to escalate the issue (escalating it is very easy, all it takes is one person waging a revert war and hell breaks loose - we have seen examples of this in the past). I have been remaining civil patiently for months trying to initiate a discussion. I have went through every single process of dispute resolution I know of. And for that when people accuse me of POV pushing, it is quite frustrating.
I am not sure what to make out of your response. I would welcome if you clarified it. - Clarify what? That's an utterly empty request and dangerously close to trolling.
Creators of the categories such as User:Diyako or User:Diyarbakir also have a history of pov pushing - So what?
So far, I haven't been given one straight answer on what these Kurdistan categorization is based on nor have I been ever told why they are even necessary - The briefest thought would tell you that geographic categorization is based on -- wait for it -- geography. Again, given that "Kurdistan" is a long-established albeit roughly defined geographic area, your dispute, if any, should be with membership criteria for the category. The category is valid, your wishful thinking, willingness to pretend it hasn't been explained to you, and wikilawyering notwithstanding . --Calton | Talk22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not turn Diyarbakır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into a revert war. You have clearly demonstrated an angry editing style on Turkish articles in the past. Please use the articles discussion page if you have objections. I was reverting to an older, agreed wording that had just been removed. I object to your calling this soapboxing. — Gareth Hughes16:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you have provided ([1], [2], [3]) do not fall under what we consider as a reliable source. While Britannica is reliable, it makes no mention of the capital claim [4]. -- Catchi? 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Storm_Front_(Part_I).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I'd like to wait till an official announcement. Also would you mind citing your additions to a source, not that I am disputing them but it would save us time. -- Catchi? 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I put in discussions was that someone could take care of the technical stuff, becuase im not a hardcore wikier. But deleting it is a bit extreme, as i gave the source...I did not want to get into a revert war, so would you put it back and if you will not, please tell me why notKorrybean02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry CNN.com owns the copyright to that material. You can merely leave a link to the material. Also a PKK tie appears premature at this point. I have however initiated a 2007 Ankara bombing prior to your post. -- Catchi? 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I ran across your little "Where I've been" thing on your user page, and I stole it and modified it for my own page (with a link and credit to you, of course). I hope you don't mind. Horologiumtalk - contrib06:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Many people have been using it for quite some time :) -- Catchi? 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had a bit of time to think about this now. I think there are legitimate reasons for keeping this article mostly as it is. Each of the four "Kurdistans" (Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Turkish) have significantly differing post-Ottoman history and politics, and present somewhat different issues. There's more than enough content in both Turkish Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan to justify the separate existence of those articles. Having said that, I think we could probably move some of the pre-1918 content in Turkish Kurdistan into the main Kurdistan article, along the lines of how Iraqi Kurdistan is structured. -- ChrisO15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-WW1 histories as you point out should be merged. Turkey was formed after the fall of the ottoman empire and officially started to exist after the Lausanne.
The content regarding the treaties should be merged as soon as possible. I would welcome you to do this. The serves treaty proposed an entire Kurdistan country and was never just a "Turkish Kurdistan" part. Lausanne made "Kurdistan" to cease to exist as a proposal.
After those two merges you'd be basically left with a single paragraph.
Do you not consider edits such as this an enormous waste of database and bandwidth resources? What is the point in many hundreds of edits to make what is simply a cosmetic change to a historical signature? Thanks/wangi19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to keep my signatures uniform. All those comments belong to me. This will minimize confusion. It is not an enormous waste of database and bandwidth resources. It would make a trivial change. -- Catchi? 19:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you should set your AWB to run though just article space. You caught one of your sigs in my archive pages. Not that I particularly care, it's just that others might. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think anyone sane would complain about their talk archives receiving this cleanup. -- Catchi? 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"anyone sane would complain about their talk archives receiving this cleanup" - you're completely missing the point of what signatures are for. They are to identify and date your talk page contributions, nothing more. They are not a style statement. There's nothing wrong with the way they were, you're just wasting server resources to update to your latest "best sig ever" - it's pointless. Thanks/wangi07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we don't allow things like templates for sigs, because every time you changed the sig it would then have to update for each page. I'm surprised this got approved. Mass edits for a stylistic sig change is not something you're supposed to do. -- Ned Scott09:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain me one thing. How is you reverting the bots edit productive?
