This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ahoy, hope you don't mind, but I fixed the amount of deleted archives in your closure. Thanks. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the Cloverleafing article, is there anyway that I can get the content from that page as I really need it. Flood of SYNs 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting the edit histories of the deleted subpages of BJAODN, as well as the deleted subpages themselves. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer asking you, but I am asking other sysops. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Could your bot replace all instances of {{ unreferencedarticle}} with {{ unreferenced}}? The parameters should be compatible. I plan on taking unreferencedarticle to TfD as redundant to unreferenced, but it is used on a couple hundred pages. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't get why you closed the DRV on BJAODN on the same day it was started, out of process. I personally don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about BJAODN (although I recognize that others do), but nobody likes a gratuitous STFU. Give people their day in court. They might feel less poorly used. Herostratus 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please explain as to why was this article was deleted. Thanks
Hi ^demon! I wanted to take a moment to let you know that when you restored Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg, you did so without restoring it to the page you deleted it from. I've restored it to that page, but I wanted to let you know about this issue. Also, I'd really like to find out what prompted the image's deletion in the first place. I know it was under WP:CSD#I7, but I don't understand how it qualified for deletion under I7. If you could please let me know, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- Ssbohio 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have deleted an image from Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. I have essentially zero experience with images and the rules about them, but I was under the impression that government created images were generally acceptable to use. The image on the page (which I did not upload, but relocated within the article) is a ubiquitous image in our state; it is, in short, the official logo of the state test mandated for all students in grades 3-11. How do we establish the propriety of using this image? Thanks in advance for your help. Unschool 23:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know I fixed two typos in your CSD script. Naconkantari 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say how immensely helpful MetsBot has been in clearing out image backlogs for images that have been moved to the commons. I have *yet* to see it wrong on an image tag (unless it says X wasn't done, but it's been done since it was tagged), and it's so good, that if MetsBot says it's clear, I don't even question it, I just delete on sight. It's getting so good, that I almost thing you should have it run RFA and let it delete the images itself (although I know people think Adminbots are bad). Thanks again, ^ demon [omg plz] 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have many similar biases, as I agree with your opinions and views on these matters. You're clearly a great person, and the world needs more non-judgmental people like you! hmwith talk 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The AACo photo you removed was an original photo taken by the staff and was used with exclusive permission from the organization. It was be appreciated if you would return it.
You removed a photo of the Arizona Association of Counties building. It was placed on the page by staff. If you could either replace it or tell us how to properly affix the photo (we're obviously wikipedia novices) we'd greatly appreciate it.
(deleted "Image:张智成 (Zhang Zhi Cheng or Z Chen).jpg": CSD I4: No license or No Source Information) Maybe somebody just forget it, and tomorrow will write a licence,..-- Tamás Kádár 19:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting our mediation request. I am somewhat new to the process and am unsure where to begin. Do we create a topic on the talk page or elsewhere? Please let me know if you have any questions to better understand the matter at hand. Thanks again. -- Shamir1 20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you deleted Image:ChelsiMissUSA.jpg? Your deleting notes were extremely vague and you appear to have ignored the discussion on the talk page. I would like an explanation as to why you thought the fair use claim was invalid. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I see you recently deleted Image:WikiGuard.png. Considering it was in use on the WikiGuard article and also free, I'm not sure I understand the deletion. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There has to be a misunderstanding here. The image was once maliciously tagged for Prod by User:NAHID, an editor who has been stalking me for quite some time now. It got deleted, and was restored by User:Anetode. I had provided probably the most detailed fair use rationale on Wikipedia for the image on its talk page when User:Zsinj tagged it for WP:CSD#17, the reason you deleted it for. Did you tag it again after it was restored? Was I notified? I don't think so. And, did anyone explain why my detailed explanation was no good as a rationale? The whole fiasco reminds me of the case you and I discussed and resolved earlier (see User talk:^demon/Archive3#Jayne mansfield images).
I am not a newbie (I already have worked significantly for two FAs and two GAs, started a wikiproject and has about 4,000 edits to my credit) and I don't go uploading non-free images left and right. I may be always wrong, but others could be wrong as well. A little checking out wouldn't do us any harm. It pains me very much to see how casually my honest hard work can go down the drain. Please, take a look at the case again, and, please, respond to my talk page. Aditya Kabir 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. One more question - can someone remove that fair use disputed tag? If it keeps hanging there another bot may take it to be a very suitable candidate to delete. If my reasoning on the talk page is no good, then I'm ready to withdraw this appeal. Aditya Kabir 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi I would like to have an explanation on why you deleted the Image "Dr.Narayan Dutt Shrimali". I know it is in Fair Use, You atleast should have given an warning on the Talk page and some time for an Explanation. Your actions I feel are very RUDE and Arrogant. Please do not go about deleting all images in the Fair Use Category, I means VANDALISM !!!
^demon, hi, I saw that you'd deleted Image:Miranda_Kerr.jpg as "invalid fair use." [1] However, I had put an elaborate explanation on the talkpage about why fair use was appropriate in this case. I was wondering if you had an opportunity to read it, and could you please reply on the discussion page giving your reasoning why you feel that it was insufficient? I would like to improve my understanding of fair-use claims, and having my entire argument simply deleted without explanation doesn't really help me to improve my knowledge of things. Thanks, El on ka 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Afropunkvol1.jpeg. Can you explain why it was deleted? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Screw you for deleting my wild cherry bark image before I had a chance to tag it. You're just a bit overzealous.
jaknouse 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ^demon. Thank you very much for your admin work in resolving the dispute concerning the Andrew Vachss & Honey photo. Could I ask you to put up the admin notice indicates your decision? I see the following at the bottom of the "dispute" template -- Closing administrator: if the decision is to Keep the image please put "Rk" (in double curly brackets) on the image page. Thanks again! - ZeroZ 02:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What is going on? Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
While the article is in AfD, the talk page should not be removed. I assume this was an oversight. - Tiswas( t) 08:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I’ve already told you that you that using ^demonBot2 you have broken Template:LDS Temple list and Template:Infobox LDS Temple twice before ( 1st warning, 2nd warning), and you’ve done it again. I’ve undone your edits again.
Template:LDS Temple list:
Template:Infobox LDS Temple:
Since my first two messages to you, I’ve figured out that you are probably doing an automatic replacement because template:sq m had a deprecated tag on it, and I’ve removed it. Sq m is not equivalent to template:ft2 to m2. They have different parameters and different output. Template:ft-m also had the tag, and someone else removed it for the same reasons.
Even though it’s not your fault that the deprecated tag and the “equivalent” given was incorrect, I really think you need to check the results of your edits to templates, especially after unwittingly breaking the same templates three times.
If your bot has a “do not edit these templates” list, you might consider adding these two. Jaksmata 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
so sue me, I'm bored... EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(Contd. from talk page archive User_talk:^demon/Archive3#Tagging of Main page screenshots as orphans)
All the images mentioned were in use only in the page Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots and nowhere else. Are such images considered orphan or not? I believe either all of them should be considered as orphans or none of them should be considered so. -- Paddu 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have restored this image which you deleted. Neither the uploaded, nor anyone of the editors, were informed that the image was tagged. As such, there was no opportunity for a fair discussion.
After restoration, I have tagged the image for the problem it was listed earlier, so that a discussion can take place. You might want to take a look.
Btw, you gave a wrong justification for the deletion. CSD I5 was not applicable to it. -- soum (0_o) 12:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged with full copyright information and watched. We were given NO WARNING to modify reasoning or rationale. Not cool. Why was it deleted? Perhaps the image was mistagged Speedy?? Please restore the image, so we can repair the usage trail. -- Knulclunk 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear ^demon,
You have either attended or expressed interested in the previous NYC Meetup. I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chad. I see that you recently deleted Image:Incredible-hulk-20060221015639117.jpg because it had no fair use rationale. Since you say you don't restore deleted images 90% of the time, it seems pointless to ask to have the image restored. I'm sure that a suitable replacement can be found anyway.
However, I am concerned about the lack of notification. As near as I can tell, there was no notification within the affected article Hulk (comics) or its talk page about the image's non-compliance. Although this is not required, it seems to be common practice. Had the watchers of this page been notified, I am sure that someone would have written a decent fair use rationale. Is there any way to find out who tagged the image with the fair use warning? I would like to ask them (politely, of course) to put a note on the article's talk page or to use {{ speedy-image-c}} next time. -- GentlemanGhost 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've restored the above image and added a fair use rationale. At WP:COMICS we're going through adding the rationales as best we can, if the rationale isn't sufficient let me know what else needs adding. Probably should have come here first and talked it through, sorry, just figured WP:IAR, WP:BOLD. Hope that's okay. Hiding Talk 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete "Image:Chpsonic.jpg"?
Why did you delete this image? I know it had a fair use rationale and a source mentioned. -- Maitch 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I am trying to get an image for a webpage. However, most of the images of that person are not public domain. I am currently talking to someone who owns a lot of images of that person but she is hesitant to turn images over to the public domain for instance. What is the most restrictive license that is acceptable to wikipedia?
-- florkle 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, can you, please, restore Khinchin's theorem, which you have (speedily) deleted? I have explained at the talk page, which you have also deleted, that while the title was likely to be wrong, the statement may well have been worth keeping, since it was completely correct. At the very least, we should have asked a probabilist for an opinion. You may also be interested to know that recently concern was expressed on WT:WPM that Probability theory is lacking in coverage, and deleting articles is not the best way to solve the problem! Incidentally, the content of the article (or the talk page) is not accessible even through my contributions! Thanks in advance. Arcfrk 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Geeky joke, I know, but I think your username is unique. Will ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I submitted a request for mediation, but I'm afraid I added it manually by mistake; is it too late to stop it damaging the bot? Sorry for this. Alexrexpvt 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that my nomination request is denied, but what does 'I am envoking my right to private reasoning on this vote (see this). For Committee members, see our private mailing list. Daniel 06:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)' mean, could i be told? -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk) 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, deleting the fair use tags from what had been properly tagged images and then saying they had no license seems unfair. - N 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete this article?
I must say that I am disappointed with the way this TfD discussion was run. I'm almost certain that no attempt at notifying the appropriate project page about the discussion was made. Now, you're removing copyright tags from those images; those images are now in worse shape than they were in before you deleted all the templates. I must say I am suprised to have seen this happen. I think the only appropriate course to take right now is to restore those templates and have a do-over TfD, and this time to let the relevant people in on the discussion (by posting on the project's talk page or noticeboard about the discussion). -- Brandon Dilbeck 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear ^demon,
I recently posted images provided by St. Catherine's College, Oxford, but they were deleted a few days ago. I emailed the College to obtain permission and they have authorized their use, provided the College is credited. A copy of this correspondence is attached. I am not sure which Wikipedia license category is most appropriate, but since you were the admin who deleted them, I thought perhaps you would be the best person to ask! Please let me know if there is something else I need to do to meet Wikipedia's requirements. I appreciate your diligence regarding copyright.
My communication with the College regarding use of these images is attached below.
Best regards,
Bbacambridge
_______________________
Subject: [CATZ-RT #2294] Fwd: St. Catz online images Sender: <rt@catz-rt.stcatz.ox.ac.uk> RT-Ticket: CATZ-RT #2294 From: support@catz-rt.stcatz.ox.ac.uk Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:50:55 +0100
Hello again Brad,
Thank you for your email. As in my previous email the College is happy for you to use images taken from our main website www.stcatz.ox.ac.uk subject to a request that in an acknowledgements section, or something similar - perhaps the Licensing section each image-page - a phrase to the effect of "images of St Catherine's used with permission of the College" is included.
The exceptions - that is images that you cannot use - are a minority of photographs for which the original photographer has retained copyright: these are indicated by having 'copyright Townend' included in the relevant images as a text strip.
(NB: none of the images posted contain this text strip)
Best regards,
Jamie Keats
I.T. Manager St. Catherine's College Manor Road Oxford OX1 3UJ
facsimile: 01865 271 768 telephone: 01865 281 579
64.38.3.218 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) resolves to advance.express.tc which indicates that it is an ISP proxy. Since you're a relatively new administrator, please remember to perform WHOIS, Reverse DNS lookup and DNSBL queries before blocking IP addresses in future. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Nwwaew#I have a final warning might be of interest to you. Cheers! Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you were so helpful with the last request, I've come with another one. Image:Eskimo pie box.jpg was another Smithsonian image I uploaded a few moths ago. Again, I had fair use info with it. I think what happened is that WP depreciated the {{Smithsonian}} tag and all those images picked up AFD's. I actually have the copyright info for this one. Can you restore it, please? I'll fix it within 24 hours. Thanks! -- Knulclunk 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you earlier with kind of request for WP:3O. Can you take a look at the debate going on there? I guess I am running out of time there. Thanks for the attention you have given me already. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You deleted this after I gave a detailed fair use rationale, could you either restore the image, or show me what was wrong with the rationale.
≈ Maurauth ( nemesis~☆) 14:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ashlerferlcrying.jpg was deleted by you under the grounds that it had an invalid fair use claim. In fact, that wasn't the issue originally posted at all. It was up for deletion because someone thought it could be replaced by a free image. And even that proposal was factually disputed as not being a reason for deletion in this case by a number of editors, yet all of this seems to have been ignored. The image was deleted for a reason not even related to the original disussion, without warning. Why was this? Wrad 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
We're usually in sympathy, so I am surprised you closed after a single day, I wouldn't mention it except you did, but perhaps the comment at the top of this page may have affected things? Just a rhetorical question. DGG 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I have asked for a deletion review of Template:Infoboxrequested. Since you speedy-deleted it after a related TfD was closed, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in becoming a Mediation Committee member and wanted to try out a mediation request to see if I'm up for the task. Would you mind if I took on one of the unassigned cases? -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Would you kindly restore these two images? I searched for days to find them and you've deleted the source. Was there some reason you could not ask me for whatever information you felt was missing before doing a speedy delete? Both were tagged fair use, on both the image description page and inline in the article Jeannette Piccard who owned the ballon pictured. I would have appreciated a heads up at the time rather than having to complain after the fact. - Susanlesch 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image88-13377.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image75-15326.jpg
I guess I have clearly failed to understand something here. Let me make a recap of what happened, so that you can tell what I did not understand.
The only reason for this I can understand is probably the backlog. While mass deletion may be highly required, the policies still seem to agree to take closer look at individual cases. I have been working on WP for about two years now, with 4,000 edits, 2 FAs, 2 GAs and 5 DYKs to my credit. It pains me a lot to see my hard work going down the drain so easily. All it takes is troll to follow me around who keeps slapping all kinds of tags to all my contributions. And, when I face that barrage with clear reasoning... well, suddenly, without a hint one image goes deleted.
Please, let me know where I went wrong. And, if I was not completely wrong, it is highly preferable to have the image along with the debate back. If I am completely wrong... well, go ahead with your good work. Thanks. Aditya Kabir 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
About Image:Ghoul.gif... considering ghouls are fictional/mythological, I have strong doubts about the image's ability to be replaced with a free-use image. It was deleted under I7, which isn't something reverse without asking the deleting admin (as opposed to something like a missing rationale, where I'd just undelete and provide one). Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why were the two following images deleted?
Image:Alexander Archipenko's lithograph on paper 'Le Rendez-Vous des Quatre Formes'.jpg
Image:Alexander Archipenko's bronze sculpture 'Woman Combing Her Hair'.jpg
They are both from Smithsonian Institution websites, which are specifically permitted under Wikipedia policy.
Wmpearl 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why this image New World's A-Comin'.jpg keeps on getting deleted. Maybe I have mis-categorized it and you can assist me in correcting this. The copyright holder has granted me rights to use it on Wikipedia as it is part of his promotional archive.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pokémon copyright templates. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Raven's Apprentice( Profile| PokéNav| Trainer Card) 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that...I had been trying to figure out how to get rid of that non-notable bio (just because you're in the news, doesn't make you worth having an article about you), and the redirect worked perfectly. Just hope the "We must have an article of every person in the news ever" crew doesn't notice. Regards, ^ demon [omg plz] 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Daniel 10:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and taking the time to pose an optional question in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A serious problem has popped up that involves several hundred articles, many editors, and a vast number of incidents. The short of the long is that there are five editors involved. Myself, User:Epeefleche, User:Irishguy, User:Baseball Bugs, and User:Miss Mondegreen. The disputes have included a link I inserted to a blacksoxfan site at Shoeless Joe Jackson and a handful of other relevant pages, the widespread insertion of this link on as many as 120+ articles at one time, a sock case against me, an many intense discussions like this, this, and a banning incident. I appologize if i've left anything out but the whole thing gives me a headache. Epeefleche, Baseball bugs, and Irishguy have failed miserably at focusing on the content of the discussions. I have failed to behave calmly at all times; although I have been harassed unmercilessly by those three. Miss Mondegreen has been fairly level headed during the course of the events. She has agreed at times with both sides of the issue and simply wants to discuss the relevant topics. In the confusion and anger I have both knowlingly and unkowingly "violated" the 3RR. There are a number of detailed circumstances, but at this point I just want to resolve the issues. Here are the three or four major issues as I see it at this point.
I just want this whole thing to stop. Aside from Irishguys behavior (and thus mine per my involvment), we need to refocus on the content and get personal opinions tossed out. I have a very clear and well supported stance on the two links being discussed. Miss Mondegreen does as well. I cannot say the same for the other parties involved. Before I notify anyone of this post, I want to give you some time to let this sink in. It's as bad as it can be. I will watch this page and hope we can respond here. My talk page is a haven for spam and bashing and not going to allow us to have a good discussion. Thanks for your time and I appologize for its length. // Tecmobowl 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get my signature just right, when I noticed that the date at the end of your signature is customised (its in italics). Now, I've been looking everywhere to find out how to customise the date which comes out automatically. Do you think you could tell me how to customise the signature date? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and regards, Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back! Are you sure user -> article space is grounds for deletion? I thought it was just the other way around. Thanks. DrKiernan 10:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have a quick question. Do you think my userboxes about how I feel on politics should be removed, or do you think I should remove them. I have gotten a complaint that my political userboxes should be removed. This user is also a democrat.
Thankyou,
Politics rule 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Chad, could you restore Image:Univac-model.jpg, which you speedied? I never got a chance to see the speedy tag and can add licensing information for this image. Thanks. Robert K S 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would you delete this page because of it being "blatant advertising" ? Its blatantly not! If you find that blantant advertising, then you must think every game page is blatant advertising, because its basically the same. Provide me with a reason as to why this should be deleted or i am prepared to restore it.
By the way, sorry if i sound mad, i just spent alot of time on that page and i want to know why it was just deleted, and not at the least proposed for deletion. Thanks for your reply (when it comes) D.Mather 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i see what you mean, but it is notable from other Q2 mods. In it, unlike other Q2 games, you can climb walls with no ladders, and do flips etc.. you can also wield akimbo, and it has a completely different weapon set. Btw, this isnt my game, so its not a "look at my game" page. so could this be restored, now that ive given you some explanation? Thanks D.Mather 17:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That was a surprise, especially because I've just broken the 3RR on John Wayne. Sorry. But I did have good reason. DrKiernan 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
I just noticed on AN that you blocked a user for "tendentious editing".
I know this isn't the first time that someone's been blocked with TE cited as the reason, but I would still request that you refrain from citing essays as the supporting reason for blocks. An essay is, in no way, a part of wikipedia's policy. "TE" is therefore not a blockable offense. Granted, TE does contain elements which are covered by other policies/guidelines. However, it would be far better to cite those policies, rather than citing an essay.
It may seem a minute difference to you, but the appearance of neutrality and fairness certainly matters. And if a user is complaining about possible admin abuse, then blocking them based on a non-policy certainly doesn't help to assuage people's fears.
In short, I'm not saying the block was bad. I'm just saying that citing an essay to support a block is always a bad idea. Bladestorm 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey ^demon, I don't know if you have User talk:^demon/CSD AutoReason, so I'm letting you know I posted a note there. Cheers, Iamunknown 04:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take a quick look at that sub-page. Is that not a violation of the wikipedia rules WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK? In the interest of full disclosure, when I got a load of that whopper I created User:Baseball Bugs/Links as a semi-joke. I could easily rename its title to "Users I'm watching", which I would think is fair. And he should do likewise, yes? Baseball Bugs 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I was browsing Category:Photographs and I noticed that the image had been deleted from Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park. The deletion log entry is here. I realised that the image should have had licensing information, but from the sound of it, that is an image that could easily be acceptable under fair-use if someone wrote a fair-use rationale. Would you consider undeleting the image, or should I try and find an alternative copy and upload it under fair use? Carcharoth 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to nag, but I see you are around. I wonder if you have had time to look at this yet? No rush, obviously, but just checking you haven't missed this. Carcharoth 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your impressive I have been noticing edits in numerous articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
Since one of the group that is working to present its POV, User:FatherTree (see diff: [ [2]]) continues to knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time? DPeterson talk 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion_pool, Sj ( talk · contribs) is wheel warring to get it undeleted again, for instance here. Just a heads-up. >Radiant< 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clean-up! Tony 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have determined
User:Mariam83 should be blocked for massive editwarring. At first I closed it as only warning, after which I found a much earlier warning for 3RR. Therefore it was too lenient and I believe a 48h block is needed. Can you do the job for me (I'm not an adminstrator)?
Evilclown93
(talk) 14:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see this edit for a recent bug report. DES (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of Image:Jp01.jpg. I wasn't sure the best way to handle it. You may want to add {{ rk}} to the image description page when you choose to keep contested images. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the note about the autoreason issue with IE6, but I'm one of those super smug Mac owners who deleted Internet Explorer (because you can do that on a Mac!) and use either Firefox or Safari to edit. Great tool by the way! The Rambling Man 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see you cleaned up "13:26, April 29, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania" (CSD G6: Housekeeping)". If possible, could that be undeleted and marked as an archived discussion. I had it bookmarked for reference and only now had time to go back to do some planned work, and it was gone. Thanks!
P.S. This is the only mediation/arbitration/etc. request I have on my watchlist (participated in) that's actually been deleted, all the others are still there for reference after their conclusion, whatever that was. —
Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i made a request a while ago for Dirty (game) to be undeleted , with proper explanation as to why it is unique from other Quake 2 mods, and it seems that my request has been... deleted, without reply. Any help? D.Mather 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please restore Image:Aintitcool.com screenshot.png? It wasn't actually orphaned when you deleted it, it was used in the article Ain't It Cool News. Compare the history page to the deletion log for proof. — Remember the dot ( talk) 01:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you don't think my rationales are legitimate (subjective on your part), tell me specifically what you think is legitimate so you will stop reverting me. Chris 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note [3]-- Sefringle Talk 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You deleted several images recently according as ORFU:
Please note that all those images are in use in the article Chicken Invaders. Please be careful before deleting ORFU images; check if they are in fact, actually orphaned.
