This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Right on. How the Prime Minister of Hungary would not be notable is a mystery to me. Drmies ( talk) 04:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding sources in the current unfortunate situation, but when you do, don't forgetto remove the unref tag--and if you add only a single source, it is probably good to place a refimprove tag--at leas tthat is what I have been doing. DGG ( talk ) 10:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thx. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame for helping to save Peter Medgyessy by adding sources.

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):} _{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see here, Unitanode has created an account and is mass prodding under that account here Off2riorob ( talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this has to go straight to AN/I. Best to post any warnings and courtesy notices both places. Has he/she disclosed this as an alternate account? I'm not sure if good hand / bad hand editing is allowed even with disclosure.... it could be an attempt to get out of a block on the main account. They were posting on Lar's page some eagerness for a suicide mission, block-wise. - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is marked as a account of his but it is not correct, I saw something said that time should be taken to allow people to find sources, this is just mass prodding that we will not be able to keep up with and worthy articles will get lost. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the time is past for discussing why it's objected to. There are hundreds of thousands of bytes of discussion on this topic in the last two days. We and other editors have registered our objections and Unitanode has curtly ignored them. It looks like deliberate provocation, and it will only escalate tensions. This needs to be stopped, and the sooner the better. I left final warnings on both account pages. I'll spot check the prods just to doublecheck, and if there's a high rate of bad nominations for articles that should not be summarily deleted and if the nominations continue, I will file on AN/I and perhaps remove some bad tags. However, for the record and to stave off any attempts to block me for opposing this, I will remove only a few prods at most for now, will do so selectively, and will not edit war to remove them a second time if re-inserted. - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I also note that there are no new prods from that account between your first request to stop and now. The next step is really up to Unitanode. - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is disruptive imo, aggressively prodding articles, I have saved a few today but it is a bad feeling to be having to do it, I find it funny how someone can think that they are doing some fantastic work saving the wikipedia and others see it as not needed at all. Anyway, thanks for helping out. Chillums opened a thread at ANI. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For your template at {{ Unsourced BLP flagged}}, a brilliant suggestion for the BLP issue - it's a shame it's not getting more attention. Ray Talk 05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If I could distract you just for a moment from all this excitement at BLP, I was wondering if you could give an opinion on this discussion at FFD. Headshots of three Playboy centrefold models (now all deceased), used to show what as subjects of their articles they looked like. Does the fact that the same headshots are used in the guide to its former centrefolds on Playboy's own site represent an unconquerable barrier to our claiming fair use? Jheald ( talk) 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lulu has made reverts without joining our discussion on the talk page -- I've invited Lulu to participate (see my revert notes and the discussion page). Unilateral reverts absent any dialogue after repeated attempts to begin a discussion are evidence of POV editing in my opinion. Thanks.

Lordvolton ( talk) 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite my best efforts to create a dialogue an "anonymous" editor just reverted again. The ip address is 149.77.52.78 I've left a note on Lulu's page asking them to please participate in the dialogue which doesn't seem to be an option being embraced by the editors.

Please advise. =-)

Lordvolton ( talk) 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In case no one has said this to you before, thanks for stopping by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. "The key word is "draconian" - we should have an orderly, organized, agreed-to improvement-and-deletion campaign." So true! Ikip 01:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC) RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass-prodding It is obvious this editor is not listening. There is always RFC. I would happily co-sponsor, but not write. Ikip 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there is already an RfC on mass deletions that UnitAnode is willfully defying. We can't wait 30 days or afford to have a process fork. This nonsense has to stop sooner rather than later. Speedily closing all the AfDs may fix some damage but meanwhile they just keep doing new articles. - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

well, the only other option is to revert all of UnitAnode's prods, or get a community ban, which is unlikely. Ikip 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

...and revert or close the AfDs. There is Arbcom. Another option is to wait to see how all the AfDs close on their own, and whether we have more drama depending on the results there. - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please take a look at this... could you pop by there and explain what is going on, please? Edit warring is not acceptable, nor is reinserting unsourced material. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable. We've been through this many times over the years. It is perfectly fine to revert disruption even if that sometimes means restoring imperfect content. I'm not proposing that content in the first instance. If someone improperly blanks a section that section can be restored. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are I are discussing this more fully at my talk but just to be clear, it is not disruption to remove unsourced material, and it is not acceptable to add it back in. Removal of unsourced BLP material is not "improper blanking". ++ Lar: t/ c 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You have made your point clearly and incorrectly. This is an age-old question on Wikipedia, and the general approach is that mass and pointy deletions can be undone. You must be aware that this is a disputed area and that you do not have consensus on that. If you wish to get wider input on that you may want to file an RfC or participate on AN/I, which is where this seems to be going again if UnitAnode does not stop. - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis on facts versus historical opinion is well thought of. In contrast, others accuse me of all kinds of things. Keep on writing good comments, not like those non-helpful editors. JB50000 ( talk) 08:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just thought you may want to know, an alternate account deleted my poorly worded invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions. [1] and also went to ANI about it.

I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. The template was inviting you here: here.

Best wishes with the controversies above, you seem to be holding your own. :) Let me know if I can help you in anyway. Ikip 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I don't mind being spammed. But thanks! Maybe next time don't "subst:" the template, that way if anyone has objections you can just edit the template rather than removing and re-adding them on everyone's page. Cheers, - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

good idea. what do you think of the possibility of this proposal being excepted by the wider community?: Projectification

Or, in the alternative, Notifying wikiprojects these are a combination of several editors great ideas.

If you can comment there, that would be ideal, thanks. Ikip 05:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the bot did not get the redirects. I cleaned those up and the category is now deleted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to deleting this one? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for asking. - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that it should be included in the Obama article? I think that eventually it should but fighting is so bad there that I won't touch it for now and it's not that critical if the article waits a few weeks to cover current events. However, some do put in current events even not so notable ones. JB50000 ( talk) 05:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was just randomly commenting. I think it's obvious that the recession is going to be one of the defining issues of the Obama administration. But we just don't know which way it's going so it's very hard to say exactly how at this point. I agree, it's best to be timid in the face of all the fighting and trouble on Wikipedia. There are important articles to edit about pasta, fruits and vegetables, history, things that will far outlast the news of the day. I would hope everyone knows not to turn to Wikipedia to be current about hot political topics like the role of the American president in an unresolved economic crisis. Cheers, - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Compromise.3F. Hat's off to you for that. Hopefully everything will be smoother going forward. If I can help please let me know. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia_talk:RFC/BLP#Moment_Please.21 and your comment. [2]

		The BLP Barnstar
		The BLP Barnstar is for users who work to diligently source and maintain neutrality in biography articles, ensuring they adhere to the Biographies of Living Persons policy. This barnstar is awarded to Wikidemon, for vigorously defending the integrity of Wikipedia from possible "experimental breaches". Thank you for your diligence and hard work. Okip BLP Contest 07:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:PeterbrownDancin is now an indefinitely banned confirmed strawman sockpuppet, we will never know for sure if he was part of yet another "experimental breach" of unreferenced biographies of living people.

Okip ^{BLP Contest} 07:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to your message. Minima c ( talk) 08:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you have edited the Barack Obama article and I want to invite your feedback on this draft article on the international media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election. Please note that images are available to improve the article's look and will be added once the page is published. Please leave comments on the draft's discussion page. Thank you! -- Amandaroyal ( talk) 20:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admitting you're wrong was very helpful to me. Saw it in your contribution history. Hipocrite ( talk) 09:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For your help digesting the ANi nonsense. What was never mentioned is that porn companies, as a rule, don't seem to advertize outside their established delivery routes or their customer bases, I rarely see it except adverts for special events and even then .. they're just porn stars. Wikipedia would be a colossal waste of time for promotion. Even the porn stars themselves usually catch on that only the dry version of their bio might be kept. In any case I appreciate the common sense. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K ( talk) 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy. I will take a look. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(I was considering nominating an article you created, List of chefs, for deletion for reasons I explained there on the talk page... basically that such a list is inevitably either indiscriminate, incomplete, or over-large and can best be done as a category. As a courtesy I'm just notifying you instead in case you have other ideas or a suggestion for how to improve it. If the redlinks are serving as a pointer to articles that could be created, perhaps that is best put in Wikipedia space, e.g. in a wikiproject list of articles to create. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC))

I renamed the article " List of chefs (antiquity to the 20th century)" (and deleted all 21st century additions) which should prevent it from becoming overlong. You can read more about it on the discussion page there. Mike Hayes ( talk) 17:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw your comments regarding "broke the bank" and wanted to note that I have been "fighting" a formulation regarding the mention of Bill O'Reilly. It is clear that the segment "Political donations and activism" is similarly vulnerable to "spin" and that choice of words matters. What I react to is the formulation "Commentator Bill O'Reilly accused Soros of funding the self-described progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America." On the surface, this may seem OK, but I believe it gives O'Reilly undu weight and that the section would be better stated as "Soros is also thought to be connected to the self-described progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America". I have written my opinions about this on the discussion page.