I believe sigs templates are disabled due to the immense transclusion load which would need to be updated on all pages at once. The bot is not editing all pages at once.
Please do not dictate what I am supposed to do. Preferably I'd rather not have any dealings with you as per my past experience with you.
Most of the reverts are to archives. Look, you don't get to do this kind of crap, and it's not going to be tolerated. -- Ned Scott10:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually problematic, even though you might consider those who disagree as insane, to change the archives. The archives are meant to be historical sources, and it is not a coincidence that these pages have the text "do not modify this page". Subsequent editing of archived debates does constitute historical revisionism. Bertilvidet14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historic revisionism? Give me a darn break. Its a cosmetic signature alteration. The bot is specifically approved to carry out the task. -- Catchi? 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Give it a rest, that approval was for "testing"... Clearly it's been tested now. Perhaps try and understand people's concerns. If it's "cosmetic" only then why bother? You clearly need to gain further approval before running this bot again. Thanks/wangi15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are cosmetic so I do not have the slightest idea why people are revert waring over it. -- Catchi? 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's it. Cat, stop acting like a 4 year-old. It's clear you're making pointless changes that the community does not support. How do you think you lost your access to the vandalism-en-wp channel? Why have you been blocked so many times? Stop arguing and edit warring with people over such a stupid thing and grow up. -Pilotguyhold short19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I think I lost access to vandalism-en-wp hmm... Essjay said so. Do not get me started on Essjay. I decline to respond on such an insulting post any longer. -- Catchi? 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop editing archives. Stop changing your signature on talk pages. You have already been told by numerous people that this is a bad idea and have provided no justification of why it is appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe I was ever required to provide justifications to my edits. -- Catchi? 19:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you should provide justification for all edits, in the edit summary, but that is beside the point here. —Centrx→talk • 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fresh page is creating a brand new username dissociated from the old one, not migrating all contributions, using a similar name, same user page, and same modus operandi, and re-attributing all comments in existence. Everyone knows it's the same person. —Centrx→talk • 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is MY time to waste by me (its my own "stupidity" if you will).
Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken was intended for redirects to articles and etc not for a signature correction. I may alter the signatures in a manner that links to my old userpage and user talk page while altering its appearance if you insist.
People who vandalize pages or edit war are wasting their own time too, but that does not mean that the edits aren't reverted or that they aren't blocked. 1) You are editing your own comment; 2) while the redirect policy there was designed for articles, there is no reason why it is not just as sensible here; 3) Wikipedia:Signatures explains the purpose and use of signatures, that custom signatures are an allowance not some essential feature of the encyclopedia and the purpose of which, for example, does not include editing all the talk archives you have ever commented on to fix up your own signature. 4) Template:Talkarchive was created to tell users that they should not edit the contents of archives. This includes all parts of archives except the headers. Edits to archives are only to add or change header information, to archive additional sections, to re-organize them for different sized archives but without editing their contents, and in special cases, such as with fair use images and personal names to remove information. These are analogous to re-organizating files in a folder, or writing meta-information at the top of a page, but not to changing the body of text on the page. None of this covers fixing up your own signature so it is just how you like it. Do you have any justification for doing this other than wanting to waste your own time? If you want to waste your time, you can make as many edits as you want to User:White Cat/Sandbox. —Centrx→talk • 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to bother reading this. -- Catchi? 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 15 minutes. Please spend this time carefully reading over the comments made by many users regarding your signature edits. These continuing edits are disruptive and do not benefit the encyclopaedia in any way. Thanks/wangi20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find you block entirely against policy. I am not going to be intimidated by this. -- Catchi? 