This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hi, could you please elaborate on why you tagged this image for deletion under WP:CSD#I9? ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to register a complaint against you. The word "Faggotry" seem to sum up my problems with you succinctly. You really should fuck your father in your bedroom, not on your lawn. 71.250.37.239 ( talk) 07:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit war with you (IOW, I'll leave your edit, although it's likely to be removed by others who watch the page), but it's highly unlikely that redlinks on that list will encourage anyone to write an article on the school. Almost all of the high school articles I've seen have been written by someone who attends or attended the school, which rather limits the potential for a redlink on a list to do much in this case. Sometimes redlinks are useful for spurring creation of new articles, but I doubt it in this case. This list (and I would imagine others like it) tend to become link farms for external links to school websites, which necessitates a periodic cleanup. It's much easier to add an external link than to write even a stub article. (Addendum — Please take a look at the talk page for the article, on which it was generally agreed that redlinks should not appear on the list.) Horologium (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:DeviantART Fella.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. wL< speak· check> 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I used to tag towards the top, then I had a change of heart after agreeing with User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. See the conversation I had on this last month also at User_talk:Longhair/Archive18#Tags and User_talk:Unschool#Tag_placement. Cheers. -- Longhair\ talk 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dont you dare say im not notable. I have lawyers you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonedead ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I didn't much care for that one either, and the original version of the one I uploaded had trademark issues but was a pretty decent one to begin with, so it seemed like the best solution. Cheers! ペコペコ ( talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your admin protected the wrong page. The article locked is the gutted version which started on 10 December 2007. There is no dispute now, the user doing this is happy to see the article gutted. He also gutted the article on roy gillaspie down to one line. That is why wikipedia has trouble raising money, too many personal agendas and incidents like this. Tss8071 ( talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am not sure why you are editing it also. Parts of the article do not even make sense but are just disjointed sentences. Their goal is to remove all negative content and they realized that removing too much at one time alerts cluebot, so, they are removing a piece at a time. They will cut more pieces out over a period of this week. When I say they, they could very well be one person with multiple accounts. One year of work down the toilet through vandalism and a blatent disregard for the wiki process and for what the admin, cameron1, said. Tss8071 ( talk) 11:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The templates are appropriate, background information is missing and was cut out of the article. DO NOT REMOVE tags without a discussion of it. 65.87.185.73 ( talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I put the article back, the one Cameron1 said to put back, and verified the license with 'Angel', Benton Countty Clerk's Office, 479-271-1013.
However, I am sure that will not stop them from deleting the information again. Tss8071 ( talk) 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Why was the ministerial license removed? Tss8071 ( talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was a nice try but some users are just not going to let any negative information in. The claim was the ministerial license was a fabrication. I got the license, uploaded it, sourced it, and they removed it anyway. Also, some of the paragraphs are disjointed sentences now, so, it would be difficult to restore the article piecemeal. The version earlier today was a good version and if people want to rewrite, etc. that is fine, but this other user is slicing and dicing anything negative. Thanks anyway though Tss8071 ( talk) 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You added the Rochester Institute of Technology alumni tag to the Kate Gleason article. Although she left a sizeable portion of her estate to RIT, I can find no evidence that she actually attended RIT or its predecessor Mechanics Institute. It would help if you could add a verifiable source reference for this. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't do that -- it only encourages them. See WP:DENY. Just warn them, watch them, but don't goad them, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru ( talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan, I gather that on further thought the proposed standard of high school name (city, state) was found to be unnecessary for schools which have the same name as the city and which are the only ones with that name in the state. I have therefore gone ahead and changed back Laconia, Gorham, Franklin, Exeter, Concord, and Belmont high schools. I agree with you and the others that (city, state) should be kept when the high school name is not the same as the town's, so places like Campbell and Trinity high schools should not have their names changed. Anyway, keep up the good work on the New Hampshire edits! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan. User:Kingturtle tells me he recently moved to Rochester and would like to know if there are any Rochester groups online or offline for Wikipedia. I don't know of any ... do you? Truthanado ( talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I hope you don't mind, I added the standardized template to the Requested move back to deviantART. I didn't realize a requested move case, so I thought it should be added. If you'd rather it didn't be there, feel free to undo my edit. Thanks. -- Dan Leveille TALK 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, do you think that (official typeset "deviantART") should be (official typeset and incorporated as "deviantART"). Because this is officially how they are incorporated. They use this on their legal documents and contracts. The title appears exactly as deviantART, Inc. -- Dan Leveille TALK 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks remind me to never hire you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portal60hooch ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
BLP concerns. I linked to the pre-stub version in the AFD to show even that doesn't make a good job with asserting notability. Will ( talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Danlev,
You probably noticed by now, but you accidentally created this template in the article namespace. I tried to move it straight to the template namespace, but Template:User Rochester already exists, so I renamed it slightly. Anyways, just thought I'd drop by to let you know. Thanks! -- jonny- m t 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Danlev,
I'm not sure what the edit war at User talk:Ryder Spearmann was meant to achieve, but please don't restore removed comments from other users' talk pages, per Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space.
