This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Hello, The reason that I changed it is because I don't know where to get the proper tags so I got one from another Image and I did not notice that it said that. I did make the Image. I made the map and typed the information. Please Respond and tell me where to get the proper tags.-- Chad ( talk) 03:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
PD-self}}
to release your work into the public domain or {{
self|
cc-by-sa-3.0|
GFDL}}
to multi-license your work under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses is generally suggested. If, on the other hand, you incorporate the work of someone else, you normally have to use the same license they used. So, for example, if you wanted to incorporate
this photograph from a football game into your image, you would need to release your work under the GFDL v1.2. --
B (
talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the page ചിപ്പിപാറെയ് under WP:CSD#A2, which applies to foreign-language articles which exist on another project. A quick Google search and a check on the Malayalam Wikipedia (the langauge the page was in) reveals that the article is not on another Wikipedia. Was this a mistake on your part, or was there a different reason behind the deletion? It is my personal understanding that such pages are usually tagged with {{ notenglish}}, and are not deleted. Thanks, The Earwig ( Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You write this in the deletion log: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. You got to realise that this Category was created for the first time ever on Wikipedia by me on the 20th of July 2009. Never has this particular Category existed before, - not with this name, not with this description, and not with this sub-category: Category:American people by political orientation. Whereas other attempts to categorise neoconservatives have focused on neoconservatives all over the world, this Category focuses on neoconservatives in America, where it all started and therefore is the appropriate place to focus. For the first time ever on Wikipedia, American neoconservatives are subcategorised with people with similar utopian philosophies, such as American socialists, American pacifists, American white nationalists, American monarchists, American libertarians, American fascists, American anti-communists and American anarchists. This is unique. So any previous discussions have no relevance, because they deal with another matter, and anyway had very few participants. What is more, these discussions used as argument, that Category:Conservatives doesn't exist, and so [[:Category:Neoconservatives shouldn't exist. This premise is false, since as any enlightenent individual knows, American conservatives are adequately covered by Category: Republicans (United States). I hope you realise then that your deletion was a mistake, and I expect an apology, before I shortly shall re-create this Category for the third time this week!. An admin is supposed to be constructive and welcoming to all categorisation efforts, not destructive, going about deleting, based on hear-say from others, without him having investigated thoroughly the background for the creation of this Category. Michelle Bentley ( talk) 10:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
* - FBI and IRS agents arrests 44 people, including five rabbis, two New Jersey state legislators, and three mayors in Operation Bid Rig.
If the latest example of the all to frequent air-crashes in Iran are worthy of inclusion on the front page, so this should be. Naturally. Michelle Bentley ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
How was I saying YOU were an alcholic? I was saying the QUEEN was an alcholic because she is getting near a pawn's territory and I didn't notice the bishop could pin the king. Chevy Impala 2009 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Tyciol's redirects.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For example, Daiki is a common given name in Japan and should not be a redirect to a random fictional character named "Daiki".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have deleted Allsop Inc., and article I had just written. I understand that you consider it to be advertising. I do not believe it is, since the article does not contain any discussion about their current products other than to mention the product category they fall in.
My intention was to describe some ski technology that this company famously introduced to skiing forty years ago. I would be pleased to know how to shape this article so that it does not conflict with Wikipedia standards. However, I do feel this article does provide useful information.
Thank you.
Theodulf 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodulf ( talk • contribs)
If you care to follow up, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_to_revoke_sanction. Debresser ( talk) 22:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know where "No fair use images in lists" is listed as a Wikipedia policy. Naraht ( talk) 09:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry about the inconvenience. It's a good thing you were alert and fixed my mistake. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saving me some time; I followed this guy around earlier today and reverted some of what he did, and knew he was a returning sock of somebody, but didn't know who, and was sure I'd get accused of assuming bad faith if I just up and called him a sock. I was all set to write up an ANI thread, and it was going to be tough to prove anything, when I saw you'd nuked him. Thx. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of my semi-rebuttal to Jayron32's analysis I've posted to his talkpage here: User talk:Jayron32#Was the tripwire tripped? ? (Not a rebuttal to his analysis per se but questioning whether Viriditias had pushed the Gatesgate page into the threshold where O-probation could be tripped.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I was going to go to RFPP if he reverted it again. He did, so this saves me the trouble. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was trying to understand how my article on the band Hammer Horde was deleted. I'm assuming that the A7 labeling is stating it as a notability issue. I'm having difficulty understanding this. The reviews alone from popular magazine's such as Decibel are proof that it is an established band. And being mastered by Mika Jussila of Finnvox Studios makes them notable for simply being amongst the many metal bands mastered there. If it is a reference issue, links to their websites, reviews, and other archival databases were originally provided. If more references need to be listed, please let me know what steps I need to take to revive this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.203.139 ( talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The reviews were most likely listed from the article on the band's album, which was also deleted. Almost everything was taken from the band's biography which was listed under external sources. I'm new to wikipedia. I guess it's just easier to delete an article than for somebody to help correct it before it is removed. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.203.139 ( talk) 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted the article " Stay LDS / Mormon with the rationale provided being that the article didn't demonstrate notability. This action should have been instead an AfD since the article included links to the news sources the article was based on. Furthermore, I, as the recent author of the new article, was not notified of its being up for speedy deletion, in order for me to dispute the appropriateness of this action. (News coverage of the site includes: [2], [3], and [4].) Would there be a way to reverse the deletion and do an RfD instead or is the deleted article gone forever?
(Latter Day Saint movement denominations (predominantly the LDS Church hq'd in SLC Utah, of course) are not a major percentage of, say, the population of the US, but the number does compare favorably to that of American Jewry, and each of these American subgroups outnumber US Muslims. Yet would scholarly websites providing a place for discussion of liberal versus conservative interpretations of either Jewish or Muslim orthodoxy and praxis automatically be considered too obscure?
Here's an example (one of many) of an article about a blog with approximately the same amount of media coverage: Brainhell.) ↜Just M E here , now 11:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If it was just that I did not make mention of the site's significance, then could I have a copy of the work I'd already done to post to my user space in order to improve it? ↜Just M E here , now 12:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
PS If you have your heart set on deleting a superfluous article about a blog, consider speedying this one which I also created (but which I did not use any news references for that are specific to it): " By Common Consent." I sincerely think that would be fair. Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear B, You have deleted the pictures of well-known Kamma persons all of whom have Wiki articles written about them. Please restore the pictures. Kumarrao ( talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. I was wondering if maybe you missed my logic in my keep statement in this FFD?-- Rockfang ( talk) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. You closed the discussion about File:RNZAF P3.jpg stating that consensus cannot replace policy and that the image fails NFCC #8. While I agree completely with the first statement, I do not agree at all with the second. Several arguments were made in the discussion that supported the contention that the image satisfies this condition and none of the proponents, nor indeed yourself, have addressed any of these arguments and explained why they fail. Simply repeating the contention that the image fails the condition is not an argument and it risks the perception that the deletion process is arbitrary and driven by a coterie of editors who consider themselves to be above needing to explain their actions. You state that you cannot find reference to the events depicted in the image, I respectfully submit that you need to re-read the article, there is an entire paragraph devoted to the subject of the operation of the P3 by New Zealand out of Antarctica, the photo is entirely relevant to that section (being the subject of it). Please review your decision and pay particular attention to the arguments that were presented that the image does in fact meet the requirements of NFCC #8. - Nick Thorne talk 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I looked and found the paragraph you are referring to. It's an element of a bulleted list, not a paragraph, so it wasn't where I was looking; not a problem - I see it now. "In January 2006 a Royal New Zealand Air Force ... ." How exactly is your understanding of this passage impaired by not not seeing a photo? With some images, like a screenshot of an important element in a TV show or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, a reader will potentially have trouble conceptualizing the topic without a visual aid. That's the standard of NFCC #8. Nick-D, in your "keep" argument, you stated that the photo was significant because it depicts "a historically significant military operation". Three of the other four keeps were some variation of "keep per Nick-D" and AustralianRupert said that it is "dipicting [sic] a rare event". But that argument concerns criterion #1 - replaceability. It does not address whether or not the reader's understanding is impaired by not seeing a photo. Nick Thorne, you did argue "The photo clearly places the aircraft in the shadow of Mt Erebus and shows just how hostile an environment it was being operated in", which does, correctly, address the issue of significance. I went back and looked at it and I honestly can't see, though, how you can see from this photo that the environment is hostile. Besides, even if it did, everything else that you stated in that paragraph ("Just how many people really have any understanding of what it is like in the Antarctic", "a picture being worth a thousand words and all that", etc) is shown just as well by the free photo. So if there's nothing critical to a user's understanding of the topic that can't be shown in the free photo, NFCC #8 is not met and, as I said, consensus can't override policy. -- B ( talk) 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Could you please provide a reason for deletion of the above image. It was shown not to be replaceable , and that was the only reason for its nomination or reason given to delete the image as far as I can tell. I can't tell if you think it is replaceable (and if so how) or had some other reason to delete. Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 00:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 17 if you are interested in commenting further |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Unlike with articles, with non-free content, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to keep them, rather than those wishing to delete them. As such, no consensus defaults to delete, rather than keep. Could you please reconsider your close? J Milburn ( talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) ...still waiting for a link to the exact words that you're alluding to. Meantime, B, please undelete the image. Radiopathy •talk• 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:FFDs are supposed to be closed on the weight of the arguments produced. WP:NFC says the burden of proof is for those seeking to keep an image to make out a rationale for it. That was done. Having been produced, no argument was made to dispute the rationale, or in any way question its validity. The image selection has manifestly been made in accordance with the WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles policy. Not even the slightest attempt has been made to dispute that. FFD is not a vote. Weak unspecific WP:POLICYWAVEs can be considered, but they should not be given great weight in the face of a detailed, uncontested discussion of the significance of the image as used and its relation to policy. Can I therefore humbly suggest that the right close here is to dismiss the WP:POLICYWAVEs, and close this as a keep? Jheald ( talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I will also say, for anyone who cares, this is why there is a months' worth of backlog at FFD and PUF — nobody wants to close the things and have their talk pages lit up with complaints from the non-prevailing side. In basically all of these outstanding ones that are sitting there, someone is going to be upset. Unless someone can cite chapter and verse that no consensus discussions on a NFCC issue result in a keep, I'm inclined to accept the word of J Milburn that this is the standard practice now. Deletion review is the appropriate recourse for a deletion where procedure was not followed. I have never had a deletion overturned at DRV (which kinda surprises me actually), but you're welcome to make this one the first. -- B ( talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
Regarding [5]... I did tag the image in the article here. Maybe it was removed in a later edit? That having been said, I agree that further discussion is needed, although I don't quite see your reasoning with the specific reason for relisting. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Good close; I think that you did a good job of determining consensus. Thanks for taking the time to look at it. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete my schedule I uploaded for a reference: [ [6]] - Alec2011 ( talk) 15:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please reconsider your decision to delete the article Varolii ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I agree that there were not enough credible references in the initial version of the article but I have since added three additional third-party write-ups of the company. Thanks! Ariellarobison73 ( talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
These probably meet T3... – xeno talk 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion is not the venue to argue whether Wikipedia:Nonfree and its associated policies and guidelines are legal according to U.S. copyright law. Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content and/or send Mike Godwin an inquiry e-mail. For right now people on Files for deletion will use our nonfree guidelines as the standard bearer for copyright disputes. WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
If you see a Flickr photo that could be relicensed to replace a copyrighted photo:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: The Kay Yow pic on Flickr has been relicensed. It is now here: File:KayYowSutton.jpg WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello B. Since you know about images, could you view User talk:EdJohnston#Photo strangeness and see if you see sunlight at the upper left corner of that image? The text of the post explains what the issue is. Any feedback however terse would be helpful. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Grace was my great-aunt. Thanks for the head's up MrMarmite ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
GO HOKIES!!!! ALABAMA GOT NOTHIN!!! Jwalte04 ( talk) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ck mail. Eagle Scout issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Expecting something to happen doesn't make it much better. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 04:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
How woud you suggest we go from here? The footnotes do not match the text. And the claim in the text is not limited to athletics? Thanks. Racepacket ( talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
The article currently titled "
Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An earlier straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at:
Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2
(once this thread is archived, see
here.)
