hey I think people are either using bots to do editing on their pages for them acting like nazis and acusing people of vandalising automatically if the page they edited even changes a little bit. eg -- Isikop or else people are writing virus bots? maybe but I am having the same problem you are and so are other poeple I know. -- Wiki4steve 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Pythagoras ( diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me Denny what do you mean when you said "it looked like a completely raw thing that wasn't right to be an article??" It is a real article. The synopsis I added is completely accurate, and before any deletion I would like proof of any wrongdoings. I am sure you will be quick to avoid any responce since you may understand that you have incorrectly deleted my contribution so I will send a copy of this to other monitors. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connman21 ( talk • contribs)
I think it is semi-protected. I just put the wrong tag on. Try to edit it and let me know if it doesn't work. -- DanielCD 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What other accounts have you used in the past? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think hobbies are beyond trivial, but I won't fight over it, if you want to put it back, go ahead. Corvus cornix 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please point out where in policies and guidelines it says that we should include hobbies? Corvus cornix 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny the Nowak court hearing image was courtesy CNN
I reverted back to an eariler version that didn't contain that text. Hang tight, several admins are working on the article right now.-- Isotope23 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You're doing a great job! Thanks for the help! GreenJoe 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. Note your most recent revert was, in fact, your third, meaning that your next revert would be a violation of the rule. I have not stated that I believe you are engaging in vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
so much for your warm welcome! As English is a language I'm not using every day I will be always glad for getting support. I made a few contributions to english WP as an IP but got the idea that it might be only fair to let everybody know that I'm not very familiar with the language. Yours, -- MrsMyer 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If you nominate a page for speedy, and it gets deleted, that means an admin agreed with you. I always take that to mean I can speedy it immediately every time it comes back, but up to you. I suppose being nice has it's merrits :-) Someguy1221 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!
School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! -- Der yck C. 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as a technical note, would you mind refactoring that huge source list to the Afd talkpage and linking it in your opinion... I imagine this debate will be huge as is so just to make life easier on the closer it might be nice to have that linked on another page.-- Isotope23 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For the meticulously researched list of references on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination). Impressive work. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but:
Hopefully this will help you improve your list. -- bainer ( talk) 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the rv did indeed go back to a state with no blogs. Gwen Gale 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL! No prob! :) Cricket02 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I know it's more the fault of this "twinkle" script than your own, but if it's not too much of a bother, is there anything you can do about edit summaries such as this one? I fail to see how this could possibly be taken as a "good faith" edit. The user saw the "edit" link, hit it, erased everything on their screen and hit "Save". It happens thousands of times a day – and sure enough, no sooner had you reverted them than they did an identical thing to a different section. Yes, I have read WP:AGF and I'm fully aware it's an "official guideline", but "reverted good faith edits per policy concerns" just sounds wrong, as it isn't just assuming good faith, it's actually labelling the edit as good faith, when it's overwhelmingly likely not to be one. Is it not better to stick to "revert edit by...", which makes no assumptions about anything? Thanks – Qxz 07:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the incorrect edit. I'm a noob, and I just started doing anti-vandalism work, and i'm new at it. Scottvn 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Casey Jones#Proposed split. I proposed that the section be split out to its own article on Feb 28 and waited for discussion. Hearing no objections, I did the split. Slambo (Speak) 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Damn, you beat me to the revert. haha. just having a smashing anti-vandal time. - Pandacomics 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's me again. Just thought I'd point out something that may be of use to you in the future. When users blank pages with no explanation, it's usually vandalism, but occasionally they're acting in good faith – they've seen an inappropriate version of the page, and they've dealt with it the only way they know of; by removing it. Case in point, the situation at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. If you check the five edits prior to the anonymous user's blanking, you'll see that, good-faith or not, they weren't really suitable for the article. By reverting the anonymous user only, you restored the good content but also the bad; in this case I think it made more sense to revert the previous five edits as well. In summary, before you revert any edit – but especially a page blanking – it's often a good idea to quickly double-check what you're actually reverting to. Thanks, and keep up the good work – Qxz 06:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're already doing any of these things, but they're things I've come across, so just checking. Hope this helps – Qxz 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Some confusion here? I was editing to help cleanup and saw GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN BEFORE I TAKE MY BELT TO YOU!!! on Womens rights? I reverted and receive a warning from you for vandalism? wtf is that all about?
New Inn Winchelsea
07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What, no email address specified? I was gonna shoot you a quick note. Well, whatever. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, just to inform you that the Wikipedia-screenshot tag you placed on Image:Essjaywikiascreenshot.jpg has been removed due to the fact that screen shot according to the source details you added is of a Wikia page. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi DennyColt,
Do you think it would be alright if I revert all of your edits to the "capital" field in each of the US state templates that you made, and just place the Tnavbar-header in the master template? The original point of including the parameter "temlate_name" in this template was the future implementation of the Tnavbar feature in the master template, and it seems to make little sense to do it by adding it to the "capital" parameter" in all of the child templates instead of just once in the master template. Let me know what you think, and if you agree, I'll make all the changes. -- CapitalR 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, DennyColt! I saw that message you posted on that IP page about Ford. I've been looking for a good vandal warning, so do you think you could show me the one that you use? Thanks!! Cremepuff222 ( talk, sign book) 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you! (Sorry about spelling "vandalism" wrong above! :) ) Cremepuff222 ( talk, sign book) 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Could you explain exactly what you meant with this comment? To the best of my recollection, I've never deleted the fascist category under discussion. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
User:DennyColt/Back to the Future themes -- wL< speak· check> 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, DennyColt. Thanks for being bold and adding the v/d/e links to every state template (with the help of CapitalR). I have some bad news for you, however — you see, before you added those links in, there was a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates (currently the focal point of discussion on state template standardization) regarding whether any links should be included in the template header or not (our discussion focused primarily on show/hide links). Ultimately, it was decided that show/hide links should not be placed in the state template headers, and I know that I assumed that this was a consensus to omit all links except for the "State of (State Name)" and "(State Capital) (capital)" links in the header.
Originally, we used this basic example as a basis for state template standardization ( with CapitalR's later edits), and if you observe the efforts we have made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates, you'll notice that we spent quite a bit of time on conciseness and clarity (perhaps these are constituted of clean aesthetics; in my opinion, they are)!
I think that you and I should start up a discussion over at that Wikipedia talk page regarding whether the v/d/e links should be included. Thanks very much! ;) — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I got the message you left on my page. I will have you know there was nothing unhelpful to what I just did. Double Up is the name of more than one album now and I diasambiguated the page to show the changes. Maybe you should have double-checked the page before you left a message on my talk page. Admc2006 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thanks. TigerShark 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That was a good read, as I said I rarely hang out at AfD so hadn't thought too much about it. Also edited a poorly worded sentence while I was there. Geez, I'm getting bold... Risker 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny!
I'm more than a bit confused about the high traffic website banners being on the Terry Shannon discussion page, not the actual page that is cited in the referring article, especially since the referring articles are about the Wikipedia article itself.
Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny. Thank you for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner ( talk, email) 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think Citizendium should be there as a fork of Wikipedia? I added it, feel free to rv it out if you don't think so. Also, how can I get your ads centered on my user page? I can't seem to get the code right to have it center-aligned... - Denny 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny! I love Wikipedia and just edited vandalism from the Roger Mudd Article. (Today is 3/15/2007.) The user who inserted the vandalism (on 3/12/2007) received a message from you the same day for his vandalism to Connie Chung and Maury Povich. I don't know much about Wikipedia -- this is the first article I've ever edited -- but I would love to see the vandal blocked from editing. Thanks for your good work on Wikipedia! Curt
Thanks for uploading Image:Scwartzbarbaratribune.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny Colt, regardless of whether or not it gets used I just wanted to tell you, "Well done on that". :-) ( → Netscott) 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to Talk:Essjay controversy/sandbox. Cheers!-- Chaser - T 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Only to let you know, blogs shouldn't ever be cited or linked to (they don't meet reliability or verifiability needs). I've left them be cuz there's an exceptional "public service" helpfulness to them but they'll have to go sooner or later. Gwen Gale 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the POV/content fork link: WP:POVFORK. Interesting reaction. Risker 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support during my recent RfA. I'm glad to say it was successful, and I hope to put the new tools to good use. Shimeru 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Editing time lag.
I have found four additional sources with identical content. Is this adequate citation? -- Cat chi? 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a speedy tag on the CU you posted. Gwen Gale 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's gone. Gwen Gale 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny, it was removed for a reason. See the talk section. If you disagree, let's discuss it there...although the topic been open for a week without disagreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.23.77 ( talk) 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello, I am Archimedes Plutonium. I respectfully request that the Wiki page on Archimedes Plutonium be immediately removed because there is no fair and objective and reasonable editor in the Wiki organization. Wiki page of Archimedes Plutonium has been a ten year old joke and mockery.
Wikipedia does not deserve anything dealing with Archimedes Plutonium, please delete his page immediately and without having to go through any process, just delete
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdeterminism ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
I added info to the article. In what way is that being disruptive. I already took it to the talk. I fixed the wikiboxes and added more detail. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/ contribs) 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if I could ask you, since I've seen you use it... how do I get the optional anon IP message to appear when using the new UW vandalism tags? Thanks, JRHorse 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The AfD for AP has become a mess (due to edits by "AP")? I'm hoping you will reorganize it so newcomers don't first see his post ... and so readers can follow the discussion around his other inserted comments. I'm not quite brave enough to do it myself ... but will if asked by another. Thanks for your efforts! Kind regards, Keesiewonder talk 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What in heaven's name is he up to? I wasn't a huge fan of the article, but after so many people had worked on it to get it to survive AfD, and genuinely felt it was worthwhile, this must be a kick in the head to them. I am really drawing a blank on what is motivating him. Oh well - he has had many editors reach out to him and offer guidance (though some of it may have been less than completely helpful), he seems to be getting it then goes galloping off in all directions again. My patience is certainly wearing thin. Risker 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If there's actually any content you believe ought to be preserved from the article, say what it is or merge it into the wikipedia article. I've had a discussion section open on Talk:wikipedia and no one has disagreed with the suggestion. Don't just revert unless you think you're actually making the encyclopedia better, instead of just trying not to go against a supposed consensus. We're supposed to be bold here. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dennycoltmine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you've double-voted here (support votes #12 and #26). It may be an idea to strike one. Cheers -- Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
i m very sorry for that but i m sincerely telling that i dont have any intentions to destroy the subject matter. so please forgive me and once again i am asking sorry for that thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uplakshgupta ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
I'm not on a shared IP, just a lowly comcast inet connection and I certainly did not vandalize the Women's Rights page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) page. Feel free to contact me at victor at fourstones dot net but don't ban my IP since I use wp as an important resource in my work. (this is me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fourstones-framed_bg.jpg ) -- 24.5.196.208, 22:18, March 8, 2007
I put a fair use disputed tag on the image you put on the article Barbara Schwarz. Don't get me wrong - I think an image would add nicely to the article, but that particular image doesn't have enough of a fair use reasoning behind it. There are a coupla things that could be done - You could add a "Fair Use Rationale" subsection to the image description page, with about 4 or more "points" as to your fair use reasoning, or even better, attempt to contact The Salt Lake Tribune, and see if they will give permission for the image to be used on a non-profit encyclopedia with attribution given - for education non-commercial purposes only ... Let me know what you think. Yours, Smee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Denny,
We currently attend Bates College. The Bates College Rough Crew is a crucial aspect of the Bates College student life. There is no joke here. The Rough Crew is as much a part of student life as the pub crawl, Newman Day, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstrumol ( talk • contribs) 05:36, March 22, 2007
Hi. Any word on this ? Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
You reverted the vandal within a minute. Amazing! Well-done! I applaud your diligent, righteous, safe-guarding efforts! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks,Denny. I appreciate your fairness and decency. I imagine that the enemies I made 2 years ago won't be happy with the edits and will want to revert everything, and if you would be kind enough to be on guard for that I'd be very grateful. I've written to the administrator asking for relief in the form of either removing the page, freezing it in a fair format, or else "salting" it I believe is the proper phrase. It's difficult work being a whistleblower, and to have to bear the burden is hard, especially since my wife is disabled from what happened to her in 2001 and the smear campaign has dampened my job prospects. I'm hoping the sun will shine again, and I pray every day in Christ's name. So I know God is watching.
Warm regards, and thank you.
Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.202.104 ( talk • contribs) 06:44, March 24, 2007
Have a nice w/end, SqueakBox 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to invite you, when moving an article, as a consequence of a discussion or debate to also do some talk-page and debate-housekeeping.
One model is here at
Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move.
I can't find a policy guideline for this kind of thing, but if you do, please point it out to me.
What is helpful about doing this housekeeping is that it affirmatively closes a debate, and gives notice that the move has been accomplished, which...might not be clearly closed without the housekeeping.
(The move at
Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Requested move is what brings me to make this suggestion, which I marked concluded, after your move.)
Hi there, got your message. Haven't been online very consistently so far today, but I will gladly take a look at that article sometime within the next 24 hours and make minor cleanups/tag, and leave a note on the talk page at minimum. You seem to be having an interesting evening ;). Risker 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the article over the course of the day (you can probably see a few of my edits), but failed to get back to you until now. I did put a couple of cite tags in where there are quotes that are not specifically attributed, down near the end of the article; I know I may be a bit cite-happy given recent editing experience ;-). I am of the overall impression that the introduction could use some further discipline in its structure, in particular bringing to the surface why the failure of RegisterFly is significant in a world-wide sense, and not just to those domain holders. It will probably be difficult to really flesh this out before the expected announcements from the ICANN meeting later this week; and of course when the deregistration occurs later this week, there will also be yet-to-be-seen impacts on the customers that will be reported. What you have here is a good base for moving forward in the next couple of weeks as the situation continues to evolve. While I think it will be a while before this will be eligible for GA status (simply because it is a current event), you might want to see if there is a really good sentence or two that might be suitable for Did You Know; perhaps talk with one of the editors there? Risker 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^ demon [omg plz] 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
About this edit, the sentence is a direct quotation; the source itself is good. Did you mean that the quotation itself--that's literally what the person said--is incoherent, or the way I referred to the quotation? - Denny 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This image is a repost of an image that has been deleted as a replaceable fair use image.