Cheers! -- 122.162.74.22 (Please reply on User talk:Shreshth91) 14:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two ways of doing this. We can either just redo the redirect (I'm a very persistent guy) and blocks and anger will happen or we can go through a legitimate deletion review which I didn't get. Kingjeff 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with your claim at a fair deletion review. Kingjeff 15:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with your newest claim. Am I not allowed to respond to claims against me? Kingjeff 16:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I misreading any policy. Actually I think my interpretation is the correct one. Kingjeff 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't reposting his userpage without attributing him as the creator and showing all the page versions where it was created a violation of GFDL? I thought the full page history needed to be viewable for it to be GFDL compliant. -- Deskana (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Think what you will about Billy Joel, but claiming the images you're deleting are unused is a bit unfair. Tristanb 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can you suggest the proper avenue for resolving the ongoing disputes regarding this page? It has been the subject of an edit war, involving allegations of past and ongoing criminal activity and uncited, potentially libelous statements. The page is protected through tomorrow and then the fighting will start again. More details are contained on Talk:Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. I have no connection with either side in this fight but was drawn into the discussion while removing egregious content from the article that violated WP:LIBEL. Thanks. -- RandomHumanoid( ⇒) 06:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please restore Image:Clouds Psyche.jpg? It wasn't actually orphaned when you deleted it. It was used in the article Final Fantasy VII. Compare the history page to the deletion log for proof. Kazu-kun 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You recently deleted two images that were tagged as orphaned. That much is true, but they had not been tagged the prescribed seven days (see [
[4]]. Due to the recent change in wikipedia policy - rather the change in enforcement, I have had a large number of images tagged and am currently working dilegently to un-orphan them, but it takes time.
Image:If We Fall in Love Tonight.jpg
Image:Human (album).jpg
You'll also note there is no source - also in the process of changing due to new enforcement. Please reinstate these images so that I may make the needed updates. Thank you. (
Sampm 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
Dear demon, I am trying to establish a page for Scottish magazine Forgotten Worlds. This magazine is professionally classified by review body Tangent. Tangent is A PROFESSIONAL science ficiton review board. This was made explicit in the article, as well as a link provided for proof.
I have fulfilled the requirement mentioned previously by providing proof for the existence of this page. There is now no reason for it to be deleted. But is has been deleted again, even though I fulfilled the requirement.
Can you help?
Woomfy
Hi! My name is Ral315, and I'm the editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a weekly newspaper on the English Wikipedia. I'm sending out an optional questionnaire that I hope you'll respond to. These questions will be published in next week's issue, and hopefully translated into many languages and copied to the Meta-Wiki prior to the election. (So, if you speak multiple languages, it'd be fantastic, though certainly not required, if you'd be willing to translate your answers into any languages you speak fluently.)
There's no word limit on any of these questions, but I suggest that brevity (maybe about 300-400 words per answer) is best. If at all possible, answers should be submitted by 16:00 UTC on Monday, June 25 (though late responses will also be accepted).
I'm posting these to your talk pages because they don't really fit well on question pages (since many will repeat questions you've already answered). You can reply to me by e-mail, or at my English Wikipedia, English Wikinews or Meta talk pages.
Thanks again for answering these, and good luck in the elections.
Sincerely, Ral315
Hi ^demon; I recommend you don't delete images from here as NowCommons when they are not in a category or article on commons. I could blame this on you being unaware of that rule, but when the message by my bot says it, that excuse isn't as valid anymore :-) — METS501 ( talk) 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly new so I might not be interpreting [5] correctly, but it looks like you deleted this image because it was orphaned, but it was actually being used in the article Jennie. Why did you think it was orphaned? Is there a way you can restore Image:JennieLP.jpg? ConoscoTutto 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please do not delete Dynamically Distributed Democracy. If you do not find this page interesting that is okay, but many Wiki pages link to it as well as many pages outside the Wiki community including many pages on Delicious.
You deleted this because it was "unused and not free", but in fact, it was being used in the article for Lemony Snicket.-- CyberGhostface 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CyberGhostface 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
on the election. Bearian 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That image WAS being used. See: Yugi_Mutou
Better yet, see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=140335710&oldid=140153071
And http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=140983856&oldid=140335710
(The deletion was on "20:16, 24 June 2007")
The image WILL be reuploaded.
WhisperToMe 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: I see - I added the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=138672910&oldid=137759386 AFTER the bot tagged the image as unused, but I forgot to remove the tag! WhisperToMe 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
meta:Board_elections/2007/Candidates/^demon/questions#Wikipedia_Quality
Good answer. I hope there would be more people like you. Good luck! Rjgodoy 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
^demon, I noticed you transcluded Image:CP MEMBER.PNG into Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle. I don't think it worked. You added it at 10:59, and now it exists after being uploaded at 11:02. Just fyi, I didn't realize that cascading protection did not work for images. :\ -- Iamunknown 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2007 London car bombs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Cat chi? 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason you are deleting orphaned fairuse images before the seven days are up? I see no change to WP:CSD#I5, and yet you have deleted Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_24_June_2007, Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_25_June_2007, and Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_26_June_2007 and I assume all the images in those categories. What gives? DHowell 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to cheer you on for the Wikimedia Board Election!!! Good luck! Hope ya win! The Phoenix Enforcer 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Sarner and User:Shotwell keep deleting an item added to the section of Additional items to be mediated that Peterson added. I support that addition. Furthermore, the addition is nearly identical to the first item in that section. I appears that Sarner is deleting it since he and mercer are the subjects of the question regarding their COI and financial interests in the dispute. If you could intervene it might calm things down and facilitate the mediation process. JonesRD talk 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the reason for deleting Tilghman.S-03DA-low.jpg? It was originally obtained from the Princeton University public relations office and permission to reproduce was explicitly given.
As an aside, the replacement image came from exactly the same source. I have no particular vested interest in the image, I just want to know why it was deleted, thanks. WBcoleman 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the category from the Ōsaka and Saga prefectural templates? I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't foster contribution"...and anyway the list doesn't look right with those two missing. Manmaru 06:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
hey can you tell me why the User_ig-0 template was deleted? I understand the reason you gave for deleting the Category but what has it to do with the template? Thanks -- Kerowren ( talk • contribs • count) 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one with affection to big red emergency stop buttons. I really like how they're put up at all ski lifts in Austria. I've also set up a big red button for a bot, though it doesn't have a picture.
– b_jonas 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:OTRS#OTRS protection message needs link to this page. — Keenan Pepper 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
File:F3 3.JPG was deleted for lacking a fair use rational. According to the templates in place (or at least my interpretation at the time), the fair use rational was supposed to be placed on the talk page of the image. You will find Image_talk:F3_3.JPG has a fair use rational, which was accepted as good by the admin who initially checked the image for a rational when it was uploaded. If it is restored I'd be more than happy to change it to the new format. - sHARD 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the award mentioned is a claim of significance, so i have removed the speedy delete tag. DES (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that a discussion came about about my prototype WikiProjects but user Durova gave me a second chance, as would the rest of Wikipedia. If you want to eradicate my ideas for my WikiProjects then allow me to give feedback, instead of doing things behind my back and in the shadows. - Pat Peter 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chad, I reverted your removal of the user category from User:J.P.Lon/Userboxes/Interest-Economics. Though I agree that this needs to be done to most userboxes (especially ones with questionable/bogus categorisations ... e.g., one that states something like "N'Sync rocks!" and categorises users into Category:Wikipedians interested in music), this is a case where the userbox itself makes an explicit claim of interest in the subject: "This user is interested in economics." Cheers, Black Falcon ( Talk) 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Miyavi miyavizm cover.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This image became orphaned because someone removed it from the article without an explanation. I placed it back in the article yet your comment in the deletion log claims it wasn't being used. This image is the logo of the game the article is based on & is needed. SNS 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry nor you and I didn't get elected in the board election...but I am glad that we had the opportunity to try. Maybe next time. :) DragonFire1024 06:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
hi, do i have the right to delete this acccount? if i do, i wish to do so. I would appreciate if you could assist asap. thanks. ephix 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon. I saw the coding for your sig and tried to condense it. This should cut about 30 – 45 characters of code:
'''<font color="red">^</font>[[User:^demon|<font color="black">demon</font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:^demon|<font color="red">[omg plz]</font>]]</sup> <i style="font-size:10px;">{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</i>
Of course, it is entirely your decision if you want to make the change. :-) — « ANIMUM » 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The screenshot became orphaned because it displayed an outdated version of the software. I have updated the image to display the latest version, and I also want all of its edit history restored. -- tyomitch 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Preserving old revisions of extant pages is required to comply with GFDL. Your reluctance to retain due attribution to the past contributors to the image description page is a violation of GFDL. -- tyomitch 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello - the CSD policy for attack pages says "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")." Can you explain to me how this is satisfied by Administrator abuse? Maybe it fits your definition of "attack page" but apparently not the policy's... personally I don't feel like I'm being attacked in any way by that article :-D ugen64 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The article was deleted, I am not reversing my closure, please take this debate elsewhere, I'm not interested. ^ demon [omg plz] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that you deleted Image:53logo.JPG. It was being used in the Fifth Third Field (Toledo) article. Could it please be reinstated? A logo is allowed to be used in this situation. See WP:LOGO. Thanks. hmwith talk 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article ( Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton One 12:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please comment on the unblock request posted by User:Aim Here, whom you blocked last night, for the benefit of whatever admin reviews the request. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this image as being unused and non free...well, it's being used here, and there was no notice (as far as I know) that it was going to be deleted posted anywhere. If you could consider un-deleting (and tagging with a no-fair-use-rationale tag if you wish), it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Giggy U C P 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
When you deleted the image link to a deleted image from the Anna Ohura article, you also took out the image field of the infobox template. I've seen many people do this in the past and I don't really understand why since leaving the field in doesn't hurt anything as far as I can see. So is this just an ease of editing thing since you can just highlight the whole line of text instead of having to stop at the = sign? Just curious, Dismas| (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you saw my last post - it was archived without comment, so I'll repeat it here. I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article ( Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton One 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I see you deleted List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) and the rest of it. It was only a matter of time! Just a note though, I created that page originally by merging loads of NN robot articles together - as you probably noticed - in order to try and prevent loads of fanboy trivia clogging up AfD. So while I completely agree it wasn't really needed - as you'll see from its talk page - it might be worth keeping an eye on Category:Robot Wars, Category:Robot Wars competitors, and the contributions of User:CBFan and User:Izzy259 for a while. ELIMINATORJR TALK 11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Greets, I have removed the historical tag you applied to WP:CEM. Take a gander at my talkpage, it appears there is still interest and perhaps an impending CEM case. What are you thoughts?
Cheers! Navou 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. If there's still activity then it can keep going. It had just appeared to me to be dead. All the best, ^
demon
[omg plz] 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
you deleted this image while i was in the process of providing rationale and justification for its use.-- emerson7 | Talk 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by your reason for deleting Image:Ateam.jpg. You stated that it was unsed, yet I found out it had been deleted becuase it's no longer visible in the Infobox on the The A-Team page. As an entertainment image, these are usually allowable under fair-use. Since the image was in use at the time you deleted it, you should have given due notice to the article talk page before speedying the image, and allowed someone to correct the fair-use rationale. Please consider saving us both time by restoring the image. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
As you recently reviewed some of these, you may be interested to know that I have started a discussion at WP:FUR#22 July 2007 about the whether Games Workshop photos of Games Workshop miniatures are "replaceable" fair-use images or not. Cheers -- Pak21 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about your deletion of this image under WP:CSD#I5, as this image was used in the article At Ease and seems to have been there for over a year. — The Storm Surfer 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. There have been several cases lately where your interpretation (and possibly copyright law) has differed from mine. (I'm an admin who deals a lot with copyright issues, and I created the {{ replaceable fair use}} template.) Most of these cases involve photographs of copyrighted subjects, such as the Oscar statue and game figurines. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Fair use review. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon, can you explain why you deleted File:NASTARKidRacing2.JPG despite the fact that the deletion was contested, and without responding to the specific points I raised on its page? You said "Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago", yet you made no attempts to engage in discussion regarding its status. 12:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Obsolete NC images without rationales such as Image:Captain norton.png, Image:Norton_commander.png and Image:Norton_Commander_5.0.png are not needed in article, because modern NC 5.51 for DOS image with rationale already added and modern NC 2.01 for Windows image with rationale already added are enough to illustrate Norton Commander in DOS and Windows versions. Wikinger 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I found this in the deletion log of an image I uploaded.
12:53, 23 July 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Jackie Robinson Retired Cut.PNG" (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.)
Now, I did not recieve any kind of warning. I'd like to know what just happened behind my back while people claim that I was informed when I wasn't. -- Silent Wind of Doom 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you saw my last post - it was archived without comment, so I'll repeat it here. I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article ( Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton One 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been away from wikipedia for a while, and I just noticed that the image for the Henry O Studley article that I uploaded was deleted by you. I was enquiring as to why it was deleted, as it was properly documented with the source and the licensing info, as it is a fair use image. I am fairly sure I complied with all the wikipedia rules regarding images.
If it can be restored by you please do so. If not please send me a message on my talk page explaining what I failed to do to make the image an acceptable wikipedia image. It is my understanding that all works done by the federal government fall under the fair use license.
Thanks for any reply. CoolMike 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Restored. ^ demon [omg plz] 15:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. Is there anything I can do / should do to make the copyright/licensing notices more complete? Any suggestions would be much appreciated. It appears the old template for licensing from the smithsonian institution has been removed. CoolMike 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
could you point me to the nomination for this image for speedy delete? -- emerson7 | Talk 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll put it into next week's edition. I'll just use the online edition because even if you sent me the scan, I can't link to it! Thanks. enochlau ( talk) 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please undelete the images mentioned here so that I can add some fair use rationale? -- Prod-You 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You have been added as a party to the arbcom for violating the Foundations non-discrimination policy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon, I was wondering how you applied formatting to the timestamp portion of your signature. Please reply on my talk page, thanks! east. 718 20:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is anything progressing with this mediation? A user has placed a request on WP:RPP to have the protection removed from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but as it was protected with the statement "until med case is solved" I am hesitant to remove protection. If, however, nothing is to come from the mediation, I would like to remove protection from this article (it has been two months). Since you're listed as the one heading this case, I figured you'd know. - auburnpilot talk 23:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing administrative services to Wikipedia. The image you deleted, Image:Iran1980s.jpg was being worked on by the graphics lab in an effort to produce an image which conforms to wikipedia policy. We realize that Image:Iran1980s.jpg did not conform to policy, but nonetheless it was one of the source images for this effort, and it may have been vital to our success. We ask that you check in the future if an image is linked to by the graphics lab, or if it has the {{glhangon}} tag before deleting it. Thanks, -- BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I did read your red notice at the top of your talk page, we at the graphics lab are not claiming fair use, only that we were "in use" of the image for our project. As soon as an alternative was finished, the image in question was to be proposed for deletion, and the {{glhangon}} (if used) would have been removed as well as the link from the graphics lab. Thanks, -- BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this. — The Storm Surfer 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
hey man this is michael trying to contact with u :P add me on msn m_inpinar@hotmail.com and my myspace is www.myspace.com/mcjstyle , see ya soon ;)
You deleted this image on June 12th I believe. Can you please restore it as it is for a page of a band who i am aquainted with. i dont believe it has any copyright. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Pink Blue Thing ( talk • contribs).
Chad, I'm a freelance writer doing on a feature article for the Washington Post Sunday Magazine related to Wikipedia and the mediation of posted content. Would like to reach you by phone. Can you forward a reach number? I can be contacted at teamsport15@aol.com. Will forward my phone number is you prefer. Just give me a private email address to send it to. Thanks, Tom D.
Why was this image deleted? The image was used and released with permission by the site owner, Timo Ewalds, for use here on Wikipedia. Timo owns Nexopia and is able to extend that permission. Charles 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Why was this image deleted when it was being used on the 42 (Doctor Who) page. The reason that it is not free is unjustified because the image that replaced it is not free either. Why wasn't that image deleted?-- Brinstar 08:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee Barnstar | ||
I award ^demon the Mediation Committee Barnstar as an expression of thanks for all his hard work during his time as both an active mediator and as the Chair. Your service is greatly appreciated by all of us on the Committee, and I'm confident by mediation participants as well, as you picked up the Committee during a down-time and turned it into an energetic beast, making my job so much easier. So, thanks for all your efforts, and I feel proud to have served both under and following you. Cheers, Daniel 11:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
I am curious about your deletion of this image under WP:CSD#I5, as this image was used in the article At Ease and seems to have been there for over a year. — The Storm Surfer
OK, these articles articles aren't up to full standards, BUT YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR TO DELETE THEM! They are highly needed and if there was a way, I would probably block you from destroying any more Robot Wars articles. I'm not the one to blame and tell off people on Wikipedia, but you should be ashamed. Some Guy (Izzy259) 12:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please undelete the images mentioned here so that I can add some fair use rationale? -- Prod-You 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to know why you're deleting a shit load of the BIONICLE-related images when they -all- have fair use rationale. An example being Image:Avak.jpg. We went through a lot of trouble fighting to keep them up in the first place, and then creating fair use rationale - and I didn't even do much of that, because I was fed up with trying to keep them up. I don't want Drakhan's work to have been for nothing. -- ~|ET|~( Talk| Contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Darkthrone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}.
Argyriou
(talk) 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK,
Um what's CSD#14 which was cited as criteria to delete this image? The Terra Nova sailed from 1910-1913 so the picture is in the public domain. Thanks Andeggs 08:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have deleted the List of city nicknames article in violation of the deletion policy. Contrary to your claim, the deletion discussion didn't result in consensus to delete the article. Please restore it. · Naive cynic · 09:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You asked me to review the three remaining tagged images in the above category. Here's the result.
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Pfagerburg is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Kebron is banned from Wikipedia for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you just delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/127.0.0.1? I was in the middle of reading it off WP:BJAODN from the April Fools '06 collection. 136.159.225.175 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Reminder to change A3- "no content" to "no meaningful content". -- John Reaves 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you recently removed a fair-use disputed tag from this image, with the comment that the rationale in question was sufficient. However, it said the problem was that the image in question did not have fair use rationales for all articles it was included on. It has a rationale for 9/11 but not for Osama Bin Laden. I was just wondering if I'm just not understanding the fair use requirements properly here, or if this was an oversight. -- Haemo 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Chad, what is the reason behind deleting the two images Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg and Image:Kattankudi.jpg? I had given a fair use rational as far as I can remember. I was not informed of any licensing issues of the image by anyone. NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:SacredHeartPioneers.png. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. fuzzy510 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, ^demon, could you please delete an edit of mine? I want to move Paul Ernst (disambiguation) back to Paul Ernst, because it was a mistake to move it. But I cannot do that, because I edited the redirect . I thank you!-- walkee talkee 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a freelance writer from Baltimore, MD doing a story for the Washington Post Sunday Magazine on Wikipedia. Would like to talk with you, preferably by phone. Please contact me via my private email address: teamsport15@aol.com. Thanks, T. Dunkel
I see that you removed the tags from this... I was just about to delete it. Is there anywhere we can take this for a centralized discussion of whether this is fair use? It seems silly to have this copyrighted image when the only unique thing about it is this ribbon from the memorial... The article isn't on the tombstone or even the memorial, it's on the massacre. I think a free image of the tombstone would be perfectly adequate--it's not like the ribbon adds anything to the picture. Calliopejen1 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a new admin and still learning the ropes.... I saw yesterday a page somewhere that explained how to add tags to archive the talk page for an image when you delete it. Can you point me to that page or just explain what the tags are, so I can delete that memorial image? Thanks, Calliopejen1 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to politely request that when you delete images, you also remove them from articles using them. Red image links are ugly, and red image links with a template below saying "the above image has been tagged for speedy deletion" are even uglier. Thank you! -- Schneelocke 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why you deleted Image:Gilbert_Shelton.GIF without bothering to reply to my arguments. Now the article on Gilbert Shelton has to go without a portrait of Gilbert Shelton. Maikel 10:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you cite a couple of examples of the entries that you thought "could be considered borderline libel"? I looked through the list and didn't notice any of that sort. Deor 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Those are ones that stood out, especially the first one. ^ demon [omg plz] 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted Kaiaphas.jpg This image was taken from the Official Ancient Website - http://www.ancientband.com, who are the copyright holders and the official source of the image, and the image was released into public domain by them in 1998. Here is the link to the image itself on the official site http://www.ancientband.com/biella4.html Can you restore it please? Todesfee 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, i will do that, and i'll ask you to check if i did everything right so it doesn't get deleted again.... Todesfee 19:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i am trying to upload the image again but i can't seem to find the template for the public domain release, could you please help me with that? Here is the link to the gallery page of the site, where it says that the images have been released into the public domain :
http://www.ancientband.com/ancient_gallery.html
Thank you.
Todesfee 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a question pending for you on the request page. Please take a look when you can respond there as this is currently only partially complete. -- After Midnight 0001 10:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Please note that I am requesting the undeletion of this image for use in History of Microsoft only, as per the rationale. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 07:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
For Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition and all subcats I will request deletion review as there were more Keeps than Deletes unless you make a valid counterpoint - this request uis per rules for Deletion Review Mikebar 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why you thought this was unused. It was in use at Delirious?. Please undelete. The Evil Spartan 18:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
About speedies: see my post here, it applies to you too. Please be more careful in the future.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of sportspeople by nickname. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Deor 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg at this time. You stated that the image was deleted because it was not used. But it was being used in two separate talk pages to try to address the reason it was replaced. There were notes in the file that the image had been replaced with one of poorer qualitity and the reason for replacing the image had been requested. So far there has been no response to my request. I would like to replace the poor quality image with the image you deleted. The deleted image has a complete fair use statement where as the replacement image does not. Would you consider undeleteding the image so that it can be used. Dbiel ( Talk) 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A journalist from the Washington Post Sunday Magazine was interested in talking with you, but was having difficulty contacting you. Raul654 12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
hey there, this is purley about getting in contact with u. who am i? email\msn me - gorant87@msn.com
wanna actually see who i am.. www.myspace.com/babyash87
what im after..your email :) im voting for u. goodluck. x
Please restore city_plaza.jpg, it is a fair use image as stated at the source web site www.cityplaza.ca: "Photographs are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. Photographs may not be distributed or used in any form unless this source is cited and the copyright holders BITNETS Inc. and the URL of this document http://www.cityplaza.ca receive appropriate attribution."
Hi Demon
I am atrades from the UK and just recently started getting invloved with wikipedia but been spending loads of time on AboutUs,org I have just recently been viewing your nomination for the board and I was intrested in your views, hope you dont mind.
I have just fought for the keeping of John Smeaton Baggage handler and I was wondering what your thoughts are on this.
Atrades
I have undone this recent deletion by your bot ^demon. I ask you to discuss this deletion at the category talk page.