If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. -- AuthorityTam ( talk) 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
if we need useful images undeleted. Is this true? The images I find that are needed but deleted are originally someone else's, mistagged, and once they are restored, I fix the tagging. Can you do this? Do you take requests? -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't try and hide things away. Giacomo 20:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I am going to explain to you why I did what I did, but (Sigh) I don't even know why I bother. Up until May 14th I did not know that non-free files could not be placed on userspace. Afterward I stopped. Two days ago I update the Wikipedia Project Star Trek portal. Considering that all Star Trek images are in some way, copyrighted, and I noticed that other television portals have copyrighted images I added several Star Trek images. Two days later Hammersoft reverted my edits claiming that copyrighted images cannot be placed in portals. Since portals are supposed to have best work displayed, and since they link to articles I though use of images in portals was fine. Hammersoft rudely told me it was not. Forgive me for being blunt, but I do not particularly care for this user. He does not edit pages, except to remove images. He keeps statistics of the number of users he has made angry on his userpage and he is stalking my edits. I checked his edits, on May 31 the only edits he made where to revert mine and to yell at me. When he told me that adding items to portals was against policy I disagreed. I still do not see how files cannot be used in portals. Until you told me otherwise I didn't believe him. The reason I added the nobots template to the page is because I figure Hammersoft changed Dashbot so that it would remove images with certain tags from the portal. The images I had posted in the portal had remained in place until Hammersoft removed them. Then Dashbot all of a sudden started reverting. I felt that this was odd and that is why I added the template. I guess I just won't touch a image again. I won't upload, I won't add image, and I won't remove images. If they are wrong so be it. I don't plan to use them anymore. I would also like Hammersoft to leave me alone. He has been watching me, waiting for me to make another image related mistake. I have made alot of other edits other than adding images. I don't like being jumped on by him every time I make a mistake. I am not perfect and neither is he. I don't like having to worry about getting yelled at by him every time I make a mistake. One of the guidelines is don't worry about making mistakes. If he continues to harass me every time I make a mistake I won't need to be blocked for making mistakes, I will simply leave wikipedia, for good. I very much enjoy editing wikipedia, but having the stress of worrying is not worth it. I am sorry I ranted on your userpage over what I am upset about. I am not angry at you or anyone, I am just upset that Hammersoft won't leave me alone. I have written my response here rather than ANI because I do not want to be further yelled at by Hammersoft. Apologies, -- Alpha Quadrant ( talk) 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
don't you agree? Rohedin TALK 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
for this catch. That had slipped right past me :P EyeSerene talk 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I see the article has been corrected by another user, and having the article in right way is my only purpose here. But, unfortunatelly, I also saw that you declined taking action on that case against a disruptive user that has intensively and purposly reverted all changes 3 times in couple of hours. I also noteced that you decided to warn me about edit-warring (???), giving me same treatment as the disruptive user... Where did I edit warred? You conclude I edit warred because I decided to report another user edit-warring? I did take as offensive the warning that you gave me because I have been very cooperative on that, and associated articles, I had been editing all with prior accordance of the project, I have been completely agreed with another 5 editors of the article, and I have been taking action against disruption on those articles. Also, regarding the disruptive editor, I have been discussing with him on the article talk page for months now, I gave him entire freedom to let him compose the article in the right way and I had asked him politely to make some changes that are supported by all I already mentioned. I honestly hope the disruptive user will change his behavior from now on, because if he doesn´t, I will remind this failure of taking action by your side. I will also remove your comment from my talk page since I consider it completely inadequate and unfortunate for the situation, and it follows a comment by a user that was already several times forbiten to edit my talk page, so the entire section will be deleted. Best regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was not trying to hide/block the referances. I was trying to remove clutter just like the article of Adolf Hitler, but now i know that neither collapsible tables/scroll boxes should be used for citations. [1] I understand it is impossible to remove as much cluter as far as organizing by columns. :D
Thnx again, i learned my [damn] lesson. :D 序名三 「Jyonasan」 Talk 23:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh... "creates a chilling effect" on the Global Warming RFARB...I like it....;) Dreadstar ☥ 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You earlier gave a 24 hour hard block to IP 72.87.183.32 (see [12]) -- I am the one who made the original referral. I had also alleged that the IP was a sock puppet of USER:Lostorder. The block has expired and the IP resumed by making the same type of edit he/she was blocked for (see [13]). There was no discussion by the IP even though I originated a discussion on the article's discussion page. Any help would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Pls look at this thread: User_talk:Rlevse#Jerome_Tiger_DYK which refers to this image: File:Jerome tiger stomp dance.jpg on commons. Can you advise here? If it's free license I want to use it in a DYK set with the image. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) and File:HOR Philippines Session Hall.jpg, facebook is a PD source? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you get it? Thanks, -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 13:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, B
You seem to have been very busy when you were attending to this undeletion request, since you mistakenly tagged it with "Fixed"! Of course, I do understand that such errors occur when people are busy.
I took the liberty of undoing your change. Please read the request carefully before tagging it. Note that the undeletion request pertains to a previous version.