All the best, Sideshow Bob Roberts ( talk) 13:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the image for two reasons 1) it was very obviously photoshopped and as a result was not an accurate portrayal of the city buildings and colors. 2) other images were taken down without discussion, and have been reasserted.
i did leave a summary of why it was done, you just didn't read it.
dont know how to create a new box, didn't know it deleted the old one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilarry ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Finally you also removed other works without asking the respective owners how they felt about it. Whether or not you personally think a photo is beautiful, while i appreciate your preferences - shouldn't really be apart of wikipedia if its not a true to life color representation. Those buildings are highly run down, and they look like cartoons as a result of your photochopping.
Evilarry (
talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded suitable replacement
Evilarry (
talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and advice.
I am a novice at Wikipedia...and I apologize for cluttering up the History pages.
I do not believe the Rochester page has too many images. Please refer to the Buffalo City page, or Syracuse city page (both cities of similar size and geography) and you will see a similar number of images. I am adding these image thumbs on the left and right of the page, where there was only previously "white space".
Also: Kodak, Xerox, Bausch & Lomb, Wegmans, and Paetec are all Multi-Billion dollar entreprises. Therefore they are prominent in terms of local employment and politics, have a large real-estate and industrial presence locally and world wide....
Thanks again.
I am here to help, not harm.
Brian Stiehler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnybs2004 ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason why the footnotes need to contain quotes of the references. If a user wants to verify a statement, they will click the footnote and visit the link. Wikipedia references never include quotes. Also, I standardized the format for the reference lists - why did you revert the formatting? We need to keep formatting in standard WP styles for consistency, using templates. -- Dan Leveille TALK 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your observation that No free lunch in search and optimization needs illustration, and have solicited advice. ThomHImself ( talk) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, if you find an article like Karu which has been wrongly tagged for speedy deletion, you can just remove the tag. Only the original author isn't supposed to remove it. Anyway, good catch there! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BubbleWrap.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
User Opinoso don´t respond to my messages about stop deleting a sourced and researched image I provided for the article Rio de Janeiro. He just stated on the history page that the picture Image:Rio de Janeiro 1565.PNG is not aestethically good to the article, and "anyway, old flags are not important". He is in an edit war with me, he just erases the picture, showing a biased judgement. And, worst, he deleted my messages asking for him to stop deleting the image I provided. Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about you....I am just telling you about user
Opinoso, you already had discussed with him about another edit war
Emerson —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Domaleixo (
talk •
contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Google Adsense logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — PNG crusade bot ( feedback) 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hi, could you please elaborate on why you tagged this image for deletion under WP:CSD#I9? ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to register a complaint against you. The word "Faggotry" seem to sum up my problems with you succinctly. You really should fuck your father in your bedroom, not on your lawn. 71.250.37.239 ( talk) 07:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit war with you (IOW, I'll leave your edit, although it's likely to be removed by others who watch the page), but it's highly unlikely that redlinks on that list will encourage anyone to write an article on the school. Almost all of the high school articles I've seen have been written by someone who attends or attended the school, which rather limits the potential for a redlink on a list to do much in this case. Sometimes redlinks are useful for spurring creation of new articles, but I doubt it in this case. This list (and I would imagine others like it) tend to become link farms for external links to school websites, which necessitates a periodic cleanup. It's much easier to add an external link than to write even a stub article. (Addendum — Please take a look at the talk page for the article, on which it was generally agreed that redlinks should not appear on the list.) Horologium (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:DeviantART Fella.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. wL< speak· check> 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I used to tag towards the top, then I had a change of heart after agreeing with User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. See the conversation I had on this last month also at User_talk:Longhair/Archive18#Tags and User_talk:Unschool#Tag_placement. Cheers. -- Longhair\ talk 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dont you dare say im not notable. I have lawyers you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonedead ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I didn't much care for that one either, and the original version of the one I uploaded had trademark issues but was a pretty decent one to begin with, so it seemed like the best solution. Cheers! ペコペコ ( talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your admin protected the wrong page. The article locked is the gutted version which started on 10 December 2007. There is no dispute now, the user doing this is happy to see the article gutted. He also gutted the article on roy gillaspie down to one line. That is why wikipedia has trouble raising money, too many personal agendas and incidents like this. Tss8071 ( talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am not sure why you are editing it also. Parts of the article do not even make sense but are just disjointed sentences. Their goal is to remove all negative content and they realized that removing too much at one time alerts cluebot, so, they are removing a piece at a time. They will cut more pieces out over a period of this week. When I say they, they could very well be one person with multiple accounts. One year of work down the toilet through vandalism and a blatent disregard for the wiki process and for what the admin, cameron1, said. Tss8071 ( talk) 11:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The templates are appropriate, background information is missing and was cut out of the article. DO NOT REMOVE tags without a discussion of it. 65.87.185.73 ( talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I put the article back, the one Cameron1 said to put back, and verified the license with 'Angel', Benton Countty Clerk's Office, 479-271-1013.