Since this person is not a recluse, fugitive, nor prisoner, it is possible that this person could get a free image created which does not restrict the usage to non-commercial entities, so this image fails the requirement that a fair use image be unrepeatable. He could grant permission to use this photo under a free license like the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses (which are not version 3.0 (which has a clause that prohibit derivitives that infringe on the moral rights of the licensor) nor have the noncommercial attribute attached). Jesse Viviano 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You might like to comment at WP:AN3 under "User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)". Note that the words "in principle" are contentious; people have been inserting and deleting these words from question 1. Two of Marskell's five (alleged) reverts in my allegation that the user violated 3RR were restoring the words "in principle" (among other words) which you had deleted. The user claims those were not reverts because you are now in agreement about the wording. What do you think -- were they reverts? Do you now support having the words "agree in principle" etc. in the question? -- Coppertwig 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny, thanks for your enthusiasm in defending the article. Aaronbrick 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
two days later... interested in RFC or arbitration for this? apparently some people still think they can unilaterally delete the article. Aaronbrick 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to tell you that the message you left at my talk could be deemed rather far out of place. Inappropriate speedy nominations with wrong template use is something I can live with, but I will thank you not to welcome (!) me to Wikipedia and direct me to the sandbox. Regards, Punkmorten 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I removed your speedy deletion tag from this page. The article does indeed assert notability, it does so in the first sentence. I replaced it with a prod. You shouldn't just throw on a7 speedy notices on articles you don't think are notable, it doesn't work that way. Please be more careful in the future.
Other than that, have a nice day :) Oskar 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my
Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0.
Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....( check my userpage). | |
---|---|
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for bringing that to my notice. I've tweaked the block to 1 week. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Denny, please see above page where I requested a checkuser. If it wasn't you, please don't be offended. The sheer sensitivity of this article outweights personal issues in my opinion. For the record, as long as there is a diff on the talk page linking to your removal (which I added), I have no objections to the removal of the comment by Brandt itself. Regards, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your concerned is covered by {{ SharedIP}} which covers for everything. -- Avi 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Denny, Thank you for the warm welcome. I am new and could read up more on how I can contribute. I am concerned about contribution's to bio's from sources that use "self hypnosis". Which if you know much about the vast anti-mormon community you will find a plethora of opportunists who would prefer to distract or redirect the readers attention from the fascinating scholarship and faith of Hugh Nibley, to his estranged daughter's disingenuous "so called memory" of her father.
Is Martha Beck his only child? Where are the comments by his wife or all of his other children? (I noticed there is no mention of his wife Phyllis or their marriage, or their children and their names.) Can you see the potential snowball effect of allowing such defaming comments. I hope there is concern here for defamation of character. Obviously Martha has distanced herself from the LDS church. I hope she is not given a platform here to blemish her fathers memory because of her distance from his faith.
I point this out to show the motivation force behind this. It is driven by a hatred for Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) & gains momentum from sites that propagate its so called contributions cloaked in honest or fair rhetoric. Well I don't know what outcome will prevail, all I can do is attempt to remind the powers that be, that responsibility precedes credibility. I can only hope that authenticity prevails over objectivity.
Sincerely,
Derek Harris User:SentinelLion
Hey, since I'm doing things that affect you so much, I feel I need to explain why I'm asking you to slow down so much. One reason is due to scaling issues, our software will not easily allow such a large number people to use a single page, as you may by now be aware.
The other reason I wanted you to slow down is to slow the rate of people coming to the page for a while. You can still try and reach the entire 3 000 000 registered userbase, but please give us some space and time to handle the new people and stay organised?
If everyone hears about this at once at the rate you've been advertising, it's like mopping while the tap is still running. It just can't be done. We'll all end up with a big mess, rather than a well organized process, which is probably what you're looking for.
So could you maybe give us all some time to figure out how to deal with this rather novel approach? Else the new groupings will spawn faster than I can handle them. -- Kim Bruning 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh oh, before it sounds like I'm harping on you or anything, did I mention I admire your energy and can-do attitude, and that it's that attitude in people that really makes wikipedia great?
But at the same time, you do have to be a bit careful to not bite off more than you can chew all at once. Especially when you're not the one having to do the chewing :-P We have plenty of time. Right now I'd really appreciate it if you could direct your energy towards talking with the people already present. Preferably about ATT itself. (Since I'm already swamped.) Later on we can then try and advertise and pull in more people. But there's some issues with that we may need to look at.
-- Kim Bruning 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I was shocked to see you add that screenshot in so fast! Thank you for self-reverting, I didn't want to have to have an edit war about it. If that article doesn't stay diligently neutral, it will be back on AfD. Keep the focus on the controversy itself, and its outcome. Remember the mantra of this article...talk for at least 24 hours about anything...I know it's not exciting, but I can tell you there are plenty of people watching this article all the time who won't hesitate to nominate it again. Risker 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Kindly stop attacking me on the admin board. You don't own that poll, and people who think it is a bad idea have the freedom to state so. >Radiant< 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
David, I like you a lot, but I rv'd your closure. you and I are not neutral parties and shouldn't be closing that (no one really involved on that poll page should, and the nonsense about the poll being dead needs settling/attention). Another neutral party can close later. Please don't take it the wrong way. - Denny 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. -- Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.-- Anthony.bradbury 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get personal in edit summaries. If you check the talk page you will note several people agreeing with me. It is simply improper to remove a {{ guideline}} tag while a {{ disputedtag}} dispute is ongoing. >Radiant< 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why you returned the neutrality tag to this page. The tag was originally added a long time ago and much work has been done to make the page more neutral. Please can you comment? -- Samtheboy ( t/ c) 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! feydey 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You inadvertently voted twice on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Akhilleus. — KNcyu38 ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Denny, sorry I haven't gotten a chance to give a good look at Registerfly but in the meantime considering the "hotness" of the whole polling issue I've decided to make an effort to reestablish this above page to guideline status as such a thing is greatly needed. I would like to invite you to join in editing and discussing this. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this edit wasn't appropriate, as it is unsourced, inflammatory, and self-referential. Thanks, - Denny 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Grace, do you have any sort of a problem with me, or are you following and reviewing my edits? You seem to follow in the wake of much of what I do since I commented on the Brandt matter with scorn and hostile or excessively questioning tone, and I am concerned about it. Please let me know. - Denny 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw it on your talkpage and thought it looked interesting. Whenever someone comes and whines about nothing much on my talkpage, I have a look and see who else they've been talking to. I think you'll find that's quite normal. So I followed the link. Now, I have to ask you to stop wasting my time. I have better things to do than read your conspiracy theory about me, and I'm sure you do too. Isn't there a policy that needs your input somewhere? Grace Note 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
For an image of a living person to be allowed on Wikipedia just to show what he or she looks like, the image must be under a license or other condition that allows anybody to reuse the photo in any way, including commercial works. The only restrictions that Wikipedia allows on photos are that the photo may require attribution, and that the photo may require that any derivatives be relicensed under the same license. Since official photos of Canadian politicians disallow commercial reuse, the image is permissible if and only if a similar work that achieves the same purpose is impossible (e.g. the person is a fugitive like Osama bin Laden, looks very different compared to what the photo looks like (e.g. had his face disfigured or is much older than when he or she had that photo taken), or is a prisoner like Dennis Rader a.k.a. the BTK killer, where prisons probably do not want people taking photos of their prisoners because some of them, like Rader, are media hounds who get their jollies by getting their images taken by either still image or television cameras). For us to keep the photo, we must receive explicit permission to use the photo under one of the licenses listed here. Permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough, and photos used with permission where a free alternative could be created are disallowed. Jesse Viviano 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