Fleet Command ( talk) 15:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I just created this article and listed at DYK. Any realistic chance of one of his paintings being free? Is a FUR possible? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
When you restored this at REFUND I suspect you hadn't seen that this had already been refused twice before. It appears that JzG was acting on behalf of OTRS when he took that out of mainspace. Obviously you can do as you like but I referred the requester back to OTRS and wouldn't have restored it without discussing privately with Guy. Spartaz Humbug! 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I am avoiding making any comments on AE because the user who filed the report has a long history with me and has been banned and warned before for battling in the Israeli-Arab topic on Wikipedia, so rather than getting involved arguing over the frivolous report I'd rather it end quietly. I just wanted to ask you, where exactly did I cross the line of civility in that edit summary? I have seen many users in the past tell other editors not to comment on their talk pages, including admins. The user who left me that comment was previously involved with me and he knew very well that I didn't want to hear from him. I had already deleted other comments of his and asked him not to comment on my talk page, but he persisted. The fact that he was a desysoped admin is totally true, and the only other thing I said was that he was harassing me... which I don't really see being a civility problem. So can you please help me understand where I went wrong? Thanks, Breein1007 ( talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: B, when I asked you to comment about some things, you did not answer about the canvassing part. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Re " unless the user is so irredeemably biased/disruptive/whatever " I think a quick run through this user's contrib history would reveal this to be true. NickCT ( talk) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi B, sorry for all the trouble, but I noticed you cited WP:AGF at AE. Is there not a problem with bad faith in the report itself? For example, is stating that I "secretly" conversed in Hebrew with another editor in order to hide what I was talking about consistent with WP:AGF? Was it not possible that I realized the other user was struggling with English so I switched to Hebrew to make it easier for him? is this not something that the reporting user should consider? I empathize with Shuki calling the report frivolous because he knows Supreme Deliciousness from past encounters, as do I, and this is not the first time he has done something like this. WP:AGF only goes so far. When Supreme Deliciousness just came off of a topic ban for battleground behaviour such as repeatedly stating that Jewish/Israeli sources are unreliable simply for being Jewish/Israeli, and then submits a report like this requesting a topic ban for things such as speaking Hebrew, it really is quite clear that something is very very wrong and that his 30 day topic ban didn't lead to a change in attitude. Breein1007 ( talk) 18:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
B, I don't think it is alright that this conversation is held here instead of the AE, It is inappropriate. It really needs to be noted that all the people who have defended Breein there, including Shuki, are people who edit in the same side as him in these conflict article. They are not neutral in what they say. There was no bad faith from me and Im sorry if it was misinterpreted. If you look at that entire section, a user had contacted Breein to edit war with him, and then while Breein went to the article and started edit warring as the otehr had requested they started to speak hebrew with each other, adn if you run this comment through google translate [14] although Google translate is not perfect, you can clearly see that they are speaking with each other about they're edits to the article. I just felt that it was important that this was mentioned because I'm sure it is inappropriate to have a conversation in another language specially involving canvassing, It was not in bad faith from me. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Hi, B. At the above AfD, you asked: Is there a reliable source that is actually about him, not just mentioning him in passing?—and I rather think I'd linked one during the debate above. Did you miss it, or do you just disagree that it's reliable?— S Marshall T/ C 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I also think the Black Belt magazine back-issues, taken as a whole, amount to a whole lot more than just a profile that was done on someone one time—but I can see your side of it too, and I do respect what you say. It's a tough one.— S Marshall T/ C 00:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
SHAYTARDS is one of the most popular users on youtube. Shay Carl definitly a YoutTube celebrity. If CTFxC aka Internet Killed Television has a wikipedia page I would think that SHAYTARDS HAS to definitly have a wikipedia page. I'm shocked that they didnt already. So, then I created one but it got deleted instantly. SHAYTARDS is even more popular than CTFxC and somehow they get a wikipedia page. CTFxC's total upload views is 76,205,601 and SHAYTARDS total upload views is 123,970,318. Shay carl also isnt on the youtube celebrities list and charles trippy and alli speed are. If you look up the definetion of celebrity on wikipedia this is it: a person who is easily recognized in a society or culture. If you were to ever watch the SHAYTARDS then you would know hat they ALWAYS get pointed out while they are out vlogging. I Highly suggest listen to both my suggestions. And if you let me create a SHAYTARDS page I will take the time to make it as best as possible. Thanks. Falcons8455 ( talk) 21:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this, with an "attribution" license free and ok for commons? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please review this FUR and use in James G. Howes. May want to look at thread on WT:SCOUT too. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
When you move an article with a talk history, please also check the archiving templates on the talk page and adapt them. They have the talk page name in their configs. I already fixed Talk:iOS (Apple).-- Oneiros ( talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For your civil and helpful comments on our dispute. Thanks! ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Contact Me_· _Talkback_· 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) |
Hi. Your input is requested. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
B, is it just me or is there something different about {{ at}} from previous? Or is it hte format change that WP went through recently? -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, B, I hope you are doing well. :) Thanks for your comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). FYI, someone has replied to you, at the AFD page. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi B, You recently warned an editor about incivility ( here). Because I saw that this editor was giving another editor a similar hard time and making similar edit war threats ( here), I posted this to the third editor's talk page. Unfortunately, this set-off the warned editor. He has made nearly a dozen edits to the other editors talk page, so far ( here) and has pasted the same edits to my talk page in several edits ( here). Would you mind send along another word to him asking that he tone things down. I'd welcome any other suggestion, too. Thank you! Novaseminary ( talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
to B:...
Mea culpa: for some reason, I forgot to do this, even though you'll notice that I added the result to the automatically generated part of the edit summary so that anyone clicking on the section link of the edit summary in a watchlist would get straight to the "retitled" (or not) section. That's what comes of trying to be too clever, you forget to take the initial basic step! Regards, Bencherlite Talk 15:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Darrenhusted ( talk) 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Taric25 is currently harrassing me. It started when I simply disagreed with his edit warring complaint regarding Active Banana. You denied the complaint, which you correctly did. On that same complaint page, he fights back by complaining that I don't write summaries in any of my edits. I replied back saying basically that hardly anyone makes summaries on very simple edits, and I did make one snard remark to make things even. He writes on my Talk page asking for an apology, and I told him he drew first blood. Now, he's editing my user page, saying that it is an attack page. It is not an attack page. One, both users have been banned from Wikipedia for the things I mentioned on my page. And two, it serves a examples for me of confrontations I've faced in the past. I want this user to stop bothering me, and to go on and attend to other issues that need attention. This guy is extremely over-sensative. I don't want to file this report and that report just yet. I just need and admin like yourself to tell this user to stop stalking me. Groink ( talk) 01:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
His block has been lifted, and it looks like Wetcloth20 ( talk · contribs) is continuing to ignore the manual of style and already starting to edit war again over my his undoing his inappropriate use of a table format for a cast list at The King and the Clown and changing a heading at Im Su-jeong. I left him a warning and pointed him to WP:MOSFILM on his talk page, but he is continuing his reverting and claiming he will "report me" for cleaning up behind him. Can you take a look? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello B, Thanks very much for the review. I have really tried hard to make the sources for this article as reliable as possible.
There are many sources that are completely about the company in the newspapers. fulfilNET is the parent company of Yodel. See the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th & 11th sources. They are primarily about fulfilNET or Yodel. Also I have had other reviews by Qwerp, see User_talk:QwerpQwertus#Yodel_Australia. He would like it to be put live. Please let me know what you think. I have really really tried to make this information as reliable as possible. This is my first Wikipedia article and I appreciate any help that you can offer me. Thanks - Natkolk ( talk) 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Dude, that's harsh. Of course there's an Easter bunny; Santa told me so. Tarc ( talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoops; pardon my mistake. However, would you object to the page being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickm93 ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(for editors too lazy to subst in the template)...
I found this [18] very funny, as well as helpful. Thanks for bringing some good cheer to the project. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You recently blocked User:Hkwon for violating the 3RR on a talk page, with a few hours of the block expiring, the user is straight back to edit warring on an article that he is been damn close to breaking 3RR on a number of occasions. As I type this message, he has not broken 3RR (he is currently on 3 reverts within 24 hours) - perhaps as the blocking admin, it might be a good idea to give a damn stern warning, before this results in another 3RR report and a longer block for the user.
the article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kimchi&action=history
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, B.
You were involved in the investigation of the user UnclePaco two years ago. I've recently accused him of operating a sockpuppet, user CashRules. But an admin expressed doubt about the way the UnclePaco case was resolved. Would you comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco, please? Thank you. SamEV ( talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to SamEV. PLEASE and I MEAN PLEASE Checkuser those IP's on the DR page over the past 14 months against this account or show any type of similarities. It will show that I have never edited the DR page during that time. So if Elockid did a semi-protection, it was not a result of me. You're blaming me for things I have never ever done! If you can prove via some sort of edit from me on the DR page during this time I will BAN myself from this site! You are accusing me in bad faith and for that I am sick and tired of it! CashRules ( talk) 04:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You had previously participated in an Admin recall petition for Herostratus, at the user's talk page. This process has now started. It is ongoing as an RFA page, for admin recall, at: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Just because 3 different LIBERALS work together to VANDALIZE my edit, it doesn't make ME guilty of violating the 3r rule. I know the games you guys play backwards and forwards. Seen it 1000 times. Liberal Cabal 101. Blame and Block the conservative. Without exception.
And this is all being documented so others will know WHO is really pushing a political bias. Thanks for your contributions. Who knows, you may be famous some day! haha 68.41.55.171 ( talk) 03:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but notability trumps A7. Plus, you didn't follow proper delete review procedures. You just trashed the article. A7 specifically states to improve if possible. Sorry that you don't like the game. I don't necessarily like it either, but information on the origins, the development, founder, and why it became a localized media sensation should be freely available without people having to scrape multiple web sites for the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpower101 ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear B,
As you may recall, I was blocked for breaking the 3RR on WP. The discussion I am having with the other editors on the page is breaking down again, and I am being harassed and insulted by User: Justa_Punk, who has been going bonkers lately. I want this issue settled by an impartial administrator, and I want your help.
Because you blocked me, and you are probably likely to do it again, I want you to see the discussion I am up against. I am facing deletion each time I place my material on the page, and the rationales I've been given (which have been rare) are weak, changing, and there is always a lengthy—and heated— component directed at me personally. I won't stand for the childish antics anymore—I want to take action and get this settled in a fair and civil manner.
-- Screwball23 talk 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
B, I respectfully recommend looking in to Screwball's general conduct. He has already got a fair hearing and his line by line rebuttal is full of holes as usual. He just doesn't understand that what he is doing is WP:OR and it has got to the point that I am considering taking this to ArbCom for disruptive behaviour. He is now canvassing you on the matter and if you look at his talk page you'll see this isn't the first time he's done this. Seven editors in total have backed the WP:PW consensus that the current edition of the article serves the purpose re the change in programming appropriately and that should be that. Screwball is placing undue weight on the issue, and his linking this to Linda McMahon's Senate run is a very good example of a lack of WP:NPOV. I'm addressing this to you here because I'm done on the subject on the WWE talk page per WP:IPAT. !! Justa Punk !! 06:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You wrote and I quote why don't you try leaving a personal message (not a template) at his/her talk page? The problem with that suggestion is that I've already did. Like I wrote in the edit warring noticeboard, I already did it here? The page was locked for a month because of the user's uncooperative behavior, which is why it has only one revert during the past month. Its getting to the point that I really don't know what to do. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, B... I appreciate your consideration and words a couple of weeks ago, to me and "Novaseminary". You were right on the mark. Both of us were not perfect, but I'm glad you see that Nova is obviously being spiteful and out-of-line with me. He has not stopped. It has to do with this article "Separated brethren" that he never even wanted to be there to begin with. He second-guesses EVERYTHING I do, and starts edit wars and reverts. I put in simple modifications, NOT "reverts", but he'll run now to board pages CLAIMING they're "reverts", force-fitting it that way conveniently and dishonestly, SIMPLY TO GET ME BLOCKED. I can't deal with it anymore. I feel on edge every time I try to edit that article now. KNOWING that Nova will inevitably come in AND UNDO AND CHANGE EVERYTHING I PUT IN. For real.