I would be interested to hear your opinion on the "O'Reilly" edit wars. Johnfravolda ( talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm back. For almost two months, I was on what the Aussies might call a "walkabout" with some old college buddies, except I was using a car and I was in North America. Far too busy, having too much fun, and getting Internet access that was too sporadic to do much here. Then when I got back, for a month I was catching up at work. Now I'm back at Wikipedia. Let's continue working together to make it a better encyclopedia. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 13:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What was this about? [3] -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The way the article is written, it says that the so-called "hacking" incident (the disclosure of the files) is often called climategate. In fact, climategate is the name for the scandal over what those files contain, not the fact that they were released. I wanted to make that point, but every change in the article is the subject of endless debate. The article seems to be at a deadlock so I just did it via a hidden comment. - Wikidemon ( talk) 12:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. Unorthodox, but interesting. Now that the article title has changed, I assume the lead section and some other things may change to reflect that. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I was feeling creative. Moot point now. I would have called the article climategate but that's been discussed. Cheers, - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contribution you might have in this matter. Thanks. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This was removed as a BLP violation - please don't restore it.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You obviously know the score. The community has decided it is not a BLP violation. You are an involved administrator at this point. I was about to add a warning to your talk page about edit warring against consensus. If you persist I will ask that you remove yourself from further participation on that article. You really need to take s step back. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 13:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"He has not, at this time, declared his sexual orientation" - can't you see the problem with that? Consider - "he has not, at this time, declared whether he uses any illegal drugs"-- Scott Mac (Doc) 13:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The guy is widely perceived to be gay by the public, having adopted a gay persona. The sources say that he is playing with gender identity, and that his refusal to declare it is part of his point. If tweaking needs to be done, so be it. Your campaign to stamp out discussion of gender identity where you perceive gayness to be controversial (including the discussion of why your actions are problematic), oddly, plays right into his social jamming. The community has decided the issue, and if you don't like the outcome there isn't a whole lot left to do. - Wikidemon ( talk) 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You've totally misrepresented what I've said. There is no "campaign to stamp out discussion of gender identity" - I've never interfered with appropriate discussion of article content. That's what talk pages are designed for. The fact that pov-pushers want to tag him for his iconic status is the issue here. If you want to discuss my actions, my talk page, URFC and arbcom are open - just not a BLP talk page.;-- Scott Mac (Doc) 14:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing edits to the article. That you consider this a POV issue is yet another indication that you're an involved party at this point. The issue has gone through dispute resolution channels and your position was apparently disfavored. Thus, it's really up to you to escalate this to appropriate forums if you disagree. RfC has been done so as I said there's not much left. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I admire you for trying to archive what has essentially become a one man soapbox, but if Jimbo is content to let it continue, I say let it. I think any reasonable person would come away from reading that with the same opinion I have of RicoCorinth, so let him keep at it. Personally, I think as long as he's on Jimbo's page, he's staying out of the encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure that's not a bad thing. AniMate 05:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right - it's probably best to ignore. Very peculiar behavior though, especially from such an old account (>5 years). I'm curious why that editor might be single-mindedly gaming Jimbo's talk page in that way, and whether there's any socking going on, but it would probably kill too many brain cells to speculate. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions have been conclusive in the past for the 1 tiny bit of information I included in the article. The information I included is sourced, and I've even made a new talk page point (which no one has responded to). I should not be the one punished here. -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 18:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a friendly caution to keep you out of trouble - I'm not the one punishing you and I won't be the one to report this to administrators. As I note, edit war policy exists for purposes of editing process without regard to who is right. If two sides edit war, both are wrong - if you look at WP:3RR the only exceptions are vandalism, copyright violations, clear BLP violations, etc., and even there you're risking a block if you go it alone. Technically blocks are to prevent disruption rather than to punish, but it's best to avoid having blocks one one's record. I'll comment about the discussion, but for the moment things are going too fast... that's another purpose of the talk page versus edit warring, to keep things calm and at a speed where people can discuss. Cheers, - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good move restoring the RS material at Revolution Muslim.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You mentioned at the CS AN/I that you had not looked into the claim that CS is being disingenuous about what happened. I think the diffs are there for you to see, if you want to, and I can put them together for you. But the bottom of the Neutral discussion spells out one related recent example rather clearly. AGF is an assumption. It is rebuttable, by the editor's statements and actions. And this AN/I is replete with such statements and actions. This is not just a bad block. But a horrid block made with forethought, knowing it was a bad block (and ban) as evidenced by his statement the day prior, where the blocker had just been criticized, where the blocker does not now admit it was bad, where CS refuses as well to commit to comply with wp:admin and wp's consensus policy, where CS has in the past admitted to volitionally violating the block policy. That's why that is not enough. I didn't even initially ask that he be desysopped. But after all the discussion and input from many editors, for his reactions to be: a) duplicity, and b) refusal to abide by policy, drives me to support the Jclemens suggestion. Perhaps you missed, but he doesn't agree to abide by policy. He doesn't agree to honor consensus. In fact, as you can see from the AN/I discussion's first post, it was exactly that which led to the volatile edit warring that he engaged in at that article. This is outrageous behavior -- and if a cop were to pummel you over the head for crossing at a yellow light, lie, and then refuse to agree to abide by the yellow light law ... I don't think that you would say, let's give him his billy club and put him back on the street. It's outrageous behavior, not a speeding ticket, and his sysop powers are not as necessary to his continued livlihood as his driver license might be.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to weigh in here. -- causa sui ( talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The RfC hasn't been open for 8 days. They are typically open for 30 days. Declaring a consensus this early is premature especially given the number of opposes in the last few days. - Atmoz ( talk) 19:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was being hasty. I see that now and would have self-reverted my reinstatement of the redirect had you not beat me to it. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, please see my last question on Talk:AA. I think my proposal is a satisfactory, middle-ground solution. With better oversight by a responsible admin, I think the article will be unlocked in a matter of days. Greg L ( talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As to your last post -- well said. You sound like a fellow attorney.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 10:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You said:

You might want to qualify that a bit - Risker is a fine administrator and capable editor, just doesn't seem to have full support in policy or by the community in this one case :) - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really amazing to me that we haven't learned anything yet. Anyone who opposes Greg L ( talk · contribs)'s ideas about how this article should be edited will be met with bald reverting, not to mention pages of ad-hominems on the talk page: and if they use sysop tools to prevent that, they'll be met with accusations of misuse of sysop tools. It was me before and Risker is next. If Risker is dragged through the same kind of business as I was, do you think any more sysops will be willing to come near this thing? Why is it that this kind of aggressively hostile editing practice is tolerated at all? -- causa sui ( talk) 15:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit that you made a few days ago...

Hi to you too!

Captain Lance Murdoch ( talk) 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I fixed the title problem and the format effects. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 22:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for being so prompt. Sorry to be so jumpy. Slow connection = angsty Wikipedian. Cheers, - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that page!-- Dark Charles ( talk) 02:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might want to know I've opened a thread concerning you at WP:AN/I#Wikidemon, WP:V and WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy notice. I'll respond to the apparent mistake or abuse there. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

to the other issue you were involved in is this one.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw an ad for the book in the New Yorker, and having felt annoyed that the attack book Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation had gotten enough media attention to warrant an article (whoops, there go my politics), i wanted to create this one to be fair (not that one couldnt write a cogent critique of our president). thanks for creating it. i think books are underrepresented on WP, compared to tv shows and music recordings. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at List of Jewish actors. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to stop harassing me. This is all unseemly. As I said, I have no desire to communicate with you. - Wikidemon ( talk) 12:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the nominations were of dubious faith in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreyer Farms (2nd nomination) and the first nomination a day before. However, in each case, there were other recommendations to delete the article from good faith editors. Based on that, how is the nomination subject to a close as a speedy keep? The second criterion doesn't seem to apply because of the second part of it, "and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it (since calling a nomination vandalism does not make it so, and vandals can be correct)." — C.Fred ( talk) 13:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY, among other things. Allowing hit-and-run deletion nominations by sockpuppets to stand means allowing sockpuppets. - Wikidemon ( talk) 13:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

True. I suppose the other editors who !voted delete may have reconsidered given the situation, or don't feel the article yet warrants a third (but valid this time) AfD. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we usually only link to a few "official" websites, not every one that is affiliated with the company. I believe there is a consensus for doing so with respect to our external links guidelines, especially since most of these "official" links are not about the subject of the article at all, they are just websites that are owned by the subject. Please reconsider reverting to my cleanup of this section. Them From Space 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you were the editor who deleted the list during the last go-round. It's best to discuss this on the article talk page, but: (1) the article is in significant part about these websites, and (2) the list of site links provides encyclopedically useful information to the reader that the reader would have difficulty finding without the list. - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm sorry, I didn't see the thread on the article's talk page. I started a new one at the external links noticeboard, since I don't think the page has enough watchers to get some sort of a consensus either way. You're input is welcome at there. Them From Space 00:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why you thought that removing {{ not a ballot}} and {{ spa}} was a bright idea? What do you think those tags are for? And moving to an inconspicuous location, without leaving a reference, a note that there's sockpuppetry involved? You thought that was appropriate? Please think before you do these things! ╟─ Treasury Tag► high seas─╢ 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond at AN/I and/or your talk page. You seem to be having some serious wiki-copping issues, and edit warring over that is not too swift. Please don't gum up the works with this kind of stuff. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is admitted meatpuppetry. {{ not a ballot}} is for use where there is suspected meatpuppetry. I am politely asking that you explain why you deleted it? ╟─ Treasury Tag► sheriff─╢ 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