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
I award ^demon the Editor's Barnstar for his exellent and hard work at XfD's Marlith T/ C 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hi, Patrick Hillery is still alive, so the image is not legitimate fair use. — Angr 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)õ
Hi there, it appears you deleted Image:Nightshade 3.gif and Image:Jetpac.gif as being unused, when they were in fact used in Nightshade (video game) and Jetpac respectively. Could you please undelete these? Cheers, Miremare 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Adrak, who had vandalised me quite some time ago, had his userpage deleted by you beacuse of WP:NOT but I now see it is agian being used for this purpose. Maybe you would have a look to see if you agree and take any necessary action as appropriate. Cheers. ww2censor 16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was deleting images from the same category at the same time as you, and found that you had just beaten me to it when I was about to remove an image from a page before deleting it. I then looked at your contributions, and found that you manage to remove several images from articles every minute. Are you using some special tool? If so, can I use it too? I find that removing images from articles really slows me down when I'm working my way through a category of images ready for deletion. By the way, I use User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js for tagging images, but although I'm not fully familiar with it yet, I don't think there's anything in it that helps to orphan an image that you're about to delete. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
To ^demon for all his phenomenal hard work deleting crappy images, despite the backlash he suffers for it everyday. Keep doing what you do, it makes life a lot easier for the rest of us ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hello, I found your page while viewing the Mediation page. I had a few questions before putting in a request for mediation. I wanted to make sure I would be able to, as I am not either party of the dispute. Also, the dispute has run on not only 1 article's talk page, but 2- as well as spilling over onto several members' talk pages. I know I am only giving you general information, but does this seem to be grounds for a mediation? - Fall Of Darkness 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this AFD. I was planning on grasping the third rail tonight and closing it in the same direction. Your close summary was less incendiary than mine would have been. GRBerry 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see no basis for a consensus on this issue. I count 59 who wanted it deleted, and 45 who wanted it kept. Please elaborate how you arrived at the conclusion that a deletion was determined, aside from your own judgment on the issue. -- Leifern 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see the AfD, my comments are there, and the follow-up by User:Hemlock Martinis better explains exactly what I was thinking. As far as "own judgment" on the issue, I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck one way or the other about the article, which is why I closed the debate. I'm well aware that both sides of the debate were probably trying to get an "impartial" admin (ie: one who has an opinion but hasn't stated it) to close the debate and swing it their way. It happens with every controversial AfD such as this, and nobody can deny it. I decided to read the debate, and close it, before any "impartial" admin could come in and pass judgment. ^ demon [omg plz] 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping up to the plate on this one. For the record, I think you got the policy issues about right - Hemlock Martinis' longer explanation is very much what I was thinking (albeit he put it much more elegantly than me) when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid. -- ChrisO 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have already merged the content of the deleted article into Human rights in China, where the research can copyediting can continue. Now that this is hopefully behind us, I would encourage editors to give a helping hand to merge all other "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" into other more relevant articles based on the same arguments presented at the close. Proposals have been posted in each one of these articles. I intend to effectuate these merges, in the coming days pending discussion at these talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This issue can be discussed places other than my talk. I'm not commenting on it anymore, so posting here is useless. ^ demon [omg plz] 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You stated when deleting the image that it was an unused non-free image, when it was in fact being used, on the Middlesbrough F.C. article and that of the Middlesbrough F.C. Reserves and Academy. For fair use it represents the logo of a company (Middlesbrough Football Club), obtained from club website, at low resolution, no non-copyright version available, used for informational purposes, and its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it is the primary means of identifying the subject of this article. I would request that you please restore the image. Thanks. -- Simmo676 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Much the same as the above comment, i would like to borrow his reasoning but in regards to the crest of Arsenal F.C., it was being used - On the main Arsenal F.C. page. I was just passing through and noticed the red link at the top of the page. thanks Woodym555 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Motion seconded. And to add, pretty much every professional Football club article, from every league, has the crest. Why single out 1 or 2 from the hundreds? Please restore. Ryecatcher773 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern ( talk • contribs)
Why did you delete Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg at this time. You stated that the image was deleted because it was not used. But it was being used in two separate talk pages to try to address the reason it was replaced. There were notes in the file that the image had been replaced with one of poorer qualitity and the reason for replacing the image had been requested. So far there has been no response to my request. I would like to replace the poor quality image with the image you deleted. The deleted image has a complete fair use statement where as the replacement image does not. Would you consider undeleteding the image so that it can be used. Dbiel ( Talk) 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The preceeding post was archived without a reply. It is being reposted prior to filing a formal complaint about a Rogue Admin abusing his power. Dbiel ( Talk) 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I had disputed the claim that File:HMAS Armidale.jpg was replacable on the image's talk page and there was no response. On what grounds did you delete this image? -- Nick Dowling 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
In reference to your progressive deletion of user cats- what, if any, reason would be good enough to defend a cat here? As many discussion have concluded, simply being interested in a subject is not correlated with knowing anything about it. I bring this up not to be (necessarily) disagreeable, but to speed up what seems to be inevitable. For that matter I don't see the relevance in 90% of user cats. In Category:Wikipedians there are 18 subcats. It seems like these at least lend themselves to collaboration:
Possibly
and some subcats in
I mean really let's be serious here! It seems like it would be easier/quicker to start at the top instead of the bottom. As surely you have noticed the arguments from one to the other don't differ greatly in content or participants. So I believe it would not require that much effort. Unless of course you feel that there would be more resistance at the top b/c more people would get involved. That could potentially stop the whole thing.............( Sampm 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
Hello! You deleted six images as "non-free and unused" that were in fact being used in articles, and all had fair use rationales. None had any kind of deletion template, except for the fact that they had all just been reduced to fair use size and needed their old revisions deleted. I think what must have happened was that you perhaps went to delete the old revisions, and got mixed up (since I see you've been doing a lot of image cleanup).
The images in question are Image:AyakashiSM.JPG, Image:Ann-hu.JPG, Image:Ail-hu.JPG, Image:Makaiju.JPG, Image:Sailor moon us deleted violent pic.jpg, and Image:Sailor moon us title.jpg. Because this all strikes me as pretty clearly a mistake, I've restored them all to save time; please don't construe this as my trying to undermine your action, though. If you meant to do it, we can come up with a different plan of action.
If you need help checking any of the other images you gone through, I'd be happy to lend a hand.
Thanks, Masamage ♫ 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I have just closed this DRV, overturning the deletion of all the categories except "Deceased Wikipedians", as consensus demonstrated that the conditions of the living were fundamentally different (and more open to collaboration) than those of the dead, and that the "Deceased Wikipedians" category had unduly distorted the discussion. The diseases of the living will need to be relisted at CfD. I could do this procedurally, but I thought you might make a more compelling nomination (as the original CfD nominator) than I would be able to. If you would rather not relist yourself, just let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You speedy deleted this under WP:CSD#G4, recreation of previously deleted content. The previous deletion discussion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity Explored) in 2005, focused on the advertising nature of the article, and when asked to indicate what about the very short article made it an ad, one editor said: "The only information to speak of is "It is similar to the Alpha Course" and a link, that is what makes it an ad (Link to a site advertising a product, without substantial content): the page lacks sufficient context to be a stub: other courses similar to Alpha can of course be discussed in Alpha Course. It may be true that Christianity Explored is significant, but the reader would not know and be able to verify that from reading the article and its links." That comment seems to sum up the views of those who favored deletion in 2005 pretty well. I don't think that the version just deleted fits that description. The more recent version contains several sentences of description of the course, and gives a significantly better explanation of what it is and why it might be notable. i don't think it is "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." as WP:CSD has it. Please consider undelting this, or do you think the matter ought to be reviewed on DRV? I know it has been discussed on ANI in the context of MattCrypto's undeletion. DES (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christianity Explored. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - this isn't what CSD G4 is for, full stop. and, Nondistinguished... "upon learning this was a recreation of deleted content"? You learned no such thing, could not have as you are not an admin, and it's become quite apparent that it's untrue anyway. Random832 11:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You recently posted the following message on my talk page:
I do not take kindly to threats, especially pseudonymous ones, and I do not let them affect my behaviour. This is the only communication you will receive from me.
For the purposes of this response only, I will assume that you are acting in good faith.
You are correct that I have concluded that at least one of the contributors to the so-called discussion on Talk:Commonwealth Realm is not acting in good faith (and possibly more -- most of the "supporters" have never appeared in that forum before). It does happen you know. If you had reviewed the actual behaviour of the individual in question, you would have seen that I have reasonable grounds for doing so. You would also have seen that other people in the discussion who formerly assumed they were dealing with an honest actor have increasingly come to my point of view.
Dealing with the undemocratic and the intolerant who exploit the assumption of good faith to their own ends is a classic problem of tolerance. The first step is to recognise that that is what you are dealing with. The next is to call it out for what it is. I accept that once or twice I have been intemperate in doing so. However I stand by the substance of the charge. -- Chris Bennett 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so the previous image I asked you to undelete had been unused in a period up to deletion. However deleting Image:EVA01 in Tokyo.jpg by CSD I5 is just silly, as the last revision of Evangelion (mecha) before ImageRemovalBot comes along has the image in use. That edit is dated 2007-08-01, while the image was deleted on 2007-08-06. What's going on? -- Pekaje 21:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)I restored the one you mentioned. I'll dig through my logs later and get them. I *think* it was only about 30 or so. ^ demon [omg plz] 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I erred in my judgment that the AFD for Allegations of Chinese apartheid was closed early, and I'd like to offer my apology for that mistake. I still think that your determination was wrong and misguided, but I have every reason to believe it was made in good faith. Finally, my comment that you are someone "who takes curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Wikipedia" was an unnecessary editorial comment. It was an honest observation but could have been construed as an attempt to poison the well against your decision, and that was not my intent. So you have my apologies for that as well. -- Leifern 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
You mentioned in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007 that the way to get bugs fixed was to vote for them in bugzilla. Voting isn't used to determine priority or anything else in our bugzilla, but rather as a sort of watchlist for the bugs (see this comment for example). Although the only comments about this that a brief search found were a bit old, I didn't see anything refuting it, so I assume it's still true. Just letting you know. -- Sopoforic 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
When I saw "Rouge admins" on your user page, I became a little worried. Now, I understand that it is only for fun. Anyway, User:Ragib fully protected the article Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and took Wikibreak. Please remove the protection. I want to add important information on the article. Thank you. RS2007 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you restore Image:Dogcow.png? You deleted it under CSD I5 (unused fair-use), but it was present in an article. Zetawoof( ζ) 08:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
On 21/06, you deleted the above category, as well as Category:Wikipedian bagpipe players-1/2/3/4 as WP:CSD#C1, however I don't think the categories were empty - My userpage on this date [10] puts me in 2 of these categories.
Could you please restore the categories? Cheers, Davidprior 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ^demon, since I got involved with image work, I've been regularly getting messages asking why I deleted a particular image. I've usually managed to sort it out fairly amicably. I have a very nasty vomiting bug at the moment, and will be either completely absent or just making a very small number of edits a day for a while. If you look at my user page and my talk page, you'll see that I've asked people to take their queries to you or Howcheng or Quadell. I probably should have asked your permission first, but I'm feeling a bit wobbly and just want to go straight back to bed. If you're busy, or have any reason to feel that this request is unwelcome, please feel absolutely free to remove your name from my two pages. I won't be offended at all. I do make mistakes, though I think they're more in image tagging than in image deletion, especially when I'm working too fast. So if you are asked about it, please feel free to undo any action of mine if you think you should. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that you redeleted a page that is involved in an Arbitration case that revolves around allegations of a wheel war - in this case, the deletion and undeletion of BJAODN pages. You might find it better to wait until Arbcom finishes its arbitration to see whether or not it's the right thing to do. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
2007-07-30T03:09:02 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Favorites.PNG" (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.) I added the fair use rationale per policy to that image, and noted it in Talk for Bookmarks (computers). The original uploader was unresponsive, but I saw the need for the image, and wrote a necessary and sufficient (per policy) rationale, not an "extensive" (non-policy) one. Since editors can debate and defend (per policy) content added by other editors, I added the rationale to bring this image into compliance. %5Edemon failed to notify ME, the author of the rationale, of any defect remaining in the rationale, so this image was not deleted per policy. Please restore the image, as its removal destroys a valid example of the subject of the article. I would have requested this before, but I received no notice in my watchlist that the image was deleted(this flaw in WP should be corrected). -- Lexein 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i have fixed the license and the description for this image, can you please check if everything is right and let me know if i can put it back into the article?
thank you
Todesfee 13:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, last month you deleted Black Widow (woman) as an expired Prod. Perhaps you would userfy it to me, please, so that I can see what can be done with the article? BlueValour 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As chair of the mediation committee, I wonder whether you can advise me whether a WP:RFM is the appropriate course of action in the following dispute? I edit a number of British geographical articles, and a recurring, if trivial sounding, dispute is on the use of flags for the constituent countries of the UK. Although it's not an issue I have any particular views on, the edit wars that result can be highly disruptive, and I've tried e.g. with a MedCab session in May to get the discussion moved to one central place. Although both parties agreed with that MedCab, the result isn't really being respected, and when I submitted a second MedCab request last week, it was suggested that a more formal means of mediation would be appropriate.
Although at root, this is a content dispute, it's one that I think will go on and on indefinitely, and unfortunately I don't think an RFM will affect that. What I'm hoping might be possible from an RFM is that the dispute can be kept in just one place and that a template (which already exist) can be used to transclude the prevailing opinion into all of the individual articles. I.e. the issue I'm wanting mediation is not what the articles should say (the content dispute), but rather where and how the discussion should continue. And I'm not sure whether that's something that is legitimately within the scope of an RFM. I wonder whether you can advise?
As I say, my interest is not in how the underlying flag dispute is settled; it's in minimising the disruption across Wikipedia whilst it is discussed, and perhaps eventually resolved.
— ras52 11:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to see the wikipedia article about Sieges Even, and i saw that it was deleted by you. I belive this article should be restored. This is a notble band, being one of the most importent progressive metal bands in the world. I came from the USSR and currently live in Israel, i dont know German, and yet even i know them and how legendery they are in the genre. If you are not interested in the genre you might not know them, but those who are interested in the genre know. I'll tell you the truth, i'm not such a fan of their music. I like mostly Russian rock, and from the west i like Pink Floyd. Nevertheless, even i know how legendery they are considered to be. Even if the article is low-level now, thats why wikipedia is a free-edit. Editors will come and improve it. M.V.E.i. 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
In reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Winamp2.PNG (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.)
-- Lexein 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I reiterate points 1-4 above -- Lexein 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been labelled...
...THE DESTROYER OF FUN! citation needed :-). ~ Wikihermit 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this image citing WP:CSD#I7, but Roy Conrad had died several years ago; a replaceable image would seem hard to come by. Could you consider undeleting it, please? Thank you. -- Kjoon lee 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Demon, how you doing? I would like to know if you could reconsider and unblock User:YoSoyGuapo, so that the person may have his account back. I know that he was "Hot-Headed", but who hasn't been Hot-Headed in the begining of there experience with Wiki? I have mediated with him [11] and he has agreed to oberve our ways, see: [12]. He has requested that his original user name be returned and I believe that we can give a chance with the unstanding that if violates the agreement, he will be banned. I would like you to do it since you, with all the right in the world, blocked him. Tony the Marine 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
commons:Category:Historical film as animated gif
Hope it comes in handy. ~Kylu ( u| t) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I tagged Image:1927Chickendance.jpg as disputed, and the uploader keeps removing the tag without adjusting the rationale or even leaving an edit summary. I'm not sure what to do. Can you help at all? Jay32183 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Demon,
Could please explain to me the rationale for deleting that image. I'm assuming it failed some fair use criteria, but the rationale was there, so I don't know why it was CSD'ed. Thanks!-- Dali-Llama 01:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So you reckon I should be able to my original user name Nokian70? I won't mind changing it to comply with the rules if necessary, but naturally would love to keep it if possible. Please advise. Thanks again Nokian70 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Variety says that Jake Weber was cast in the film. Do you have a reliable source saying that this has changed? IMDb does not count as it is user-submitted and does not meet reliable source criteria for future films. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sawblade05 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:WEB item 3 says "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". wikimedia is both notable and independent of any neapolitans. period. WP:WEB covers assertions of notability by websites, so SCD A7 is null. Even if not, SCD is most definitely superceded by AfD rules. `' Míkka 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't play logical word games here: WP:WEB one of notability guideline on Wikipedia. Association with wikimedia is clearly stated in the very first sentence. `' Míkka 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You previously CSDed Patrick Nash. It is likely a different Patrick Nash than we will create this week for our WP:CHICOTW. Let me know if it becomes a problem in the next few days.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the abruptness of this message, but I would like to know if you could compare IP addresses of two users for me. If you can, the users are..
I am a mini-moderator on a forum and need to know if these IPs match each other due to an issue we are having. Please let me know via my Talk Page. Thanks!
-- Schmoofy 01:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
You tirelessly work towards the improvement of Wikipedia and ensuring that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are enforced. In particular, your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members was brave and intelligent. You applied the rules of Wikipedia and treated the discussion as such, instead of a vote. Good work!!! We need more people like you around. Vassyana 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
I don't understand it, I'd like to hear your comments on the Keeps that were well-founded. You seemed to ignore them. - The Norse 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted three .ogg files from this page under speedy criterion I7 (invalid fair use claim). What was the disputed claim? This article passed FA status less than a week ago, and no one had any problems with the fair use rationale. Chubbles 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the uploader does not appear to have been notified: the uploader was Ceoil, and I do not see a warning in the last month of that user's talk page history. Chubbles 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...
Also relevant is
You deleted the cat Wikipedians Nice to Newcomers. That was a wrong call, the cat is at the same level as the participants of the kindness campaign or other similar cats, it defines participants in the campaign Please do not bite the newcomers. Please don't delete it again Vanished user 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the category may point newcomers to Wikipedians who are more receptive and used to their common mistakes.
"When to use categories : Categories help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." this also applies, a newcomer willing to get some sympathetic ear after been bitten, will go to the category to find a Wikipedian who knows what a newcomer may suffer through misunderstanding and who can explain them what is going on. You very well know that not all Wikipedians are equal. The category stays. Vanished user 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Take this elsewhere. I honestly don't care enough about the stupid category to waste my talkpage on it. ^ demon [omg plz] 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Demon, how you doing? I would like to know if you could reconsider and unblock User:YoSoyGuapo, so that the person may have his account back. I know that he was "Hot-Headed", but who hasn't been Hot-Headed in the begining of there experience with Wiki? I have mediated with him [13] and he has agreed to oberve our ways, see: [14]. He has requested that his original user name be returned and I believe that we can give a chance with the unstanding that if violates the agreement, he will be banned. I would like you to do it since you, with all the right in the world, blocked him. Tony the Marine 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted Image:AnotherVersionofthePast.jpg since it was not free and not being used, and you rightly deleted it. Unfortuantely I didn't realize that the image was unused and pending deletion, so I didn't place it back into the article it was intended for. As far as I can tell, the image was taken out of Chronology of the Year Zero alternate reality game without any discussion. I would like to put the image back there, so I was hoping you could undelete the image for me. I appreciate your help. Drewcifer 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, regarding your post to WP:AN - I'm with you on the "We fight too much", and partway there on the "Admins are elitist bastards" (though I'd preface it with "A handful of..." and leave out the "bastards"). Mostly, I'm curious as to what you had in mind to fix the issues you listed. MastCell Talk 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your reason for speedily deletion. All three are discussed extensively in Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). Are FU files now explicitly disallowed. This is the second request. Ceoil 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
All restored, sorry for the confusion. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you - once again - used CSD:T1 for a userbox in userspace. I thought that it had been abundantly clear that T1 does not apply to userspace (see [15] [16]). I kindly request that you restore the deleted userbox and let the MfD discussion run it's course, though I can only wonder if you intentionally deleted this box using CSD:T1 to cause wikidrama. 84.145.234.170 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
It is correct that userboxes were not userfied to "circumvent T1" -- they were userfied to circumvent conflict. The essence of my position, and those opposed to your speedy, is that T1 is a very contentious criterion, with a troubled history. It's application within to template space is likely to be subject to more disputes than usual (and by disputes, I mean disputes among regular, knowledgeable editors, not the clueless feedback we get from newbies over every deletion we make.) It's application outside of template is unneeded -- any userbox that should be deleted under T1 would be deletable as G3 or G10 in userspace. The use of T1 in userspace is a provocative act, and is likely to reignite the "userbox war" -- it should be avoided for that reason alone. It is for this reason that T1 is specifically, by its own terms inapplicable to userspace.
Substantively, the box wasn't clearly speediable under any criteria at all. I'm not sure if you're an American, but -- as the MfD highlighted -- there is a dialect-disjunction with the word "pimp," which is (regrettably) used by many in America to refer to a certain ostentatious lifestyle, only very remotely associated with prostitution and/or illegal activity. It is true that the box is unclear; and for this reason, I would favor its ultimate deletion, but this matter is much too complicated to fit under any speedy criterion.
Finally, there is the matter of timing. On a fourth day -- so close to a consensus close -- speedy deleting just ignited a new fire. If GRBerry hadn't speedily undeleted, a new MfD would have been necessary, too much time having elapsed. Just give the issue the 24 hours needed for settlement, rather than speedying and adding a possible 120 hours to the wiki-drama. Irrespective of the box's merit, that is a pragmatic calculus every drama-hating editor should respect.
Sorry to trouble you, but you had questioned my comment at the DRV, and I wanted to clarify. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"Phedon Papamichael is set to direct "From Within," an independently financed thriller that will star Thomas Dekker ("Heroes"), Elizabeth Rice, Adam Goldberg and Jake Weber." Please do not remove verifiable information. IMDb is user-submitted and fails to be a reliable source -- it has even listed Aunt May as Carnage for Spider-Man 3 at one point. Unfortunately, a complaint from someone is not a verifiable source. If you have a verifiable citation that says he is not involved with the film, feel free to provide it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Demon, the user page in OTRS ticket #1076845 has been recreated once again, with the copyright violations still intact. I removed the copyrighted text, but isn't there a more permanent solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klumcup ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Demon / Persian Poet Gal: Unfortunately, the same person is back, with a new user account and the same old copyright violations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Limitedlincolns
He's nothing if not persistent! Klumcup 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a pending request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review to restore the Old Talk:Lizzie Grubman content that you deleted. Please let me know whether you plan to restore the page so that I can close out that Lizzie Grubman request #2 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review (and regain some control over that page). Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, demon! I'm writing in response to your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković, which I'm reproducing here: Comment: I echo Daniel's rejection, and I must add that I reject it with prejudice against re-requesting. This has been requested 3 times within 24 hours, and rejected every time. There is no consensus for a page move, and trying to force mediation will not change it--as mediation works on consensus as well. Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason why this should be continually debated again. Iff there seems to be a wider consensus for a move and perhaps for mediation, then I wouldn't be opposed to a case being reconsidered, but at this present time, please do not post it again
I think you have misunderstood the issue (or perhaps it wasn't well stated in the RfM, which didn't come from me). The idea is not to remove the redirect, but to reverse its direction so that Novak Djokovic is the article, per WP:NAME, and Novak Đoković is the redirect. Consequently, "redirects are cheap" isn't a relevant argument.
Also, I don't really understand the last part of your comment. If there is a consensus for a move, no mediation is needed, right? :-) -- Tkynerd 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:LionelBarrymore.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković, you said the proposal had been submitted three times in 24 hours, but it was only submitted once by me, and only once total to my knowledge.
There seemed to have been a bot error earlier. The notice that mediation had been denied was posted to my and everyone else's Talk page three times, for example, before being cleaned up by the users and an admin. Perhaps the same happened to the Mediation Committee, in which case the request was not proposed three times, only reported three times.
If that is not the case, can you please clarify? Right now your reproach seems awfully unfair. -- Yano 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to address this Wikipedia:Bot requests#Template:Unreferenced bot request? I was expecting to see some impact in Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and have not yet so just checking in. Jeepday ( talk) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
When you deleted the image InnerSolarSystem-en.png, it disappeared from the page Definition of planet. If you could explain how to re-link to the image from the commons, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Serendipod ous 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:33 18 September 2007 (GMT).