This is for understanding and taking action to correct your addition of works disallowed under Wikipedia policy, and for reacting positively when notified. Jesse Viviano 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for the kind words Denny :) Gwen Gale 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey now, if we were going to have all vandalism patroling done by mindless bots, ... we'd cut out the middle men. :) I'm blathering about this revert. You managed to revert the covering edit but not the initial suspect edit. Watch out for stuff like that.-- Gmaxwell 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Serin. The whole article is just a glorified attack page, as far as I'm concerned. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to make sure my userpages follow wikipolicy. :-) Lawyer2b 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Your essay WP:BADSITES, by its own admission, is not a Wikipedia policy. Thus, you have no business "enforcing" it by altering other people's comments on talk and project pages. *Dan T.* 13:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel like editing userpages to conform to your essay is poor form. Consider simply dispensing advice about links you find offensive on the users' talk pages and soliciting feedback. Vees 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Denny, thanks for your support in my successful
RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, |
Cla68 raised an important issue here, and I would like to hear your response. Assuming a reliable news source like the NY Times publishes a story in which it links a user to a real name, exposing him (or her) and/or mentions the name of an attack site: May that article be linked to? — KNcyu38 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not confuse AGF with criticising your lack of experience. Seeing you lack experience is not the same at all as assuming you are not coming from a good faith space. I suggest you wait till you have 6 months experience before starting to write policy as you inevitably still have a very poor understanding of wikipedia due to not even 3 months here and even coming from aa good faith space you have a tremendous capacity to unintentionally damage the project, IMO, not due to bad faith but due to inexperience and hence a poor grasp of how wikipedia actually works, SqueakBox 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, in my opinion, you're right. The mentioned sites are indeed attack sites. I just want to lay emphasis on the ambivalence I'm having, because I believe those sites offer at least some valid criticism. Dang. Someone should make a site that collects the better bits and pieces from those attack sites and leaves out the attack crap. — KNcyu38 ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. — KNcyu38 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you either look at the diffs I posted on WP:AN/I or not get involved in this. There is no point in complicating the matter and your suggestion of banning me from the article reflects poorly on you. KazakhPol 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As demonstrated by the ArbCom case
linked to by arbitrator
Kirill Lokshin in the
Mongo request for carification and as transcluded to
Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites in response to the request for clarification, there seems to be no binding ArbCom ruling pertaining to links to attack sites. I reverted your revision of WP:BP. And besides: Calling a good-faithed edit vandalism as in "rvv"
[3]/
[4], is not the preferred way. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Claiming another law-abiding user supports personal borderline terrorism is way out of line. Please stay calm and dont attack other users as you are making for an unsafe wikipedia environment in doing so, something I thought you were trying to prevent? SqueakBox 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Regardless of the outcome, your efforts to help defend Wikipedians from links to websites that attack them, is appreciated. MONGO 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you, MONGO! - Denny ( talk) 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wil you agree to mediation, given this completely out of order accusation it is, IMO, entirely necessary, SqueakBox 17:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I take it you are refusing mediation then? SqueakBox 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've no idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this: {{subpages}}? Returns like this:
all subpages of this page. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a
mediation request or a
third opinion is a better idea for starters. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A series of edits like this
[5]/
[6]/
[7]/
[8]/
[9]/
[10] could be considered
canvassing. At the very least, it's not best practice. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
21:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well you have 7 days to accept mediation with me. I hope you do so. I dont see this a s a steeppiong stone to an Rfc but a potentially useful process to help us for any further collaboration in the future. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
..it's good to say hello! - hope you're well, and thanks for your note - i couldn't find any mention of us being involved with an arbitration case, but maybe it just moved on over the last couple of days?
let me know if i've just missed something obvious - and i'll probably see you over at the badsites page. If you are one of the editors concerned about me or the points i raise, please do drop by my talk page, and i'll happily chat away.
best - Purples 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding
this: I hope you understand that others do not see this as black and white as you appear to do. I am all against attacks on Wikipedians, but... oh, what the heck. Nevermind. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny. I find your above referenced statement interesting. I could just as easily say that I find anyone who advocates a policy that's likely to lead to increased harassment to be "of questionable morality". I don't think that though, it turns out. I think people can come to pretty different conclusions in perfectly good faith, due to differences in judgment.
Think about this, Denny: What if I, having carefully considered, decide that the best way I can help prevent harassment of Wikipedians is by opposing the policy you've suggested at WP:BADSITES? In that case, how can I do anything but oppose it, if I'm to have a clear conscience? Yes, I'm supporting the "right" to not have a misguided policy banning links to certain sites. I'm supporting that right for the express purpose of protecting and improving Wikipedia, and I've got some pretty good reasons behind that support. You can question my judgment, but my motives are the same as yours.
Feel free to reply here, or at my talk page, or by email if you'd like to chat. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that .V. indicated something about your comment on the TFD of {{ TrollWarning}}. If you want to discuss it, go ahead—some intelligent discussion between both sides would be useful, if not novel, in that debate. Gracenotes T § 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been denied. Nor looking good. I hope you will now consider mediation as I definitely see the rfc as an attack and your comment here as a rather nasty threat and it appear admins arent willing to remove the evidence. This can all be resolved very beasily in mediation, or not. Your choice? SqueakBox 02:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I really like your user page. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If this is indeed suspected or known to be a sockpuppet account, it should carry the appropriate template on the user page. — Alde Baer 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alexisonfirelogo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Chain Barnstar of Recognition | |
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Chain Barnstar of Merit | |
For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Chain Barnstar of Diligence | |
For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour | |
For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
I know you are not currently active, but I am not much either, except regarding the ongoing exegesis of the WP:BADSITES proposal you introduced into the Wikipedian system. Back in April 2007, I forked the substance of BADSITES over to NPA as an means of defeating it as a policy in itself. While you seemed chagrined before you left that "someone broke out the rejected tag," my moving the text over to NPA seems to have inadvertently given it new life, and I was wondering how you would respond to the subsequent accusations that you wrote BADSITES as a parody of sorts of the intentions of those targeted by "attack sites," as opposed to someone who earnestly proposed this believing it would gain widespread consensus. Those Wikipedians who saw fit to call you a troll after you left seemed to be those whose interests you were intentionally or inadvertently defending, while many other Wikipedians (myself included) are surely interested in hearing your point of view regarding all the issues leading into the current ArbCom case. I hope all is well otherwise. Regards,— AL FOCUS! 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
A New Hope and End Credits, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
A New Hope and End Credits is a redirect to a non-existent page (
CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
A New Hope and End Credits, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot
08:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I am extremely sorry that i have vandalised becuase it was another person who hacked into my accounts and vandalised. I am guessing it was my friend. Hope you'll forgive me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkchaotix ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:BLP Check ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Darkwind ( talk) 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Remember the dot ( talk) 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:BttfSidebar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Essjay-GFDL-released.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Docg 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:QuestionATTtoalleditors.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
==
Thanks for uploading Image:AOFGeorge13.jpg, which you've sourced to Jubella. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ==
Soundvisions1 ( talk) 17:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Twinklepuffuserboxicon.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:580473948 l.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).
I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.
If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!
If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.
Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng { chat} 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
File:AOFWade4.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:AOFWade4.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:AOFWade4.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library |
![]() |
You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic· t 21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
![]() |
Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park |
![]() |
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! — howcheng { chat} 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at
Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us! Sign up here - see you there! 00:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park |
![]() |
You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! — howcheng { chat} 01:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
You are invited to " Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
hey I think people are either using bots to do editing on their pages for them acting like nazis and acusing people of vandalising automatically if the page they edited even changes a little bit. eg -- Isikop or else people are writing virus bots? maybe but I am having the same problem you are and so are other poeple I know. -- Wiki4steve 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Pythagoras ( diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me Denny what do you mean when you said "it looked like a completely raw thing that wasn't right to be an article??" It is a real article. The synopsis I added is completely accurate, and before any deletion I would like proof of any wrongdoings. I am sure you will be quick to avoid any responce since you may understand that you have incorrectly deleted my contribution so I will send a copy of this to other monitors. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connman21 ( talk • contribs)
I think it is semi-protected. I just put the wrong tag on. Try to edit it and let me know if it doesn't work. -- DanielCD 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What other accounts have you used in the past? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think hobbies are beyond trivial, but I won't fight over it, if you want to put it back, go ahead. Corvus cornix 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please point out where in policies and guidelines it says that we should include hobbies? Corvus cornix 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny the Nowak court hearing image was courtesy CNN
I reverted back to an eariler version that didn't contain that text. Hang tight, several admins are working on the article right now.-- Isotope23 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You're doing a great job! Thanks for the help! GreenJoe 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. Note your most recent revert was, in fact, your third, meaning that your next revert would be a violation of the rule. I have not stated that I believe you are engaging in vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
so much for your warm welcome! As English is a language I'm not using every day I will be always glad for getting support. I made a few contributions to english WP as an IP but got the idea that it might be only fair to let everybody know that I'm not very familiar with the language. Yours, -- MrsMyer 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If you nominate a page for speedy, and it gets deleted, that means an admin agreed with you. I always take that to mean I can speedy it immediately every time it comes back, but up to you. I suppose being nice has it's merrits :-) Someguy1221 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!
School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! -- Der yck C. 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as a technical note, would you mind refactoring that huge source list to the Afd talkpage and linking it in your opinion... I imagine this debate will be huge as is so just to make life easier on the closer it might be nice to have that linked on another page.-- Isotope23 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For the meticulously researched list of references on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination). Impressive work. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but:
Hopefully this will help you improve your list. -- bainer ( talk) 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the rv did indeed go back to a state with no blogs. Gwen Gale 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL! No prob! :) Cricket02 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I know it's more the fault of this "twinkle" script than your own, but if it's not too much of a bother, is there anything you can do about edit summaries such as this one? I fail to see how this could possibly be taken as a "good faith" edit. The user saw the "edit" link, hit it, erased everything on their screen and hit "Save". It happens thousands of times a day – and sure enough, no sooner had you reverted them than they did an identical thing to a different section. Yes, I have read WP:AGF and I'm fully aware it's an "official guideline", but "reverted good faith edits per policy concerns" just sounds wrong, as it isn't just assuming good faith, it's actually labelling the edit as good faith, when it's overwhelmingly likely not to be one. Is it not better to stick to "revert edit by...", which makes no assumptions about anything? Thanks – Qxz 07:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the incorrect edit. I'm a noob, and I just started doing anti-vandalism work, and i'm new at it. Scottvn 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Casey Jones#Proposed split. I proposed that the section be split out to its own article on Feb 28 and waited for discussion. Hearing no objections, I did the split. Slambo (Speak) 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Damn, you beat me to the revert. haha. just having a smashing anti-vandal time. - Pandacomics 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's me again. Just thought I'd point out something that may be of use to you in the future. When users blank pages with no explanation, it's usually vandalism, but occasionally they're acting in good faith – they've seen an inappropriate version of the page, and they've dealt with it the only way they know of; by removing it. Case in point, the situation at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. If you check the five edits prior to the anonymous user's blanking, you'll see that, good-faith or not, they weren't really suitable for the article. By reverting the anonymous user only, you restored the good content but also the bad; in this case I think it made more sense to revert the previous five edits as well. In summary, before you revert any edit – but especially a page blanking – it's often a good idea to quickly double-check what you're actually reverting to. Thanks, and keep up the good work – Qxz 06:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're already doing any of these things, but they're things I've come across, so just checking. Hope this helps – Qxz 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Some confusion here? I was editing to help cleanup and saw GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN BEFORE I TAKE MY BELT TO YOU!!! on Womens rights? I reverted and receive a warning from you for vandalism? wtf is that all about?
New Inn Winchelsea
07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What, no email address specified? I was gonna shoot you a quick note. Well, whatever. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, just to inform you that the Wikipedia-screenshot tag you placed on Image:Essjaywikiascreenshot.jpg has been removed due to the fact that screen shot according to the source details you added is of a Wikia page. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi DennyColt,
Do you think it would be alright if I revert all of your edits to the "capital" field in each of the US state templates that you made, and just place the Tnavbar-header in the master template? The original point of including the parameter "temlate_name" in this template was the future implementation of the Tnavbar feature in the master template, and it seems to make little sense to do it by adding it to the "capital" parameter" in all of the child templates instead of just once in the master template. Let me know what you think, and if you agree, I'll make all the changes. -- CapitalR 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, DennyColt! I saw that message you posted on that IP page about Ford. I've been looking for a good vandal warning, so do you think you could show me the one that you use? Thanks!! Cremepuff222 ( talk, sign book) 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you! (Sorry about spelling "vandalism" wrong above! :) ) Cremepuff222 ( talk, sign book) 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Could you explain exactly what you meant with this comment? To the best of my recollection, I've never deleted the fascist category under discussion. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
User:DennyColt/Back to the Future themes -- wL< speak· check> 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, DennyColt. Thanks for being bold and adding the v/d/e links to every state template (with the help of CapitalR). I have some bad news for you, however — you see, before you added those links in, there was a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates (currently the focal point of discussion on state template standardization) regarding whether any links should be included in the template header or not (our discussion focused primarily on show/hide links). Ultimately, it was decided that show/hide links should not be placed in the state template headers, and I know that I assumed that this was a consensus to omit all links except for the "State of (State Name)" and "(State Capital) (capital)" links in the header.
Originally, we used this basic example as a basis for state template standardization ( with CapitalR's later edits), and if you observe the efforts we have made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates, you'll notice that we spent quite a bit of time on conciseness and clarity (perhaps these are constituted of clean aesthetics; in my opinion, they are)!
I think that you and I should start up a discussion over at that Wikipedia talk page regarding whether the v/d/e links should be included. Thanks very much! ;) — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I got the message you left on my page. I will have you know there was nothing unhelpful to what I just did. Double Up is the name of more than one album now and I diasambiguated the page to show the changes. Maybe you should have double-checked the page before you left a message on my talk page. Admc2006 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thanks. TigerShark 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That was a good read, as I said I rarely hang out at AfD so hadn't thought too much about it. Also edited a poorly worded sentence while I was there. Geez, I'm getting bold... Risker 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny!
I'm more than a bit confused about the high traffic website banners being on the Terry Shannon discussion page, not the actual page that is cited in the referring article, especially since the referring articles are about the Wikipedia article itself.
Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny. Thank you for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner ( talk, email) 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think Citizendium should be there as a fork of Wikipedia? I added it, feel free to rv it out if you don't think so. Also, how can I get your ads centered on my user page? I can't seem to get the code right to have it center-aligned... - Denny 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny! I love Wikipedia and just edited vandalism from the Roger Mudd Article. (Today is 3/15/2007.) The user who inserted the vandalism (on 3/12/2007) received a message from you the same day for his vandalism to Connie Chung and Maury Povich. I don't know much about Wikipedia -- this is the first article I've ever edited -- but I would love to see the vandal blocked from editing. Thanks for your good work on Wikipedia! Curt
Thanks for uploading Image:Scwartzbarbaratribune.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny Colt, regardless of whether or not it gets used I just wanted to tell you, "Well done on that". :-) ( → Netscott) 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to Talk:Essjay controversy/sandbox. Cheers!-- Chaser - T 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Only to let you know, blogs shouldn't ever be cited or linked to (they don't meet reliability or verifiability needs). I've left them be cuz there's an exceptional "public service" helpfulness to them but they'll have to go sooner or later. Gwen Gale 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the POV/content fork link: WP:POVFORK. Interesting reaction. Risker 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support during my recent RfA. I'm glad to say it was successful, and I hope to put the new tools to good use. Shimeru 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Editing time lag.
I have found four additional sources with identical content. Is this adequate citation? -- Cat chi? 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a speedy tag on the CU you posted. Gwen Gale 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's gone. Gwen Gale 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny, it was removed for a reason. See the talk section. If you disagree, let's discuss it there...although the topic been open for a week without disagreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.23.77 ( talk) 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello, I am Archimedes Plutonium. I respectfully request that the Wiki page on Archimedes Plutonium be immediately removed because there is no fair and objective and reasonable editor in the Wiki organization. Wiki page of Archimedes Plutonium has been a ten year old joke and mockery.
Wikipedia does not deserve anything dealing with Archimedes Plutonium, please delete his page immediately and without having to go through any process, just delete
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdeterminism ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
I added info to the article. In what way is that being disruptive. I already took it to the talk. I fixed the wikiboxes and added more detail. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/ contribs) 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if I could ask you, since I've seen you use it... how do I get the optional anon IP message to appear when using the new UW vandalism tags? Thanks, JRHorse 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The AfD for AP has become a mess (due to edits by "AP")? I'm hoping you will reorganize it so newcomers don't first see his post ... and so readers can follow the discussion around his other inserted comments. I'm not quite brave enough to do it myself ... but will if asked by another. Thanks for your efforts! Kind regards, Keesiewonder talk 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What in heaven's name is he up to? I wasn't a huge fan of the article, but after so many people had worked on it to get it to survive AfD, and genuinely felt it was worthwhile, this must be a kick in the head to them. I am really drawing a blank on what is motivating him. Oh well - he has had many editors reach out to him and offer guidance (though some of it may have been less than completely helpful), he seems to be getting it then goes galloping off in all directions again. My patience is certainly wearing thin. Risker 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If there's actually any content you believe ought to be preserved from the article, say what it is or merge it into the wikipedia article. I've had a discussion section open on Talk:wikipedia and no one has disagreed with the suggestion. Don't just revert unless you think you're actually making the encyclopedia better, instead of just trying not to go against a supposed consensus. We're supposed to be bold here. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dennycoltmine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you've double-voted here (support votes #12 and #26). It may be an idea to strike one. Cheers -- Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
i m very sorry for that but i m sincerely telling that i dont have any intentions to destroy the subject matter. so please forgive me and once again i am asking sorry for that thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uplakshgupta ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
I'm not on a shared IP, just a lowly comcast inet connection and I certainly did not vandalize the Women's Rights page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) page. Feel free to contact me at victor at fourstones dot net but don't ban my IP since I use wp as an important resource in my work. (this is me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fourstones-framed_bg.jpg ) -- 24.5.196.208, 22:18, March 8, 2007
I put a fair use disputed tag on the image you put on the article Barbara Schwarz. Don't get me wrong - I think an image would add nicely to the article, but that particular image doesn't have enough of a fair use reasoning behind it. There are a coupla things that could be done - You could add a "Fair Use Rationale" subsection to the image description page, with about 4 or more "points" as to your fair use reasoning, or even better, attempt to contact The Salt Lake Tribune, and see if they will give permission for the image to be used on a non-profit encyclopedia with attribution given - for education non-commercial purposes only ... Let me know what you think. Yours, Smee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Denny,
We currently attend Bates College. The Bates College Rough Crew is a crucial aspect of the Bates College student life. There is no joke here. The Rough Crew is as much a part of student life as the pub crawl, Newman Day, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstrumol ( talk • contribs) 05:36, March 22, 2007
Hi. Any word on this ? Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
You reverted the vandal within a minute. Amazing! Well-done! I applaud your diligent, righteous, safe-guarding efforts! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks,Denny. I appreciate your fairness and decency. I imagine that the enemies I made 2 years ago won't be happy with the edits and will want to revert everything, and if you would be kind enough to be on guard for that I'd be very grateful. I've written to the administrator asking for relief in the form of either removing the page, freezing it in a fair format, or else "salting" it I believe is the proper phrase. It's difficult work being a whistleblower, and to have to bear the burden is hard, especially since my wife is disabled from what happened to her in 2001 and the smear campaign has dampened my job prospects. I'm hoping the sun will shine again, and I pray every day in Christ's name. So I know God is watching.
Warm regards, and thank you.
Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.202.104 ( talk • contribs) 06:44, March 24, 2007
Have a nice w/end, SqueakBox 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to invite you, when moving an article, as a consequence of a discussion or debate to also do some talk-page and debate-housekeeping.
One model is here at
Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move.
I can't find a policy guideline for this kind of thing, but if you do, please point it out to me.
What is helpful about doing this housekeeping is that it affirmatively closes a debate, and gives notice that the move has been accomplished, which...might not be clearly closed without the housekeeping.
(The move at
Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Requested move is what brings me to make this suggestion, which I marked concluded, after your move.)
Hi there, got your message. Haven't been online very consistently so far today, but I will gladly take a look at that article sometime within the next 24 hours and make minor cleanups/tag, and leave a note on the talk page at minimum. You seem to be having an interesting evening ;). Risker 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the article over the course of the day (you can probably see a few of my edits), but failed to get back to you until now. I did put a couple of cite tags in where there are quotes that are not specifically attributed, down near the end of the article; I know I may be a bit cite-happy given recent editing experience ;-). I am of the overall impression that the introduction could use some further discipline in its structure, in particular bringing to the surface why the failure of RegisterFly is significant in a world-wide sense, and not just to those domain holders. It will probably be difficult to really flesh this out before the expected announcements from the ICANN meeting later this week; and of course when the deregistration occurs later this week, there will also be yet-to-be-seen impacts on the customers that will be reported. What you have here is a good base for moving forward in the next couple of weeks as the situation continues to evolve. While I think it will be a while before this will be eligible for GA status (simply because it is a current event), you might want to see if there is a really good sentence or two that might be suitable for Did You Know; perhaps talk with one of the editors there? Risker 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^ demon [omg plz] 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
About this edit, the sentence is a direct quotation; the source itself is good. Did you mean that the quotation itself--that's literally what the person said--is incoherent, or the way I referred to the quotation? - Denny 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This image is a repost of an image that has been deleted as a replaceable fair use image.