Hi...yes, it should be on the Notice board. Sorry that it was so wordy here before. This is not the page to go that deeply into it, I agree. But I wanted to notify you what's been up. I really, like I said, am not sure what else to do. And since you were already aware of the issues between me and Nova, I wanted YOU to be the Admin to give consideration to this matter, regardless of what your ultimate decision or assessment would be. It's cool though. as I said, Nova WANTS me blocked no matter what. I don't think I technically violated 3RR as those were basically (if you check carefully) UNRELATED edits, and just simple modifications. Not all were related "reverts" in that sense. But yes, please see the board page. And thanks for your time. Sweetpoet ( talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
|
My talk page is not WP:AN3. Let's keep it there, please. -- B ( talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure you'd see it on the Notice board, as I don't know if you go there all the time. I'm sorry for writing it on here, but I really did not want that thing you said to go unresponded to, without you seeing it. I NEVER said that you thought it was only Nova at fault and not me. I said clearly in my comment on the board page that you warned both of us, and "two to tango", and that I was not perfect myself. Do you see why I worry about how Admin's might look at things? It's at a point now, where if I get blocked for arguably invalid reasons, because I have some insufferable stalker always on my back, twisting things around, I don't care much anymore......I don't need this stress. I'm only human. Yes, dial it down some notches, but Nova needs to seriously get lost, and leave me alone, like you told him to. Thanks....
Sweetpoet (
talk) 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I just closed the AN3 report related to this. As you seem to be already familiar with the situation, could you check my reasoning at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sweetpoet reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: protected, both warned)? Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to write here, but regarding your "Mormons are not considered Protestant" view, and also your use of the word "cult", which I don't agree with. Please see what I wrote....thanks. click: Talk:Separated brethren Sweetpoet ( talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
On the SPI, you said the two users sound nothing like each other. Can you talk about the differences a bit more using actual examples? Viriditas ( talk) 00:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,Please give the help at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_Jonathan_Kane:_The_Protector. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
Thank you very much for your help to restore the article Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC) |
Yea, i posted the Wizzard vessel for imediate deletion for copyright issues, fill me in on that. U know, the deadliest catch ship? how did it go?
Stuntman crow ( talk) 23:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The fringe conspiracy editor at William Greer has returned, I've reverted him at the talk page but he could use a quick block for violating his topic ban. Since you were the last one to handle the page, I thought I'd shoot you a line first and see if you'd check out 173.79.237.165 ( talk · contribs). Thanks in advance! Dayewalker ( talk) 03:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that disruptive editor. The Polish plane crash article has been a target ever since the accident happened. I requested page protection as it's been an ongoing issue. Would you review that request over at RPP for me? Thanks. N419 BH 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings B - and thanks for not speedy-deleting User:Kintetsubuffalo/Nitto Records. As per your header, I'd like to avoid any sort of drama and am desperately trying, against all odds, to AGF in this case and in others involving the same proposing editor, but I'd just like to know if an article that has been up since 2003, albeit unreferenced, is really a candidate for speedy, or whether it should instead be marked for AfD, thereby giving other editors a chance, however remote (given the time some of us spend trying to clear up real ****), to get a word in. In other words, what are the odds of another admin having deleted it if you hadn't saved it? Sorry to drag you into this, and I fully understand your wish/need as an admin to keep out of petty rows, but I'm concerned as to the number of unreferenced notable record labels might have been speedy deleted without anyone actually noticing and I don't yet want to stalk the concerned editor's contribs. page. Sorry for not being politically correct, and am willingly to accept a rap on the knuckle. This message will self-destruct the moment you have read it. And thanks for being out there. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 00:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Where do you get this? I was not abusing Eathb, he called me a retard and had been in a edit war with me. GuineaPigWarrior
Okay then, I gotta ask. How do you become a admidistrator? GW!
Well when somebody calls me a retard and doesn't won't to dicuss it, I asume it's vadalism, can you do anything about this user, he called me a retard. GW!
Hello B, yesterday you did not block the user reported for edit warring on Art student scam. The user still continues to insert undue weight parts and controversial section names singling out Israel, the same sections names that were removed yesterday. This article was kept as no consensus after deletion request. It is a sensitive article that should be edited with care. Few users mentioned the article was fine as it was at the talk page of the article, yet user:Preciseaccuracy continues editing only this article, article's talk page, and talk pages of other users about this article. Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 01:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at WP:3RRN. The specific problem on the Irvington, New York article was that I had a bulleted list of points of interest, each with a short paragraph, and images that I wanted to alternate on the right and left sides of the section. The right side is no problem, but under IE8 when the image is on the left and the bullet falls within the vertical scope of the image, the bullet butts right up against the right edge of the image, instead of offsetting a small amount (about an em-space, I think) as it normally does, and this looks very sloppy to me and makes the text difficult to read. I attempted to fix the problem by adding offsets using a number of colons (just as one would do in a deeply indented talk page discussion), which pushed the bullet just off the image. I checked this out under Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari and it looked fine. Since Miami33139 has all along (I'm going back several years now) refused to tell me what browser it is that's giving him trouble with this stuff, I had no way of specifically checking what he's seeing, but I did my best to make sure it worked under all the most popular browsers. I solved the problem by elminating the indents, and putting the images into two galleries. It's not quite as good, since the images don't appear with the text, but it's something I can live with, no problem. Miami, of course, responded by bringing me to 3RR.
if you have thoughts about solving that specific problem (bullets not wrapping well around left side images) in another way, I'd love to hear them, I'm always open to ways to make our pages look better for everybody. The more general problem for me, as you probably gathered from my comment, is Miami cruisng though my contribs with no discussion, no willingness to compromise and find solutions we both can live with. With him, it appears, it's this way or nothing -- you can see that in his editing in general. I don't like the guy, but I have no interest in confronting him or having a dispute with him. I stay away, but he keeps coming after me, and there's apparently nothing Wikipedia policy can do about it, as people misunderstand transparency as a license for any editor to do whatever they want to another editor's contributions as long as they can make a (barely) credible good faith claim for the edits. But I don't think Miami is about that, he seems to be about hasseling people: he drove me off the project for a while, and he hasseled User:Tothwolf so much that the guy went off the deep end and wound up being banned by ArbCom for a while. In my opinion, Miami33139 is bad juju, but he's a kind of bad that WP doesn't deal with well.
Anyway, that's my problem. If he wants to spend an inordinate amount of time going through my contributions, I can't stop him. I just want to be able to ignore him and go about my business. I like to add content, and improve content, and he likes to delete shit -- that's life.
Sorry to ramble (and whine) - if you have thoughts about the specific formatting problem I mentioned, I'd love to hear them. I'm not asking you to do anything about the other stuff.
Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you created the template for CFB team links:
{{cfb link|year=2010|team=Richmond Spiders|school=University of Richmond|title=Richmond}}
Could you further assist with the equivalent for Bowl Games? As the number of season-specific team pages grow, the references to particular season-specific Bowl Games is also increasing. It would be great to support a linking convention independent of whether the particular game page exists yet. Game and Year appear to be the only necessary parameters, but there might be a corner case for games which float between end of Dec and beginning of Jan resulting in some calendar years with two games (guessing the editor should handle that manually). Perhaps:
{{cfb link|year=20xx|game=Sun Bowl}}
Which would output either:
20xx Sun Bowl (if exists) or
Sun Bowl (by default)
Pasadena91 (
talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you and your family are in good health. Thank you for deleting that file of Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao. ( Aerowikipedian ( talk) 03:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC))
You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion. |
— raeky T 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). User:B ( talk) 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) -- Gwern (contribs) 11:11 4 August 2010 (GMT)
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads ( talk)11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch
this page for announcements.