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, any more edit warring like this and you'll end blocked again, for a longer period. As I said above these continuing edits are disruptive and do not benefit the encyclopaedia in any way. You are acting against consensus. Thanks/wangi20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any other block and bcrats will be involved. Take it to Dispute resolution or drop it. -- Catchi? 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't threaten people, and bureaucrats have no special authority in this matter, except perhaps for granting a special privilege of a bot, which is not the case here. —Centrx→talk • 20:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using admin tools inaproporately is when b'crats get involved. Blocking people with out a valid reason is a violation of blocking policy. Blocking people you are in dispute with is also a very bad practice. I am the one threatened here with a block. -- Catchi? 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I was only discussing the matter with you, I wasn't having a dispute. You'll not I did not revert any of the bot changes for example. Thanks/wangi08:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You became in dispute at the very least after your block. Should I dare to update my sigs you have threatened to block me. That counts as a dispute to me. -- Catchi? 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that everyone except you says you are not allowed to do so, and you have provided no justification why you should be allowed to do so. Regardless, it would appear that you are not blocked for merely "altering your signatures", but for making mass edits against consensus, in this case overwhelming consensus. —Centrx→talk • 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus. Create a policy or guideline and get it approved by the community. Right now a bunch of people such as User:Ned Scott, You and several others have found a yummy mean to bully me. Frankly I find your involvement disturbing. People are disagreeing only for the sake of disagreeing. -- Catchi? 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA. Please stick to the substance, not the persons. What is relevant is how we preserve archived material. And obviously subsequent editing of it changes history. Bertilvidet20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please... You accused me of historical revisionism with my edits on my signature. -- Catchi? 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is why I said people might get annoyed. Think about in simple terms. What need do you have to change your signature? Is it going anywhere different (beyond a redirect, that is)? If it's merely a cosmetic thing, why bother? I can understand wanting consistency, as I'm obsessive over little things, too, but when it annoys this many people it's better to just let it go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe... But I wouldn't be "obsessive" if I just didn't seek perfection. The whole issue is lame I agree. -- Catchi? 21:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And since the issue is lame, don't you think it's best not to antagonize other editors who don't agree with you? There's more of tehm than there are you. Best to bow to the opposition when the battle is pointless, at least where words are concerned. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not ever surrender. Wikipedia is not a community where people bow to others. -- Catchi? 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Admirable, I must say, but still not wise. Regardless, I wish you luck. However, it'd probably help your case if you didn't do what people are complaining about while trying to get approval for it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disengaging is the prudent course of action in the meanwhile. You are right. -- Catchi? 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
White Cat had a username change recently. He is changing his signatures to link from his old username to his new one, and fixing some sigs which had images (which is frowned upon). Some of these edits are on archived pages. Archived page guidelines say they shouldn't be edited; generally assumed to mean the comments should not be changed and new comments should not be added. Images are often removed from archives, or changed to other versions - what White Cat is doing is changing his sig. This change does not affect the discussion in any way (unless someone was speaking about the signature in particular). He has the right to change his sig, which is not a part of discussions on archived pages, just as others have the right to change theirs and to change images in archives and even to revert changes by others if they think they are inappropriate.
However, attacking a user and blindly reverting everything, plus blocking him when he continues to make changes to his own signature, is quite uncalled for. If the issue is particular users not wanting their talk page archives edited, those users should revert the changes themselves - if White Cat changes them back then complaints from the user whose page White Cat edited are in order. Personally if his fix was reverted by someone else I would change it back, as UBeR did here. Blind reversions of other people's talk page archives by a different user just makes the page pop up once again on everyone's watchlist, and is annoying to those who did not mind the signature change to begin with.