Since this person is not a recluse, fugitive, nor prisoner, it is possible that this person could get a free image created which does not restrict the usage to non-commercial entities, so this image fails the requirement that a fair use image be unrepeatable. He could grant permission to use this photo under a free license like the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses (which are not version 3.0 (which has a clause that prohibit derivitives that infringe on the moral rights of the licensor) nor have the noncommercial attribute attached). Jesse Viviano 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You might like to comment at WP:AN3 under "User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)". Note that the words "in principle" are contentious; people have been inserting and deleting these words from question 1. Two of Marskell's five (alleged) reverts in my allegation that the user violated 3RR were restoring the words "in principle" (among other words) which you had deleted. The user claims those were not reverts because you are now in agreement about the wording. What do you think -- were they reverts? Do you now support having the words "agree in principle" etc. in the question? -- Coppertwig 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny, thanks for your enthusiasm in defending the article. Aaronbrick 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
two days later... interested in RFC or arbitration for this? apparently some people still think they can unilaterally delete the article. Aaronbrick 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to tell you that the message you left at my talk could be deemed rather far out of place. Inappropriate speedy nominations with wrong template use is something I can live with, but I will thank you not to welcome (!) me to Wikipedia and direct me to the sandbox. Regards, Punkmorten 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I removed your speedy deletion tag from this page. The article does indeed assert notability, it does so in the first sentence. I replaced it with a prod. You shouldn't just throw on a7 speedy notices on articles you don't think are notable, it doesn't work that way. Please be more careful in the future.
Other than that, have a nice day :) Oskar 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my
Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0.
Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....( check my userpage). | |
---|---|
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for bringing that to my notice. I've tweaked the block to 1 week. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Denny, please see above page where I requested a checkuser. If it wasn't you, please don't be offended. The sheer sensitivity of this article outweights personal issues in my opinion. For the record, as long as there is a diff on the talk page linking to your removal (which I added), I have no objections to the removal of the comment by Brandt itself. Regards, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your concerned is covered by {{ SharedIP}} which covers for everything. -- Avi 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Denny, Thank you for the warm welcome. I am new and could read up more on how I can contribute. I am concerned about contribution's to bio's from sources that use "self hypnosis". Which if you know much about the vast anti-mormon community you will find a plethora of opportunists who would prefer to distract or redirect the readers attention from the fascinating scholarship and faith of Hugh Nibley, to his estranged daughter's disingenuous "so called memory" of her father.
Is Martha Beck his only child? Where are the comments by his wife or all of his other children? (I noticed there is no mention of his wife Phyllis or their marriage, or their children and their names.) Can you see the potential snowball effect of allowing such defaming comments. I hope there is concern here for defamation of character. Obviously Martha has distanced herself from the LDS church. I hope she is not given a platform here to blemish her fathers memory because of her distance from his faith.
I point this out to show the motivation force behind this. It is driven by a hatred for Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) & gains momentum from sites that propagate its so called contributions cloaked in honest or fair rhetoric. Well I don't know what outcome will prevail, all I can do is attempt to remind the powers that be, that responsibility precedes credibility. I can only hope that authenticity prevails over objectivity.
Sincerely,
Derek Harris User:SentinelLion
Hey, since I'm doing things that affect you so much, I feel I need to explain why I'm asking you to slow down so much. One reason is due to scaling issues, our software will not easily allow such a large number people to use a single page, as you may by now be aware.
The other reason I wanted you to slow down is to slow the rate of people coming to the page for a while. You can still try and reach the entire 3 000 000 registered userbase, but please give us some space and time to handle the new people and stay organised?
If everyone hears about this at once at the rate you've been advertising, it's like mopping while the tap is still running. It just can't be done. We'll all end up with a big mess, rather than a well organized process, which is probably what you're looking for.
So could you maybe give us all some time to figure out how to deal with this rather novel approach? Else the new groupings will spawn faster than I can handle them. -- Kim Bruning 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh oh, before it sounds like I'm harping on you or anything, did I mention I admire your energy and can-do attitude, and that it's that attitude in people that really makes wikipedia great?
But at the same time, you do have to be a bit careful to not bite off more than you can chew all at once. Especially when you're not the one having to do the chewing :-P We have plenty of time. Right now I'd really appreciate it if you could direct your energy towards talking with the people already present. Preferably about ATT itself. (Since I'm already swamped.) Later on we can then try and advertise and pull in more people. But there's some issues with that we may need to look at.
-- Kim Bruning 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I was shocked to see you add that screenshot in so fast! Thank you for self-reverting, I didn't want to have to have an edit war about it. If that article doesn't stay diligently neutral, it will be back on AfD. Keep the focus on the controversy itself, and its outcome. Remember the mantra of this article...talk for at least 24 hours about anything...I know it's not exciting, but I can tell you there are plenty of people watching this article all the time who won't hesitate to nominate it again. Risker 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Kindly stop attacking me on the admin board. You don't own that poll, and people who think it is a bad idea have the freedom to state so. >Radiant< 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
David, I like you a lot, but I rv'd your closure. you and I are not neutral parties and shouldn't be closing that (no one really involved on that poll page should, and the nonsense about the poll being dead needs settling/attention). Another neutral party can close later. Please don't take it the wrong way. - Denny 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. -- Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.-- Anthony.bradbury 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get personal in edit summaries. If you check the talk page you will note several people agreeing with me. It is simply improper to remove a {{ guideline}} tag while a {{ disputedtag}} dispute is ongoing. >Radiant< 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why you returned the neutrality tag to this page. The tag was originally added a long time ago and much work has been done to make the page more neutral. Please can you comment? -- Samtheboy ( t/ c) 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! feydey 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You inadvertently voted twice on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Akhilleus. — KNcyu38 ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Denny, sorry I haven't gotten a chance to give a good look at Registerfly but in the meantime considering the "hotness" of the whole polling issue I've decided to make an effort to reestablish this above page to guideline status as such a thing is greatly needed. I would like to invite you to join in editing and discussing this. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this edit wasn't appropriate, as it is unsourced, inflammatory, and self-referential. Thanks, - Denny 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Grace, do you have any sort of a problem with me, or are you following and reviewing my edits? You seem to follow in the wake of much of what I do since I commented on the Brandt matter with scorn and hostile or excessively questioning tone, and I am concerned about it. Please let me know. - Denny 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw it on your talkpage and thought it looked interesting. Whenever someone comes and whines about nothing much on my talkpage, I have a look and see who else they've been talking to. I think you'll find that's quite normal. So I followed the link. Now, I have to ask you to stop wasting my time. I have better things to do than read your conspiracy theory about me, and I'm sure you do too. Isn't there a policy that needs your input somewhere? Grace Note 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
For an image of a living person to be allowed on Wikipedia just to show what he or she looks like, the image must be under a license or other condition that allows anybody to reuse the photo in any way, including commercial works. The only restrictions that Wikipedia allows on photos are that the photo may require attribution, and that the photo may require that any derivatives be relicensed under the same license. Since official photos of Canadian politicians disallow commercial reuse, the image is permissible if and only if a similar work that achieves the same purpose is impossible (e.g. the person is a fugitive like Osama bin Laden, looks very different compared to what the photo looks like (e.g. had his face disfigured or is much older than when he or she had that photo taken), or is a prisoner like Dennis Rader a.k.a. the BTK killer, where prisons probably do not want people taking photos of their prisoners because some of them, like Rader, are media hounds who get their jollies by getting their images taken by either still image or television cameras). For us to keep the photo, we must receive explicit permission to use the photo under one of the licenses listed here. Permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough, and photos used with permission where a free alternative could be created are disallowed. Jesse Viviano 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