I noticed that you blocked my ability to upload this image. After these discussions with Riana, I have made some modifications to the image that should reduce the similarity that so concerned the complainant on the OTRS ticket. Please could you remove the block so I can upload the new image. Note that I have also asked Riana to unblock the upload, but it appears Riana is offline despite what statusbot says :-). Thank you. Astronaut 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I was very disappointed to see your assumption of bad faith and insulting behavior on the Mzoli's deletion discussion.-- Jimbo Wales 19:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi demon. Can you please delete [Image:Midway Airport Runway 4R (Brett B. Despain).jpg]. The author had requested it be deleted as he is going to sell it. I saw you deleted it yesterday, but I re-uploaded it because I thought it was deleted for a different reason. I checked my email today and saw he wrote me telling me he wanted it off so when you have a chance can you delete the image for me. Thanks alot! Sox 23 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You do realise my comments on this MfD were intended as humorous? Both you and Riana seem to have taken them somewhat too seriously - [17] [18]. I wasn't trying to make editcount a big issue; it was a comment intended to lighten the mood in a somewhat contentious MfD (in which, incidentally, I didn't have a strong opinion). Walton One 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
As you have updated the graph at Template:Notability progress in the past I thought you should know that the categories are being moved.
Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from July 2007 will go to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from July 2007
Hope this helps,
It seems you deleted all of the templates in WP:DOT, both the ones that were currently marked and the ones that were ready for deletion. There's supposed to be a fourteen day period in between the tagging and the deletion to ensure sufficient time for any possible unknown substitutions or transclusions to be noticed. While it seems illogical to undelete the templates simply to re-delete them, please just be careful with these templates in the future. I know that they all qualify for WP:CSD#G6, and frankly, I could delete all of them under that criterion myself if I wanted to, however, the agreement on WP:TFD was to give a waiting period. I assume this was a simple misunderstanding; if not, please let me know. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey ... I noticed when I went to salt something else that Image:BurjDubaiHeight.png was transcluded in Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle. I have removed it because the image exists. (Salting an image doesn't stop an admin from uploading it and, in fact, an admin attempting to upload it won't so much as get a warning that it is salted ... this is one huge problem with completely getting rid of the old method of salting - someone acting in good faith never realizes that they shouldn't upload the image. But I digress.) Anyway, I saw where you had deleted it as a copyvio based on an OTRS ticket and the admin who uploaded it claims GFDL. I don't have access to OTRS and don't really care one way or the other ... I simply removed it from the protected titles list because it exists. If it is still a copyvio, you may wish to delete it and/or take it up with the uploader. -- B 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For having the guts to enforce policy even if the creator was Jimmy Wales I award you this barnstar. We need more people like you and less people who care more about their status on Wikipedia than policy which is what adminship was created to uphold. No one is above the project - no matter who they are. EconomicsGuy 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
You deleted my sandbox, User:WikiDon-Sandbox, I might have named it wrong. Maybe it should have been User:WikiDon/Sandbox, please recover my text, and put it in a sandbox for me. WikiDon 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. ^ demon [omg plz] 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not, it's been at User:WikiDon/Sandbox ever since I said I was done... ^ demon [omg plz] 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Here's the logs:
Hope that clears it up. ^ demon [omg plz] 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: Can you put the deleted comments (if any) from User talk:WikiDon-Sandbox into > User talk:WikiDon/Sandbox. Thanks. WikiDon 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not repost the content here or restore it, but the jist of it was that the subject of the article has issues with her personal life (husband, kids, that kind of thing) being published on Wikipedia. The reason I got involved is because I had a complaint come in to the Wikimedia Foundation's e-mail system (which we handle via the OTRS software package). ^ demon [omg plz] 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon,
I'm writing a little feature for my newspaper about the Mzoli's Meats debate, and was hoping to get a comment from you about that subject. Please drop me an email (see embedded comment) if you have a chance.
Hello, I'm just renewing my request here, as I'd very much like to present a balanced picture of the above situation, and to do so I still need a perspective from an informed dissenter. I would most certainly appreciate your insights, and thanks again for your time. HarpooneerX 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You deleted a picture of ryūsuke mita's self portrait Momomai 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Daisy Wallace 25 september 2007
Hi. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think links should not be removed from articles that have been speedied for copyvio. If anything, the copyvio may actually validate the link (it usually means that the subject is notable), and a redlink is not a real problem for this project. Dahn 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
i was just wondering why my page was deleted so speedily. I had been in contact with the person who flagged my page and had posted the contention code. I also had an adoption tag while i was trying to make good faith revisions to bring the page up to wiki standards. So why a complete deletion less than 24hrs after the flag? No discussion allowed here? This is an elementary school's user page - it's intended to be for their use to research and create articles. I know that other schools have such pages and wanted to know how our page differs from theirs - what we can do to fix it. Please help me to understand what i need to do!
Harlemacademy 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. What happened to the Template Astronomy_portal_daily_picture? All I see is the log entry, when you deleted it, and giving as cause 'CSD G6'. I can not for the life of me understand why this is falling under this reason. I was using it often and did not see any discussion about deleting/merging/moving it. What am I missing? Thanks! Awolf002 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[19] Congratulations :) Melsaran ( talk) 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Demon , can you remove this image it came from here ,- bottom of page- © 2007 The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam Pty Ltd, as trustee for The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam (Is-Da-Happen). All rights reserved. Perpetual copyright claimed.) Adidam is very firm on copyright , thanks , if you think it should remain please explain why this is .
[20] image address -- Scribe5 10:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I realise that it may be a pain, but would you comment on each of the subcats? I'm waiting for AMBot to tag the cats, and there's a possibility that a few of these may see some "lively" discussion. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you undelete Image:Sing A Long by Pete Seeger album cover.jpg? You deleted it because it wasn't used in an article, but it was used in an article. It was there in April [21], and then the link was deleted in August [22] because it had been deleted by you in July, and there were no intervening edits. - Peregrine Fisher 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ^demon. I see that you and WJBscribe ( talk · contribs) blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats, but I don't quite understand why. The presence of some bad-faith comments on that page doesn't seem a sufficient reason for hiding its contents from casual visitors. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking allows for a page to be blanked for reasons such as invasion of privacy, libel and emotional distress — but I don't see any of those reasons applying to the Mzoli's AfD. In general, I don't think it's a good idea to blank Wikipedia process pages, especially when they've gained media attention: to the casual viewer, it will appear as if we're trying to hide dirty laundry.
Other folks are also asking about the blanking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats, and you may wish to comment there. If there's something about this that you'd rather not discuss on-wiki, you can email me via the "email this user" link on my user page. However, unless there's more here than meets the eye, it looks to me as if there's not a lot of support for this courtesy blanking, and you might want to reconsider it. Thanks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was this article deleted? The deletion log says "blatant advertising", but there was no advertising on the page, at very least not "blatant" and worthy for speedy deletion. Karen Strassman is notable for many roles in anime and video games. -- EmperorBrandon 15:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't do image deletions blindly! You have deleted at least one image ( Image:Dibenzylideneacetone.PNG) without even checking if it's availible on Commons. Conscious 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Trixie and Dean Koontz.jpg was tagged with {{ di-replaceable fair use}}. I responded by adding {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}} with a detailed explanation of why I felt this assessment to be in error. You subsequently deleted the image with the following edit summary:
I would appreciate an explanation of why you failed even to acknowledge this dispute or my explanation. I am concerned that this evidence that the {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}} template is meaningless, used only to mislead editors into believing falsely that they may dispute the formally unremovable {{ di-replaceable fair use}} placed not by lawyers but just by other editors. I have raised this possibility at Template talk:Di-replaceable fair use disputed#Dispute rejected, where you might want to comment as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I was the one originally posted for Johnny Wu's profile (ok, mine) but I know that I wasn't following the guidelines correctly so am right now trying to learn how to post, can that post be deleted and be re-created a new one instead that has all the needed info as requested by wiki? or should it be 'activated' again and be re-edited to fit the criteria? Thanks
Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdifilm ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
^demon, your input would be appreciated on the unblock request at User talk:Bill Ayer. Inasmuch as "single-purpose account" by itself generally would not support an indefinite block without a warning, it might be helpful to the reviewing admin if you could provide some additional comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, good day! Please undelete the "Image:Ls_coverspecial.jpg", as it is uploaded by a member of the student newspaper concerned ( Heraldo Filipino), and thus has been legitimately uploaded. Thank you. THE IMPERIOUS DORK 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You are so typical of totalitarian scum. [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.137.190 ( talk) 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
...I have to ask; How's it feel to be infamus? ;u) --Is this
fact...? 06:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Look here: [24] there it is! Auroranorth 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Pascal.Tesson suggested your script, and I have to say it rocks! It almost makes me want to delete more! Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk 05:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, my name is Eric,
I'm the inventor of what is called Clics and which established itself on the market. I didn't put the article on Wikipedia, when I came across it, I only edited it to bring the 'real history' and the evolving situation 'today'. Just like LEGO does.
I was glad and felt fortunate to have, through WIKIPEDIA, a way also to safeguard my Intellectual Property Rights. I'm the real inventor, others are not only raping my brainchild by commercializing an altered version, they also publicly claim to be the inventors themselves. An incorporated link shows the official issued patent bearing my name, Eric Parein!
I would appreciate to have the article restored. It's all facts, it's plain history!
It's no publicity; the original toy element is not even on the market.
Please, thanks for considering my request, Eric
I don't get it. What should I alter to have it restored? Please advise, Eric
Additional.
What about the other
words, the other
products, the other
brands?
What about
inventions?
Sax (also with litigation accounts edited, part of the history)
What about
inventors?
Adolphe Sax (also with litigation accounts edited, part of the history)
What about
toy block or
construction toy?
Lego,
Meccano,
K'nex, ...
What about
toys?
Playmobil,
Fisher Price, ...
What about
products?
Kellog,
Coca-Cola,
Ferrari shows all its models, ...
What about
Happy Cube? This is publicity, I believe. Anyway not the truth about the product!
The product is not Dirk Laureyssens's invention. He stole it from Joseph From
[25]. On his External Link
[26], Laureyssens also claims to own some 150 patents... sorry, he has WRITTEN 150 patents, all were not issued or lapsed.
So, dear Wikipedian, encyclopedic content must be
verifiable, my editing on Clics was just that. It is a word, a product, a toy, a toy block, a construction toy, an invention, from an inventor. Yes also a brand like all the others. Clics merits to have its place in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, which BTW I appreciate a lot! Eric —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Eric Parein (
talk •
contribs) 09:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Demon, please advise, Eric
--
Eric Parein 17:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not undeleting it. Please stop requesting. ^
demon
[omg plz] 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advise. Over and out. Eric
--
Eric Parein 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the links at user:hmwith/links. I don't know how I missed that! нмŵוτн τ 17:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete that article? There was stuff in there that wasn't on isayeret.com. And that site was listed as a reference. Yosy 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hiya demon, its g'day from down under, hehehe.
Could you please please pretty please reverse your deletion on Anthony Chidiac article?. I did put a hangon on it, and was inviting all those who commented on the first article to see it. It had a discussion page and people were talking on it. Please give it a chance to be reviewed by the people who put scorn on it originally. Its now a complete re-write and a stub. Appreciate your help in getting this notable person in wiki. The first article was a train wreck and this one is just the facts. :0 Thanks and nope, I dont sell my soul to a demon :) rgds T-- T3Smile 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Demon, I just read the article you're in and its cool! I got a giggle out of it! so it might just be that I have to surrender my soul to the demon after all, cuz he ate the wale ;) Looking forward to your thoughts on my humble request.
what a legend!!!!.....hang on I have a badge for you.-- T3Smile 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | ||
For recognising an article written by an indigineous person worthy of mention in wikipedia T3Smile 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
One more quick thing demon, Theres a few typos and one too many [['s in it. how can i unprotect, fix typos, and reprotect? or similar. I don't plan to add anymore than that. I love the fact that its protected though. I know thats why it became a train wreck before as a few other people added without verifying, and it became annoying at the end. Thoughts? --
T3Smile 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle how do you fix that? And, what is the proces to get document protection, even for a short time? (For My Reference). Do I ask an admin for such or is there a quick and easy process? ta. -- T3Smile 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have deleted it, because it was not worth to mention. But I have to disagree. It was used as a private prison in relationship with a very public Dr. Phil entertainment TV-show The hunt for Amanda where a young woman was manhunted across the United States, because her family due to religious causes did not want her to marry her boyfriend.
With the help of Dr. Phil the poor girl was imprisoned at the facility where they broke her down, so she like her older sister could function as nurses for their parents at home.
Covergaard 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about not licensing those audio files (on Marathi Language). I recorded them at home. I am a new user, and didn't realise the problem until I got the message from OrphanBot. I corrected my problem now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishearth ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just making sure. You deleted Image:L&H Our Relations 1936.jpg way back in June with the comment CSD I5: Is unused and not free. However, the What links here page for that image doesn't work. There is something that used it, namely the page about movie in question Our Relations, but it's not listed in what links here. Any objection if I restore the poster? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:CAPDhacker.png was deleted by you after the license was changed by me to pd-self. The original license template of fair use was an error on my part. Your summary states you deleted it because it was tagged as invalid fair use and uploader notified more than 48 hours ago. Do you personally review these before deleting or are you engaging in bot-like activity? Got bot flag? JERRY talk contribs 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Jerry, your change of license was reverted over a week before Chad deleted the image. Here is the relevant bit of the history:
I agree that you seem to have been a little hasty in presuming that a Bot was used - the deletion summary is actually totally compatible with human review. WjB scribe 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You speedy deleted it, but I really can't trouble shoot why it wasn't fairly used since that explanation is gone. COuld you possibly enlighten me so that I could get another one uploaded that falls within WP's fair use explanation? Please reply on my talk page. cOrneLlrOckEy 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, regarding
this edit, can you explain? The
link you provided just takes me to a login page and I can't get any further to see the what it is. Thanks.
anemone|
projectors 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly why you were deleting so many of these images, but I just had to go back and restore about 20 (?) of them. One such image is Image:Safavid Dynasty, Horse and Groom, by Haydar Ali, early 16th century.jpg; many more can be seen in the painting gallery at the Islamic art article. None of them had tags for deletion, as far as I can see in the history, and all of them were marked with a source (maybe not the best one, but with a quick search of the museum's collections I could locate the piece). You never notified the uploader (nor did anyone else), and a ton of fantastic images, all dated about 1400-1600 AD (so obviously public domain) were deleted. Please be more careful next time before deleting images where the uploader (or any other user) could so easily fix the problem, and the image has never been tagged, and the uploader has never been notified. Calliopejen1 16:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for supporting my RfA. Unfortunately it wasn't a success, however, I appreciate your support all the same! —— Ryan ( talk/ contribs) 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Could I please see the article Harold A. Rogers you deleted. You wrote that this was a CSD for blatant advertising but that article had been in existence for quite a while and I read it previously and don't recall that it was written as such.
At any rate, Harold A. Rogers is an important figure in Canadian history, ranked among the Greatest Canadians in the recent CBC tv show, founder of the largest all-Canadian service organisation, recipient of the Order of Canada and the Order of the British Empire, and first recipient of Ontario's Lamp of Learning award. He is deserving of an encyclopedic entry and if not worded to your satisfaction, an appropriate tag, note on the talk page, or an edit would have been a better action. A speedy deletion for "advertising" a man who has been dead over 13 years seems odd. Perhaps the version you saw had been vandalised and you forgot to check the history?
I also wonder why you removed the wikilinks to the article.
Thanks, DoubleBlue ( Talk) 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask why you speedy deleted the Johnson City Cardinals article when an article exists for every other professional baseball team in North America (including the independents)? Smashville 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Demon, I used an image I'd gotten off a Google Image search. I uploaded it as kreweofmuses.jpg and asked for fair use consideration. I am not a member of this organization. A friend is however--and it was this friend who asked me to write the article. Nobody in the organization objected to its use; however, the original source was a weekly newspaper, so there probably is a copyright issue afterall. Should this friend send me an image? I'm not sure about how to get a release. Can you point me to this information?
You closed this debate a few days ago. Could you comment on the revert war at Operation Wilno? See edit summaries in history and talk for arguments of both sides. I feel we need a third party to mediate, and you already have some background, so... thanks :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ^demon. I saw that you deleted Image:Degrassismith.jpg at 10:14 a.m. on October 30, and said that I, the uploader, had been notified. Well if you look at my talk page and talk page history, you'll see that is not the case.
Anyways, I thought it met all ten Non-free content criteria, so I would like to know what could possibly be done to restore the image. Does it need a different fair use or licence tag?
Thanks and regards, -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What was the problem with this image? I am the one who wrote the fair use rationale recently, but was not notified. This image copyright is owned by a Canadian municipality, which ultimately is owned by the Canadian Crown, and the fair use was valid. Please restore it, and let me know what the problem is so I can fix it. There should not be any problem with this image being fair use, as there are no free images of this Canadian politician available. - Crockspot 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm retired; you woke me up from my nap. Since I am awake, I did leave a comment on the deletion debate; in short, my official position is, I have no official position. Please note that I am retired and that my talk page is a protected archive. I have been responding to queries when active Wikipedians bring them to my attention, but I won't be doing so in the future because I find even the briefest stint here tedious and painful. For future reference if you come acrosse a a pic that I uploaded fifty years ago under fair use tag, I have no idea where I got it from today. Happy editing! - JCarriker 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I unprotected it, because an OTRS e-mail indicates that the IP removing things was the article's subject. FCYTravis 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite.
BrownBot 01:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help keeping the vandals at bay. I was trying but i didn't get time to visit it every day. Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir or madam, I notice that you have deleted the following images which were uploaded by me, even after I had added {{ Non-free media rationale}}, would you please tell me what I had done wrong? Thank you!
[27] [28] [29] Talk to ► Kevin 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Merge progress/Part1, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{ deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 00:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Demon baby, I found a swathe of articles that are non notable, or should be merged. Check out commendable, Prairie Bayou, Old Friends Equine, Kona Gold, Finsceal Beo, English Channel (horse), A P Valentine. Checking through article such as Melbourne Cup shows winning horses, not ones that race at some track out yonder. You can't tell me a horse such as commendable is more notable than Anthony Chidiac. lol. Looking forward to your thoughts, and thanks for your help with giving the chidiac stub a go. I'm joining the deletionist club now, where do I sign up? T.-- T3Smile 07:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC) User-multi error: "T3Smile" is not a valid project or language code ( help). - Blocked as sockpuppet. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/ c 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gekritzl/Deletion_gestapo was on my USER SPACE, not on WIKI SPACE. You had not right to tag it for speedy deletion. Please restore. -- Geĸrίtz 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Initially surprised that no article on him existed, I was going to create a stub article on Professor Akbar S. Ahmed. However, I noticed that an article on this topic had been previously deleted per your handling of OTRS request 1069924. The article I envisioned creating would have been a straightforward biography. His name, position, published works, notable events & achievements. I was prompted to create an article after noticing that Ahmed has been mentioned by name in several articles. Please feel free to respond to me either on- or off-Wiki as to anything I should avoid in the article, or whether I should avoid its creation altogether. -- Ssbohio 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Absurd would be an understatement. I strongly encourage you to rethink your evaluation before mass deleting nearly 700 categories when there was so clearly consensus to keep. Your choice to close it as delete is absolutely inexplicable. Please do not waste our time by forcing us to depopulate 700 categories, delete them, and then have us go to DRV. - auburnpilot talk
Since you are apparently out for the night, I've requested a review on AN/I. - auburnpilot talk 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll mirror what others have said. Please do not start depopulating or deleting until this is reviewed, as it will probably end up at DRV today. --- RockMFR 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me almost a month to notice this. Haven't been too terribly active lately. I noticed you deleted the image I uploaded for Corey Taylor stating that it had an "invalid fair-use rationale" and that the uploader had been notified "more than 48 hours ago". Now I don't doubt that the fair-use rationale was lacking at best, but I was never notified to the fact that it was to be deleted. Seems to me that no one was notified, actually. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. If I had actually been notified, I could have fixed the fair-use rationale and it wouldn't have to have been deleted. Maverick Leonhart ( Talk | Contribs) 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. User:Veesicle 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi ^demon, just letting you know, I wrote over your close as I was in the middle of doing it anyway and got conflicted. Hope you don't mind, I'll revert if you'd prefer. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to clone this bot, as it might go offline if you are not using it and it would get all of it done faster. With a clone, it would get all of it done. If you will allow me to clone it, I would prefer you to comment on it on my talk page. Dreamy § 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the AfD notification. Is there a way for me to view the subject's request for deletion, or at least have a summary of why the subject wanted the article deleted? I'm curious because previous versions of the article was originally created by the subject himself before they were speedily deleted; I authored the current article as a first stab at creating a new article and because I deemed the subject notable (I like Count Duckula cartoons :). --健次( derumi) talk 07:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. If your bot was programmed with C# in Windows and you're ready to help me make my own bot for other wiki-projects please contact me. -- Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon;
I am cross-posting this from GTBacchus' page; I am terribly sorry as that is impersonal, but it is the same questions. Yesterday I posted at WP:AN/I regarding an anonymous user who was/is constantly reverting changes made to templates in royal articles. An admin determined that the user was stalking/following my edits and blocked the user for 48 hours (first block). Consequently, a user I suspected who had the anonymous IP as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet is doing the exact same thing. I have seen your name around before (like GTBacchus; I am trying to draw attention to the matter) and saw that you have commented at WP:AN/I, so I was wondering if you could take a peek at the situation since there is a lot going on at WP:AN/I and it seems that it is being overlooked. As a "rouge" (red) admin, I am assuming that you are really an administrator. Thanks! Charles 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey carrot-demon. You didn't address the assertion in my rfu-disputed tag here. Or at least I don't think you reflected that fact anywhere. -- Y not? 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I protected the page because anonymous ips had repeatedly deleted material without explanation. Protecting the page forced discussion on the talk page. I have asked User:JoshuaZ to review the situation. Now that the Ips have explained their reasoning on the talk page, it is clearer that this is an edit dispute. Best, -- Shirahadasha 15:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hellow, why did you delete the image " Lucinda Southworth"?. There is no copy-vio as the image I got it from Stanford university website, which doesn’t even state anything about image copy vio. Can you retrieve it? Could you please tell what shall I do for re-uploading, if possible? Can I upload again as "my own work" category as I edited (reduced size, adjusted propo and given more brightness etc, image in photoshop)-- Avinesh Jose 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/ C 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week's issue, but responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I wondered how long it would take for that to get deleted. I thought it was cool, but I am biased because I find the building so interesting I searched for any related media. I loved your "Ok no. Fair use promotional video? How in the HELL will that aid in understanding of a subject? CSD criteria: G11 and I7". We need more nonBSers like you on Wikipedia. Happy admining. Chupper ( talk) 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This user has engaged in edit warring on a locked page ( [30]) I recommend he be stripped of his adminship. Bensaccount ( talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice this page was recently deleted. I spent quite some time on this page. I notice that someone else put on the actual rules (the UCP) breaching copyright. However, instead of removing the rules, the entire page was deleted. Could it please be reinstated (without the rules)? It is an article on an important set of rules that governs more than one trillion dollars of trade annually. Alan Davidson ( talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you object to my listing this page on MfD, since you have clearly stated that you will not be taking questions?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've posted to WP:AN indicating this feature is now active (i tried it and it worked) - thought I'd let you know individually too since you expressed interest in it before.— Random832 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ahoy, hope you don't mind, but I fixed the amount of deleted archives in your closure. Thanks. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the Cloverleafing article, is there anyway that I can get the content from that page as I really need it. Flood of SYNs 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting the edit histories of the deleted subpages of BJAODN, as well as the deleted subpages themselves. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer asking you, but I am asking other sysops. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Could your bot replace all instances of {{ unreferencedarticle}} with {{ unreferenced}}? The parameters should be compatible. I plan on taking unreferencedarticle to TfD as redundant to unreferenced, but it is used on a couple hundred pages. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't get why you closed the DRV on BJAODN on the same day it was started, out of process. I personally don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about BJAODN (although I recognize that others do), but nobody likes a gratuitous STFU. Give people their day in court. They might feel less poorly used. Herostratus 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please explain as to why was this article was deleted. Thanks
Hi ^demon! I wanted to take a moment to let you know that when you restored Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg, you did so without restoring it to the page you deleted it from. I've restored it to that page, but I wanted to let you know about this issue. Also, I'd really like to find out what prompted the image's deletion in the first place. I know it was under WP:CSD#I7, but I don't understand how it qualified for deletion under I7. If you could please let me know, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- Ssbohio 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have deleted an image from Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. I have essentially zero experience with images and the rules about them, but I was under the impression that government created images were generally acceptable to use. The image on the page (which I did not upload, but relocated within the article) is a ubiquitous image in our state; it is, in short, the official logo of the state test mandated for all students in grades 3-11. How do we establish the propriety of using this image? Thanks in advance for your help. Unschool 23:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know I fixed two typos in your CSD script. Naconkantari 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say how immensely helpful MetsBot has been in clearing out image backlogs for images that have been moved to the commons. I have *yet* to see it wrong on an image tag (unless it says X wasn't done, but it's been done since it was tagged), and it's so good, that if MetsBot says it's clear, I don't even question it, I just delete on sight. It's getting so good, that I almost thing you should have it run RFA and let it delete the images itself (although I know people think Adminbots are bad). Thanks again, ^ demon [omg plz] 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have many similar biases, as I agree with your opinions and views on these matters. You're clearly a great person, and the world needs more non-judgmental people like you! hmwith talk 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The AACo photo you removed was an original photo taken by the staff and was used with exclusive permission from the organization. It was be appreciated if you would return it.