TT - I don't know that it's entirely kosher for you to be making nice red and black bold statements about suggestions of suckpoppetry when you made the suggestions and before there was a statement either way by the accused. VernoWhitney ( talk) 17:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The accused has made a statement admitting meatpuppetry, albeit not deliberate... ╟─ Treasury Tag► duumvirate─╢ 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that is no admission of meat puppetry - despite your dragging a confession out of them. The canvassing tag, given the circumstances, serves to accuse an editor of bad faith and could chill legitimate discussion. The entire matter is overblown, and certainly doesn't belong at AN/I, SPI, my talk page, and a deletion discussion page all at the same time. It never should have gone beyond the editor's own talk page, a necessary first step that seems to have been bypassed. For now, can we at least move any further discussion here to AN/I? The SPI and deletion discussion sideline should also be continued there if at all. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Maybe, but first you noted your suspicions at the AfD and later they admitted they may have caused it. I'm just trying to say that nothing would've been harmed by waiting until there was more evidence, so at least from my perspective your actions were as rash as you feel Wikidemon's were. VernoWhitney ( talk) 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As it is, Joe has admitted that he might have unwittingly procured people to log onto Wikipedia and !vote, and – as he points out – this is meatpuppetry, albeit innocent on his part (if we are to believe him, which I think we should). That is why the tag is there; the tag accuses nobody of anything, simply notes that people might come to the page because someone told them to. If Wikidemon would rather we don't discuss this here, then I shan't :) ╟─ Treasury Tag► without portfolio─╢ 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Since I mentioned your name/activity at this AN/I (regarding another editor), I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Happy editing. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I believe there needs to be a civil rights section in the article, especially in light of the Arizona controversy. Why doesn't the Gates arrest controversy civil rights? Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone is vandalizing the Presidency of Barack Obama. Help! Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On their website the organization title is given as Marines' with the possessive. Is there a reason why the current article isn't so titled? BrokenSphere ^{Msg me} 03:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. No, not particularly. Please feel free to move and retitle the article if you think it appropriate. I'd do a quick google web and news search first to make sure it's not just a quirk of the current version of their website. Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has been moved. Have you had the chance to visit? The hotel is like a hidden military museum in San Francisco. BrokenSphere ^{Msg me} 01:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As per your advice, "stereotypical" has been changed to "popular" which works much better. Thanks Hotcop2 ( talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, old friend. I hope this finds you well. There's a rather heated discussion at ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy regarding an editorial by a Mr. Grenell. Please drop in and take a look at it. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 15:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That page is a little daunting, though I see everyone is nice and cordial there. - Wikidemon ( talk) 15:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha! He asked me too and I had the exact same reaction!!! I did comment, however, but specifically said the amount of material was overwhelming and I could be wrong. Good luck! -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Xeno and Ceemow are minimalizing your input, apparently because you haven't posted 10,000 word essays on the subject. To make an extremely long story short, Ceemow is exhaustively flogging his argument to death, resurrecting several old arguments along the lines of "if you bring in this, then I have the right to bring in all of THAT." And both are saying that since they want to keep discussing this forever, consensus has not been (and, evidently, cannot be) reached, so we should just delete the material. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 09:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon, just wanted to say thanks for posting your perception of consensus and your salient position on the matter here. You helped bring a little sanity to the situation after my frustration with a sock showing up. Also, thanks for the "silliness" redacting and for trying to keep things focused. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 15:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WD, I love gumbo! I just don't think I've had it made with okra before, or if I did, it wasn't a prominent ingredient. My aunt used to grow it, and I was traumatized as a kid when she served up a plate of okra after merely boiling it. I have vivid memories of trying to consume something with the consistency of cow snot. As for our ongoing discussion about the ACORN video investigation, I think the major roadblock between our two points of view stems from our individual understandings of the post of Attorney General. I see the position as virtually apolitical, while you apparently see the position as heavily influenced by politics as a matter of course. Of course I think I'm right, but I'm willing to educate myself further if you could point me in the right direction. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly how we should be dealing with this stuff. The excessive use of sarcastic and demeaning hats is not constructive.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 07:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, Wikidemon. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! - Wikidemon ( talk) 02:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Barack Obama appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. JahnTeller07 ( talk) 03:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Above editor warned about edit warring and templating the regulars. [4] The above message (and an identical one on another talk page), as well as their user page, [5] say it all. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

True. Wikidemon is a well-respected editor. Please, no one should be misled by this improperly placed template. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD ( talk) 19:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DFTG
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi there! I'm gonna pack my bags and FLY ( talk) 10:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There's no need to point out that this is good ol' Grundle. I agree with you that at his best he can be smart and funny, but have reservations about your not striking his stuff when you noticed it. If he were to go away for six months or so and have an epithany or something he might become a decent editor. Your encouraging, even tacitly, his wittily-named sock farm is not helpful. Thanks for the consistent high quality of your edits on tendentious topics. PhGustaf ( talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) We all have our vices... You've got to admit, that was one epic wall of text. I don't want to encourage him to the detriment of the encyclopedia, but on a human level I do enjoy this and don't want to be mean. Oh well.- Wikidemon ( talk) 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Yabbut it's the same wall of text he's posted over and over for two years or so, and it's getting boring. As vices go, though, being nice to Grundle is much more harmless than, for example, abusing gerbils. PhGustaf ( talk) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I think it's getting longer... it's sort of a Grundle's Greatest Hits wall of text. - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Or perhaps it's Grundle's worst hits? His name is George... George Glass ( talk) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Grundle, if one of you is reading this, please consider this notion: Wikipedia is not a public resource; it's private property. You have been asked several times, by responsible representatives of the property, to stay away from it. I thought Libertarians respected private property. PhGustaf ( talk) 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, if Jimbo were here he would say keep off the grass! - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC) keep off the grass! –Jimmy Wales Wikipedia is private property that calls itself the open source encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The only real reason I was banned was to prevent me from adding true, well sourced info that was critical of Obama. NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." I would also like to point out this ARBCOM ruling: "Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive" "8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." "Passed 5 to 0 at 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)" When I add true, well sourced, relevant info, I am committing a " victimless crime," which, as a libertarian, is something that I think should be allowed. Mr. Howell's teddy bear ( talk) 05:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Wow, that was just about when I first joined. To be fair, I think part of it was the repetition. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC) No Grundle. The victims are those who have to clean up behind you with a poop bag. TMCk ( talk) 14:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not comment on my talk page either refute what I said or leave it alone.

Tomgazer ( talk) 22:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no go. I was not commenting, I was giving you a caution about incivility and deleting legitimate talk page comments. Those go on your talk page and if that were to continue, to the appropriate noticeboards; discussions about the article go on the article talk page. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(reformatted)

Please note that you have made three reversions today at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Any further revisions within a 24-hour period will put you in violation of the WP:3RR policy and may well lead to your account being blocked to prevent disruption to the article. Also, note that you have been edit-warring over this section of the article for a few days. 3RR is not an entitlement to edit war, and the article is (along with others) on "article probation" (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation, as referenced in the article's talk page), which all means that the account may be blocked for continuing disruption even without a 3RR violation. I will be reverting this edit [6], and also making a change to your latest attempt to change the language with respect to the passage of the Arizona birther bill. If you wish to make changes that other editors disagree with, please use the article talk page rather than edit warring. Thanks. (Wikidemon)

It seems that this message was a result of you taking too personally my revert of your edit. That was my first revert of the day, so your warning was unjustified and therefore reverted.

It seems that you need to familiarize (or refresh) yourself with WP:BRD. Do not take being reverted too personally. Victor Victoria ( talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No - please don't lecture or make assumptions. In one edit you reverted a fix I made and also introduced your own addition. I see you've already violated 3RR: 1, [7] 2, [8] 3, [9] 4. [10] You're over-editing the article, and repeatedly introducing language that several other editors consider weak. Although these are minor edits, you should slow down and discuss things on the talk page. - Wikidemon ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edits are NOT reverts, hence you are miscounting. Not quite sure what "over-editing" means (if anything). To the best of my knowledge, there is no policy against "over-editing". Victor Victoria ( talk) 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:REVERT, WP:EW, and the probation page. All these policies boil down to preventing disruption so that we can have a collegial editing environment. That is all weeks old at this point, but overly aggressive editing, even on uncontroversial matters, is disruptive. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I value your unbiased judgement and wonder if you'd be interested to chime in with an opinion on my posting of a question on the RS noticeboard here. In either case--that is, whether or not this question intrigues you enough for you to comment--I appreciate your consideration of my request; thanks.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please? <pleads, grovels, begs>-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 06:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect

...a third person to necessarily agree with Jarhed or with me. Maybe they would come up with something in between? or even take a fresh tack altogether? Or maybe one or the other or both of our approaches would be critiqued, aside from the merits of the particular edits under discussion? Or maybe the question is just too boring to comment on? or the discussion too wp:TLDR??

In any case, since my request of you, above, a noticeboard discussion has ensued (that is, sort of ensued; archived here: wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 72#New Communities, Inc., and the CMT movement); but, even in this additional forum, after my co-disputant and I presented our views, not one additional Wikipedian volunteered any tie-breaking opinion. Then, my co-disputant also requested help at Editorial Assistance Requests here: wp:Editor assistance/Requests#Requesting advice on BLP, CITE and PROMOTION problems on article--and this also to no avail!

The disagreement is about whether a local weekly newspaper with editorial oversight can be used as a source for the assertion that Shirley Sherrod was a land collective activist who co-founded New Communities collective farm in 1969.