—NBahn (
talk) 04:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
I've restored your edit in Young Earth Creationism, it's better than what was there before. Editor2020 ( talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little disturbed by your intervention on this. I've just read your 2nd post on Mindbunny's Talk (and posted a further comment). Although there's nothing inherently objectionable to anything you've said (although it could easily encourage Mindbunny to revert again) it seems a little strange for an admin that I've had a discussion with on another topic, making such comments as this. I'd appreciate a comment on that please. Thanks. DeCausa ( talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for providing an edit summary in your removal of the UU section from Christianity and abortion. Would you be interested in helping with an article on UU and abortion? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my message board!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, B. You blocked User:NPz1 for edit warring only, but I wonder, if you have noticed If you have noticed this edit summary? Honestly I doubt 2 weeks are enough. Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 14:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You posted this on my talk page:
Your edits at Theosophical Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Rather than blocking you, I would like to ask you to modify your behavior and to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. All articles have a talk, or "discussion" page - the discussion page for this article is at Talk:Theosophical Society. On this page, you can explain the reasons for your opinion and you can see other users' reasons for their opinions. Continually reverting a page - even if over a period of days - is considered edit warring and is not permitted. You should also know that referring to good faith users as vandals is never acceptable. Please use the talk page and do not revert the page again without a consensus there. If you continue to revert, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Just looking at your userboxes after your comment in Kenatipo's AfD. Jindal lost me when he criticized federal funding for volcano monitoring, while benefiting from federal funding for hurricane monitoring. Pity, I would have liked to have seen a Brown grad in the Oval Office.... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Is removing tags in an article considered okay while there is a discussion going on? This user just did that claiming I was misuing them while there was still discussion... [29] W M O 01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Hello, The reason that I changed it is because I don't know where to get the proper tags so I got one from another Image and I did not notice that it said that. I did make the Image. I made the map and typed the information. Please Respond and tell me where to get the proper tags.-- Chad ( talk) 03:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
PD-self}}
to release your work into the public domain or {{
self|
cc-by-sa-3.0|
GFDL}}
to multi-license your work under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses is generally suggested. If, on the other hand, you incorporate the work of someone else, you normally have to use the same license they used. So, for example, if you wanted to incorporate
this photograph from a football game into your image, you would need to release your work under the GFDL v1.2. --
B (
talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the page ചിപ്പിപാറെയ് under WP:CSD#A2, which applies to foreign-language articles which exist on another project. A quick Google search and a check on the Malayalam Wikipedia (the langauge the page was in) reveals that the article is not on another Wikipedia. Was this a mistake on your part, or was there a different reason behind the deletion? It is my personal understanding that such pages are usually tagged with {{ notenglish}}, and are not deleted. Thanks, The Earwig ( Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You write this in the deletion log: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. You got to realise that this Category was created for the first time ever on Wikipedia by me on the 20th of July 2009. Never has this particular Category existed before, - not with this name, not with this description, and not with this sub-category: Category:American people by political orientation. Whereas other attempts to categorise neoconservatives have focused on neoconservatives all over the world, this Category focuses on neoconservatives in America, where it all started and therefore is the appropriate place to focus. For the first time ever on Wikipedia, American neoconservatives are subcategorised with people with similar utopian philosophies, such as American socialists, American pacifists, American white nationalists, American monarchists, American libertarians, American fascists, American anti-communists and American anarchists. This is unique. So any previous discussions have no relevance, because they deal with another matter, and anyway had very few participants. What is more, these discussions used as argument, that Category:Conservatives doesn't exist, and so [[:Category:Neoconservatives shouldn't exist. This premise is false, since as any enlightenent individual knows, American conservatives are adequately covered by Category: Republicans (United States). I hope you realise then that your deletion was a mistake, and I expect an apology, before I shortly shall re-create this Category for the third time this week!. An admin is supposed to be constructive and welcoming to all categorisation efforts, not destructive, going about deleting, based on hear-say from others, without him having investigated thoroughly the background for the creation of this Category. Michelle Bentley ( talk) 10:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
* - FBI and IRS agents arrests 44 people, including five rabbis, two New Jersey state legislators, and three mayors in Operation Bid Rig.
If the latest example of the all to frequent air-crashes in Iran are worthy of inclusion on the front page, so this should be. Naturally. Michelle Bentley ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
How was I saying YOU were an alcholic? I was saying the QUEEN was an alcholic because she is getting near a pawn's territory and I didn't notice the bishop could pin the king. Chevy Impala 2009 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Tyciol's redirects.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For example, Daiki is a common given name in Japan and should not be a redirect to a random fictional character named "Daiki".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have deleted Allsop Inc., and article I had just written. I understand that you consider it to be advertising. I do not believe it is, since the article does not contain any discussion about their current products other than to mention the product category they fall in.
My intention was to describe some ski technology that this company famously introduced to skiing forty years ago. I would be pleased to know how to shape this article so that it does not conflict with Wikipedia standards. However, I do feel this article does provide useful information.
Thank you.
Theodulf 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodulf ( talk • contribs)
If you care to follow up, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_to_revoke_sanction. Debresser ( talk) 22:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know where "No fair use images in lists" is listed as a Wikipedia policy. Naraht ( talk) 09:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry about the inconvenience. It's a good thing you were alert and fixed my mistake. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saving me some time; I followed this guy around earlier today and reverted some of what he did, and knew he was a returning sock of somebody, but didn't know who, and was sure I'd get accused of assuming bad faith if I just up and called him a sock. I was all set to write up an ANI thread, and it was going to be tough to prove anything, when I saw you'd nuked him. Thx. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of my semi-rebuttal to Jayron32's analysis I've posted to his talkpage here: User talk:Jayron32#Was the tripwire tripped? ? (Not a rebuttal to his analysis per se but questioning whether Viriditias had pushed the Gatesgate page into the threshold where O-probation could be tripped.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I was going to go to RFPP if he reverted it again. He did, so this saves me the trouble. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was trying to understand how my article on the band Hammer Horde was deleted. I'm assuming that the A7 labeling is stating it as a notability issue. I'm having difficulty understanding this. The reviews alone from popular magazine's such as Decibel are proof that it is an established band. And being mastered by Mika Jussila of Finnvox Studios makes them notable for simply being amongst the many metal bands mastered there. If it is a reference issue, links to their websites, reviews, and other archival databases were originally provided. If more references need to be listed, please let me know what steps I need to take to revive this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.203.139 ( talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The reviews were most likely listed from the article on the band's album, which was also deleted. Almost everything was taken from the band's biography which was listed under external sources. I'm new to wikipedia. I guess it's just easier to delete an article than for somebody to help correct it before it is removed. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.203.139 ( talk) 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted the article " Stay LDS / Mormon with the rationale provided being that the article didn't demonstrate notability. This action should have been instead an AfD since the article included links to the news sources the article was based on. Furthermore, I, as the recent author of the new article, was not notified of its being up for speedy deletion, in order for me to dispute the appropriateness of this action. (News coverage of the site includes: [2], [3], and [4].) Would there be a way to reverse the deletion and do an RfD instead or is the deleted article gone forever?
(Latter Day Saint movement denominations (predominantly the LDS Church hq'd in SLC Utah, of course) are not a major percentage of, say, the population of the US, but the number does compare favorably to that of American Jewry, and each of these American subgroups outnumber US Muslims. Yet would scholarly websites providing a place for discussion of liberal versus conservative interpretations of either Jewish or Muslim orthodoxy and praxis automatically be considered too obscure?
Here's an example (one of many) of an article about a blog with approximately the same amount of media coverage: Brainhell.) ↜Just M E here , now 11:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If it was just that I did not make mention of the site's significance, then could I have a copy of the work I'd already done to post to my user space in order to improve it? ↜Just M E here , now 12:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
PS If you have your heart set on deleting a superfluous article about a blog, consider speedying this one which I also created (but which I did not use any news references for that are specific to it): " By Common Consent." I sincerely think that would be fair. Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear B, You have deleted the pictures of well-known Kamma persons all of whom have Wiki articles written about them. Please restore the pictures. Kumarrao ( talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. I was wondering if maybe you missed my logic in my keep statement in this FFD?-- Rockfang ( talk) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. You closed the discussion about File:RNZAF P3.jpg stating that consensus cannot replace policy and that the image fails NFCC #8. While I agree completely with the first statement, I do not agree at all with the second. Several arguments were made in the discussion that supported the contention that the image satisfies this condition and none of the proponents, nor indeed yourself, have addressed any of these arguments and explained why they fail. Simply repeating the contention that the image fails the condition is not an argument and it risks the perception that the deletion process is arbitrary and driven by a coterie of editors who consider themselves to be above needing to explain their actions. You state that you cannot find reference to the events depicted in the image, I respectfully submit that you need to re-read the article, there is an entire paragraph devoted to the subject of the operation of the P3 by New Zealand out of Antarctica, the photo is entirely relevant to that section (being the subject of it). Please review your decision and pay particular attention to the arguments that were presented that the image does in fact meet the requirements of NFCC #8. - Nick Thorne talk 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I looked and found the paragraph you are referring to. It's an element of a bulleted list, not a paragraph, so it wasn't where I was looking; not a problem - I see it now. "In January 2006 a Royal New Zealand Air Force ... ." How exactly is your understanding of this passage impaired by not not seeing a photo? With some images, like a screenshot of an important element in a TV show or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, a reader will potentially have trouble conceptualizing the topic without a visual aid. That's the standard of NFCC #8. Nick-D, in your "keep" argument, you stated that the photo was significant because it depicts "a historically significant military operation". Three of the other four keeps were some variation of "keep per Nick-D" and AustralianRupert said that it is "dipicting [sic] a rare event". But that argument concerns criterion #1 - replaceability. It does not address whether or not the reader's understanding is impaired by not seeing a photo. Nick Thorne, you did argue "The photo clearly places the aircraft in the shadow of Mt Erebus and shows just how hostile an environment it was being operated in", which does, correctly, address the issue of significance. I went back and looked at it and I honestly can't see, though, how you can see from this photo that the environment is hostile. Besides, even if it did, everything else that you stated in that paragraph ("Just how many people really have any understanding of what it is like in the Antarctic", "a picture being worth a thousand words and all that", etc) is shown just as well by the free photo. So if there's nothing critical to a user's understanding of the topic that can't be shown in the free photo, NFCC #8 is not met and, as I said, consensus can't override policy. -- B ( talk) 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Could you please provide a reason for deletion of the above image. It was shown not to be replaceable , and that was the only reason for its nomination or reason given to delete the image as far as I can tell. I can't tell if you think it is replaceable (and if so how) or had some other reason to delete. Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 00:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 17 if you are interested in commenting further |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Unlike with articles, with non-free content, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to keep them, rather than those wishing to delete them. As such, no consensus defaults to delete, rather than keep. Could you please reconsider your close? J Milburn ( talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) ...still waiting for a link to the exact words that you're alluding to. Meantime, B, please undelete the image. Radiopathy •talk• 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:FFDs are supposed to be closed on the weight of the arguments produced. WP:NFC says the burden of proof is for those seeking to keep an image to make out a rationale for it. That was done. Having been produced, no argument was made to dispute the rationale, or in any way question its validity. The image selection has manifestly been made in accordance with the WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles policy. Not even the slightest attempt has been made to dispute that. FFD is not a vote. Weak unspecific WP:POLICYWAVEs can be considered, but they should not be given great weight in the face of a detailed, uncontested discussion of the significance of the image as used and its relation to policy. Can I therefore humbly suggest that the right close here is to dismiss the WP:POLICYWAVEs, and close this as a keep? Jheald ( talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I will also say, for anyone who cares, this is why there is a months' worth of backlog at FFD and PUF — nobody wants to close the things and have their talk pages lit up with complaints from the non-prevailing side. In basically all of these outstanding ones that are sitting there, someone is going to be upset. Unless someone can cite chapter and verse that no consensus discussions on a NFCC issue result in a keep, I'm inclined to accept the word of J Milburn that this is the standard practice now. Deletion review is the appropriate recourse for a deletion where procedure was not followed. I have never had a deletion overturned at DRV (which kinda surprises me actually), but you're welcome to make this one the first. -- B ( talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
Regarding [5]... I did tag the image in the article here. Maybe it was removed in a later edit? That having been said, I agree that further discussion is needed, although I don't quite see your reasoning with the specific reason for relisting. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Good close; I think that you did a good job of determining consensus. Thanks for taking the time to look at it. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete my schedule I uploaded for a reference: [ [6]] - Alec2011 ( talk) 15:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please reconsider your decision to delete the article Varolii ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I agree that there were not enough credible references in the initial version of the article but I have since added three additional third-party write-ups of the company. Thanks! Ariellarobison73 ( talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
These probably meet T3... – xeno talk 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion is not the venue to argue whether Wikipedia:Nonfree and its associated policies and guidelines are legal according to U.S. copyright law. Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content and/or send Mike Godwin an inquiry e-mail. For right now people on Files for deletion will use our nonfree guidelines as the standard bearer for copyright disputes. WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
If you see a Flickr photo that could be relicensed to replace a copyrighted photo:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: The Kay Yow pic on Flickr has been relicensed. It is now here: File:KayYowSutton.jpg WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello B. Since you know about images, could you view User talk:EdJohnston#Photo strangeness and see if you see sunlight at the upper left corner of that image? The text of the post explains what the issue is. Any feedback however terse would be helpful. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Grace was my great-aunt. Thanks for the head's up MrMarmite ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
GO HOKIES!!!! ALABAMA GOT NOTHIN!!! Jwalte04 ( talk) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ck mail. Eagle Scout issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Expecting something to happen doesn't make it much better. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 04:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
How woud you suggest we go from here? The footnotes do not match the text. And the claim in the text is not limited to athletics? Thanks. Racepacket ( talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
The article currently titled "
Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An earlier straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at:
Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2
(once this thread is archived, see
here.)