You removed a photo of the Arizona Association of Counties building. It was placed on the page by staff. If you could either replace it or tell us how to properly affix the photo (we're obviously wikipedia novices) we'd greatly appreciate it.
(deleted "Image:张智成 (Zhang Zhi Cheng or Z Chen).jpg": CSD I4: No license or No Source Information) Maybe somebody just forget it, and tomorrow will write a licence,..-- Tamás Kádár 19:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting our mediation request. I am somewhat new to the process and am unsure where to begin. Do we create a topic on the talk page or elsewhere? Please let me know if you have any questions to better understand the matter at hand. Thanks again. -- Shamir1 20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you deleted Image:ChelsiMissUSA.jpg? Your deleting notes were extremely vague and you appear to have ignored the discussion on the talk page. I would like an explanation as to why you thought the fair use claim was invalid. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I see you recently deleted Image:WikiGuard.png. Considering it was in use on the WikiGuard article and also free, I'm not sure I understand the deletion. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There has to be a misunderstanding here. The image was once maliciously tagged for Prod by User:NAHID, an editor who has been stalking me for quite some time now. It got deleted, and was restored by User:Anetode. I had provided probably the most detailed fair use rationale on Wikipedia for the image on its talk page when User:Zsinj tagged it for WP:CSD#17, the reason you deleted it for. Did you tag it again after it was restored? Was I notified? I don't think so. And, did anyone explain why my detailed explanation was no good as a rationale? The whole fiasco reminds me of the case you and I discussed and resolved earlier (see User talk:^demon/Archive3#Jayne mansfield images).
I am not a newbie (I already have worked significantly for two FAs and two GAs, started a wikiproject and has about 4,000 edits to my credit) and I don't go uploading non-free images left and right. I may be always wrong, but others could be wrong as well. A little checking out wouldn't do us any harm. It pains me very much to see how casually my honest hard work can go down the drain. Please, take a look at the case again, and, please, respond to my talk page. Aditya Kabir 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. One more question - can someone remove that fair use disputed tag? If it keeps hanging there another bot may take it to be a very suitable candidate to delete. If my reasoning on the talk page is no good, then I'm ready to withdraw this appeal. Aditya Kabir 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi I would like to have an explanation on why you deleted the Image "Dr.Narayan Dutt Shrimali". I know it is in Fair Use, You atleast should have given an warning on the Talk page and some time for an Explanation. Your actions I feel are very RUDE and Arrogant. Please do not go about deleting all images in the Fair Use Category, I means VANDALISM !!!
^demon, hi, I saw that you'd deleted Image:Miranda_Kerr.jpg as "invalid fair use." [1] However, I had put an elaborate explanation on the talkpage about why fair use was appropriate in this case. I was wondering if you had an opportunity to read it, and could you please reply on the discussion page giving your reasoning why you feel that it was insufficient? I would like to improve my understanding of fair-use claims, and having my entire argument simply deleted without explanation doesn't really help me to improve my knowledge of things. Thanks, El on ka 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Afropunkvol1.jpeg. Can you explain why it was deleted? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Screw you for deleting my wild cherry bark image before I had a chance to tag it. You're just a bit overzealous.
jaknouse 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ^demon. Thank you very much for your admin work in resolving the dispute concerning the Andrew Vachss & Honey photo. Could I ask you to put up the admin notice indicates your decision? I see the following at the bottom of the "dispute" template -- Closing administrator: if the decision is to Keep the image please put "Rk" (in double curly brackets) on the image page. Thanks again! - ZeroZ 02:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What is going on? Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
While the article is in AfD, the talk page should not be removed. I assume this was an oversight. - Tiswas( t) 08:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I’ve already told you that you that using ^demonBot2 you have broken Template:LDS Temple list and Template:Infobox LDS Temple twice before ( 1st warning, 2nd warning), and you’ve done it again. I’ve undone your edits again.
Template:LDS Temple list:
Template:Infobox LDS Temple:
Since my first two messages to you, I’ve figured out that you are probably doing an automatic replacement because template:sq m had a deprecated tag on it, and I’ve removed it. Sq m is not equivalent to template:ft2 to m2. They have different parameters and different output. Template:ft-m also had the tag, and someone else removed it for the same reasons.
Even though it’s not your fault that the deprecated tag and the “equivalent” given was incorrect, I really think you need to check the results of your edits to templates, especially after unwittingly breaking the same templates three times.
If your bot has a “do not edit these templates” list, you might consider adding these two. Jaksmata 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
so sue me, I'm bored... EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(Contd. from talk page archive User_talk:^demon/Archive3#Tagging of Main page screenshots as orphans)
All the images mentioned were in use only in the page Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots and nowhere else. Are such images considered orphan or not? I believe either all of them should be considered as orphans or none of them should be considered so. -- Paddu 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have restored this image which you deleted. Neither the uploaded, nor anyone of the editors, were informed that the image was tagged. As such, there was no opportunity for a fair discussion.
After restoration, I have tagged the image for the problem it was listed earlier, so that a discussion can take place. You might want to take a look.
Btw, you gave a wrong justification for the deletion. CSD I5 was not applicable to it. -- soum (0_o) 12:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged with full copyright information and watched. We were given NO WARNING to modify reasoning or rationale. Not cool. Why was it deleted? Perhaps the image was mistagged Speedy?? Please restore the image, so we can repair the usage trail. -- Knulclunk 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear ^demon,
You have either attended or expressed interested in the previous NYC Meetup. I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chad. I see that you recently deleted Image:Incredible-hulk-20060221015639117.jpg because it had no fair use rationale. Since you say you don't restore deleted images 90% of the time, it seems pointless to ask to have the image restored. I'm sure that a suitable replacement can be found anyway.
However, I am concerned about the lack of notification. As near as I can tell, there was no notification within the affected article Hulk (comics) or its talk page about the image's non-compliance. Although this is not required, it seems to be common practice. Had the watchers of this page been notified, I am sure that someone would have written a decent fair use rationale. Is there any way to find out who tagged the image with the fair use warning? I would like to ask them (politely, of course) to put a note on the article's talk page or to use {{ speedy-image-c}} next time. -- GentlemanGhost 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've restored the above image and added a fair use rationale. At WP:COMICS we're going through adding the rationales as best we can, if the rationale isn't sufficient let me know what else needs adding. Probably should have come here first and talked it through, sorry, just figured WP:IAR, WP:BOLD. Hope that's okay. Hiding Talk 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete "Image:Chpsonic.jpg"?
Why did you delete this image? I know it had a fair use rationale and a source mentioned. -- Maitch 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I am trying to get an image for a webpage. However, most of the images of that person are not public domain. I am currently talking to someone who owns a lot of images of that person but she is hesitant to turn images over to the public domain for instance. What is the most restrictive license that is acceptable to wikipedia?
-- florkle 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, can you, please, restore Khinchin's theorem, which you have (speedily) deleted? I have explained at the talk page, which you have also deleted, that while the title was likely to be wrong, the statement may well have been worth keeping, since it was completely correct. At the very least, we should have asked a probabilist for an opinion. You may also be interested to know that recently concern was expressed on WT:WPM that Probability theory is lacking in coverage, and deleting articles is not the best way to solve the problem! Incidentally, the content of the article (or the talk page) is not accessible even through my contributions! Thanks in advance. Arcfrk 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Geeky joke, I know, but I think your username is unique. Will ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I submitted a request for mediation, but I'm afraid I added it manually by mistake; is it too late to stop it damaging the bot? Sorry for this. Alexrexpvt 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that my nomination request is denied, but what does 'I am envoking my right to private reasoning on this vote (see this). For Committee members, see our private mailing list. Daniel 06:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)' mean, could i be told? -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk) 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, deleting the fair use tags from what had been properly tagged images and then saying they had no license seems unfair. - N 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete this article?
I must say that I am disappointed with the way this TfD discussion was run. I'm almost certain that no attempt at notifying the appropriate project page about the discussion was made. Now, you're removing copyright tags from those images; those images are now in worse shape than they were in before you deleted all the templates. I must say I am suprised to have seen this happen. I think the only appropriate course to take right now is to restore those templates and have a do-over TfD, and this time to let the relevant people in on the discussion (by posting on the project's talk page or noticeboard about the discussion). -- Brandon Dilbeck 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear ^demon,
I recently posted images provided by St. Catherine's College, Oxford, but they were deleted a few days ago. I emailed the College to obtain permission and they have authorized their use, provided the College is credited. A copy of this correspondence is attached. I am not sure which Wikipedia license category is most appropriate, but since you were the admin who deleted them, I thought perhaps you would be the best person to ask! Please let me know if there is something else I need to do to meet Wikipedia's requirements. I appreciate your diligence regarding copyright.
My communication with the College regarding use of these images is attached below.
Best regards,
Bbacambridge
_______________________
Subject: [CATZ-RT #2294] Fwd: St. Catz online images Sender: <rt@catz-rt.stcatz.ox.ac.uk> RT-Ticket: CATZ-RT #2294 From: support@catz-rt.stcatz.ox.ac.uk Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:50:55 +0100
Hello again Brad,
Thank you for your email. As in my previous email the College is happy for you to use images taken from our main website www.stcatz.ox.ac.uk subject to a request that in an acknowledgements section, or something similar - perhaps the Licensing section each image-page - a phrase to the effect of "images of St Catherine's used with permission of the College" is included.
The exceptions - that is images that you cannot use - are a minority of photographs for which the original photographer has retained copyright: these are indicated by having 'copyright Townend' included in the relevant images as a text strip.
(NB: none of the images posted contain this text strip)
Best regards,
Jamie Keats
I.T. Manager St. Catherine's College Manor Road Oxford OX1 3UJ
facsimile: 01865 271 768 telephone: 01865 281 579
64.38.3.218 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) resolves to advance.express.tc which indicates that it is an ISP proxy. Since you're a relatively new administrator, please remember to perform WHOIS, Reverse DNS lookup and DNSBL queries before blocking IP addresses in future. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Nwwaew#I have a final warning might be of interest to you. Cheers! Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you were so helpful with the last request, I've come with another one. Image:Eskimo pie box.jpg was another Smithsonian image I uploaded a few moths ago. Again, I had fair use info with it. I think what happened is that WP depreciated the {{Smithsonian}} tag and all those images picked up AFD's. I actually have the copyright info for this one. Can you restore it, please? I'll fix it within 24 hours. Thanks! -- Knulclunk 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you earlier with kind of request for WP:3O. Can you take a look at the debate going on there? I guess I am running out of time there. Thanks for the attention you have given me already. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You deleted this after I gave a detailed fair use rationale, could you either restore the image, or show me what was wrong with the rationale.
≈ Maurauth ( nemesis~☆) 14:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ashlerferlcrying.jpg was deleted by you under the grounds that it had an invalid fair use claim. In fact, that wasn't the issue originally posted at all. It was up for deletion because someone thought it could be replaced by a free image. And even that proposal was factually disputed as not being a reason for deletion in this case by a number of editors, yet all of this seems to have been ignored. The image was deleted for a reason not even related to the original disussion, without warning. Why was this? Wrad 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
We're usually in sympathy, so I am surprised you closed after a single day, I wouldn't mention it except you did, but perhaps the comment at the top of this page may have affected things? Just a rhetorical question. DGG 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I have asked for a deletion review of Template:Infoboxrequested. Since you speedy-deleted it after a related TfD was closed, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in becoming a Mediation Committee member and wanted to try out a mediation request to see if I'm up for the task. Would you mind if I took on one of the unassigned cases? -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Would you kindly restore these two images? I searched for days to find them and you've deleted the source. Was there some reason you could not ask me for whatever information you felt was missing before doing a speedy delete? Both were tagged fair use, on both the image description page and inline in the article Jeannette Piccard who owned the ballon pictured. I would have appreciated a heads up at the time rather than having to complain after the fact. - Susanlesch 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image88-13377.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image75-15326.jpg
I guess I have clearly failed to understand something here. Let me make a recap of what happened, so that you can tell what I did not understand.
The only reason for this I can understand is probably the backlog. While mass deletion may be highly required, the policies still seem to agree to take closer look at individual cases. I have been working on WP for about two years now, with 4,000 edits, 2 FAs, 2 GAs and 5 DYKs to my credit. It pains me a lot to see my hard work going down the drain so easily. All it takes is troll to follow me around who keeps slapping all kinds of tags to all my contributions. And, when I face that barrage with clear reasoning... well, suddenly, without a hint one image goes deleted.
Please, let me know where I went wrong. And, if I was not completely wrong, it is highly preferable to have the image along with the debate back. If I am completely wrong... well, go ahead with your good work. Thanks. Aditya Kabir 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
About Image:Ghoul.gif... considering ghouls are fictional/mythological, I have strong doubts about the image's ability to be replaced with a free-use image. It was deleted under I7, which isn't something reverse without asking the deleting admin (as opposed to something like a missing rationale, where I'd just undelete and provide one). Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why were the two following images deleted?
Image:Alexander Archipenko's lithograph on paper 'Le Rendez-Vous des Quatre Formes'.jpg
Image:Alexander Archipenko's bronze sculpture 'Woman Combing Her Hair'.jpg
They are both from Smithsonian Institution websites, which are specifically permitted under Wikipedia policy.
Wmpearl 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why this image New World's A-Comin'.jpg keeps on getting deleted. Maybe I have mis-categorized it and you can assist me in correcting this. The copyright holder has granted me rights to use it on Wikipedia as it is part of his promotional archive.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pokémon copyright templates. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Raven's Apprentice( Profile| PokéNav| Trainer Card) 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that...I had been trying to figure out how to get rid of that non-notable bio (just because you're in the news, doesn't make you worth having an article about you), and the redirect worked perfectly. Just hope the "We must have an article of every person in the news ever" crew doesn't notice. Regards, ^ demon [omg plz] 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Daniel 10:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and taking the time to pose an optional question in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A serious problem has popped up that involves several hundred articles, many editors, and a vast number of incidents. The short of the long is that there are five editors involved. Myself, User:Epeefleche, User:Irishguy, User:Baseball Bugs, and User:Miss Mondegreen. The disputes have included a link I inserted to a blacksoxfan site at Shoeless Joe Jackson and a handful of other relevant pages, the widespread insertion of this link on as many as 120+ articles at one time, a sock case against me, an many intense discussions like this, this, and a banning incident. I appologize if i've left anything out but the whole thing gives me a headache. Epeefleche, Baseball bugs, and Irishguy have failed miserably at focusing on the content of the discussions. I have failed to behave calmly at all times; although I have been harassed unmercilessly by those three. Miss Mondegreen has been fairly level headed during the course of the events. She has agreed at times with both sides of the issue and simply wants to discuss the relevant topics. In the confusion and anger I have both knowlingly and unkowingly "violated" the 3RR. There are a number of detailed circumstances, but at this point I just want to resolve the issues. Here are the three or four major issues as I see it at this point.
I just want this whole thing to stop. Aside from Irishguys behavior (and thus mine per my involvment), we need to refocus on the content and get personal opinions tossed out. I have a very clear and well supported stance on the two links being discussed. Miss Mondegreen does as well. I cannot say the same for the other parties involved. Before I notify anyone of this post, I want to give you some time to let this sink in. It's as bad as it can be. I will watch this page and hope we can respond here. My talk page is a haven for spam and bashing and not going to allow us to have a good discussion. Thanks for your time and I appologize for its length. // Tecmobowl 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get my signature just right, when I noticed that the date at the end of your signature is customised (its in italics). Now, I've been looking everywhere to find out how to customise the date which comes out automatically. Do you think you could tell me how to customise the signature date? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and regards, Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back! Are you sure user -> article space is grounds for deletion? I thought it was just the other way around. Thanks. DrKiernan 10:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have a quick question. Do you think my userboxes about how I feel on politics should be removed, or do you think I should remove them. I have gotten a complaint that my political userboxes should be removed. This user is also a democrat.
Thankyou,
Politics rule 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Chad, could you restore Image:Univac-model.jpg, which you speedied? I never got a chance to see the speedy tag and can add licensing information for this image. Thanks. Robert K S 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would you delete this page because of it being "blatant advertising" ? Its blatantly not! If you find that blantant advertising, then you must think every game page is blatant advertising, because its basically the same. Provide me with a reason as to why this should be deleted or i am prepared to restore it.
By the way, sorry if i sound mad, i just spent alot of time on that page and i want to know why it was just deleted, and not at the least proposed for deletion. Thanks for your reply (when it comes) D.Mather 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i see what you mean, but it is notable from other Q2 mods. In it, unlike other Q2 games, you can climb walls with no ladders, and do flips etc.. you can also wield akimbo, and it has a completely different weapon set. Btw, this isnt my game, so its not a "look at my game" page. so could this be restored, now that ive given you some explanation? Thanks D.Mather 17:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That was a surprise, especially because I've just broken the 3RR on John Wayne. Sorry. But I did have good reason. DrKiernan 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
I just noticed on AN that you blocked a user for "tendentious editing".
I know this isn't the first time that someone's been blocked with TE cited as the reason, but I would still request that you refrain from citing essays as the supporting reason for blocks. An essay is, in no way, a part of wikipedia's policy. "TE" is therefore not a blockable offense. Granted, TE does contain elements which are covered by other policies/guidelines. However, it would be far better to cite those policies, rather than citing an essay.
It may seem a minute difference to you, but the appearance of neutrality and fairness certainly matters. And if a user is complaining about possible admin abuse, then blocking them based on a non-policy certainly doesn't help to assuage people's fears.
In short, I'm not saying the block was bad. I'm just saying that citing an essay to support a block is always a bad idea. Bladestorm 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey ^demon, I don't know if you have User talk:^demon/CSD AutoReason, so I'm letting you know I posted a note there. Cheers, Iamunknown 04:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take a quick look at that sub-page. Is that not a violation of the wikipedia rules WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK? In the interest of full disclosure, when I got a load of that whopper I created User:Baseball Bugs/Links as a semi-joke. I could easily rename its title to "Users I'm watching", which I would think is fair. And he should do likewise, yes? Baseball Bugs 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I was browsing Category:Photographs and I noticed that the image had been deleted from Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park. The deletion log entry is here. I realised that the image should have had licensing information, but from the sound of it, that is an image that could easily be acceptable under fair-use if someone wrote a fair-use rationale. Would you consider undeleting the image, or should I try and find an alternative copy and upload it under fair use? Carcharoth 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to nag, but I see you are around. I wonder if you have had time to look at this yet? No rush, obviously, but just checking you haven't missed this. Carcharoth 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your impressive I have been noticing edits in numerous articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
Since one of the group that is working to present its POV, User:FatherTree (see diff: [ [2]]) continues to knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time? DPeterson talk 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion_pool, Sj ( talk · contribs) is wheel warring to get it undeleted again, for instance here. Just a heads-up. >Radiant< 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clean-up! Tony 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have determined
User:Mariam83 should be blocked for massive editwarring. At first I closed it as only warning, after which I found a much earlier warning for 3RR. Therefore it was too lenient and I believe a 48h block is needed. Can you do the job for me (I'm not an adminstrator)?
Evilclown93
(talk) 14:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see this edit for a recent bug report. DES (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of Image:Jp01.jpg. I wasn't sure the best way to handle it. You may want to add {{ rk}} to the image description page when you choose to keep contested images. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the note about the autoreason issue with IE6, but I'm one of those super smug Mac owners who deleted Internet Explorer (because you can do that on a Mac!) and use either Firefox or Safari to edit. Great tool by the way! The Rambling Man 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see you cleaned up "13:26, April 29, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania" (CSD G6: Housekeeping)". If possible, could that be undeleted and marked as an archived discussion. I had it bookmarked for reference and only now had time to go back to do some planned work, and it was gone. Thanks!
P.S. This is the only mediation/arbitration/etc. request I have on my watchlist (participated in) that's actually been deleted, all the others are still there for reference after their conclusion, whatever that was. —
Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i made a request a while ago for Dirty (game) to be undeleted , with proper explanation as to why it is unique from other Quake 2 mods, and it seems that my request has been... deleted, without reply. Any help? D.Mather 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please restore Image:Aintitcool.com screenshot.png? It wasn't actually orphaned when you deleted it, it was used in the article Ain't It Cool News. Compare the history page to the deletion log for proof. — Remember the dot ( talk) 01:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you don't think my rationales are legitimate (subjective on your part), tell me specifically what you think is legitimate so you will stop reverting me. Chris 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note [3]-- Sefringle Talk 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You deleted several images recently according as ORFU:
Please note that all those images are in use in the article Chicken Invaders. Please be careful before deleting ORFU images; check if they are in fact, actually orphaned.