This is for understanding and taking action to correct your addition of works disallowed under Wikipedia policy, and for reacting positively when notified. Jesse Viviano 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for the kind words Denny :) Gwen Gale 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey now, if we were going to have all vandalism patroling done by mindless bots, ... we'd cut out the middle men. :) I'm blathering about this revert. You managed to revert the covering edit but not the initial suspect edit. Watch out for stuff like that.-- Gmaxwell 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Serin. The whole article is just a glorified attack page, as far as I'm concerned. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to make sure my userpages follow wikipolicy. :-) Lawyer2b 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Your essay WP:BADSITES, by its own admission, is not a Wikipedia policy. Thus, you have no business "enforcing" it by altering other people's comments on talk and project pages. *Dan T.* 13:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel like editing userpages to conform to your essay is poor form. Consider simply dispensing advice about links you find offensive on the users' talk pages and soliciting feedback. Vees 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Denny, thanks for your support in my successful
RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, |
Cla68 raised an important issue here, and I would like to hear your response. Assuming a reliable news source like the NY Times publishes a story in which it links a user to a real name, exposing him (or her) and/or mentions the name of an attack site: May that article be linked to? — KNcyu38 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not confuse AGF with criticising your lack of experience. Seeing you lack experience is not the same at all as assuming you are not coming from a good faith space. I suggest you wait till you have 6 months experience before starting to write policy as you inevitably still have a very poor understanding of wikipedia due to not even 3 months here and even coming from aa good faith space you have a tremendous capacity to unintentionally damage the project, IMO, not due to bad faith but due to inexperience and hence a poor grasp of how wikipedia actually works, SqueakBox 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, in my opinion, you're right. The mentioned sites are indeed attack sites. I just want to lay emphasis on the ambivalence I'm having, because I believe those sites offer at least some valid criticism. Dang. Someone should make a site that collects the better bits and pieces from those attack sites and leaves out the attack crap. — KNcyu38 ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. — KNcyu38 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you either look at the diffs I posted on WP:AN/I or not get involved in this. There is no point in complicating the matter and your suggestion of banning me from the article reflects poorly on you. KazakhPol 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As demonstrated by the ArbCom case
linked to by arbitrator
Kirill Lokshin in the
Mongo request for carification and as transcluded to
Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites in response to the request for clarification, there seems to be no binding ArbCom ruling pertaining to links to attack sites. I reverted your revision of WP:BP. And besides: Calling a good-faithed edit vandalism as in "rvv"
[3]/
[4], is not the preferred way. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Claiming another law-abiding user supports personal borderline terrorism is way out of line. Please stay calm and dont attack other users as you are making for an unsafe wikipedia environment in doing so, something I thought you were trying to prevent? SqueakBox 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Regardless of the outcome, your efforts to help defend Wikipedians from links to websites that attack them, is appreciated. MONGO 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you, MONGO! - Denny ( talk) 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wil you agree to mediation, given this completely out of order accusation it is, IMO, entirely necessary, SqueakBox 17:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I take it you are refusing mediation then? SqueakBox 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've no idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this: {{subpages}}? Returns like this:
all subpages of this page. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a
mediation request or a
third opinion is a better idea for starters. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A series of edits like this
[5]/
[6]/
[7]/
[8]/
[9]/
[10] could be considered
canvassing. At the very least, it's not best practice. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
21:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well you have 7 days to accept mediation with me. I hope you do so. I dont see this a s a steeppiong stone to an Rfc but a potentially useful process to help us for any further collaboration in the future. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
..it's good to say hello! - hope you're well, and thanks for your note - i couldn't find any mention of us being involved with an arbitration case, but maybe it just moved on over the last couple of days?
let me know if i've just missed something obvious - and i'll probably see you over at the badsites page. If you are one of the editors concerned about me or the points i raise, please do drop by my talk page, and i'll happily chat away.
best - Purples 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding
this: I hope you understand that others do not see this as black and white as you appear to do. I am all against attacks on Wikipedians, but... oh, what the heck. Nevermind. —
Alde
Baer
user:Kncyu38
15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny. I find your above referenced statement interesting. I could just as easily say that I find anyone who advocates a policy that's likely to lead to increased harassment to be "of questionable morality". I don't think that though, it turns out. I think people can come to pretty different conclusions in perfectly good faith, due to differences in judgment.
Think about this, Denny: What if I, having carefully considered, decide that the best way I can help prevent harassment of Wikipedians is by opposing the policy you've suggested at WP:BADSITES? In that case, how can I do anything but oppose it, if I'm to have a clear conscience? Yes, I'm supporting the "right" to not have a misguided policy banning links to certain sites. I'm supporting that right for the express purpose of protecting and improving Wikipedia, and I've got some pretty good reasons behind that support. You can question my judgment, but my motives are the same as yours.
Feel free to reply here, or at my talk page, or by email if you'd like to chat. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that .V. indicated something about your comment on the TFD of {{ TrollWarning}}. If you want to discuss it, go ahead—some intelligent discussion between both sides would be useful, if not novel, in that debate. Gracenotes T § 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been denied. Nor looking good. I hope you will now consider mediation as I definitely see the rfc as an attack and your comment here as a rather nasty threat and it appear admins arent willing to remove the evidence. This can all be resolved very beasily in mediation, or not. Your choice? SqueakBox 02:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I really like your user page. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If this is indeed suspected or known to be a sockpuppet account, it should carry the appropriate template on the user page. — Alde Baer 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alexisonfirelogo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Chain Barnstar of Recognition | |
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Chain Barnstar of Merit | |
For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Chain Barnstar of Diligence | |
For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour | |
For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
I know you are not currently active, but I am not much either, except regarding the ongoing exegesis of the WP:BADSITES proposal you introduced into the Wikipedian system. Back in April 2007, I forked the substance of BADSITES over to NPA as an means of defeating it as a policy in itself. While you seemed chagrined before you left that "someone broke out the rejected tag," my moving the text over to NPA seems to have inadvertently given it new life, and I was wondering how you would respond to the subsequent accusations that you wrote BADSITES as a parody of sorts of the intentions of those targeted by "attack sites," as opposed to someone who earnestly proposed this believing it would gain widespread consensus. Those Wikipedians who saw fit to call you a troll after you left seemed to be those whose interests you were intentionally or inadvertently defending, while many other Wikipedians (myself included) are surely interested in hearing your point of view regarding all the issues leading into the current ArbCom case. I hope all is well otherwise. Regards,— AL FOCUS! 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
A New Hope and End Credits, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
A New Hope and End Credits is a redirect to a non-existent page (
CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
A New Hope and End Credits, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot
08:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I am extremely sorry that i have vandalised becuase it was another person who hacked into my accounts and vandalised. I am guessing it was my friend. Hope you'll forgive me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkchaotix ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:BLP Check ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Darkwind ( talk) 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Remember the dot ( talk) 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:BttfSidebar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Essjay-GFDL-released.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Docg 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:QuestionATTtoalleditors.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
==
Thanks for uploading Image:AOFGeorge13.jpg, which you've sourced to Jubella. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ==
Soundvisions1 ( talk) 17:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Twinklepuffuserboxicon.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:580473948 l.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).
I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.
If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!
If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.
Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng { chat} 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
File:AOFWade4.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:AOFWade4.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:AOFWade4.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library |
![]() |
You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic· t 21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
![]() |
Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park |
![]() |
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! — howcheng { chat} 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at
Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us! Sign up here - see you there! 00:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park |
![]() |
You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! — howcheng { chat} 01:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
You are invited to " Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)