If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. -- AuthorityTam ( talk) 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
if we need useful images undeleted. Is this true? The images I find that are needed but deleted are originally someone else's, mistagged, and once they are restored, I fix the tagging. Can you do this? Do you take requests? -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't try and hide things away. Giacomo 20:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I am going to explain to you why I did what I did, but (Sigh) I don't even know why I bother. Up until May 14th I did not know that non-free files could not be placed on userspace. Afterward I stopped. Two days ago I update the Wikipedia Project Star Trek portal. Considering that all Star Trek images are in some way, copyrighted, and I noticed that other television portals have copyrighted images I added several Star Trek images. Two days later Hammersoft reverted my edits claiming that copyrighted images cannot be placed in portals. Since portals are supposed to have best work displayed, and since they link to articles I though use of images in portals was fine. Hammersoft rudely told me it was not. Forgive me for being blunt, but I do not particularly care for this user. He does not edit pages, except to remove images. He keeps statistics of the number of users he has made angry on his userpage and he is stalking my edits. I checked his edits, on May 31 the only edits he made where to revert mine and to yell at me. When he told me that adding items to portals was against policy I disagreed. I still do not see how files cannot be used in portals. Until you told me otherwise I didn't believe him. The reason I added the nobots template to the page is because I figure Hammersoft changed Dashbot so that it would remove images with certain tags from the portal. The images I had posted in the portal had remained in place until Hammersoft removed them. Then Dashbot all of a sudden started reverting. I felt that this was odd and that is why I added the template. I guess I just won't touch a image again. I won't upload, I won't add image, and I won't remove images. If they are wrong so be it. I don't plan to use them anymore. I would also like Hammersoft to leave me alone. He has been watching me, waiting for me to make another image related mistake. I have made alot of other edits other than adding images. I don't like being jumped on by him every time I make a mistake. I am not perfect and neither is he. I don't like having to worry about getting yelled at by him every time I make a mistake. One of the guidelines is don't worry about making mistakes. If he continues to harass me every time I make a mistake I won't need to be blocked for making mistakes, I will simply leave wikipedia, for good. I very much enjoy editing wikipedia, but having the stress of worrying is not worth it. I am sorry I ranted on your userpage over what I am upset about. I am not angry at you or anyone, I am just upset that Hammersoft won't leave me alone. I have written my response here rather than ANI because I do not want to be further yelled at by Hammersoft. Apologies, -- Alpha Quadrant ( talk) 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
don't you agree? Rohedin TALK 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
for this catch. That had slipped right past me :P EyeSerene talk 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I see the article has been corrected by another user, and having the article in right way is my only purpose here. But, unfortunatelly, I also saw that you declined taking action on that case against a disruptive user that has intensively and purposly reverted all changes 3 times in couple of hours. I also noteced that you decided to warn me about edit-warring (???), giving me same treatment as the disruptive user... Where did I edit warred? You conclude I edit warred because I decided to report another user edit-warring? I did take as offensive the warning that you gave me because I have been very cooperative on that, and associated articles, I had been editing all with prior accordance of the project, I have been completely agreed with another 5 editors of the article, and I have been taking action against disruption on those articles. Also, regarding the disruptive editor, I have been discussing with him on the article talk page for months now, I gave him entire freedom to let him compose the article in the right way and I had asked him politely to make some changes that are supported by all I already mentioned. I honestly hope the disruptive user will change his behavior from now on, because if he doesn´t, I will remind this failure of taking action by your side. I will also remove your comment from my talk page since I consider it completely inadequate and unfortunate for the situation, and it follows a comment by a user that was already several times forbiten to edit my talk page, so the entire section will be deleted. Best regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was not trying to hide/block the referances. I was trying to remove clutter just like the article of Adolf Hitler, but now i know that neither collapsible tables/scroll boxes should be used for citations. [1] I understand it is impossible to remove as much cluter as far as organizing by columns. :D
Thnx again, i learned my [damn] lesson. :D 序名三 「Jyonasan」 Talk 23:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh... "creates a chilling effect" on the Global Warming RFARB...I like it....;) Dreadstar ☥ 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You earlier gave a 24 hour hard block to IP 72.87.183.32 (see [12]) -- I am the one who made the original referral. I had also alleged that the IP was a sock puppet of USER:Lostorder. The block has expired and the IP resumed by making the same type of edit he/she was blocked for (see [13]). There was no discussion by the IP even though I originated a discussion on the article's discussion page. Any help would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Pls look at this thread: User_talk:Rlevse#Jerome_Tiger_DYK which refers to this image: File:Jerome tiger stomp dance.jpg on commons. Can you advise here? If it's free license I want to use it in a DYK set with the image. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) and File:HOR Philippines Session Hall.jpg, facebook is a PD source? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you get it? Thanks, -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 13:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, B
You seem to have been very busy when you were attending to this undeletion request, since you mistakenly tagged it with "Fixed"! Of course, I do understand that such errors occur when people are busy.
I took the liberty of undoing your change. Please read the request carefully before tagging it. Note that the undeletion request pertains to a previous version.