Too frickin boring?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a look, presently. I have no opinion either way so you can consider me as yet uninvolved... Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 09:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The current Climate change case has not been accepting evidence for a while, so I've removed your submission. If you would like to submit evidence, participants have been asked by the arbs to first inquire on the talk page as to whether or not it is desired. That being said, the Committee has been working on the Proposed decision and is unlikely to require or desire new evidence, especially when the Committee is aware of the situation. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 13:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As Amory rightly says, permission needed before posting evidence. I notice that you'd put The Wordsmith's block at 24 hours, when in fact it was 48 hours, and as well as redacting the private email info posted by Sandstein, WMC inserted a comment into one of SirFozzie's postings on WMC's talk page. I've mentioned these points in outline in a recent ANI posting, it doesn't seem likely to be at issue but thought I'd rather pedantically inform you of that. Didn't notice any other errors, but you covered areas I've not looked at. What a kerfuffle :-/ . dave souza, talk 13:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have another little problem and I'd appreciate your attention. You've been very objective in the past. On the Ugg boots article (and related articles), we have a bunch of Australian editors (led by an Australian administrator) who are engaged in the following editing pattern:

• Adding and defending biased material that harms an American company, and helps the marketing departments of its Australian competitors; and

• Deleting material that helps the American company, but the marketing departments of its Australian competitors would find inconvenient.

To explain all the legal terminology, they're trying to define "ugg boots" as a generic term, rather than a trademark. They want these articles to talk at great length about the one or two court cases where this strategy was successful, and exclude and delete the many, many cases (in both courts and arbitration) where the same "generic term" defense strategy was a miserable failure.

If they want to talk about a "generic term," they have to take the bad with the good. I started a "request for comment" on the Talk page. Please comment there. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 15:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. It may take me a little while to get to it, but it sounds interesting. I like trademark questions! In all fairness, I will have to note there that you asked me to come - some would consider it canvassing. But I have no prior involvement on this, no knowlege of the underlying quesiton as yet, and no opinion other than thinking uggs are rather silly footwear. So who knows how I'll feel? It could go either way. Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 19:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

<smiles> -- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For your comments at ANI during the recent kerfuffle in particular William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was breaking news about the hitherto-unknown fact that his parents had sent him to Culver Military Academy as a child. ;-) Flatterworld ( talk) 21:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, but I think the word means something - he wanted to play revolutionary soldier, but he was better at saying bad things that upset people than he was at making bombs. - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Demon, I'm puzzled by this comment of yours. I think that the particular "editor in good standing" to whom you refer is me. If so, I thank you for regarding me as being in good standing, and for saying that I asked my question fairly. But I don't know in what sense I asked it aggressively.

Perhaps you also refer to me when you talk of "an experienced editor [who] edit wars the talk page on the side of the provocation", and if so I invite you either to retract your charge of edit warring or to take the charge to WP:AN or wherever.

I am well aware that the IP who raised this point (or non-point) has been a pain (and I recently deleted at least one of his posts myself), and that he continues to be a pain. However, couched within the aggrieved tone and bluster is what I see as a reasonable if very minor point. (He appears to want to construct a little edifice of OS on this very minor point, but that's a separate matter.) I remain open to argument that I am wrong about this. I trust that others, too, remain open to argument, tiresome though such argument undoubtedly is. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You joined the IP's edit war shortly after the IP was blocked to stop them from doing that themselves, by reopening a thread that had been closed by several other users. [11] No, we are not interested in further discussion on this rejected matter - that is the very point. The issue has been decided by consensus and does not need to be considered endlessly for the benefit of subscribers to the Obama=Muslim silliness. As I and others have mentioned, encouraging trolling like the IP has been doing runs a serious risk of damaging the editing environment. We've been dealing with this kind of disruption for years, and aren't too eager to see it again. I commented there rather than on your talk page that's where an editor raised the complaint about a "siege mentality" which, if not quite an accusation of bad faith, is at least a claim of improper motives that belittles a number of editors' legitimate, stated concerns. There's no need to escalate it. Consensus will soon be clear if it is not yet, that there is no consensus for any changes, at which point the thread will be closed again if it does not taper off on its own. - Wikidemon ( talk) 13:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That IP had never been blocked. (Oh, he may have been blocked as a different IP; I don't know.) He was spouting tripe on the talk page; I deleted it. I then started a bizarre quasi-conversation with him on his talk page. I doubted that he'd say anything worthwhile but I invited him to do so anyway, with sources. He tried. The attempt was unimpressive but, as I've said, it appeared to have a small amount of content that was worth a little consideration. (The talk page was sprotected, I presumed to prevent the addition of junk such as this.) Anyway, what I reposted had been removed in this edit of DD2K's, with the comment "Removing unhelpful commentary": no mention in that of edit warring, of the IP probably belonging to somebody blocked, etc, or any other clear danger signals. Perhaps the IP is indeed an edit warrior, and if so then perhaps my one-time resurrection of his deleted comment meant that I appeared to side with him in his edit war. I reject the charge that I edit warred, a charge that you may wish to reconsider. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The page was protected to prevent the IP from disrupting the page further, yet you reposted the post made by the ip. If you thought there was some kind of "point" there, you should have opened a new thread with a proposal. The end result would probably have been the same, but you would not have been engaging in an edit war on the side of a disrupting ip that has been sporadically trolling the page for over a year. There are dozens of posts made by this ip(although of different ip numbers) over the last six months, and more and more the past year+. All one has to do is look at the history of the talk page to see that. The next step, would be to gather the damn diffs(which would take time) and file a report. Or take it to SPI and ask for a range block. That is time consuming and tedious, and easier solved by asking for page protection and NOT continuing taking up the trolling voice of the re-factored IP. Dave Dial ( talk) 14:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 01:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My goal was to be clear, and I have obviously failed to meet that goal. Your comment seems like good advice if I were simply proposing to modify the existing GS/CC/RE process. Obviously, ArbCom is stepping in an going to impose something. They have proposed something. This discussion is a proposal for a minor modification of the ArbCom process, which would , if approved completely replace the GS/CC/RE. Yes, I agree it would be good to get arb input - I just added a link so they know this discussion exists. (I had begun the discussion on the PD page, but met some resistance - in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have caved and moved the discussion to the GS/CC/RE talk page quite so quickly.)-- SPhilbrick T 14:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede looks much better, thanks! Do you think the issues (personal reflection, sourcing, etc) still apply? I'm wondering how to improve the Semantic Web article. Aside from possibly breaking out the list of projects into a separate article (do you think it's sufficiently notable for that?) I don't know what to do next. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 11:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What's your rationale behind [12]? I have provided rationale behind every one of my edits [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Now it's your turn. Victor Victoria ( talk) 03:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your issues are, but whatever they are, stop edit warring and start collaborating in the talk page. Victor Victoria ( talk)

I told you what the issues are, so please just read the notices on your talk page. You're edit warring poor edits to the Obama pages yet again, and rejecting the notion of working through consensus. If you propose an edit and someone rejects it you're supposed to go to the talk page to discuss, not revert to your preferred version and tell people they have to convince you otherwise. - Wikidemon ( talk) 14:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You never stated your issues. All you're doing is being a revert ninja. Go to the talk page and explain why you prefer the incorrect spelling of Koran over Qur'an. Victor Victoria ( talk) 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works, and you should know that by now. Again, WP:BRD. You propose an edit, I reject it with a reason in the edit summary, then you go to the talk page to state your case. The burden on gathering consensus is on you as the editor proposing a disputed change. Now that you've dug in your feet I have indeed addressed each of your proposed changes in detail. Here and in the prior two instances where I've seen you edit war on these pages your proposed edits added demonstrably substandard verbiage. We all have our hits and misses, and the collaborative editing process is our way to make sure the good ideas are the ones that make it into the article. - Wikidemon ( talk) 14:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

By reverting 5 of my edits w/o giving a detailed explanation for each one, you were essentially being a revert ninja. All you stated in your edit summary is that you don't like red links, but Wikipedia policy encourages good redlinks. Victor Victoria ( talk) 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User name

I followed the link from your user page to the urbandictionary definition of your user name. I must say your choice of user name does not seem to be something to brag about, and it puts all your edit warring in a brand new perspective. Victor Victoria ( talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody needs to take a nap. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my...... Victor Victoria do you not understand that urbandictionary.com is a website that lets anyone add content to it and that the entry was probably added by some Wiki-sock-troll? Give me a break. Dave Dial ( talk) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Base on the 20 thumbs up and 5 thumbs down, the consensus at urbandictionary.com is that the definition is accurate. Regardless, Wikidemon proudly points to that definition in his user page, so at least he agrees with that definition. Victor Victoria ( talk) 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wow. Either you are being purposely obtuse, or you should really take a break. You are definitely not making a good case for yourself here. Dave Dial ( talk) 00:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Let me just say that one should never use Urbandictionary.com for any argument. That is what really has me so astounded here. It should never be used to 'prove' anything. It's a silly website with almost no value at all, other than entertainment. Dave Dial ( talk) 00:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Wikidemon points to it on his user page because it's humorous, not because of some bizarre intention to brag and start edit wars. And claiming there is a consensus at urban dictionary that it's accurate? I hope you realize these accusations are antagonism and serve no useful purpose.-- AzureCitizen ( talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I find the notoriety amusing. My username too is the appropriation of an insult that happened way back when. Even more amusing that 25 people actually care enough about me to make me a micro-celebrity on urbandictionary, right along with all the imaginary sexual practices. What's next - Wikiepdia Review? Dramapedia? 4chan? To be fair, some among the five thumbs down probably had no idea what that entry is all about and just don't like obscure in jokes. But at least I have 20 bona fide detractors, or one with 19 urban dictionary sockpuppets. - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't find that page amusing: its jocosity is too prolix and leaden for that. But the solemnity with which "Victor Victoria" announces it above is hilarious. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wikidemon, thank you for your comments and offer of help. I agree that my article links do need to be made into full citations. I'm trying to learn how to create full citations...and would appreciate it, if in this instance, you were able to create the citations. Also, I mentioned this site and article >( http://www.spectacle.org/1109/craig.html) as being a possible reference source. This site is not a blog, and has been publishing monthly for 15 years. I will paste below, information I just received from the site owner/article author, and ask for your opinion on whether this source can or should be used as a source. Would it be helpful to post this 'article and site source' information on the discussion page?