Cheers! -- 122.162.74.22 (Please reply on User talk:Shreshth91) 14:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two ways of doing this. We can either just redo the redirect (I'm a very persistent guy) and blocks and anger will happen or we can go through a legitimate deletion review which I didn't get. Kingjeff 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with your claim at a fair deletion review. Kingjeff 15:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with your newest claim. Am I not allowed to respond to claims against me? Kingjeff 16:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I misreading any policy. Actually I think my interpretation is the correct one. Kingjeff 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't reposting his userpage without attributing him as the creator and showing all the page versions where it was created a violation of GFDL? I thought the full page history needed to be viewable for it to be GFDL compliant. -- Deskana (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Think what you will about Billy Joel, but claiming the images you're deleting are unused is a bit unfair. Tristanb 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can you suggest the proper avenue for resolving the ongoing disputes regarding this page? It has been the subject of an edit war, involving allegations of past and ongoing criminal activity and uncited, potentially libelous statements. The page is protected through tomorrow and then the fighting will start again. More details are contained on Talk:Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. I have no connection with either side in this fight but was drawn into the discussion while removing egregious content from the article that violated WP:LIBEL. Thanks. -- RandomHumanoid( ⇒) 06:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please restore Image:Clouds Psyche.jpg? It wasn't actually orphaned when you deleted it. It was used in the article Final Fantasy VII. Compare the history page to the deletion log for proof. Kazu-kun 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You recently deleted two images that were tagged as orphaned. That much is true, but they had not been tagged the prescribed seven days (see [
[4]]. Due to the recent change in wikipedia policy - rather the change in enforcement, I have had a large number of images tagged and am currently working dilegently to un-orphan them, but it takes time.
Image:If We Fall in Love Tonight.jpg
Image:Human (album).jpg
You'll also note there is no source - also in the process of changing due to new enforcement. Please reinstate these images so that I may make the needed updates. Thank you. (
Sampm 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
Dear demon, I am trying to establish a page for Scottish magazine Forgotten Worlds. This magazine is professionally classified by review body Tangent. Tangent is A PROFESSIONAL science ficiton review board. This was made explicit in the article, as well as a link provided for proof.
I have fulfilled the requirement mentioned previously by providing proof for the existence of this page. There is now no reason for it to be deleted. But is has been deleted again, even though I fulfilled the requirement.
Can you help?
Woomfy
Hi! My name is Ral315, and I'm the editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a weekly newspaper on the English Wikipedia. I'm sending out an optional questionnaire that I hope you'll respond to. These questions will be published in next week's issue, and hopefully translated into many languages and copied to the Meta-Wiki prior to the election. (So, if you speak multiple languages, it'd be fantastic, though certainly not required, if you'd be willing to translate your answers into any languages you speak fluently.)
There's no word limit on any of these questions, but I suggest that brevity (maybe about 300-400 words per answer) is best. If at all possible, answers should be submitted by 16:00 UTC on Monday, June 25 (though late responses will also be accepted).
I'm posting these to your talk pages because they don't really fit well on question pages (since many will repeat questions you've already answered). You can reply to me by e-mail, or at my English Wikipedia, English Wikinews or Meta talk pages.
Thanks again for answering these, and good luck in the elections.
Sincerely, Ral315
Hi ^demon; I recommend you don't delete images from here as NowCommons when they are not in a category or article on commons. I could blame this on you being unaware of that rule, but when the message by my bot says it, that excuse isn't as valid anymore :-) — METS501 ( talk) 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly new so I might not be interpreting [5] correctly, but it looks like you deleted this image because it was orphaned, but it was actually being used in the article Jennie. Why did you think it was orphaned? Is there a way you can restore Image:JennieLP.jpg? ConoscoTutto 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please do not delete Dynamically Distributed Democracy. If you do not find this page interesting that is okay, but many Wiki pages link to it as well as many pages outside the Wiki community including many pages on Delicious.
You deleted this because it was "unused and not free", but in fact, it was being used in the article for Lemony Snicket.-- CyberGhostface 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CyberGhostface 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
on the election. Bearian 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That image WAS being used. See: Yugi_Mutou
Better yet, see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=140335710&oldid=140153071
And http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=140983856&oldid=140335710
(The deletion was on "20:16, 24 June 2007")
The image WILL be reuploaded.
WhisperToMe 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: I see - I added the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=138672910&oldid=137759386 AFTER the bot tagged the image as unused, but I forgot to remove the tag! WhisperToMe 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
meta:Board_elections/2007/Candidates/^demon/questions#Wikipedia_Quality
Good answer. I hope there would be more people like you. Good luck! Rjgodoy 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
^demon, I noticed you transcluded Image:CP MEMBER.PNG into Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle. I don't think it worked. You added it at 10:59, and now it exists after being uploaded at 11:02. Just fyi, I didn't realize that cascading protection did not work for images. :\ -- Iamunknown 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2007 London car bombs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Cat chi? 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason you are deleting orphaned fairuse images before the seven days are up? I see no change to WP:CSD#I5, and yet you have deleted Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_24_June_2007, Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_25_June_2007, and Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_26_June_2007 and I assume all the images in those categories. What gives? DHowell 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to cheer you on for the Wikimedia Board Election!!! Good luck! Hope ya win! The Phoenix Enforcer 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Sarner and User:Shotwell keep deleting an item added to the section of Additional items to be mediated that Peterson added. I support that addition. Furthermore, the addition is nearly identical to the first item in that section. I appears that Sarner is deleting it since he and mercer are the subjects of the question regarding their COI and financial interests in the dispute. If you could intervene it might calm things down and facilitate the mediation process. JonesRD talk 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the reason for deleting Tilghman.S-03DA-low.jpg? It was originally obtained from the Princeton University public relations office and permission to reproduce was explicitly given.
As an aside, the replacement image came from exactly the same source. I have no particular vested interest in the image, I just want to know why it was deleted, thanks. WBcoleman 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the category from the Ōsaka and Saga prefectural templates? I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't foster contribution"...and anyway the list doesn't look right with those two missing. Manmaru 06:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
hey can you tell me why the User_ig-0 template was deleted? I understand the reason you gave for deleting the Category but what has it to do with the template? Thanks -- Kerowren ( talk • contribs • count) 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one with affection to big red emergency stop buttons. I really like how they're put up at all ski lifts in Austria. I've also set up a big red button for a bot, though it doesn't have a picture.
– b_jonas 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:OTRS#OTRS protection message needs link to this page. — Keenan Pepper 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
File:F3 3.JPG was deleted for lacking a fair use rational. According to the templates in place (or at least my interpretation at the time), the fair use rational was supposed to be placed on the talk page of the image. You will find Image_talk:F3_3.JPG has a fair use rational, which was accepted as good by the admin who initially checked the image for a rational when it was uploaded. If it is restored I'd be more than happy to change it to the new format. - sHARD 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the award mentioned is a claim of significance, so i have removed the speedy delete tag. DES (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that a discussion came about about my prototype WikiProjects but user Durova gave me a second chance, as would the rest of Wikipedia. If you want to eradicate my ideas for my WikiProjects then allow me to give feedback, instead of doing things behind my back and in the shadows. - Pat Peter 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chad, I reverted your removal of the user category from User:J.P.Lon/Userboxes/Interest-Economics. Though I agree that this needs to be done to most userboxes (especially ones with questionable/bogus categorisations ... e.g., one that states something like "N'Sync rocks!" and categorises users into Category:Wikipedians interested in music), this is a case where the userbox itself makes an explicit claim of interest in the subject: "This user is interested in economics." Cheers, Black Falcon ( Talk) 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Miyavi miyavizm cover.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This image became orphaned because someone removed it from the article without an explanation. I placed it back in the article yet your comment in the deletion log claims it wasn't being used. This image is the logo of the game the article is based on & is needed. SNS 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry nor you and I didn't get elected in the board election...but I am glad that we had the opportunity to try. Maybe next time. :) DragonFire1024 06:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
hi, do i have the right to delete this acccount? if i do, i wish to do so. I would appreciate if you could assist asap. thanks. ephix 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon. I saw the coding for your sig and tried to condense it. This should cut about 30 – 45 characters of code:
'''<font color="red">^</font>[[User:^demon|<font color="black">demon</font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:^demon|<font color="red">[omg plz]</font>]]</sup> <i style="font-size:10px;">{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</i>
Of course, it is entirely your decision if you want to make the change. :-) — « ANIMUM » 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The screenshot became orphaned because it displayed an outdated version of the software. I have updated the image to display the latest version, and I also want all of its edit history restored. -- tyomitch 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Preserving old revisions of extant pages is required to comply with GFDL. Your reluctance to retain due attribution to the past contributors to the image description page is a violation of GFDL. -- tyomitch 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello - the CSD policy for attack pages says "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")." Can you explain to me how this is satisfied by Administrator abuse? Maybe it fits your definition of "attack page" but apparently not the policy's... personally I don't feel like I'm being attacked in any way by that article :-D ugen64 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The article was deleted, I am not reversing my closure, please take this debate elsewhere, I'm not interested. ^ demon [omg plz] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that you deleted Image:53logo.JPG. It was being used in the Fifth Third Field (Toledo) article. Could it please be reinstated? A logo is allowed to be used in this situation. See WP:LOGO. Thanks. hmwith talk 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article ( Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton One 12:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please comment on the unblock request posted by User:Aim Here, whom you blocked last night, for the benefit of whatever admin reviews the request. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this image as being unused and non free...well, it's being used here, and there was no notice (as far as I know) that it was going to be deleted posted anywhere. If you could consider un-deleting (and tagging with a no-fair-use-rationale tag if you wish), it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Giggy U C P 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
When you deleted the image link to a deleted image from the Anna Ohura article, you also took out the image field of the infobox template. I've seen many people do this in the past and I don't really understand why since leaving the field in doesn't hurt anything as far as I can see. So is this just an ease of editing thing since you can just highlight the whole line of text instead of having to stop at the = sign? Just curious, Dismas| (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you saw my last post - it was archived without comment, so I'll repeat it here. I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article ( Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton One 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I see you deleted List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) and the rest of it. It was only a matter of time! Just a note though, I created that page originally by merging loads of NN robot articles together - as you probably noticed - in order to try and prevent loads of fanboy trivia clogging up AfD. So while I completely agree it wasn't really needed - as you'll see from its talk page - it might be worth keeping an eye on Category:Robot Wars, Category:Robot Wars competitors, and the contributions of User:CBFan and User:Izzy259 for a while. ELIMINATORJR TALK 11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Greets, I have removed the historical tag you applied to WP:CEM. Take a gander at my talkpage, it appears there is still interest and perhaps an impending CEM case. What are you thoughts?
Cheers! Navou 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. If there's still activity then it can keep going. It had just appeared to me to be dead. All the best, ^
demon
[omg plz] 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
you deleted this image while i was in the process of providing rationale and justification for its use.-- emerson7 | Talk 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by your reason for deleting Image:Ateam.jpg. You stated that it was unsed, yet I found out it had been deleted becuase it's no longer visible in the Infobox on the The A-Team page. As an entertainment image, these are usually allowable under fair-use. Since the image was in use at the time you deleted it, you should have given due notice to the article talk page before speedying the image, and allowed someone to correct the fair-use rationale. Please consider saving us both time by restoring the image. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
As you recently reviewed some of these, you may be interested to know that I have started a discussion at WP:FUR#22 July 2007 about the whether Games Workshop photos of Games Workshop miniatures are "replaceable" fair-use images or not. Cheers -- Pak21 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about your deletion of this image under WP:CSD#I5, as this image was used in the article At Ease and seems to have been there for over a year. — The Storm Surfer 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. There have been several cases lately where your interpretation (and possibly copyright law) has differed from mine. (I'm an admin who deals a lot with copyright issues, and I created the {{ replaceable fair use}} template.) Most of these cases involve photographs of copyrighted subjects, such as the Oscar statue and game figurines. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Fair use review. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon, can you explain why you deleted File:NASTARKidRacing2.JPG despite the fact that the deletion was contested, and without responding to the specific points I raised on its page? You said "Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago", yet you made no attempts to engage in discussion regarding its status. 12:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Obsolete NC images without rationales such as Image:Captain norton.png, Image:Norton_commander.png and Image:Norton_Commander_5.0.png are not needed in article, because modern NC 5.51 for DOS image with rationale already added and modern NC 2.01 for Windows image with rationale already added are enough to illustrate Norton Commander in DOS and Windows versions. Wikinger 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I found this in the deletion log of an image I uploaded.
12:53, 23 July 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Jackie Robinson Retired Cut.PNG" (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.)
Now, I did not recieve any kind of warning. I'd like to know what just happened behind my back while people claim that I was informed when I wasn't. -- Silent Wind of Doom 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you saw my last post - it was archived without comment, so I'll repeat it here. I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article ( Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton One 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been away from wikipedia for a while, and I just noticed that the image for the Henry O Studley article that I uploaded was deleted by you. I was enquiring as to why it was deleted, as it was properly documented with the source and the licensing info, as it is a fair use image. I am fairly sure I complied with all the wikipedia rules regarding images.
If it can be restored by you please do so. If not please send me a message on my talk page explaining what I failed to do to make the image an acceptable wikipedia image. It is my understanding that all works done by the federal government fall under the fair use license.
Thanks for any reply. CoolMike 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Restored. ^ demon [omg plz] 15:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. Is there anything I can do / should do to make the copyright/licensing notices more complete? Any suggestions would be much appreciated. It appears the old template for licensing from the smithsonian institution has been removed. CoolMike 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
could you point me to the nomination for this image for speedy delete? -- emerson7 | Talk 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll put it into next week's edition. I'll just use the online edition because even if you sent me the scan, I can't link to it! Thanks. enochlau ( talk) 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please undelete the images mentioned here so that I can add some fair use rationale? -- Prod-You 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You have been added as a party to the arbcom for violating the Foundations non-discrimination policy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon, I was wondering how you applied formatting to the timestamp portion of your signature. Please reply on my talk page, thanks! east. 718 20:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is anything progressing with this mediation? A user has placed a request on WP:RPP to have the protection removed from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but as it was protected with the statement "until med case is solved" I am hesitant to remove protection. If, however, nothing is to come from the mediation, I would like to remove protection from this article (it has been two months). Since you're listed as the one heading this case, I figured you'd know. - auburnpilot talk 23:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing administrative services to Wikipedia. The image you deleted, Image:Iran1980s.jpg was being worked on by the graphics lab in an effort to produce an image which conforms to wikipedia policy. We realize that Image:Iran1980s.jpg did not conform to policy, but nonetheless it was one of the source images for this effort, and it may have been vital to our success. We ask that you check in the future if an image is linked to by the graphics lab, or if it has the {{glhangon}} tag before deleting it. Thanks, -- BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I did read your red notice at the top of your talk page, we at the graphics lab are not claiming fair use, only that we were "in use" of the image for our project. As soon as an alternative was finished, the image in question was to be proposed for deletion, and the {{glhangon}} (if used) would have been removed as well as the link from the graphics lab. Thanks, -- BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this. — The Storm Surfer 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
hey man this is michael trying to contact with u :P add me on msn m_inpinar@hotmail.com and my myspace is www.myspace.com/mcjstyle , see ya soon ;)
You deleted this image on June 12th I believe. Can you please restore it as it is for a page of a band who i am aquainted with. i dont believe it has any copyright. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Pink Blue Thing ( talk • contribs).
Chad, I'm a freelance writer doing on a feature article for the Washington Post Sunday Magazine related to Wikipedia and the mediation of posted content. Would like to reach you by phone. Can you forward a reach number? I can be contacted at teamsport15@aol.com. Will forward my phone number is you prefer. Just give me a private email address to send it to. Thanks, Tom D.
Why was this image deleted? The image was used and released with permission by the site owner, Timo Ewalds, for use here on Wikipedia. Timo owns Nexopia and is able to extend that permission. Charles 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Why was this image deleted when it was being used on the 42 (Doctor Who) page. The reason that it is not free is unjustified because the image that replaced it is not free either. Why wasn't that image deleted?-- Brinstar 08:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee Barnstar | ||
I award ^demon the Mediation Committee Barnstar as an expression of thanks for all his hard work during his time as both an active mediator and as the Chair. Your service is greatly appreciated by all of us on the Committee, and I'm confident by mediation participants as well, as you picked up the Committee during a down-time and turned it into an energetic beast, making my job so much easier. So, thanks for all your efforts, and I feel proud to have served both under and following you. Cheers, Daniel 11:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
I am curious about your deletion of this image under WP:CSD#I5, as this image was used in the article At Ease and seems to have been there for over a year. — The Storm Surfer
OK, these articles articles aren't up to full standards, BUT YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR TO DELETE THEM! They are highly needed and if there was a way, I would probably block you from destroying any more Robot Wars articles. I'm not the one to blame and tell off people on Wikipedia, but you should be ashamed. Some Guy (Izzy259) 12:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please undelete the images mentioned here so that I can add some fair use rationale? -- Prod-You 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to know why you're deleting a shit load of the BIONICLE-related images when they -all- have fair use rationale. An example being Image:Avak.jpg. We went through a lot of trouble fighting to keep them up in the first place, and then creating fair use rationale - and I didn't even do much of that, because I was fed up with trying to keep them up. I don't want Drakhan's work to have been for nothing. -- ~|ET|~( Talk| Contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Darkthrone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}.
Argyriou
(talk) 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK,
Um what's CSD#14 which was cited as criteria to delete this image? The Terra Nova sailed from 1910-1913 so the picture is in the public domain. Thanks Andeggs 08:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have deleted the List of city nicknames article in violation of the deletion policy. Contrary to your claim, the deletion discussion didn't result in consensus to delete the article. Please restore it. · Naive cynic · 09:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You asked me to review the three remaining tagged images in the above category. Here's the result.
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Pfagerburg is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Kebron is banned from Wikipedia for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you just delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/127.0.0.1? I was in the middle of reading it off WP:BJAODN from the April Fools '06 collection. 136.159.225.175 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Reminder to change A3- "no content" to "no meaningful content". -- John Reaves 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you recently removed a fair-use disputed tag from this image, with the comment that the rationale in question was sufficient. However, it said the problem was that the image in question did not have fair use rationales for all articles it was included on. It has a rationale for 9/11 but not for Osama Bin Laden. I was just wondering if I'm just not understanding the fair use requirements properly here, or if this was an oversight. -- Haemo 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Chad, what is the reason behind deleting the two images Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg and Image:Kattankudi.jpg? I had given a fair use rational as far as I can remember. I was not informed of any licensing issues of the image by anyone. NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:SacredHeartPioneers.png. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. fuzzy510 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, ^demon, could you please delete an edit of mine? I want to move Paul Ernst (disambiguation) back to Paul Ernst, because it was a mistake to move it. But I cannot do that, because I edited the redirect . I thank you!-- walkee talkee 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a freelance writer from Baltimore, MD doing a story for the Washington Post Sunday Magazine on Wikipedia. Would like to talk with you, preferably by phone. Please contact me via my private email address: teamsport15@aol.com. Thanks, T. Dunkel
I see that you removed the tags from this... I was just about to delete it. Is there anywhere we can take this for a centralized discussion of whether this is fair use? It seems silly to have this copyrighted image when the only unique thing about it is this ribbon from the memorial... The article isn't on the tombstone or even the memorial, it's on the massacre. I think a free image of the tombstone would be perfectly adequate--it's not like the ribbon adds anything to the picture. Calliopejen1 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a new admin and still learning the ropes.... I saw yesterday a page somewhere that explained how to add tags to archive the talk page for an image when you delete it. Can you point me to that page or just explain what the tags are, so I can delete that memorial image? Thanks, Calliopejen1 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to politely request that when you delete images, you also remove them from articles using them. Red image links are ugly, and red image links with a template below saying "the above image has been tagged for speedy deletion" are even uglier. Thank you! -- Schneelocke 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why you deleted Image:Gilbert_Shelton.GIF without bothering to reply to my arguments. Now the article on Gilbert Shelton has to go without a portrait of Gilbert Shelton. Maikel 10:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you cite a couple of examples of the entries that you thought "could be considered borderline libel"? I looked through the list and didn't notice any of that sort. Deor 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Those are ones that stood out, especially the first one. ^ demon [omg plz] 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted Kaiaphas.jpg This image was taken from the Official Ancient Website - http://www.ancientband.com, who are the copyright holders and the official source of the image, and the image was released into public domain by them in 1998. Here is the link to the image itself on the official site http://www.ancientband.com/biella4.html Can you restore it please? Todesfee 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, i will do that, and i'll ask you to check if i did everything right so it doesn't get deleted again.... Todesfee 19:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i am trying to upload the image again but i can't seem to find the template for the public domain release, could you please help me with that? Here is the link to the gallery page of the site, where it says that the images have been released into the public domain :
http://www.ancientband.com/ancient_gallery.html
Thank you.
Todesfee 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a question pending for you on the request page. Please take a look when you can respond there as this is currently only partially complete. -- After Midnight 0001 10:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Please note that I am requesting the undeletion of this image for use in History of Microsoft only, as per the rationale. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 07:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
For Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition and all subcats I will request deletion review as there were more Keeps than Deletes unless you make a valid counterpoint - this request uis per rules for Deletion Review Mikebar 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why you thought this was unused. It was in use at Delirious?. Please undelete. The Evil Spartan 18:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
About speedies: see my post here, it applies to you too. Please be more careful in the future.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of sportspeople by nickname. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Deor 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg at this time. You stated that the image was deleted because it was not used. But it was being used in two separate talk pages to try to address the reason it was replaced. There were notes in the file that the image had been replaced with one of poorer qualitity and the reason for replacing the image had been requested. So far there has been no response to my request. I would like to replace the poor quality image with the image you deleted. The deleted image has a complete fair use statement where as the replacement image does not. Would you consider undeleteding the image so that it can be used. Dbiel ( Talk) 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A journalist from the Washington Post Sunday Magazine was interested in talking with you, but was having difficulty contacting you. Raul654 12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
hey there, this is purley about getting in contact with u. who am i? email\msn me - gorant87@msn.com
wanna actually see who i am.. www.myspace.com/babyash87
what im after..your email :) im voting for u. goodluck. x
Please restore city_plaza.jpg, it is a fair use image as stated at the source web site www.cityplaza.ca: "Photographs are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. Photographs may not be distributed or used in any form unless this source is cited and the copyright holders BITNETS Inc. and the URL of this document http://www.cityplaza.ca receive appropriate attribution."
Hi Demon
I am atrades from the UK and just recently started getting invloved with wikipedia but been spending loads of time on AboutUs,org I have just recently been viewing your nomination for the board and I was intrested in your views, hope you dont mind.
I have just fought for the keeping of John Smeaton Baggage handler and I was wondering what your thoughts are on this.
Atrades
I have undone this recent deletion by your bot ^demon. I ask you to discuss this deletion at the category talk page.