Fleet Command ( talk) 15:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I just created this article and listed at DYK. Any realistic chance of one of his paintings being free? Is a FUR possible? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
When you restored this at REFUND I suspect you hadn't seen that this had already been refused twice before. It appears that JzG was acting on behalf of OTRS when he took that out of mainspace. Obviously you can do as you like but I referred the requester back to OTRS and wouldn't have restored it without discussing privately with Guy. Spartaz Humbug! 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I am avoiding making any comments on AE because the user who filed the report has a long history with me and has been banned and warned before for battling in the Israeli-Arab topic on Wikipedia, so rather than getting involved arguing over the frivolous report I'd rather it end quietly. I just wanted to ask you, where exactly did I cross the line of civility in that edit summary? I have seen many users in the past tell other editors not to comment on their talk pages, including admins. The user who left me that comment was previously involved with me and he knew very well that I didn't want to hear from him. I had already deleted other comments of his and asked him not to comment on my talk page, but he persisted. The fact that he was a desysoped admin is totally true, and the only other thing I said was that he was harassing me... which I don't really see being a civility problem. So can you please help me understand where I went wrong? Thanks, Breein1007 ( talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: B, when I asked you to comment about some things, you did not answer about the canvassing part. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Re " unless the user is so irredeemably biased/disruptive/whatever " I think a quick run through this user's contrib history would reveal this to be true. NickCT ( talk) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi B, sorry for all the trouble, but I noticed you cited WP:AGF at AE. Is there not a problem with bad faith in the report itself? For example, is stating that I "secretly" conversed in Hebrew with another editor in order to hide what I was talking about consistent with WP:AGF? Was it not possible that I realized the other user was struggling with English so I switched to Hebrew to make it easier for him? is this not something that the reporting user should consider? I empathize with Shuki calling the report frivolous because he knows Supreme Deliciousness from past encounters, as do I, and this is not the first time he has done something like this. WP:AGF only goes so far. When Supreme Deliciousness just came off of a topic ban for battleground behaviour such as repeatedly stating that Jewish/Israeli sources are unreliable simply for being Jewish/Israeli, and then submits a report like this requesting a topic ban for things such as speaking Hebrew, it really is quite clear that something is very very wrong and that his 30 day topic ban didn't lead to a change in attitude. Breein1007 ( talk) 18:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
B, I don't think it is alright that this conversation is held here instead of the AE, It is inappropriate. It really needs to be noted that all the people who have defended Breein there, including Shuki, are people who edit in the same side as him in these conflict article. They are not neutral in what they say. There was no bad faith from me and Im sorry if it was misinterpreted. If you look at that entire section, a user had contacted Breein to edit war with him, and then while Breein went to the article and started edit warring as the otehr had requested they started to speak hebrew with each other, adn if you run this comment through google translate [14] although Google translate is not perfect, you can clearly see that they are speaking with each other about they're edits to the article. I just felt that it was important that this was mentioned because I'm sure it is inappropriate to have a conversation in another language specially involving canvassing, It was not in bad faith from me. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Hi, B. At the above AfD, you asked: Is there a reliable source that is actually about him, not just mentioning him in passing?—and I rather think I'd linked one during the debate above. Did you miss it, or do you just disagree that it's reliable?— S Marshall T/ C 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I also think the Black Belt magazine back-issues, taken as a whole, amount to a whole lot more than just a profile that was done on someone one time—but I can see your side of it too, and I do respect what you say. It's a tough one.— S Marshall T/ C 00:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
SHAYTARDS is one of the most popular users on youtube. Shay Carl definitly a YoutTube celebrity. If CTFxC aka Internet Killed Television has a wikipedia page I would think that SHAYTARDS HAS to definitly have a wikipedia page. I'm shocked that they didnt already. So, then I created one but it got deleted instantly. SHAYTARDS is even more popular than CTFxC and somehow they get a wikipedia page. CTFxC's total upload views is 76,205,601 and SHAYTARDS total upload views is 123,970,318. Shay carl also isnt on the youtube celebrities list and charles trippy and alli speed are. If you look up the definetion of celebrity on wikipedia this is it: a person who is easily recognized in a society or culture. If you were to ever watch the SHAYTARDS then you would know hat they ALWAYS get pointed out while they are out vlogging. I Highly suggest listen to both my suggestions. And if you let me create a SHAYTARDS page I will take the time to make it as best as possible. Thanks. Falcons8455 ( talk) 21:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this, with an "attribution" license free and ok for commons? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please review this FUR and use in James G. Howes. May want to look at thread on WT:SCOUT too. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
When you move an article with a talk history, please also check the archiving templates on the talk page and adapt them. They have the talk page name in their configs. I already fixed Talk:iOS (Apple).-- Oneiros ( talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For your civil and helpful comments on our dispute. Thanks! ~ Qwerp Qwertus · _Contact Me_· _Talkback_· 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) |
Hi. Your input is requested. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
B, is it just me or is there something different about {{ at}} from previous? Or is it hte format change that WP went through recently? -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, B, I hope you are doing well. :) Thanks for your comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). FYI, someone has replied to you, at the AFD page. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi B, You recently warned an editor about incivility ( here). Because I saw that this editor was giving another editor a similar hard time and making similar edit war threats ( here), I posted this to the third editor's talk page. Unfortunately, this set-off the warned editor. He has made nearly a dozen edits to the other editors talk page, so far ( here) and has pasted the same edits to my talk page in several edits ( here). Would you mind send along another word to him asking that he tone things down. I'd welcome any other suggestion, too. Thank you! Novaseminary ( talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
to B:...
Mea culpa: for some reason, I forgot to do this, even though you'll notice that I added the result to the automatically generated part of the edit summary so that anyone clicking on the section link of the edit summary in a watchlist would get straight to the "retitled" (or not) section. That's what comes of trying to be too clever, you forget to take the initial basic step! Regards, Bencherlite Talk 15:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Darrenhusted ( talk) 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Taric25 is currently harrassing me. It started when I simply disagreed with his edit warring complaint regarding Active Banana. You denied the complaint, which you correctly did. On that same complaint page, he fights back by complaining that I don't write summaries in any of my edits. I replied back saying basically that hardly anyone makes summaries on very simple edits, and I did make one snard remark to make things even. He writes on my Talk page asking for an apology, and I told him he drew first blood. Now, he's editing my user page, saying that it is an attack page. It is not an attack page. One, both users have been banned from Wikipedia for the things I mentioned on my page. And two, it serves a examples for me of confrontations I've faced in the past. I want this user to stop bothering me, and to go on and attend to other issues that need attention. This guy is extremely over-sensative. I don't want to file this report and that report just yet. I just need and admin like yourself to tell this user to stop stalking me. Groink ( talk) 01:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
His block has been lifted, and it looks like Wetcloth20 ( talk · contribs) is continuing to ignore the manual of style and already starting to edit war again over my his undoing his inappropriate use of a table format for a cast list at The King and the Clown and changing a heading at Im Su-jeong. I left him a warning and pointed him to WP:MOSFILM on his talk page, but he is continuing his reverting and claiming he will "report me" for cleaning up behind him. Can you take a look? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello B, Thanks very much for the review. I have really tried hard to make the sources for this article as reliable as possible.
There are many sources that are completely about the company in the newspapers. fulfilNET is the parent company of Yodel. See the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th & 11th sources. They are primarily about fulfilNET or Yodel. Also I have had other reviews by Qwerp, see User_talk:QwerpQwertus#Yodel_Australia. He would like it to be put live. Please let me know what you think. I have really really tried to make this information as reliable as possible. This is my first Wikipedia article and I appreciate any help that you can offer me. Thanks - Natkolk ( talk) 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Dude, that's harsh. Of course there's an Easter bunny; Santa told me so. Tarc ( talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoops; pardon my mistake. However, would you object to the page being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickm93 ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(for editors too lazy to subst in the template)...
I found this [18] very funny, as well as helpful. Thanks for bringing some good cheer to the project. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You recently blocked User:Hkwon for violating the 3RR on a talk page, with a few hours of the block expiring, the user is straight back to edit warring on an article that he is been damn close to breaking 3RR on a number of occasions. As I type this message, he has not broken 3RR (he is currently on 3 reverts within 24 hours) - perhaps as the blocking admin, it might be a good idea to give a damn stern warning, before this results in another 3RR report and a longer block for the user.
the article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kimchi&action=history
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, B.
You were involved in the investigation of the user UnclePaco two years ago. I've recently accused him of operating a sockpuppet, user CashRules. But an admin expressed doubt about the way the UnclePaco case was resolved. Would you comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco, please? Thank you. SamEV ( talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to SamEV. PLEASE and I MEAN PLEASE Checkuser those IP's on the DR page over the past 14 months against this account or show any type of similarities. It will show that I have never edited the DR page during that time. So if Elockid did a semi-protection, it was not a result of me. You're blaming me for things I have never ever done! If you can prove via some sort of edit from me on the DR page during this time I will BAN myself from this site! You are accusing me in bad faith and for that I am sick and tired of it! CashRules ( talk) 04:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You had previously participated in an Admin recall petition for Herostratus, at the user's talk page. This process has now started. It is ongoing as an RFA page, for admin recall, at: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Just because 3 different LIBERALS work together to VANDALIZE my edit, it doesn't make ME guilty of violating the 3r rule. I know the games you guys play backwards and forwards. Seen it 1000 times. Liberal Cabal 101. Blame and Block the conservative. Without exception.
And this is all being documented so others will know WHO is really pushing a political bias. Thanks for your contributions. Who knows, you may be famous some day! haha 68.41.55.171 ( talk) 03:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but notability trumps A7. Plus, you didn't follow proper delete review procedures. You just trashed the article. A7 specifically states to improve if possible. Sorry that you don't like the game. I don't necessarily like it either, but information on the origins, the development, founder, and why it became a localized media sensation should be freely available without people having to scrape multiple web sites for the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpower101 ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear B,
As you may recall, I was blocked for breaking the 3RR on WP. The discussion I am having with the other editors on the page is breaking down again, and I am being harassed and insulted by User: Justa_Punk, who has been going bonkers lately. I want this issue settled by an impartial administrator, and I want your help.
Because you blocked me, and you are probably likely to do it again, I want you to see the discussion I am up against. I am facing deletion each time I place my material on the page, and the rationales I've been given (which have been rare) are weak, changing, and there is always a lengthy—and heated— component directed at me personally. I won't stand for the childish antics anymore—I want to take action and get this settled in a fair and civil manner.
-- Screwball23 talk 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
B, I respectfully recommend looking in to Screwball's general conduct. He has already got a fair hearing and his line by line rebuttal is full of holes as usual. He just doesn't understand that what he is doing is WP:OR and it has got to the point that I am considering taking this to ArbCom for disruptive behaviour. He is now canvassing you on the matter and if you look at his talk page you'll see this isn't the first time he's done this. Seven editors in total have backed the WP:PW consensus that the current edition of the article serves the purpose re the change in programming appropriately and that should be that. Screwball is placing undue weight on the issue, and his linking this to Linda McMahon's Senate run is a very good example of a lack of WP:NPOV. I'm addressing this to you here because I'm done on the subject on the WWE talk page per WP:IPAT. !! Justa Punk !! 06:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You wrote and I quote why don't you try leaving a personal message (not a template) at his/her talk page? The problem with that suggestion is that I've already did. Like I wrote in the edit warring noticeboard, I already did it here? The page was locked for a month because of the user's uncooperative behavior, which is why it has only one revert during the past month. Its getting to the point that I really don't know what to do. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, B... I appreciate your consideration and words a couple of weeks ago, to me and "Novaseminary". You were right on the mark. Both of us were not perfect, but I'm glad you see that Nova is obviously being spiteful and out-of-line with me. He has not stopped. It has to do with this article "Separated brethren" that he never even wanted to be there to begin with. He second-guesses EVERYTHING I do, and starts edit wars and reverts. I put in simple modifications, NOT "reverts", but he'll run now to board pages CLAIMING they're "reverts", force-fitting it that way conveniently and dishonestly, SIMPLY TO GET ME BLOCKED. I can't deal with it anymore. I feel on edge every time I try to edit that article now. KNOWING that Nova will inevitably come in AND UNDO AND CHANGE EVERYTHING I PUT IN. For real.