My site is conceived like a monthly magazine on the web, hence an "ezine", which at this point is something of an antiquated term. The mission statement is here:

http://www.spectacle.org/mission.html

Here are some guidelines for people who want to write for the Spectacle:

http://www.spectacle.org/write.html

Material I have posted on the site has been assigned by teachers and used by students in research papers:

http://www.spectacle.org/695/ausch.html

The monthly letters column indicates that I have a readership who responds to articles in the Spectacle:

http://www.spectacle.org/0910/letters.html

The Ethical Spectacle was a plaintiff in the ACLU litigation which resulted in the Communications Decency Act being held unconstitutional:

http://www.spectacle.org/cda/cdamn.html

(this information was emailed to me today 09/16/2010, by site owner and article author, Jonathan Wallace) Wikirjd7 ( talk) 14:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to convert my edits links to full citations, I could not succeed. Would you please make the citations. (note: I will post this same info on the discussion page also) Below are the sentences I added and the details of their reference:

1. "Classified ad flagging does not require account log in or registration, and can be made anonymously by any visitor". ref name="faq000" http://www.eskimo.com/~newowl/Flagged_FAQ.htm#000 ) (web site = " Unofficial Flag FAQ " ) ( name of authors = " craigslist users " or " Flag Help Forum Volunteers " ) ( Retreived on = 09/15/2010 )

2. "The number of flaggings required for a posting's removal is variable and remains unknown to all but craigslist.org". ref name="faq000" http://www.eskimo.com/~newowl/Flagged_FAQ.htm#000 (web site = " Unofficial Flag FAQ " ) ( name of authors = " craigslist users " or " Flag Help Forum Volunteers " ) ( Retreived on = 09/15/2010 )

3. "Flaggings can also occur as acts of disruptive vandalism and for the removal of competitors postings". ref name="faq000" http://www.eskimo.com/~newowl/Flagged_FAQ.htm#000 (web site = " Unofficial Flag FAQ " ) ( name of authors = " craigslist users " or " Flag Help Forum Volunteers " ) ( Retreived on = 09/15/2010 )

4. "The Flag Help Forum is an unmoderated volunteer community, it is not staffed by craigslist employees, and it is not affiliated with craigslist.org". http://www.eskimo.com/~newowl/Flagged_FAQ.htm#volunteers (web site = " Unofficial Flag FAQ " ) ( name of authors = " craigslist users " or " Flag Help Forum Volunteers " ) ( article title = " Volunteers " )( Retreived on = 09/15/2010 )

5. "The forum volunteers have no access to information about craigslist.org user accounts or ads, and must rely upon information supplied by the ad poster to try and piece together the reason an ad was flagged and removed". ref name="faq001" http://www.eskimo.com/~newowl/Flagged_FAQ.htm#001 (web site = " Unofficial Flag FAQ " ) ( name of authors = " craigslist users " or " Flag Help Forum Volunteers " ) ( Retreived on = 09/15/2010 )

6. "The Flag Help Forum's unmoderated format allows anyone, including disruptive trolls, to post anonymously and without accountability". http://www.eskimo.com/~newowl/Flagged_FAQ.htm#Unmoderated (web site = " Unofficial Flag FAQ " ) ( name of authors = " craigslist users " or " Flag Help Forum Volunteers " ) ( article title = " Unmoderated " )( Retreived on = 09/15/2010 )

7. "The forums usefulness and effectiveness can be compromised by trolls who post malicious replies to help threads". ref name="faq001" http://www.eskimo.com/~newowl/Flagged_FAQ.htm#001 (web site = " Unofficial Flag FAQ " ) ( name of authors = " craigslist users " or " Flag Help Forum Volunteers " ) ( Retreived on = 09/15/2010 )

Thank you very much for taking your time and effort to help me with these citations. Ron Wikirjd7 ( talk) 12:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed/corrected the article edit 'links' to 'full citations' today, they appear to be correct. Thanks for your offering assistance. Wikirjd7 ( talk) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit, it is normal to endorse one's own view. I've added a section to the bottom of that post for endorsers to sign. Mjroots ( talk) 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was being a bit shy. - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you are cordially invited to participate in mediation here. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 00:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy moly! Are you sure everything else has been exhausted at this point? Okay, but don't expect me to get all worked up this time! Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of my edit of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary thread was absolutely baseless. 76.168.205.230 ( talk) 04:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Basis was stated in edit summary, along with notices by multiple editors regarding collaborative process. Thread title above confirms WP:POV concerns. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's unfair and wrong. I directly quoted her and didn't characterize her statements in my edit. Just because I'm characterizing them on your talk page doesn't mean I did anything wrong in my edit. I'm going to put the quote back in. 76.168.205.230 ( talk) 18:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Plan on responding anytime soon? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I will sooner or later. Thanks for the friendly nudge. - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. :D Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost a week now. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

further to our talks on List of Jewish actors I've started a debate on altering WP:BLP to clarify how we handle sources that identify someone as Jewish please have a look and weigh in on either side of the fence. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 20:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my edit to the policy at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-English_sources_and_BLP_.28foreign_language_sources.29. Perhaps you could devise a better method of avoiding sources which cannot actually be verified without considerable difficulty. Peter Karlsen ( talk) 07:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Gamification, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamification until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anthonzi ( talk) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the canned message; first time using twinkle (I will definitely write notifications by hand in the future). But I am concerned that Gamification and Funware are neologisms that aren't sufficiently established words.-- Anthonzi ( talk) 11:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just to point out that I've responded to your point about recusals on the requests for clarification page. I also appreciated your contribution on the merits of the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. I think I'll move my recusal question to the talk page, as that's a meta issue. Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you do, please feel free to move my response as well. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Wow, that was fast. Well...maybe best to leave it in place. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to add content that isn't true or supported, for example see craigslist and manhunt.net i have added a lot more sources, also you seem to know a lot here. how can i find more sources for dudesnude or do i have enough at this point? Hemanetwork ( talk) 01:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to get a hold of you if there were issues with my article; if you have a chance to look at it, it seems to have gotten quite a bit out of date, especially since the majority of my RS press coverage has been in the last fifteen months, and it doesn't reflect my current job. (It's a bit embarrassing to be introduced as a speaker and have to correct the person who introduced me because they relied on an inaccurate Wikipedia article.) The CCAF article could also use updating. A handy-dandy index of recent sources can be found here. Thanks. THF ( talk) 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes - let me know what you think. At first I thought the CCAF article was a little weak in the notability department, but the Center has certainly generated some impressive press since then. I'm wondering if it's time to create an article for coupon settlements... not sure if it's a distinct phenomenon that needs its own article, or it's just a neologism. Maybe the phrase isn't quite accurate - that kind of settlement isn't fundamentally different than any other kind of settlement, it just uses coupons as a tool to minimize costs to the plaintiff and thereby make them more likely to accept. So couponing is an aspect of the settlement, not a kind of settlement. - Wikidemon ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikideamon, you wrote, "Reverting something as vandalism or with no explanation at all is not the same as declining a request. It's actually not much of anything. I would tend to summarily undo an unexplained revert of a viable edit I had made, if I didn't notice it came from an administrator or established editor, and I would be piqued if they made block threats or filed AN/I reports over it before trying to discuss - that looks a bit tendentious."

I did in fact explain my decline on William's talk page. He removed that comment, but did template me for failure to sign. I've made further expalantions, that I was too tired to elaborate on last night, in the ANI thread. As he had retagged after a previous decline, it was not a viable edit. Thanks, Dloh cierekim 15:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I noticed that in my final comment to that thread. I think that makes all the difference, because at that point he must have known it was declined. Still, I'm guessing that the vandalism note in the edit summary probably escalated things. - Wikidemon ( talk) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WD, saw your message to Mkativerata, I agree wholeheartedly. It will probably be 36 hours minimum before I'd have time to write up a deletion review request, so if you want to take the lead I support you in it. It's worth using google books to identify passages from both the sources we've given already and other sources that show how notable this intersection is. I notice that there is a lot of coverage on acting restrictions in Nazi Germany, and in the USSR as well as how even Hollywood would not give non-Jewish roles to Jewish actors - prompting name changes and even plastic surgery. This led to the creation of the stereotypical "Jewish Character" as portrayed by Jewish Actors. In fact, considering the ammount of material we could create a Secular Jewish acting article and use it to justify the existence of a list of proponents. Just some things to consider. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it with Obama. I can't believe Tarc wants no mention of the midterm. Nobody is saying the Obama or Boehner is bad or good. But to not have that and having comments about the Chicago White Sox and Obama's 2005 first pitch is really bad writing. Thanks to you, it is fixed.