This is a signature, which within loose guidelines (not too long, not too large height-wise, preferably no images) is free for the user to create, change, design, modify, etc.. Archives should not be edited for the purpose of changing or adding to the discussion, but modifying something like a signature does not cause problems in most instances. If it does, reverting back to the old signature is fine, yes. Otherwise let White Cat fix his signature as he pleases; the only people getting hurt by this edit war and these discussions are the users who are getting angry and the people going out of their way to revert him. — Editor at Large(speak)22:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Editor at Large, although I would suggest you try a less combative attitude; even if you refuse to stop changing your signatures, users who disagree with you will be more willing to let it slide if you politely explain your reasons, rather than immediately attack their sanity and accuse them of bothering you. :)
I occasionally update my old signatures to point them to a subpage redirect (for link sorting), but I do it semi-manually and over a long time. I've gotten a few questions about it from time to time, but nobody every challenged it. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:49:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting. -- Catchi? 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I've often thought people advertising things in their sigs, be it talk pages or new policies or whatever, should use redirects to avoid polluting "what links here", and keeping track of things a bit more. A new redirect for each month, maybe? Carcharoth12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I want to clear "what links here" to User:White Cat, User:Cool Cat and User:Coolcat that way I can better keep track of any referance to my former username(s). Pathoschild does this sound reasonable to you? -- Catchi? 12:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
White cat was my original internet nick. White cat was taken at a point so I had to switch to "Cool Cat" at a point some 7+ years ago perhaps. I am returning to my handle name. -- Catchi? 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you perchance be able to use your bot to perform the same task for me as it did for you. Ie changing links from my old userpage to my new one. There are only about 350 or so, but I'm not running AWB. ViridaeTalk00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to but I am prohibited of making such edits manually now let alone automated. Fixing signatures will only get me blocked. So although I want to help you my hands are tied. -- Catchi? 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Burundi was properly colored. Thats the blob to the south but Rwanda was not. I fixed that.
Tonga and Samoa are not visible on the blank version of the map (as far as I can see) so I cannot color them. Because it is at the middle of nowhere (Pacific) I am unable to pinpoint its location. If you can provide me which ones I am to color, I can do it.
You may need to refresh your browser to properly view the changes
Actually, if you look at a map of the Pacific, you'll see that Samoa and Tonga are the only things visible east of Fiji (at least on the rhs of the map. :-) Tomertalk18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... [5] does count Palestine as a member. Would you mind reviewing that map and the list? -- Catchi? 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The list includes Palestine, which is not only not a member of the UN, it is not (and never has been) a country. Therefore, the West Bank, presently marked in green on the map, probably should not be. Marking the WBank as a stand-in of sorts for Palestine, assumes the outcome of status talks which are, presently, completely stalled. Cheers, Tomertalk22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The West Bank is currently considered under international law to be de jure a territory not part of any state. The United Nations Security Council,[1] the United Nations General Assembly,[2] the International Court of Justice,[3] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[4] refer to it as occupied by Israel.
Not sure if I want to do that. We have a source (official one) that calls it to be a member. I'd like to know more about special circumstances involving Palestine before taking any action. -- Catchi? 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "[n]ot sure if I want to do that." We have an official source that calls it a member of an organization...but that's Palestine, which is a group of organizations, not a country. Regardless, even if the outcome of status talks assigns the West Bank (occupied 1948-1967 by Jordan, occupied 1967-2007ff by Israel) to a new country called "Palestine", the West Bank is not presently Palestine, it is presently the West Bank of the Jordan River, and therefore should not be colored. It presently is. Tomertalk23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:BSA ranks, by Gadget850, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:BSA ranks fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
template is orphaned; articles were merged
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:BSA ranks, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:BSA ranks itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 215:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:CSA ranks, by Gadget850, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:CSA ranks fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
template is orphaned and has been for quite some time
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:CSA ranks, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:CSA ranks itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 215:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MFD and ANB/I stuff aside, lets try to come to a common ground. I consider you to be a valuable contributor despite our disagreement on this rather trivial matter. -- Catchi? 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I have nothing against you, Cat. I simply don't understand why you desired this deletion. If you could humor me by providing an explanation, perhaps I might come to better understand your viewpoint. —David Levy22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly there aren't any "pressing" reasons.