Hi...yes, it should be on the Notice board. Sorry that it was so wordy here before. This is not the page to go that deeply into it, I agree. But I wanted to notify you what's been up. I really, like I said, am not sure what else to do. And since you were already aware of the issues between me and Nova, I wanted YOU to be the Admin to give consideration to this matter, regardless of what your ultimate decision or assessment would be. It's cool though. as I said, Nova WANTS me blocked no matter what. I don't think I technically violated 3RR as those were basically (if you check carefully) UNRELATED edits, and just simple modifications. Not all were related "reverts" in that sense. But yes, please see the board page. And thanks for your time. Sweetpoet ( talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
|
My talk page is not WP:AN3. Let's keep it there, please. -- B ( talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure you'd see it on the Notice board, as I don't know if you go there all the time. I'm sorry for writing it on here, but I really did not want that thing you said to go unresponded to, without you seeing it. I NEVER said that you thought it was only Nova at fault and not me. I said clearly in my comment on the board page that you warned both of us, and "two to tango", and that I was not perfect myself. Do you see why I worry about how Admin's might look at things? It's at a point now, where if I get blocked for arguably invalid reasons, because I have some insufferable stalker always on my back, twisting things around, I don't care much anymore......I don't need this stress. I'm only human. Yes, dial it down some notches, but Nova needs to seriously get lost, and leave me alone, like you told him to. Thanks....
Sweetpoet (
talk) 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I just closed the AN3 report related to this. As you seem to be already familiar with the situation, could you check my reasoning at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sweetpoet reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: protected, both warned)? Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to write here, but regarding your "Mormons are not considered Protestant" view, and also your use of the word "cult", which I don't agree with. Please see what I wrote....thanks. click: Talk:Separated brethren Sweetpoet ( talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
On the SPI, you said the two users sound nothing like each other. Can you talk about the differences a bit more using actual examples? Viriditas ( talk) 00:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,Please give the help at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_Jonathan_Kane:_The_Protector. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
Thank you very much for your help to restore the article Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC) |
Yea, i posted the Wizzard vessel for imediate deletion for copyright issues, fill me in on that. U know, the deadliest catch ship? how did it go?
Stuntman crow ( talk) 23:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The fringe conspiracy editor at William Greer has returned, I've reverted him at the talk page but he could use a quick block for violating his topic ban. Since you were the last one to handle the page, I thought I'd shoot you a line first and see if you'd check out 173.79.237.165 ( talk · contribs). Thanks in advance! Dayewalker ( talk) 03:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that disruptive editor. The Polish plane crash article has been a target ever since the accident happened. I requested page protection as it's been an ongoing issue. Would you review that request over at RPP for me? Thanks. N419 BH 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings B - and thanks for not speedy-deleting User:Kintetsubuffalo/Nitto Records. As per your header, I'd like to avoid any sort of drama and am desperately trying, against all odds, to AGF in this case and in others involving the same proposing editor, but I'd just like to know if an article that has been up since 2003, albeit unreferenced, is really a candidate for speedy, or whether it should instead be marked for AfD, thereby giving other editors a chance, however remote (given the time some of us spend trying to clear up real ****), to get a word in. In other words, what are the odds of another admin having deleted it if you hadn't saved it? Sorry to drag you into this, and I fully understand your wish/need as an admin to keep out of petty rows, but I'm concerned as to the number of unreferenced notable record labels might have been speedy deleted without anyone actually noticing and I don't yet want to stalk the concerned editor's contribs. page. Sorry for not being politically correct, and am willingly to accept a rap on the knuckle. This message will self-destruct the moment you have read it. And thanks for being out there. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 00:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Where do you get this? I was not abusing Eathb, he called me a retard and had been in a edit war with me. GuineaPigWarrior
Okay then, I gotta ask. How do you become a admidistrator? GW!
Well when somebody calls me a retard and doesn't won't to dicuss it, I asume it's vadalism, can you do anything about this user, he called me a retard. GW!
Hello B, yesterday you did not block the user reported for edit warring on Art student scam. The user still continues to insert undue weight parts and controversial section names singling out Israel, the same sections names that were removed yesterday. This article was kept as no consensus after deletion request. It is a sensitive article that should be edited with care. Few users mentioned the article was fine as it was at the talk page of the article, yet user:Preciseaccuracy continues editing only this article, article's talk page, and talk pages of other users about this article. Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 01:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at WP:3RRN. The specific problem on the Irvington, New York article was that I had a bulleted list of points of interest, each with a short paragraph, and images that I wanted to alternate on the right and left sides of the section. The right side is no problem, but under IE8 when the image is on the left and the bullet falls within the vertical scope of the image, the bullet butts right up against the right edge of the image, instead of offsetting a small amount (about an em-space, I think) as it normally does, and this looks very sloppy to me and makes the text difficult to read. I attempted to fix the problem by adding offsets using a number of colons (just as one would do in a deeply indented talk page discussion), which pushed the bullet just off the image. I checked this out under Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari and it looked fine. Since Miami33139 has all along (I'm going back several years now) refused to tell me what browser it is that's giving him trouble with this stuff, I had no way of specifically checking what he's seeing, but I did my best to make sure it worked under all the most popular browsers. I solved the problem by elminating the indents, and putting the images into two galleries. It's not quite as good, since the images don't appear with the text, but it's something I can live with, no problem. Miami, of course, responded by bringing me to 3RR.
if you have thoughts about solving that specific problem (bullets not wrapping well around left side images) in another way, I'd love to hear them, I'm always open to ways to make our pages look better for everybody. The more general problem for me, as you probably gathered from my comment, is Miami cruisng though my contribs with no discussion, no willingness to compromise and find solutions we both can live with. With him, it appears, it's this way or nothing -- you can see that in his editing in general. I don't like the guy, but I have no interest in confronting him or having a dispute with him. I stay away, but he keeps coming after me, and there's apparently nothing Wikipedia policy can do about it, as people misunderstand transparency as a license for any editor to do whatever they want to another editor's contributions as long as they can make a (barely) credible good faith claim for the edits. But I don't think Miami is about that, he seems to be about hasseling people: he drove me off the project for a while, and he hasseled User:Tothwolf so much that the guy went off the deep end and wound up being banned by ArbCom for a while. In my opinion, Miami33139 is bad juju, but he's a kind of bad that WP doesn't deal with well.
Anyway, that's my problem. If he wants to spend an inordinate amount of time going through my contributions, I can't stop him. I just want to be able to ignore him and go about my business. I like to add content, and improve content, and he likes to delete shit -- that's life.
Sorry to ramble (and whine) - if you have thoughts about the specific formatting problem I mentioned, I'd love to hear them. I'm not asking you to do anything about the other stuff.
Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you created the template for CFB team links:
{{cfb link|year=2010|team=Richmond Spiders|school=University of Richmond|title=Richmond}}
Could you further assist with the equivalent for Bowl Games? As the number of season-specific team pages grow, the references to particular season-specific Bowl Games is also increasing. It would be great to support a linking convention independent of whether the particular game page exists yet. Game and Year appear to be the only necessary parameters, but there might be a corner case for games which float between end of Dec and beginning of Jan resulting in some calendar years with two games (guessing the editor should handle that manually). Perhaps:
{{cfb link|year=20xx|game=Sun Bowl}}
Which would output either:
20xx Sun Bowl (if exists) or
Sun Bowl (by default)
Pasadena91 (
talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you and your family are in good health. Thank you for deleting that file of Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao. ( Aerowikipedian ( talk) 03:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC))
You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion. |
— raeky T 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). User:B ( talk) 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) -- Gwern (contribs) 11:11 4 August 2010 (GMT)
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads ( talk)11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch
this page for announcements.
—NBahn (
talk) 04:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
I've restored your edit in Young Earth Creationism, it's better than what was there before. Editor2020 ( talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little disturbed by your intervention on this. I've just read your 2nd post on Mindbunny's Talk (and posted a further comment). Although there's nothing inherently objectionable to anything you've said (although it could easily encourage Mindbunny to revert again) it seems a little strange for an admin that I've had a discussion with on another topic, making such comments as this. I'd appreciate a comment on that please. Thanks. DeCausa ( talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for providing an edit summary in your removal of the UU section from Christianity and abortion. Would you be interested in helping with an article on UU and abortion? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my message board!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, B. You blocked User:NPz1 for edit warring only, but I wonder, if you have noticed If you have noticed this edit summary? Honestly I doubt 2 weeks are enough. Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 14:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You posted this on my talk page:
Your edits at Theosophical Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Rather than blocking you, I would like to ask you to modify your behavior and to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. All articles have a talk, or "discussion" page - the discussion page for this article is at Talk:Theosophical Society. On this page, you can explain the reasons for your opinion and you can see other users' reasons for their opinions. Continually reverting a page - even if over a period of days - is considered edit warring and is not permitted. You should also know that referring to good faith users as vandals is never acceptable. Please use the talk page and do not revert the page again without a consensus there. If you continue to revert, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Just looking at your userboxes after your comment in Kenatipo's AfD. Jindal lost me when he criticized federal funding for volcano monitoring, while benefiting from federal funding for hurricane monitoring. Pity, I would have liked to have seen a Brown grad in the Oval Office.... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Is removing tags in an article considered okay while there is a discussion going on? This user just did that claiming I was misuing them while there was still discussion... [29] W M O 01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)