I think the term "shallacking" is worth mentioning but it is less important that mention of the midterm election. It's one of those words that is never used but a president suddenly brings it to the spotlight. Just like Obama's "teachable moment". MVOO ( talk) 20:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome. We'll see if it has consensus to keep. Tarc is a good editor. I just assume he (?) is a little taken aback by the strength of your opinion. You know, we get a lot of people with strong opinions and it makes it difficult to deal with the article sometimes. - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When you posted this comment on TALK:List of Jewish actors, you seemed to have the right idea about how that list is patently unencyclopedic. Why the complete 180 reversal on the AfD when the opportunity to make a new, better list finally presented itself? Bulldog123 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hugahoody ( talk) 22:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hugahoody ( talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wikidemon/Archive 10! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

-- Kumioko ( talk) 02:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm the kind of chap who enjoys discussing things for the sake of it - I'd like to take you up on the discussion as to whether the penis guy's remark was anti semitic, but purely as a platonic, theoretical, head in the sky (and of no relevance to the wiki discussion) sort of debate, if you're interested? If not obviously no pressure, it would just be a fun discussion and I can see why it may not appeal! Egg Centric ( talk) 19:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the article [18] better now? Someone65 ( talk) 07:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

From your ES I gather that Righthaven LLC was deleted for some reason and then re-created by you. Is that the case? What happened? My vague recollection of the article is that it had some important information that's not in the current version, but I'm not certain, because some of the information that I'm remembering is in Democratic Underground#Copyright infringement lawsuit. Thanks for any light you can shed. JamesMLane  t  c 04:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had initiated an article about the newish concept of a "copyright troll", the analog of the more established "patent troll". Although Righthaven is the most recent and notorious example, the term actually predates the Righthaven lawsuits. Anyway, I noticed one day that the Righthaven wikilink had gone red. I had not been notified of the deletion discussion, and when I looked I saw that it was summary in nature, with little input or serious consideration. I don't remember whether or not I consulted the google archive - normally I do not, because having reinstated a number of deleted articles on clearly notable subjects I've found it's better to start from the beginning. Listing or summarizing the cases is a pretty tough task, not straightforward. How do you summarize 200+ lawsuits, when the sources don't? My thought is that this is an evolving story, and it's better to link to an offwiki site that tries to stay current. Still, a few of the pivotal cases and those against well-known defendants probably deserve mention. I'd recommend that you ask the deleting administrator to email you a copy of the old article, but I have no idea if anything is there. - Wikidemon ( talk) 10:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You certainly did better than I did, because I couldn't even find the deletion discussion. Who was the deleting admin?

My memory is muddled because I routinely edit the Democratic Underground article and put some information in there (where it survives). Thus I'm not sure what, if anything, I added to the Righthaven article. I'm aware of two suits that I'd consider important: the Realty One case, in which a defendant secured a dismissal of a Righthaven suit, and the Democratic Underground case, in which DU, represented by EFF, counterclaimed and asserted a claim against Stephens Media, prompting Righthaven to seek voluntary dismissal of its own case. JamesMLane  t  c 00:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

An IP editor has been aggressively/passionately arguing for an addition to Health care reform in the United States about how the individual mandate is a bill of attainder which is apparently illegal. The IP editor tried to edit war in the addition then went to the talk page to continually push the point. I and another editor asked the IP editor to provide sources for the criticism so we could work on it and see if it should be added, but all we got continually were law excerpts, supreme court rulings, etc not directly on the bill from the IP editor with his/her interpretations of those excerpts. When the IP editor did finally proved a good source, we wanted to see if we could write something, but the IP editor reverted back to their previous pattern of excerpt quotes and interpretations.

I was hoping for a couple more eyes on the situation so that something good can come of this because I'm getting to my wits end and I don't have the time for the continual back and forth. Like I stated on the talk page, if it can be neutrally written, then it should be added.

Thanks for taking a look. Brothejr ( talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There are now about 50,000 bytes of forum argumentation comprising the last five sections of Talk:Health care reform in the United States. Is it time for someone with knowledge of the process to shut down this train wreck with some hats and manual archiving? Fat&Happy ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've combined the sections. Someone who has paid closer attention to the page ought to move that the discussion be closed and archived as no consensus to include. One editor can announce that anything substantially new or any other opinions to the contrary, they'll give it another day and then do so. At that point any further forum comments, rehashing the same arguments, etc., can just be kept within the archived section and it becomes a behavior issue if the person doesn't eventually move on. But if you keep on top of headings and avoid letting the discussion proliferate across multiple headings, it's not quite as bad if a single section sprawls for a little while. The issue isn't really that someone carries on. You're free to ignore it, as long as it doesn't mess up the normal functioning of the page. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I've been casually stalking you for about 2 years ago. I forget where we first ran into one another, but I remembered thinking that you would make a great Admin. I considered nominating you at the time, but upon reviewing your edit history decided that 2008 around the elections was probably not the right time. You were embroiled in numerous articles where the flames were burning bright. I thought you did a good job navigating those flames, but knew that if you ran (at that time) that people who disagreed with you would oppose on political grounds rather than based upon what you bring to the project. Since then, I've paid some attention to you and have often considered asking you if you would be interested in running for adminship? This is not a solid offer to nominate you (I'd want to dig around your history some more) but if you are interested I'd be willing to take a closer look at you. If you are interested, are there any specific concerns/issues that you fear might doom such a nomination? Also, it should be noted, that politically, you and I are probably about as far apart as we can get... but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate what you bring to the table. If you're interested, let me know, I'll be watching your page.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here. These tags are perfectly appropriate. I had attempted to remove the unreliable sources before and was met with a blanket revert. Therefore, I reinserted the tags until someone else takes care of it. Nothing "inappropriate" about it. Bulldog123 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said, as well as my concern that you have been edit warring. Tags are not supposed to be used in that way. If you want to address any of the issues you are raising with the tags please do so on the article talk page. I see no discussion on the talk page of those issues. - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no "discussion" with Epeefleche. He simply reverts any comments I put on his talk page and then creates "discussions" on the article talk page with skewed headers like "Disruptive Editing by Bulldog" (which you yourself had to change to appear neutral) . Whatever dislike you have of me or my methods, fine -- but this type of "ganging up" approach seems to stem only out of our disagreements on the BLPN. You know very well that those tags are appropriate for the circumstances, so like I said before, stop trying to "muddy the waters." Bulldog123 04:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending Epeefleche. It would help if you take what I say at face value. I am not aware of the specific changes you are proposing or sources you are disputing, and because there is no discussion on the article talk page there is no context for those tags. All I know is something I noticed from a roundabout way, that you are disputing the reliability of some sources, and that initial comments on the RS notice board seems to agree with your take on that. If you raise the issue on the talk page I am happy to discuss it even if Epeefleche isn't. If consensus goes against using those sources then they should be removed, and anything sourced to them either deleted or re-sourced. So that's one point - best to get it straight on the article talk page. I don't know specifically what other things you're challenging. It would help to break them down as separate issues. - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Let me collect the removals... Bulldog123 04:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that there seems to be more open communication between us.... Would you be willing to answer this question I posted on your talk page a while back? I'm not trying to re-hash old topics but I am incredibly curious why the 180 reversal from holding the same position that I had about the unencyclopedicness of that list to !voting keep on the AfD (an AfD that would have sparked another list and solved the problem in one fellow swoop)? You may noticed that ever since the AfD, that Jewish actors list has just gotten worse, and I doubt it's going to get any better without instigating an edit war (which I'm clearly not willing to do now). Bulldog123 02:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Undulatus asperatus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undulatus asperatus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Blueboar ( talk) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Wikidemon, please see my response to IP 78...; I think it addresses your point as well. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is someone - just not Ratel? The bit about "attack Collect" is troubling - as that was one of Ratel's favourite diversions. Ah well -- posted all the BLP/N prior discussions there and hope others note all this. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I'll check to see if it looks like a sock. Edit warring while leveling personal attacks isn't too cool to begin with, but doing so from an SPA, sock or not, is a bit more of an issue. On your side, no point risking another block even if you feel it's a BLP issue. An admin might not see it that way. No huge harm if it stays up for a few days, although if nobody else reverts it, I'll get around to looking at it and probably either revert or trim it way back myself. BLP/N may work too, but you know how things can get into a mudfight there. Cheers, - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the complaint I made was pretty solid - but it turned out not to be solid enough for a provable link. There is, however, a distinct quack in the background. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made some comments about injun at Talk:Native_American_name_controversy#Re-opening_the_discussion_on_.22Injun.22 -- Evertype· ✆ 08:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon. I am curious as to why you made this edit, with the edit summary stating "horse = dead, put down the stick. Seiously, what happened is they circulated false rumors. The rest is an argument, not what they did.". This section came to my attention when an anon ip made this edit, changing "false" to "skeptical". I noticed the "vague" tag and looked at the source provided to see how I could clear up any vagueness. I made this edit, partially and directly quoting the source. Fat&Happy cleaned it up a bit and inserted an access date, which you also removed. I do see that you then restored a portion of the specifics, but left the "vague" tag. So in essence, you've restored the "vague" tag while removing the recent access date and partial quote from the source. Now, I know you're a sharp fellow, but just what is the point here? The paragraph was not very large, especially considering the following paragraph concerning Jim Geraghty, which is more than twice as large. Dave Dial ( talk) 03:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I started a thread on the talk page. Please follow what the tags say and don't remove till issues are resolved. CTJF83 02:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