I merely want to cease being Cool Cat. Ideally I would like all references to "Cool Cat" become "White Cat". Our software does not allow a user to simply change a username many remnants of old account is left behind.
I was planing on doing this in several phases:
Phase 1: I was going to alter every single sig to "White Cat" - That didn't go well User:Centrix is slowly reverting every edit of User:WOPR despite being asked not to do so a few times.
Phase 2: Deletion of old userpages - This was done, although it didn't go as smoothly as I thought.
Phase 3: Rename username on all other wikis. This was partially done. I have been renamed on commons, en, and tr as well as hundreds of other wikis. I am a commons admin so I edit practically every wiki to delink images I deleted for example.
Phase 4: Alteration of userpages and rename of everything to "White Cat" including username photo - is mostly done
Phase 5: Altering pages like RFA, RFC to "White Cat". I may also alter an "RfAr" page (rename the case) after arbitrators' approval. - Not done
Phase 6: Change references to "Cool Cat" in older discussions to "White Cat" - Not done
I placed the entire plan on hold until the dust settles.
Does this answer your concerns? Is there anything else I should explain? I have no interest in conflict despite being in the center of it at the moment.
Given the current situation, do you truly believe that this deletion is a good thing? With much of the above plan not yet executed, does it really accomplish anything of benefit to you or anyone else at the present time? Do you acknowledge that the opposition is derived not from a desire to be mean to you, but from genuine concern that this will cause harm (at least for the time being)?
I understand your frustration (to some extent, at least) but it's disconcerting to see you repeatedly state that you don't care about the community's inconvenience because it isn't your problem.
If you would agree to some sort of compromise (such as the creation of a temporary page at User:Cool Cat until the rest of the above is sorted out), it would go a long way toward resolving the conflict. —David Levy23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it'd be temporary (I reserve the right to get it deleted later ;) ) I'd be fine with it. I really do NOT want a redirect. I also desire not to fork this thing at all anymore. Everyone just wants this issue dead as I see it. I do not even understand why it exploded.
Current situation in my view is ridiculous. No one but Ned Scott recreated the page. I think by persistently revering, he is damaging the project. He has a history of trolling me, at least on commons.
I do care about the community. I do not care about people visiting the red link and getting inconvenienced to click the talk page (User talk:Cool Cat).
I do not really understand the concern. It wasn't clearly explained to me. People started yelling, threatening, and blocking... Things got out of control pretty fast. From what I understand...
People are concerned that in discussions changing my signature may have affect the integrity of closed debates. I think this is not a realistic concern because almost all comments I posted and signed were discussions of a topic. My signature or username was never a subject of discussion as far as I can recall (aside from the latest nonsense).
Several people are concerned that I was trying to hide something. I also think this is unrealistic because I would simply register a new account to clear my history. All actions I have taken so far is intended to take responsibility of things I have done in the past. My username rename is probably among the most well known things on the wiki. Anyone who is anybody is well aware of it now.
Some people have been policy-lawyering by reinterpreting unrelated policies and guidelines and acting on them. My latest block for example was uncalled for (IMHO).
How do you recommend I proceed to achieve what I want (the phases I mentioned above) without irking people. I didn't expect anyone to care about this.
I recommend that you ask BigDT to remove the cascading protection from User:Cool Cat. Then you could create a temporary page (not a redirect) containing a statement to the effect of "This editor is now known as User:White Cat." (with the understanding that this is to be deleted at your request). Then we could discuss the remainder of your plan (and hopefuly resolve any remaining disagreements) without having this dispute stand in the way.
For what it's worth, I don't believe that you ever intended to hide anything. I do, however, see how this could be an unintended consequence of your actions. The concern, as I understand it, is that the signature replacements obscure the fact that other users' references to "Cool Cat" pertain to someone whose messages now bear a different username. This could be addressed by changing such references to "White Cat," but I suspect that there would be significant opposition to this as well.