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
I award ^demon the Editor's Barnstar for his exellent and hard work at XfD's Marlith T/ C 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hi, Patrick Hillery is still alive, so the image is not legitimate fair use. — Angr 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)õ
Hi there, it appears you deleted Image:Nightshade 3.gif and Image:Jetpac.gif as being unused, when they were in fact used in Nightshade (video game) and Jetpac respectively. Could you please undelete these? Cheers, Miremare 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Adrak, who had vandalised me quite some time ago, had his userpage deleted by you beacuse of WP:NOT but I now see it is agian being used for this purpose. Maybe you would have a look to see if you agree and take any necessary action as appropriate. Cheers. ww2censor 16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was deleting images from the same category at the same time as you, and found that you had just beaten me to it when I was about to remove an image from a page before deleting it. I then looked at your contributions, and found that you manage to remove several images from articles every minute. Are you using some special tool? If so, can I use it too? I find that removing images from articles really slows me down when I'm working my way through a category of images ready for deletion. By the way, I use User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js for tagging images, but although I'm not fully familiar with it yet, I don't think there's anything in it that helps to orphan an image that you're about to delete. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
To ^demon for all his phenomenal hard work deleting crappy images, despite the backlash he suffers for it everyday. Keep doing what you do, it makes life a lot easier for the rest of us ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hello, I found your page while viewing the Mediation page. I had a few questions before putting in a request for mediation. I wanted to make sure I would be able to, as I am not either party of the dispute. Also, the dispute has run on not only 1 article's talk page, but 2- as well as spilling over onto several members' talk pages. I know I am only giving you general information, but does this seem to be grounds for a mediation? - Fall Of Darkness 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this AFD. I was planning on grasping the third rail tonight and closing it in the same direction. Your close summary was less incendiary than mine would have been. GRBerry 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see no basis for a consensus on this issue. I count 59 who wanted it deleted, and 45 who wanted it kept. Please elaborate how you arrived at the conclusion that a deletion was determined, aside from your own judgment on the issue. -- Leifern 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see the AfD, my comments are there, and the follow-up by User:Hemlock Martinis better explains exactly what I was thinking. As far as "own judgment" on the issue, I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck one way or the other about the article, which is why I closed the debate. I'm well aware that both sides of the debate were probably trying to get an "impartial" admin (ie: one who has an opinion but hasn't stated it) to close the debate and swing it their way. It happens with every controversial AfD such as this, and nobody can deny it. I decided to read the debate, and close it, before any "impartial" admin could come in and pass judgment. ^ demon [omg plz] 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping up to the plate on this one. For the record, I think you got the policy issues about right - Hemlock Martinis' longer explanation is very much what I was thinking (albeit he put it much more elegantly than me) when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid. -- ChrisO 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have already merged the content of the deleted article into Human rights in China, where the research can copyediting can continue. Now that this is hopefully behind us, I would encourage editors to give a helping hand to merge all other "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" into other more relevant articles based on the same arguments presented at the close. Proposals have been posted in each one of these articles. I intend to effectuate these merges, in the coming days pending discussion at these talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This issue can be discussed places other than my talk. I'm not commenting on it anymore, so posting here is useless. ^ demon [omg plz] 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You stated when deleting the image that it was an unused non-free image, when it was in fact being used, on the Middlesbrough F.C. article and that of the Middlesbrough F.C. Reserves and Academy. For fair use it represents the logo of a company (Middlesbrough Football Club), obtained from club website, at low resolution, no non-copyright version available, used for informational purposes, and its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it is the primary means of identifying the subject of this article. I would request that you please restore the image. Thanks. -- Simmo676 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Much the same as the above comment, i would like to borrow his reasoning but in regards to the crest of Arsenal F.C., it was being used - On the main Arsenal F.C. page. I was just passing through and noticed the red link at the top of the page. thanks Woodym555 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Motion seconded. And to add, pretty much every professional Football club article, from every league, has the crest. Why single out 1 or 2 from the hundreds? Please restore. Ryecatcher773 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern ( talk • contribs)
Why did you delete Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg at this time. You stated that the image was deleted because it was not used. But it was being used in two separate talk pages to try to address the reason it was replaced. There were notes in the file that the image had been replaced with one of poorer qualitity and the reason for replacing the image had been requested. So far there has been no response to my request. I would like to replace the poor quality image with the image you deleted. The deleted image has a complete fair use statement where as the replacement image does not. Would you consider undeleteding the image so that it can be used. Dbiel ( Talk) 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The preceeding post was archived without a reply. It is being reposted prior to filing a formal complaint about a Rogue Admin abusing his power. Dbiel ( Talk) 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I had disputed the claim that File:HMAS Armidale.jpg was replacable on the image's talk page and there was no response. On what grounds did you delete this image? -- Nick Dowling 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
In reference to your progressive deletion of user cats- what, if any, reason would be good enough to defend a cat here? As many discussion have concluded, simply being interested in a subject is not correlated with knowing anything about it. I bring this up not to be (necessarily) disagreeable, but to speed up what seems to be inevitable. For that matter I don't see the relevance in 90% of user cats. In Category:Wikipedians there are 18 subcats. It seems like these at least lend themselves to collaboration:
Possibly
and some subcats in
I mean really let's be serious here! It seems like it would be easier/quicker to start at the top instead of the bottom. As surely you have noticed the arguments from one to the other don't differ greatly in content or participants. So I believe it would not require that much effort. Unless of course you feel that there would be more resistance at the top b/c more people would get involved. That could potentially stop the whole thing.............( Sampm 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
Hello! You deleted six images as "non-free and unused" that were in fact being used in articles, and all had fair use rationales. None had any kind of deletion template, except for the fact that they had all just been reduced to fair use size and needed their old revisions deleted. I think what must have happened was that you perhaps went to delete the old revisions, and got mixed up (since I see you've been doing a lot of image cleanup).
The images in question are Image:AyakashiSM.JPG, Image:Ann-hu.JPG, Image:Ail-hu.JPG, Image:Makaiju.JPG, Image:Sailor moon us deleted violent pic.jpg, and Image:Sailor moon us title.jpg. Because this all strikes me as pretty clearly a mistake, I've restored them all to save time; please don't construe this as my trying to undermine your action, though. If you meant to do it, we can come up with a different plan of action.
If you need help checking any of the other images you gone through, I'd be happy to lend a hand.
Thanks, Masamage ♫ 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I have just closed this DRV, overturning the deletion of all the categories except "Deceased Wikipedians", as consensus demonstrated that the conditions of the living were fundamentally different (and more open to collaboration) than those of the dead, and that the "Deceased Wikipedians" category had unduly distorted the discussion. The diseases of the living will need to be relisted at CfD. I could do this procedurally, but I thought you might make a more compelling nomination (as the original CfD nominator) than I would be able to. If you would rather not relist yourself, just let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You speedy deleted this under WP:CSD#G4, recreation of previously deleted content. The previous deletion discussion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity Explored) in 2005, focused on the advertising nature of the article, and when asked to indicate what about the very short article made it an ad, one editor said: "The only information to speak of is "It is similar to the Alpha Course" and a link, that is what makes it an ad (Link to a site advertising a product, without substantial content): the page lacks sufficient context to be a stub: other courses similar to Alpha can of course be discussed in Alpha Course. It may be true that Christianity Explored is significant, but the reader would not know and be able to verify that from reading the article and its links." That comment seems to sum up the views of those who favored deletion in 2005 pretty well. I don't think that the version just deleted fits that description. The more recent version contains several sentences of description of the course, and gives a significantly better explanation of what it is and why it might be notable. i don't think it is "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." as WP:CSD has it. Please consider undelting this, or do you think the matter ought to be reviewed on DRV? I know it has been discussed on ANI in the context of MattCrypto's undeletion. DES (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christianity Explored. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - this isn't what CSD G4 is for, full stop. and, Nondistinguished... "upon learning this was a recreation of deleted content"? You learned no such thing, could not have as you are not an admin, and it's become quite apparent that it's untrue anyway. Random832 11:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You recently posted the following message on my talk page:
I do not take kindly to threats, especially pseudonymous ones, and I do not let them affect my behaviour. This is the only communication you will receive from me.
For the purposes of this response only, I will assume that you are acting in good faith.
You are correct that I have concluded that at least one of the contributors to the so-called discussion on Talk:Commonwealth Realm is not acting in good faith (and possibly more -- most of the "supporters" have never appeared in that forum before). It does happen you know. If you had reviewed the actual behaviour of the individual in question, you would have seen that I have reasonable grounds for doing so. You would also have seen that other people in the discussion who formerly assumed they were dealing with an honest actor have increasingly come to my point of view.
Dealing with the undemocratic and the intolerant who exploit the assumption of good faith to their own ends is a classic problem of tolerance. The first step is to recognise that that is what you are dealing with. The next is to call it out for what it is. I accept that once or twice I have been intemperate in doing so. However I stand by the substance of the charge. -- Chris Bennett 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so the previous image I asked you to undelete had been unused in a period up to deletion. However deleting Image:EVA01 in Tokyo.jpg by CSD I5 is just silly, as the last revision of Evangelion (mecha) before ImageRemovalBot comes along has the image in use. That edit is dated 2007-08-01, while the image was deleted on 2007-08-06. What's going on? -- Pekaje 21:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)I restored the one you mentioned. I'll dig through my logs later and get them. I *think* it was only about 30 or so. ^ demon [omg plz] 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I erred in my judgment that the AFD for Allegations of Chinese apartheid was closed early, and I'd like to offer my apology for that mistake. I still think that your determination was wrong and misguided, but I have every reason to believe it was made in good faith. Finally, my comment that you are someone "who takes curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Wikipedia" was an unnecessary editorial comment. It was an honest observation but could have been construed as an attempt to poison the well against your decision, and that was not my intent. So you have my apologies for that as well. -- Leifern 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
You mentioned in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007 that the way to get bugs fixed was to vote for them in bugzilla. Voting isn't used to determine priority or anything else in our bugzilla, but rather as a sort of watchlist for the bugs (see this comment for example). Although the only comments about this that a brief search found were a bit old, I didn't see anything refuting it, so I assume it's still true. Just letting you know. -- Sopoforic 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
When I saw "Rouge admins" on your user page, I became a little worried. Now, I understand that it is only for fun. Anyway, User:Ragib fully protected the article Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and took Wikibreak. Please remove the protection. I want to add important information on the article. Thank you. RS2007 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you restore Image:Dogcow.png? You deleted it under CSD I5 (unused fair-use), but it was present in an article. Zetawoof( ζ) 08:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
On 21/06, you deleted the above category, as well as Category:Wikipedian bagpipe players-1/2/3/4 as WP:CSD#C1, however I don't think the categories were empty - My userpage on this date [10] puts me in 2 of these categories.
Could you please restore the categories? Cheers, Davidprior 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ^demon, since I got involved with image work, I've been regularly getting messages asking why I deleted a particular image. I've usually managed to sort it out fairly amicably. I have a very nasty vomiting bug at the moment, and will be either completely absent or just making a very small number of edits a day for a while. If you look at my user page and my talk page, you'll see that I've asked people to take their queries to you or Howcheng or Quadell. I probably should have asked your permission first, but I'm feeling a bit wobbly and just want to go straight back to bed. If you're busy, or have any reason to feel that this request is unwelcome, please feel absolutely free to remove your name from my two pages. I won't be offended at all. I do make mistakes, though I think they're more in image tagging than in image deletion, especially when I'm working too fast. So if you are asked about it, please feel free to undo any action of mine if you think you should. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that you redeleted a page that is involved in an Arbitration case that revolves around allegations of a wheel war - in this case, the deletion and undeletion of BJAODN pages. You might find it better to wait until Arbcom finishes its arbitration to see whether or not it's the right thing to do. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
2007-07-30T03:09:02 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Favorites.PNG" (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.) I added the fair use rationale per policy to that image, and noted it in Talk for Bookmarks (computers). The original uploader was unresponsive, but I saw the need for the image, and wrote a necessary and sufficient (per policy) rationale, not an "extensive" (non-policy) one. Since editors can debate and defend (per policy) content added by other editors, I added the rationale to bring this image into compliance. %5Edemon failed to notify ME, the author of the rationale, of any defect remaining in the rationale, so this image was not deleted per policy. Please restore the image, as its removal destroys a valid example of the subject of the article. I would have requested this before, but I received no notice in my watchlist that the image was deleted(this flaw in WP should be corrected). -- Lexein 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i have fixed the license and the description for this image, can you please check if everything is right and let me know if i can put it back into the article?
thank you
Todesfee 13:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, last month you deleted Black Widow (woman) as an expired Prod. Perhaps you would userfy it to me, please, so that I can see what can be done with the article? BlueValour 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As chair of the mediation committee, I wonder whether you can advise me whether a WP:RFM is the appropriate course of action in the following dispute? I edit a number of British geographical articles, and a recurring, if trivial sounding, dispute is on the use of flags for the constituent countries of the UK. Although it's not an issue I have any particular views on, the edit wars that result can be highly disruptive, and I've tried e.g. with a MedCab session in May to get the discussion moved to one central place. Although both parties agreed with that MedCab, the result isn't really being respected, and when I submitted a second MedCab request last week, it was suggested that a more formal means of mediation would be appropriate.
Although at root, this is a content dispute, it's one that I think will go on and on indefinitely, and unfortunately I don't think an RFM will affect that. What I'm hoping might be possible from an RFM is that the dispute can be kept in just one place and that a template (which already exist) can be used to transclude the prevailing opinion into all of the individual articles. I.e. the issue I'm wanting mediation is not what the articles should say (the content dispute), but rather where and how the discussion should continue. And I'm not sure whether that's something that is legitimately within the scope of an RFM. I wonder whether you can advise?
As I say, my interest is not in how the underlying flag dispute is settled; it's in minimising the disruption across Wikipedia whilst it is discussed, and perhaps eventually resolved.
— ras52 11:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to see the wikipedia article about Sieges Even, and i saw that it was deleted by you. I belive this article should be restored. This is a notble band, being one of the most importent progressive metal bands in the world. I came from the USSR and currently live in Israel, i dont know German, and yet even i know them and how legendery they are in the genre. If you are not interested in the genre you might not know them, but those who are interested in the genre know. I'll tell you the truth, i'm not such a fan of their music. I like mostly Russian rock, and from the west i like Pink Floyd. Nevertheless, even i know how legendery they are considered to be. Even if the article is low-level now, thats why wikipedia is a free-edit. Editors will come and improve it. M.V.E.i. 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
In reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Winamp2.PNG (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.)
-- Lexein 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I reiterate points 1-4 above -- Lexein 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been labelled...
...THE DESTROYER OF FUN! citation needed :-). ~ Wikihermit 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this image citing WP:CSD#I7, but Roy Conrad had died several years ago; a replaceable image would seem hard to come by. Could you consider undeleting it, please? Thank you. -- Kjoon lee 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Demon, how you doing? I would like to know if you could reconsider and unblock User:YoSoyGuapo, so that the person may have his account back. I know that he was "Hot-Headed", but who hasn't been Hot-Headed in the begining of there experience with Wiki? I have mediated with him [11] and he has agreed to oberve our ways, see: [12]. He has requested that his original user name be returned and I believe that we can give a chance with the unstanding that if violates the agreement, he will be banned. I would like you to do it since you, with all the right in the world, blocked him. Tony the Marine 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
commons:Category:Historical film as animated gif
Hope it comes in handy. ~Kylu ( u| t) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I tagged Image:1927Chickendance.jpg as disputed, and the uploader keeps removing the tag without adjusting the rationale or even leaving an edit summary. I'm not sure what to do. Can you help at all? Jay32183 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Demon,
Could please explain to me the rationale for deleting that image. I'm assuming it failed some fair use criteria, but the rationale was there, so I don't know why it was CSD'ed. Thanks!-- Dali-Llama 01:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So you reckon I should be able to my original user name Nokian70? I won't mind changing it to comply with the rules if necessary, but naturally would love to keep it if possible. Please advise. Thanks again Nokian70 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Variety says that Jake Weber was cast in the film. Do you have a reliable source saying that this has changed? IMDb does not count as it is user-submitted and does not meet reliable source criteria for future films. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sawblade05 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:WEB item 3 says "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". wikimedia is both notable and independent of any neapolitans. period. WP:WEB covers assertions of notability by websites, so SCD A7 is null. Even if not, SCD is most definitely superceded by AfD rules. `' Míkka 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't play logical word games here: WP:WEB one of notability guideline on Wikipedia. Association with wikimedia is clearly stated in the very first sentence. `' Míkka 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You previously CSDed Patrick Nash. It is likely a different Patrick Nash than we will create this week for our WP:CHICOTW. Let me know if it becomes a problem in the next few days.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the abruptness of this message, but I would like to know if you could compare IP addresses of two users for me. If you can, the users are..
I am a mini-moderator on a forum and need to know if these IPs match each other due to an issue we are having. Please let me know via my Talk Page. Thanks!
-- Schmoofy 01:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
You tirelessly work towards the improvement of Wikipedia and ensuring that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are enforced. In particular, your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members was brave and intelligent. You applied the rules of Wikipedia and treated the discussion as such, instead of a vote. Good work!!! We need more people like you around. Vassyana 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
I don't understand it, I'd like to hear your comments on the Keeps that were well-founded. You seemed to ignore them. - The Norse 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted three .ogg files from this page under speedy criterion I7 (invalid fair use claim). What was the disputed claim? This article passed FA status less than a week ago, and no one had any problems with the fair use rationale. Chubbles 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the uploader does not appear to have been notified: the uploader was Ceoil, and I do not see a warning in the last month of that user's talk page history. Chubbles 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...
Also relevant is
You deleted the cat Wikipedians Nice to Newcomers. That was a wrong call, the cat is at the same level as the participants of the kindness campaign or other similar cats, it defines participants in the campaign Please do not bite the newcomers. Please don't delete it again Vanished user 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the category may point newcomers to Wikipedians who are more receptive and used to their common mistakes.
"When to use categories : Categories help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." this also applies, a newcomer willing to get some sympathetic ear after been bitten, will go to the category to find a Wikipedian who knows what a newcomer may suffer through misunderstanding and who can explain them what is going on. You very well know that not all Wikipedians are equal. The category stays. Vanished user 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Take this elsewhere. I honestly don't care enough about the stupid category to waste my talkpage on it. ^ demon [omg plz] 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Demon, how you doing? I would like to know if you could reconsider and unblock User:YoSoyGuapo, so that the person may have his account back. I know that he was "Hot-Headed", but who hasn't been Hot-Headed in the begining of there experience with Wiki? I have mediated with him [13] and he has agreed to oberve our ways, see: [14]. He has requested that his original user name be returned and I believe that we can give a chance with the unstanding that if violates the agreement, he will be banned. I would like you to do it since you, with all the right in the world, blocked him. Tony the Marine 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted Image:AnotherVersionofthePast.jpg since it was not free and not being used, and you rightly deleted it. Unfortuantely I didn't realize that the image was unused and pending deletion, so I didn't place it back into the article it was intended for. As far as I can tell, the image was taken out of Chronology of the Year Zero alternate reality game without any discussion. I would like to put the image back there, so I was hoping you could undelete the image for me. I appreciate your help. Drewcifer 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, regarding your post to WP:AN - I'm with you on the "We fight too much", and partway there on the "Admins are elitist bastards" (though I'd preface it with "A handful of..." and leave out the "bastards"). Mostly, I'm curious as to what you had in mind to fix the issues you listed. MastCell Talk 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your reason for speedily deletion. All three are discussed extensively in Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). Are FU files now explicitly disallowed. This is the second request. Ceoil 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
All restored, sorry for the confusion. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you - once again - used CSD:T1 for a userbox in userspace. I thought that it had been abundantly clear that T1 does not apply to userspace (see [15] [16]). I kindly request that you restore the deleted userbox and let the MfD discussion run it's course, though I can only wonder if you intentionally deleted this box using CSD:T1 to cause wikidrama. 84.145.234.170 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
It is correct that userboxes were not userfied to "circumvent T1" -- they were userfied to circumvent conflict. The essence of my position, and those opposed to your speedy, is that T1 is a very contentious criterion, with a troubled history. It's application within to template space is likely to be subject to more disputes than usual (and by disputes, I mean disputes among regular, knowledgeable editors, not the clueless feedback we get from newbies over every deletion we make.) It's application outside of template is unneeded -- any userbox that should be deleted under T1 would be deletable as G3 or G10 in userspace. The use of T1 in userspace is a provocative act, and is likely to reignite the "userbox war" -- it should be avoided for that reason alone. It is for this reason that T1 is specifically, by its own terms inapplicable to userspace.
Substantively, the box wasn't clearly speediable under any criteria at all. I'm not sure if you're an American, but -- as the MfD highlighted -- there is a dialect-disjunction with the word "pimp," which is (regrettably) used by many in America to refer to a certain ostentatious lifestyle, only very remotely associated with prostitution and/or illegal activity. It is true that the box is unclear; and for this reason, I would favor its ultimate deletion, but this matter is much too complicated to fit under any speedy criterion.
Finally, there is the matter of timing. On a fourth day -- so close to a consensus close -- speedy deleting just ignited a new fire. If GRBerry hadn't speedily undeleted, a new MfD would have been necessary, too much time having elapsed. Just give the issue the 24 hours needed for settlement, rather than speedying and adding a possible 120 hours to the wiki-drama. Irrespective of the box's merit, that is a pragmatic calculus every drama-hating editor should respect.
Sorry to trouble you, but you had questioned my comment at the DRV, and I wanted to clarify. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"Phedon Papamichael is set to direct "From Within," an independently financed thriller that will star Thomas Dekker ("Heroes"), Elizabeth Rice, Adam Goldberg and Jake Weber." Please do not remove verifiable information. IMDb is user-submitted and fails to be a reliable source -- it has even listed Aunt May as Carnage for Spider-Man 3 at one point. Unfortunately, a complaint from someone is not a verifiable source. If you have a verifiable citation that says he is not involved with the film, feel free to provide it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Demon, the user page in OTRS ticket #1076845 has been recreated once again, with the copyright violations still intact. I removed the copyrighted text, but isn't there a more permanent solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klumcup ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Demon / Persian Poet Gal: Unfortunately, the same person is back, with a new user account and the same old copyright violations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Limitedlincolns
He's nothing if not persistent! Klumcup 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a pending request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review to restore the Old Talk:Lizzie Grubman content that you deleted. Please let me know whether you plan to restore the page so that I can close out that Lizzie Grubman request #2 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review (and regain some control over that page). Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, demon! I'm writing in response to your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković, which I'm reproducing here: Comment: I echo Daniel's rejection, and I must add that I reject it with prejudice against re-requesting. This has been requested 3 times within 24 hours, and rejected every time. There is no consensus for a page move, and trying to force mediation will not change it--as mediation works on consensus as well. Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason why this should be continually debated again. Iff there seems to be a wider consensus for a move and perhaps for mediation, then I wouldn't be opposed to a case being reconsidered, but at this present time, please do not post it again
I think you have misunderstood the issue (or perhaps it wasn't well stated in the RfM, which didn't come from me). The idea is not to remove the redirect, but to reverse its direction so that Novak Djokovic is the article, per WP:NAME, and Novak Đoković is the redirect. Consequently, "redirects are cheap" isn't a relevant argument.
Also, I don't really understand the last part of your comment. If there is a consensus for a move, no mediation is needed, right? :-) -- Tkynerd 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:LionelBarrymore.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković, you said the proposal had been submitted three times in 24 hours, but it was only submitted once by me, and only once total to my knowledge.
There seemed to have been a bot error earlier. The notice that mediation had been denied was posted to my and everyone else's Talk page three times, for example, before being cleaned up by the users and an admin. Perhaps the same happened to the Mediation Committee, in which case the request was not proposed three times, only reported three times.
If that is not the case, can you please clarify? Right now your reproach seems awfully unfair. -- Yano 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to address this Wikipedia:Bot requests#Template:Unreferenced bot request? I was expecting to see some impact in Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and have not yet so just checking in. Jeepday ( talk) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
When you deleted the image InnerSolarSystem-en.png, it disappeared from the page Definition of planet. If you could explain how to re-link to the image from the commons, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Serendipod ous 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:33 18 September 2007 (GMT).