please don't do this. [19]. I will remove one more time (and if I don't others surely will),, but please do heed my request and note the article probation notice on top of the article talk page. In case you do not know, this article is watched and edited by many editors who have worked bY consensuS regarding article contents Tags like that degrade the article without encouraging consensus or even letting others know what your issue is Again, if you have any issues to discuss about the article please use the associated talk page. Thx, Wikidemon ( talk) 02:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We obviously have tags like this for a reason. At the very least the too long tag is more than valid, as it is nearly double the suggested length. I'm headed to work, so won't be able to discuss this for 9 hours or so. CTJF83 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you've started a discussion. Thx. The length thing deserves some attention but I don't think the neutrality issue is viable. After all the conspiracy theories themselves are a right wing phenomenon. There aren't any left wing equivalents. I'll leave it for others to discuss. Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying we need more left wing responders who counter the argument. CTJF83 02:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

our messages keep crossing! IMO the answer to an opinion is a different opinion, but the answer to a fringe theory is the facts - so the article says flat out that it's untrue, rather than putting forth a liberal counterargument. Anyway, npov isn't a maintenance template, nor are unilaterally imposed maintenance templates a good idea on high traffic articles. You'll probably find they get summarily removed. I won't now but we can wait and see if anyone else does. Ill probabky retire to the talk page myself at this point I've got a couple of ideas on how to break off pieces into sub-articles. - Wikidemon ( talk) 02:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I have no intention of warring with you or anyone else on here. I await yours and others ideas on the talk, and will visit it in 9 hours. CTJF83 02:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to you here. Thank you. Bus stop ( talk) 15:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi if you feel compelled to delete ALL of my refs and work maybe you could show some common courtesy to post on the talk page to find out your opinions on what you will compromise on and what is relevant to the article.--  R. Mutt 1917   Talk 02:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You posted a nearly identical message here [20] and started the discussion yourself [21] so no need to respond here. Reverting disputed content and taking it to the talk page is a matter of consensus-building, which may involve courtesy or compromise but is not the same thing. - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes the mention of NPR not notable? Numerous birther websites are citing NPR's gaffe as fuel for their claims. I don't see it being irrelevant. Efcmagnew ( talk) 01:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge number of birther claims, many based on the most obscure of things. We don't have a reliable source that independently says that this is a significant birther claim. Looking at birther sites to decide what is significant to the movement and what is not is tricky so we have to use what third party sources say about them. - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I take out 3K characters, and you put back 34. I'm winning.

Good putback, but I'm expecting to hear from various irate Celts. PhGustaf ( talk) 03:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

...I mentioned you here [22] Writegeist ( talk) 20:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy, I'll take a look. - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for the informed and respectful response to my question. Writegeist ( talk) 23:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Tavern on The Green is mentioned in Mr Popper's Penguins. I don't know how to add it, but I noticed you had worked on the article. Just an FYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.133.37 ( talk) 08:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I like your initiative in striking comments by a banned user. That said, I request you make an annotation next to each strike you make so that it is clear why the edits were struck (particularly if the discussion is reviewed in the future, or a small section is reviewed by a newer editor who assumes either the editor struck themselves or that a mistake was made). Particularly in the future, chances are your edit-summary will be missed. Regards, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood. In that particular case there were dozens of edits. Now that the "" is there it shouldn't be too hard to do a cut-and-replace. Do you know if there is a subst / template for that? Thx, - Wikidemon ( talk) 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and striking Chester's comments on the abortion talk page. That must have been tedious. Out of curiosity, what exactly is the difference between a sockpuupet and a sockpuppet? No good deed goes unpunished:) ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha! No good deed goes unmunged. It was pretty simple, actually, but it did take five or ten minutes. I cut and pasted the entire talk page into Microsoft Word, then played around with the find and global replace features. As often happens, this has unexpected consequences, especially when your replace string contains a typo. If I were a Linux whiz, I probably could have done the whole thing in thirty seconds with the "sed" shell command. ....

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I hereby award this Barnstar of Good Humor to Wikidemon for his valiant and honorable attempts to tolerate the terrible attempts at injecting humor by the Lord Dreadstar, just not a funny man in the realm of Santorum Dreadstar ☥ 22:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

$@%#!@!!  :) - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw your 05:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC) comment at WP:AN/I and wanted to respond to points you raised about my actions and this essay. Please be aware that I haven't taken these edits up recently. In fact, I've been doing it for some years now, and have done more than 3,000 of them. I will continue to do them, as they are in line with policy. If that alienates the community, it's unfortunate but not of a concern to me. There are plenty of people here who hate me and I really don't care. I'm not here to be liked. The community's wishes are expressed through policy and guideline. That is what I follow. That some people get upset about NFCC application is unfortunate, but it doesn't change those policies and guidelines. If one or more people want to see 10c changed/removed, they are welcome to start a proposal at WT:NFC.

I developed the essay because quite a number of people respond to 10c removals in consistent ways. That a number of people respond in such ways does not make them right. I am far from alone in responding to people who raise these complaints. It has become highly repetitive to respond to these complaints. Thus, the essay as an attempt to answer common complaints. It's really no different in intent than WP:FIXNF. It's a standard set of responses to a standard set of complaints. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting my edits without fixing the problem. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's incomprehensible - I have not reverted any edits without fixing the underlying problem, if there was one. You're in no place to leave warnings over edits you have no business making in the first place. About half the images I restored are obviously public domain, something you should have checked. The other half have existing rationales that clearly apply to the articles you removed them from, they just needed to have a link added. If you see a problem you're welcome to fix it but please don't remove images with simple technical problems you ought to be fixing. - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding File:BabyTV.png to Fox (Spain) without a rationale. I cannot see a valid rationale possible for that use..... So removal is the best option here. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Or re-adding File:Hordecup.jpg without a rationale. Do I need to continue to list your violations or will you fix them? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Those were errors, thanks for pointing them out. I'm batting 7 for 9 this evening correcting problems with your image removals. One had a rationale, others were marked as copyright-free, yet others were copyright free but had an obviously inapplicable copyright tag. If you want to do some useful things you could come up with a semi-automated procedure for finding stylized text logos that are incorrectly tagged as non-free, and for adding copyright tags for things like flags where the creator purports to offer a CC license to a work where they don't hold the copyright because they created the SVG. A fast way to add use rationales to obvious cases like logos instead of deleting them would also be welcome. - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are referring to WP:FurMe, As for image analysis for pd-text I would have no clue where to start, I dont work with graphics processing. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. If you or your tools don't know how to distinguish free stylized text logos from non-free logos, you shouldn't be messing with them. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I treat everything tagged as non-free equally. Most of the time I am not comfortable making the non-free/pd-text call and default to the current license (non-free). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nonfree files used in the flag icon template are decorative, and not needed. Please do not re-add them. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not. That's why the flagicon template exists. If you have a problem with that, please nominate the template for deletion. - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Most flags are under a free license and thus can be used freely, however some are non-free. You cannot lump the two together like that. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Random example from googleing a flag list Gallery_of_sovereign-state_flags a list of 205 free flags, and List_of_German_flags a list of 103 free flags. Please dont lump the small minority of non-free into the same category of free files because they are not the same. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of non-free flags to identify political groups != decorative. The use is widespread and accepted on Wikipedia, and to my knowledge has never been disapproved. - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon - this suggestion may be of interest to you: Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Climategate#Transwiki to Greenlivingpedia?-- Chriswaterguy talk 16:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• File:Newport coat of arms.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Wikidemon. Thanks for trying to add the missing rationale for the use of this file at Coat of arms of Newport. However, the rationale you added was not appropriate for this particular usage and so I have amended it by adding a custom explanation of the purpose of use. I realise that it is time consuming to write custom rationales but often the available boilerplate rationales are inadequate or (as in this case) irrelevant. Good fair use rationales are an essential aid for small-scale content re-users when deciding on the usability of an article containing non-free content. If you have any problem with my change to the rationale you added, please let me know. CIreland ( talk) 04:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Wikidemon, but let me butt in briefly here... I understand your point here, but requiring elaboration on the FUR for the image for the article about the image??? Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically you need to explain why that particular article needs that particular file. "its a related logo" or something equally generic isnt really that useful. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Again - it's the image of the coat of arms, and the FUR for the article on the coat of arms. This should not need elaboration due to self-evidence. That we require a FUR in policy is true, but one does not need to write a couple of paragraphs on why the coat of arms is reasonably used in the article on the coat of arms. Every reasonable person looking at a minimal FUR under those conditions should understand what and why. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 04:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldn't need elaboration (I would disagree) but the point is that the previous rationale was a copy-paste of a justification for its use in an article about a "public facility". That's not under-elaboration, it's just flat incorrect. CIreland ( talk) 05:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The image is fine. I was going to argue WP:SOFIXIT, but you obviously did. Boilerplate rationales are appropriate, this just happened to be the wrong one. Thanks. Much more productive than certain things that happen around here. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have already removed the files from those pages, as the image was being used as a decorative icon- clearly not a suitable use for a non-free image. There's no point leaving the rationales on the page- at best this is confusing, at worst, downright misleading, as it implies that a usage on those articles is acceptable. J Milburn ( talk) 14:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Decorative" use isn't a meaningful concept. They're obviously used for identification purposes, not as visual embellishment. Can you point to community consensus anywhere that use of non-free flags for purposes of identifying political bodies fails NFC? I'll likely add the images back to the articles at some point but in the meanwhile I'd like to hear if anyone can point a consensus on that particular issue. - Wikidemon ( talk) 14:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot, off-hand, point to a specific policy page mentioning this exact example, no. The same would be true with the majority of actions taken on Wikipedia ("Can you point to a community consensus that garage bands from Trenton, New Jersey, are considered non-notable? No? Then Impaled Black Satan should stay on Wikipedia, thank you very much.") That said, the burden of proof lies with you to prove they are warranted, not for me to prove that they aren't (see the non-free content policy). Non-free images may only be used when they add significantly to reader understanding of the topic, and it is not at all clear that the use of a flag in addition to the name of the organisation in every article about every conflict in which said organisation has been involved adds significantly to reader understanding. You say that the flags are "obviously used for identification purposes, not as visual embellishment"- is the name not enough to identify the organisation? This is almost a textbook case of a "decorative" non-free image (that is, a non-free image that serves no explanatory purpose, and exists only to make the article look prettier or neater) and a textbook case of a non-free image that fails NFCC#8. Please do not readd the images to the articles. J Milburn ( talk) 14:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Which textbook? There's no Wikipedia rule about "decorative" use and it's not a real concept. The specific use of these flags is to identify the political groups that use them, and that appears to be a longstanding, widespread use of flags here. If that's indeed the status quo the burden is on editors wanting to change the rules here to establish a consensus rather than achieving policy through edit wars. By joining an existing edit war that's already the subject of multiple administrative reports (I can point you if you're not yet aware) you may be acerbating what looks to be a difficult problem here. - Wikidemon ( talk) 14:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A "textbook example" is a very standard, unambiguous example- it's a metaphor which means the same as "the epitome of" or something similar. "Decorative use" certainly is a "real" concept- it's a phrase that has been used for a long time. If you want me to stop using the term, I will, as my concern is about NFCC#8- you can't get much more "real" than that. The use of an identifying flag on an article about the political group is certainly a "longstanding, widespread use of flags", but the use of the flagicon template in all but a few very rare cases is to display a free flag, and that's a very different thing. I would have no objection to the use of these flags if they were free. As this is a non-free image, regardless of what you feel the "longstanding, widespread" consensus with regards to the use of the flagicon template is, we have to assess the usage in relation to the non-free content criteria. So, we have a non-free image; some editors believe it is useful, some do not. As I have said, the burden of proof is on those wishing to include the content. Please do not try to muddy the waters by suggesting I'm looking to change some policy- that's simply not the case. Whether I have joined an edit war or not, I'm simply enforcing policy in a "textbook" case (and I'm really not interested in any "administrative reports"). If there is a "difficult problem" (and, short of your headbanging, I'm not really seeing one) then that's not my fault. J Milburn ( talk) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Decorative" is one of those Wikipedia-only terms that doesn't have an actual meaning. The common meaning, used for decoration and not for function, is clearly not the case. Indeed, use of a flag to stand for a political group is a textbook example of iconography. Not prettying up the place, but using a symbol to stand for a thing.