Regarding the User:Cool Cat deletion issue, I would be satisfied if all of the incoming links (excepting ones that pertain to this controversy) could be updated to lead to your current user page instead. If there is no consensus for changing them completely, perhaps they could be piped to retain their original appearance (Cool Cat). —David Levy00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that but I do want to give the issue at least 24 hours after the ANB/I discussion closes (gets archived). I don't want to escalate the issue.
I do not believe people will be as hostile to the possible signature alteration suggestion and etc in about 15 days. I talked to ST47 about using the bot to fix signatures provided there is consensus for it. He said it would be approved if that was the case.
Making sigs retain appearance is relatively easy (I am proficient with AWB to do this) but most of my former signatures did not even contain the word "Cool". I used to be "Cat Out" then "Cat chi?" my current sig. I want all my sigs to link to User:White Cat/07 to clear/organize "what links here". I have been almost never adressed by my sig. People generally just call me "cat" (people are lazy).
I'd like to follow your guidance on this. We may be able to discuss this better on IRC if you are available there.
Yes, I've noticed that most of your signatures contain no visual references to either username. I was thinking of other incoming links (that aren't from your signatures), though I don't know how many exist.
Have you given any thought to linking the old signatures to a redirect along the lines of User:White Cat/(formerly Cool Cat)? Perhaps such a compromise would produce consensus.
Regarding the User:Cool Cat deletion issue, I recommend that you proceed with the temporary page creation as soon as possible. It would be of tremendous benefit to all of us if we could avoid a contentious deletion review.
User:White Cat/(formerly Cool Cat). I like this idea. I very much do. It would help me better sort "what links here" as well. For this all edits of WOPR would need to be deleted too (thats rather easy to do).
I noticed you on IRC but by the time I noticed you were gone (I was sleeping). I am available now.
I'd like the deletion discussions to end before doing what you asked. Double crossing a process really ticks of some people.
Hello again! I'm sorry that we missed each other on IRC, and I'm even sorrier that we were unable to avoid a deletion review. I urged Ned to withdraw it, but he declined. When that's out of the way, I hope that we can resolve all of this controversy. I don't expect Ned to agree to any sort of compromise, but I'm confident that we can build consensus within the community.
If you still wish to chat via IRC, let's schedule a time. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I should be available tonight and tomorrow. —David Levy18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ned Scott is overall being unhelpful. He has escalated this silly issue to this point. Lets talk this Saturday (2007-06-02) at 12:00:00UTC on IRC. Try #wikimedia-commons or #wikipedia-en - both channels are more quiet and troll-free. -- Catchi? 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey ... I dropped in after seeing your comments on DRV. If you want to remove cascading protection based on whatever agreement you come up with here, please do so with my blessing. I only added it to stop the wheel war and I don't really care one way or the other about it. --BigDT05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hold back on that until the deletion review is closed. Double crossing an existing process would irk some people. Btw you are better of posting your comments to me on my talk page as I will be able to more easily notice them. -- Catchi? 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Really, that was more addressed to David. Your old user page is currently a protected title and only administrators have the technical ability to remove that protection. --BigDT14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the drill about protection :) -- Catchi? 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The image description pages currently specify that the images are non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the images are currently orphaned, meaning that they are not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the images were previously in an article, please go to those articles and see why they were removed. You may add them back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot20:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the twenty-three redundant bot comments into the one above; feel free to revert if you prefer them to be separate. (The redundant comments were bugging me.) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:53:47, 01 June 2007 (UTC)
However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using the images under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description pages and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the imaged do not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
-2007-05-15T02:48:00.000Z-Image:Air_Movie_DVD.JPG){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T05:05:00.000Z-Image:GAP_Region.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_04_2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_13_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Part_I.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Part_II.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}