I noticed that you blocked my ability to upload this image. After these discussions with Riana, I have made some modifications to the image that should reduce the similarity that so concerned the complainant on the OTRS ticket. Please could you remove the block so I can upload the new image. Note that I have also asked Riana to unblock the upload, but it appears Riana is offline despite what statusbot says :-). Thank you. Astronaut 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I was very disappointed to see your assumption of bad faith and insulting behavior on the Mzoli's deletion discussion.-- Jimbo Wales 19:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi demon. Can you please delete [Image:Midway Airport Runway 4R (Brett B. Despain).jpg]. The author had requested it be deleted as he is going to sell it. I saw you deleted it yesterday, but I re-uploaded it because I thought it was deleted for a different reason. I checked my email today and saw he wrote me telling me he wanted it off so when you have a chance can you delete the image for me. Thanks alot! Sox 23 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You do realise my comments on this MfD were intended as humorous? Both you and Riana seem to have taken them somewhat too seriously - [17] [18]. I wasn't trying to make editcount a big issue; it was a comment intended to lighten the mood in a somewhat contentious MfD (in which, incidentally, I didn't have a strong opinion). Walton One 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
As you have updated the graph at Template:Notability progress in the past I thought you should know that the categories are being moved.
Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from July 2007 will go to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from July 2007
Hope this helps,
It seems you deleted all of the templates in WP:DOT, both the ones that were currently marked and the ones that were ready for deletion. There's supposed to be a fourteen day period in between the tagging and the deletion to ensure sufficient time for any possible unknown substitutions or transclusions to be noticed. While it seems illogical to undelete the templates simply to re-delete them, please just be careful with these templates in the future. I know that they all qualify for WP:CSD#G6, and frankly, I could delete all of them under that criterion myself if I wanted to, however, the agreement on WP:TFD was to give a waiting period. I assume this was a simple misunderstanding; if not, please let me know. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey ... I noticed when I went to salt something else that Image:BurjDubaiHeight.png was transcluded in Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle. I have removed it because the image exists. (Salting an image doesn't stop an admin from uploading it and, in fact, an admin attempting to upload it won't so much as get a warning that it is salted ... this is one huge problem with completely getting rid of the old method of salting - someone acting in good faith never realizes that they shouldn't upload the image. But I digress.) Anyway, I saw where you had deleted it as a copyvio based on an OTRS ticket and the admin who uploaded it claims GFDL. I don't have access to OTRS and don't really care one way or the other ... I simply removed it from the protected titles list because it exists. If it is still a copyvio, you may wish to delete it and/or take it up with the uploader. -- B 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For having the guts to enforce policy even if the creator was Jimmy Wales I award you this barnstar. We need more people like you and less people who care more about their status on Wikipedia than policy which is what adminship was created to uphold. No one is above the project - no matter who they are. EconomicsGuy 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
You deleted my sandbox, User:WikiDon-Sandbox, I might have named it wrong. Maybe it should have been User:WikiDon/Sandbox, please recover my text, and put it in a sandbox for me. WikiDon 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. ^ demon [omg plz] 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not, it's been at User:WikiDon/Sandbox ever since I said I was done... ^ demon [omg plz] 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Here's the logs:
Hope that clears it up. ^ demon [omg plz] 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: Can you put the deleted comments (if any) from User talk:WikiDon-Sandbox into > User talk:WikiDon/Sandbox. Thanks. WikiDon 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not repost the content here or restore it, but the jist of it was that the subject of the article has issues with her personal life (husband, kids, that kind of thing) being published on Wikipedia. The reason I got involved is because I had a complaint come in to the Wikimedia Foundation's e-mail system (which we handle via the OTRS software package). ^ demon [omg plz] 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon,
I'm writing a little feature for my newspaper about the Mzoli's Meats debate, and was hoping to get a comment from you about that subject. Please drop me an email (see embedded comment) if you have a chance.
Hello, I'm just renewing my request here, as I'd very much like to present a balanced picture of the above situation, and to do so I still need a perspective from an informed dissenter. I would most certainly appreciate your insights, and thanks again for your time. HarpooneerX 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You deleted a picture of ryūsuke mita's self portrait Momomai 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Daisy Wallace 25 september 2007
Hi. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think links should not be removed from articles that have been speedied for copyvio. If anything, the copyvio may actually validate the link (it usually means that the subject is notable), and a redlink is not a real problem for this project. Dahn 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
i was just wondering why my page was deleted so speedily. I had been in contact with the person who flagged my page and had posted the contention code. I also had an adoption tag while i was trying to make good faith revisions to bring the page up to wiki standards. So why a complete deletion less than 24hrs after the flag? No discussion allowed here? This is an elementary school's user page - it's intended to be for their use to research and create articles. I know that other schools have such pages and wanted to know how our page differs from theirs - what we can do to fix it. Please help me to understand what i need to do!
Harlemacademy 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. What happened to the Template Astronomy_portal_daily_picture? All I see is the log entry, when you deleted it, and giving as cause 'CSD G6'. I can not for the life of me understand why this is falling under this reason. I was using it often and did not see any discussion about deleting/merging/moving it. What am I missing? Thanks! Awolf002 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[19] Congratulations :) Melsaran ( talk) 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Demon , can you remove this image it came from here ,- bottom of page- © 2007 The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam Pty Ltd, as trustee for The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam (Is-Da-Happen). All rights reserved. Perpetual copyright claimed.) Adidam is very firm on copyright , thanks , if you think it should remain please explain why this is .
[20] image address -- Scribe5 10:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I realise that it may be a pain, but would you comment on each of the subcats? I'm waiting for AMBot to tag the cats, and there's a possibility that a few of these may see some "lively" discussion. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you undelete Image:Sing A Long by Pete Seeger album cover.jpg? You deleted it because it wasn't used in an article, but it was used in an article. It was there in April [21], and then the link was deleted in August [22] because it had been deleted by you in July, and there were no intervening edits. - Peregrine Fisher 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ^demon. I see that you and WJBscribe ( talk · contribs) blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats, but I don't quite understand why. The presence of some bad-faith comments on that page doesn't seem a sufficient reason for hiding its contents from casual visitors. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking allows for a page to be blanked for reasons such as invasion of privacy, libel and emotional distress — but I don't see any of those reasons applying to the Mzoli's AfD. In general, I don't think it's a good idea to blank Wikipedia process pages, especially when they've gained media attention: to the casual viewer, it will appear as if we're trying to hide dirty laundry.
Other folks are also asking about the blanking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats, and you may wish to comment there. If there's something about this that you'd rather not discuss on-wiki, you can email me via the "email this user" link on my user page. However, unless there's more here than meets the eye, it looks to me as if there's not a lot of support for this courtesy blanking, and you might want to reconsider it. Thanks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was this article deleted? The deletion log says "blatant advertising", but there was no advertising on the page, at very least not "blatant" and worthy for speedy deletion. Karen Strassman is notable for many roles in anime and video games. -- EmperorBrandon 15:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't do image deletions blindly! You have deleted at least one image ( Image:Dibenzylideneacetone.PNG) without even checking if it's availible on Commons. Conscious 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Trixie and Dean Koontz.jpg was tagged with {{ di-replaceable fair use}}. I responded by adding {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}} with a detailed explanation of why I felt this assessment to be in error. You subsequently deleted the image with the following edit summary:
I would appreciate an explanation of why you failed even to acknowledge this dispute or my explanation. I am concerned that this evidence that the {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}} template is meaningless, used only to mislead editors into believing falsely that they may dispute the formally unremovable {{ di-replaceable fair use}} placed not by lawyers but just by other editors. I have raised this possibility at Template talk:Di-replaceable fair use disputed#Dispute rejected, where you might want to comment as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I was the one originally posted for Johnny Wu's profile (ok, mine) but I know that I wasn't following the guidelines correctly so am right now trying to learn how to post, can that post be deleted and be re-created a new one instead that has all the needed info as requested by wiki? or should it be 'activated' again and be re-edited to fit the criteria? Thanks
Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdifilm ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
^demon, your input would be appreciated on the unblock request at User talk:Bill Ayer. Inasmuch as "single-purpose account" by itself generally would not support an indefinite block without a warning, it might be helpful to the reviewing admin if you could provide some additional comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, good day! Please undelete the "Image:Ls_coverspecial.jpg", as it is uploaded by a member of the student newspaper concerned ( Heraldo Filipino), and thus has been legitimately uploaded. Thank you. THE IMPERIOUS DORK 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You are so typical of totalitarian scum. [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.137.190 ( talk) 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
...I have to ask; How's it feel to be infamus? ;u) --Is this
fact...? 06:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Look here: [24] there it is! Auroranorth 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Pascal.Tesson suggested your script, and I have to say it rocks! It almost makes me want to delete more! Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk 05:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, my name is Eric,
I'm the inventor of what is called Clics and which established itself on the market. I didn't put the article on Wikipedia, when I came across it, I only edited it to bring the 'real history' and the evolving situation 'today'. Just like LEGO does.
I was glad and felt fortunate to have, through WIKIPEDIA, a way also to safeguard my Intellectual Property Rights. I'm the real inventor, others are not only raping my brainchild by commercializing an altered version, they also publicly claim to be the inventors themselves. An incorporated link shows the official issued patent bearing my name, Eric Parein!
I would appreciate to have the article restored. It's all facts, it's plain history!
It's no publicity; the original toy element is not even on the market.
Please, thanks for considering my request, Eric
I don't get it. What should I alter to have it restored? Please advise, Eric
Additional.
What about the other
words, the other
products, the other
brands?
What about
inventions?
Sax (also with litigation accounts edited, part of the history)
What about
inventors?
Adolphe Sax (also with litigation accounts edited, part of the history)
What about
toy block or
construction toy?
Lego,
Meccano,
K'nex, ...
What about
toys?
Playmobil,
Fisher Price, ...
What about
products?
Kellog,
Coca-Cola,
Ferrari shows all its models, ...
What about
Happy Cube? This is publicity, I believe. Anyway not the truth about the product!
The product is not Dirk Laureyssens's invention. He stole it from Joseph From
[25]. On his External Link
[26], Laureyssens also claims to own some 150 patents... sorry, he has WRITTEN 150 patents, all were not issued or lapsed.
So, dear Wikipedian, encyclopedic content must be
verifiable, my editing on Clics was just that. It is a word, a product, a toy, a toy block, a construction toy, an invention, from an inventor. Yes also a brand like all the others. Clics merits to have its place in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, which BTW I appreciate a lot! Eric —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Eric Parein (
talk •
contribs) 09:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Demon, please advise, Eric
--
Eric Parein 17:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not undeleting it. Please stop requesting. ^
demon
[omg plz] 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advise. Over and out. Eric
--
Eric Parein 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the links at user:hmwith/links. I don't know how I missed that! нмŵוτн τ 17:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete that article? There was stuff in there that wasn't on isayeret.com. And that site was listed as a reference. Yosy 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hiya demon, its g'day from down under, hehehe.
Could you please please pretty please reverse your deletion on Anthony Chidiac article?. I did put a hangon on it, and was inviting all those who commented on the first article to see it. It had a discussion page and people were talking on it. Please give it a chance to be reviewed by the people who put scorn on it originally. Its now a complete re-write and a stub. Appreciate your help in getting this notable person in wiki. The first article was a train wreck and this one is just the facts. :0 Thanks and nope, I dont sell my soul to a demon :) rgds T-- T3Smile 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Demon, I just read the article you're in and its cool! I got a giggle out of it! so it might just be that I have to surrender my soul to the demon after all, cuz he ate the wale ;) Looking forward to your thoughts on my humble request.
what a legend!!!!.....hang on I have a badge for you.-- T3Smile 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | ||
For recognising an article written by an indigineous person worthy of mention in wikipedia T3Smile 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
One more quick thing demon, Theres a few typos and one too many [['s in it. how can i unprotect, fix typos, and reprotect? or similar. I don't plan to add anymore than that. I love the fact that its protected though. I know thats why it became a train wreck before as a few other people added without verifying, and it became annoying at the end. Thoughts? --
T3Smile 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle how do you fix that? And, what is the proces to get document protection, even for a short time? (For My Reference). Do I ask an admin for such or is there a quick and easy process? ta. -- T3Smile 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have deleted it, because it was not worth to mention. But I have to disagree. It was used as a private prison in relationship with a very public Dr. Phil entertainment TV-show The hunt for Amanda where a young woman was manhunted across the United States, because her family due to religious causes did not want her to marry her boyfriend.
With the help of Dr. Phil the poor girl was imprisoned at the facility where they broke her down, so she like her older sister could function as nurses for their parents at home.
Covergaard 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about not licensing those audio files (on Marathi Language). I recorded them at home. I am a new user, and didn't realise the problem until I got the message from OrphanBot. I corrected my problem now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishearth ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just making sure. You deleted Image:L&H Our Relations 1936.jpg way back in June with the comment CSD I5: Is unused and not free. However, the What links here page for that image doesn't work. There is something that used it, namely the page about movie in question Our Relations, but it's not listed in what links here. Any objection if I restore the poster? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:CAPDhacker.png was deleted by you after the license was changed by me to pd-self. The original license template of fair use was an error on my part. Your summary states you deleted it because it was tagged as invalid fair use and uploader notified more than 48 hours ago. Do you personally review these before deleting or are you engaging in bot-like activity? Got bot flag? JERRY talk contribs 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Jerry, your change of license was reverted over a week before Chad deleted the image. Here is the relevant bit of the history:
I agree that you seem to have been a little hasty in presuming that a Bot was used - the deletion summary is actually totally compatible with human review. WjB scribe 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You speedy deleted it, but I really can't trouble shoot why it wasn't fairly used since that explanation is gone. COuld you possibly enlighten me so that I could get another one uploaded that falls within WP's fair use explanation? Please reply on my talk page. cOrneLlrOckEy 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, regarding
this edit, can you explain? The
link you provided just takes me to a login page and I can't get any further to see the what it is. Thanks.
anemone|
projectors 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly why you were deleting so many of these images, but I just had to go back and restore about 20 (?) of them. One such image is Image:Safavid Dynasty, Horse and Groom, by Haydar Ali, early 16th century.jpg; many more can be seen in the painting gallery at the Islamic art article. None of them had tags for deletion, as far as I can see in the history, and all of them were marked with a source (maybe not the best one, but with a quick search of the museum's collections I could locate the piece). You never notified the uploader (nor did anyone else), and a ton of fantastic images, all dated about 1400-1600 AD (so obviously public domain) were deleted. Please be more careful next time before deleting images where the uploader (or any other user) could so easily fix the problem, and the image has never been tagged, and the uploader has never been notified. Calliopejen1 16:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for supporting my RfA. Unfortunately it wasn't a success, however, I appreciate your support all the same! —— Ryan ( talk/ contribs) 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Could I please see the article Harold A. Rogers you deleted. You wrote that this was a CSD for blatant advertising but that article had been in existence for quite a while and I read it previously and don't recall that it was written as such.
At any rate, Harold A. Rogers is an important figure in Canadian history, ranked among the Greatest Canadians in the recent CBC tv show, founder of the largest all-Canadian service organisation, recipient of the Order of Canada and the Order of the British Empire, and first recipient of Ontario's Lamp of Learning award. He is deserving of an encyclopedic entry and if not worded to your satisfaction, an appropriate tag, note on the talk page, or an edit would have been a better action. A speedy deletion for "advertising" a man who has been dead over 13 years seems odd. Perhaps the version you saw had been vandalised and you forgot to check the history?
I also wonder why you removed the wikilinks to the article.
Thanks, DoubleBlue ( Talk) 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask why you speedy deleted the Johnson City Cardinals article when an article exists for every other professional baseball team in North America (including the independents)? Smashville 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Demon, I used an image I'd gotten off a Google Image search. I uploaded it as kreweofmuses.jpg and asked for fair use consideration. I am not a member of this organization. A friend is however--and it was this friend who asked me to write the article. Nobody in the organization objected to its use; however, the original source was a weekly newspaper, so there probably is a copyright issue afterall. Should this friend send me an image? I'm not sure about how to get a release. Can you point me to this information?
You closed this debate a few days ago. Could you comment on the revert war at Operation Wilno? See edit summaries in history and talk for arguments of both sides. I feel we need a third party to mediate, and you already have some background, so... thanks :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ^demon. I saw that you deleted Image:Degrassismith.jpg at 10:14 a.m. on October 30, and said that I, the uploader, had been notified. Well if you look at my talk page and talk page history, you'll see that is not the case.
Anyways, I thought it met all ten Non-free content criteria, so I would like to know what could possibly be done to restore the image. Does it need a different fair use or licence tag?
Thanks and regards, -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What was the problem with this image? I am the one who wrote the fair use rationale recently, but was not notified. This image copyright is owned by a Canadian municipality, which ultimately is owned by the Canadian Crown, and the fair use was valid. Please restore it, and let me know what the problem is so I can fix it. There should not be any problem with this image being fair use, as there are no free images of this Canadian politician available. - Crockspot 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm retired; you woke me up from my nap. Since I am awake, I did leave a comment on the deletion debate; in short, my official position is, I have no official position. Please note that I am retired and that my talk page is a protected archive. I have been responding to queries when active Wikipedians bring them to my attention, but I won't be doing so in the future because I find even the briefest stint here tedious and painful. For future reference if you come acrosse a a pic that I uploaded fifty years ago under fair use tag, I have no idea where I got it from today. Happy editing! - JCarriker 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I unprotected it, because an OTRS e-mail indicates that the IP removing things was the article's subject. FCYTravis 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite.
BrownBot 01:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help keeping the vandals at bay. I was trying but i didn't get time to visit it every day. Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir or madam, I notice that you have deleted the following images which were uploaded by me, even after I had added {{ Non-free media rationale}}, would you please tell me what I had done wrong? Thank you!
[27] [28] [29] Talk to ► Kevin 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Merge progress/Part1, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{ deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 00:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Demon baby, I found a swathe of articles that are non notable, or should be merged. Check out commendable, Prairie Bayou, Old Friends Equine, Kona Gold, Finsceal Beo, English Channel (horse), A P Valentine. Checking through article such as Melbourne Cup shows winning horses, not ones that race at some track out yonder. You can't tell me a horse such as commendable is more notable than Anthony Chidiac. lol. Looking forward to your thoughts, and thanks for your help with giving the chidiac stub a go. I'm joining the deletionist club now, where do I sign up? T.-- T3Smile 07:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC) User-multi error: "T3Smile" is not a valid project or language code ( help). - Blocked as sockpuppet. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/ c 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gekritzl/Deletion_gestapo was on my USER SPACE, not on WIKI SPACE. You had not right to tag it for speedy deletion. Please restore. -- Geĸrίtz 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Initially surprised that no article on him existed, I was going to create a stub article on Professor Akbar S. Ahmed. However, I noticed that an article on this topic had been previously deleted per your handling of OTRS request 1069924. The article I envisioned creating would have been a straightforward biography. His name, position, published works, notable events & achievements. I was prompted to create an article after noticing that Ahmed has been mentioned by name in several articles. Please feel free to respond to me either on- or off-Wiki as to anything I should avoid in the article, or whether I should avoid its creation altogether. -- Ssbohio 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Absurd would be an understatement. I strongly encourage you to rethink your evaluation before mass deleting nearly 700 categories when there was so clearly consensus to keep. Your choice to close it as delete is absolutely inexplicable. Please do not waste our time by forcing us to depopulate 700 categories, delete them, and then have us go to DRV. - auburnpilot talk
Since you are apparently out for the night, I've requested a review on AN/I. - auburnpilot talk 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll mirror what others have said. Please do not start depopulating or deleting until this is reviewed, as it will probably end up at DRV today. --- RockMFR 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me almost a month to notice this. Haven't been too terribly active lately. I noticed you deleted the image I uploaded for Corey Taylor stating that it had an "invalid fair-use rationale" and that the uploader had been notified "more than 48 hours ago". Now I don't doubt that the fair-use rationale was lacking at best, but I was never notified to the fact that it was to be deleted. Seems to me that no one was notified, actually. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. If I had actually been notified, I could have fixed the fair-use rationale and it wouldn't have to have been deleted. Maverick Leonhart ( Talk | Contribs) 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. User:Veesicle 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi ^demon, just letting you know, I wrote over your close as I was in the middle of doing it anyway and got conflicted. Hope you don't mind, I'll revert if you'd prefer. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to clone this bot, as it might go offline if you are not using it and it would get all of it done faster. With a clone, it would get all of it done. If you will allow me to clone it, I would prefer you to comment on it on my talk page. Dreamy § 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the AfD notification. Is there a way for me to view the subject's request for deletion, or at least have a summary of why the subject wanted the article deleted? I'm curious because previous versions of the article was originally created by the subject himself before they were speedily deleted; I authored the current article as a first stab at creating a new article and because I deemed the subject notable (I like Count Duckula cartoons :). --健次( derumi) talk 07:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. If your bot was programmed with C# in Windows and you're ready to help me make my own bot for other wiki-projects please contact me. -- Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi ^demon;
I am cross-posting this from GTBacchus' page; I am terribly sorry as that is impersonal, but it is the same questions. Yesterday I posted at WP:AN/I regarding an anonymous user who was/is constantly reverting changes made to templates in royal articles. An admin determined that the user was stalking/following my edits and blocked the user for 48 hours (first block). Consequently, a user I suspected who had the anonymous IP as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet is doing the exact same thing. I have seen your name around before (like GTBacchus; I am trying to draw attention to the matter) and saw that you have commented at WP:AN/I, so I was wondering if you could take a peek at the situation since there is a lot going on at WP:AN/I and it seems that it is being overlooked. As a "rouge" (red) admin, I am assuming that you are really an administrator. Thanks! Charles 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey carrot-demon. You didn't address the assertion in my rfu-disputed tag here. Or at least I don't think you reflected that fact anywhere. -- Y not? 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I protected the page because anonymous ips had repeatedly deleted material without explanation. Protecting the page forced discussion on the talk page. I have asked User:JoshuaZ to review the situation. Now that the Ips have explained their reasoning on the talk page, it is clearer that this is an edit dispute. Best, -- Shirahadasha 15:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hellow, why did you delete the image " Lucinda Southworth"?. There is no copy-vio as the image I got it from Stanford university website, which doesn’t even state anything about image copy vio. Can you retrieve it? Could you please tell what shall I do for re-uploading, if possible? Can I upload again as "my own work" category as I edited (reduced size, adjusted propo and given more brightness etc, image in photoshop)-- Avinesh Jose 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/ C 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week's issue, but responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I wondered how long it would take for that to get deleted. I thought it was cool, but I am biased because I find the building so interesting I searched for any related media. I loved your "Ok no. Fair use promotional video? How in the HELL will that aid in understanding of a subject? CSD criteria: G11 and I7". We need more nonBSers like you on Wikipedia. Happy admining. Chupper ( talk) 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This user has engaged in edit warring on a locked page ( [30]) I recommend he be stripped of his adminship. Bensaccount ( talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice this page was recently deleted. I spent quite some time on this page. I notice that someone else put on the actual rules (the UCP) breaching copyright. However, instead of removing the rules, the entire page was deleted. Could it please be reinstated (without the rules)? It is an article on an important set of rules that governs more than one trillion dollars of trade annually. Alan Davidson ( talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you object to my listing this page on MfD, since you have clearly stated that you will not be taking questions?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've posted to WP:AN indicating this feature is now active (i tried it and it worked) - thought I'd let you know individually too since you expressed interest in it before.— Random832 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)