* * THIS IS DECORATIVE **

But

  European Union - 16,282,230

  Afghanistan - 16,631

Is an iconic use, a well known thing. You might want to check out the essay in progress, WP:DECORATIVE. Very few flags are copyrighted so this does not come up often. Using flags as icons on Wikipedia to illustrate where something came from or who did what is a longstanding practice. The burden is on those seeking to overturn the status quo. Unless you can point to a place where this has been decided, removing flags that have been in articles for years with an edit like this [23] that would require consensus as it destroys what the article is trying to do in the infobox. You are edit warring here in support of an editor who's before multiple notice boards and currently blocked for editing, thus you're facilitating it. Also, by claiming you have a right to edit war because you believe this is policy and that anyone who wants to keep the status quo has to justify it, you are creating a new policy interpretation through edit warring, something that does run against the grain of our collaborative process here. I'm still waiting for a pointer that there's consensus on this. If there is I'll gladly accept it. If not, the flags should be restored to these articles. And if there's no consensus but divided feeling we need to have a discussion about this in a central place to see where the community's opinion lies. - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, we're just going round in circles here. You are wrong. You state that "The burden is on those seeking to overturn the status quo", and claim that the abuse of non-free content is the "statu quo", but that is not true. You want to include non-free content. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, as per the NFCC. HERE'S THE POLICY THAT SAYS THAT. No ifs, no buts. Our non-free content criteria is policy, and there is consensus for it. Now, I've tried to discuss the use of these flags with you, but you're clearly not actually interested in that- all you're interested in is demanding I point to a "consensus". (Two important asides- Firstly, I'm not "supporting" anyone, I'm making my own edits. Secondly, can we drop the "decorative" thing? I've already said I'll stop using the word.) J Milburn ( talk) 21:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong about consensus and burden. You can't create a new interpretation of policy by which you delete a bunch of longstanding content, then require other editors to prove you wrong. That's the approach that lead to the Beta Bot wars in 2008 or so, the trivia wars of 2007, etc. The widespread edit warring over images that you have joined, intentionally or otherwise, has raised questions of how to handle non-free images in several contexts: multiple images in certain kinds of lists, non-free flags in flagicons, and likely some others. Those questions are seemingly unresolved - the community has not looked at these specific questions in light of policy, and articulated an answer. You may have your opinion that policy suggests one answer, other people have varying opinions. That's why I asked if you know of any consensus that's been reached. I'm not demanding that you do or threatening any immediate action if you don't, I'm just asking because if there is a consensus it would save us and the community some unnecessary work. If I can assume from your silence that there is no consensus as yet then I do want to discuss with you, and everyone else, in an appropriate central place, so that we have a single answer that we can abide by in all the articles where it applies. - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You wish to include non-free content. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." That's it. Just drop it. J Milburn ( talk) 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, so far as I can see, you're literally stalking me now, and that's not cool, at all. You don't get/don't like the NFCC. That's fine; I'm willing to sit here and explain it to you. Following me to other articles to force non-free content in is simply not acceptable. If you genuinely want me to explain why you're wrong, I will, but I will not tolerate that. J Milburn ( talk) 20:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see now you've followed me from Delta's talk page, which is more reasonable. I have explained the situation there- I must ask you to please not revert me again. If you want to discuss it, that's fine, I'm willing to discuss it. Edit warring is not going to fix anything. J Milburn ( talk) 20:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're edit warring, not me. I believe I'm the "R" of WP:BRD - and now you've reverted removal of the same images twice. I'm not going to join in, but I believe the status quo is that the images are part of the article so we can start from there. I'll copy my comments there. - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

...choose a place, and go. I'm not interested in arguing about who's edit warring, I'm not interested in repeatedly telling you that the burden of proof lies with you, I'm not interested in whose side I'm on. Let's just discuss the flaming images. J Milburn ( talk) 21:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon --

I have responded to your post at WP:VPP regarding "In popular culture" sections, and would appreciate it if you would consider looking over my response and looking at my proposal again. I think we are mostly in agreement, judging by your Periodic table vs. Santa Claus example, but for some reason you stated that you oppose my proposal. I think you have perhaps been misinformed by the repeated misrepresentations of my proposal by several users (who claim that I am "OMFG TRYING TO REMOVE ALL POPULAR CULTURE SECTIONS!!!"), rather than responding based on an analysis of my actual proposal which suggests nothing of the sort.

My proposal aims to do exactly what you have suggested: Include high-quality "Cultural significance"/"In popular culture" sections for articles like Santa Claus or Zombie or Samurai that have had a significant cultural impact, while removing trivial pop-culture references from articles like Periodic table. Tempers are flaring over my proposal, but I'm respectfully asking that you calmly revisit my suggested amendment to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and consider whether or not it would have the effect of promoting the type of content you wish to promote, while removing the type of content you think does not belong in our articles.

Thank you, and warm regards. ~ Mesoderm ( talk) 01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I may not have time for a full look but I'll change my note to make clear that I'm not opposing a distinction between indiscriminate lists and real evaluation of popular culture. - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And I'd welcome any suggestions on how to improve my proposal (or a better way altogether to deal with the situation) before I take it to an RFC (all I'm trying to do at WP:VPP is fix any obvious problems with the proposal before offering it up for an RFC discussion). Cheers. ~ Mesoderm ( talk) 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The non-free image File:Wilson The Volleyball.jpg was recently restored to Wilson Sporting Goods by you after it have been removed for failure of our non-free content criteria policy, specifically item #10c which requires a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". The image still fails the 10c policy requirement and has been removed from the article again. Please do not restore this image to that article again without complying with the requirements of that policy. For more information on how to write an appropriate non-free use rationale, please consult Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. If you have questions about this, please ask. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And to this edit summary; no it isn't obviously free. Rather the opposite, as it it a screenshot from the movie. Clearly copyrighted. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, wrong image. The logo did have an incorrect tag. More clear messaging and process could help our mutual success rate. The popular culture movie still probably shouldn't be in the article in the first place. - Wikidemon ( talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)