However, I am sure that will not stop them from deleting the information again. Tss8071 ( talk) 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Why was the ministerial license removed? Tss8071 ( talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was a nice try but some users are just not going to let any negative information in. The claim was the ministerial license was a fabrication. I got the license, uploaded it, sourced it, and they removed it anyway. Also, some of the paragraphs are disjointed sentences now, so, it would be difficult to restore the article piecemeal. The version earlier today was a good version and if people want to rewrite, etc. that is fine, but this other user is slicing and dicing anything negative. Thanks anyway though Tss8071 ( talk) 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You added the Rochester Institute of Technology alumni tag to the Kate Gleason article. Although she left a sizeable portion of her estate to RIT, I can find no evidence that she actually attended RIT or its predecessor Mechanics Institute. It would help if you could add a verifiable source reference for this. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't do that -- it only encourages them. See WP:DENY. Just warn them, watch them, but don't goad them, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru ( talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan, I gather that on further thought the proposed standard of high school name (city, state) was found to be unnecessary for schools which have the same name as the city and which are the only ones with that name in the state. I have therefore gone ahead and changed back Laconia, Gorham, Franklin, Exeter, Concord, and Belmont high schools. I agree with you and the others that (city, state) should be kept when the high school name is not the same as the town's, so places like Campbell and Trinity high schools should not have their names changed. Anyway, keep up the good work on the New Hampshire edits! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan. User:Kingturtle tells me he recently moved to Rochester and would like to know if there are any Rochester groups online or offline for Wikipedia. I don't know of any ... do you? Truthanado ( talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I hope you don't mind, I added the standardized template to the Requested move back to deviantART. I didn't realize a requested move case, so I thought it should be added. If you'd rather it didn't be there, feel free to undo my edit. Thanks. -- Dan Leveille TALK 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, do you think that (official typeset "deviantART") should be (official typeset and incorporated as "deviantART"). Because this is officially how they are incorporated. They use this on their legal documents and contracts. The title appears exactly as deviantART, Inc. -- Dan Leveille TALK 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks remind me to never hire you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portal60hooch ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
BLP concerns. I linked to the pre-stub version in the AFD to show even that doesn't make a good job with asserting notability. Will ( talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Danlev,
You probably noticed by now, but you accidentally created this template in the article namespace. I tried to move it straight to the template namespace, but Template:User Rochester already exists, so I renamed it slightly. Anyways, just thought I'd drop by to let you know. Thanks! -- jonny- m t 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Danlev,
I'm not sure what the edit war at User talk:Ryder Spearmann was meant to achieve, but please don't restore removed comments from other users' talk pages, per Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space.
All the best, Sideshow Bob Roberts ( talk) 13:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the image for two reasons 1) it was very obviously photoshopped and as a result was not an accurate portrayal of the city buildings and colors. 2) other images were taken down without discussion, and have been reasserted.
i did leave a summary of why it was done, you just didn't read it.
dont know how to create a new box, didn't know it deleted the old one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilarry ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Finally you also removed other works without asking the respective owners how they felt about it. Whether or not you personally think a photo is beautiful, while i appreciate your preferences - shouldn't really be apart of wikipedia if its not a true to life color representation. Those buildings are highly run down, and they look like cartoons as a result of your photochopping.
Evilarry (
talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded suitable replacement
Evilarry (
talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and advice.
I am a novice at Wikipedia...and I apologize for cluttering up the History pages.
I do not believe the Rochester page has too many images. Please refer to the Buffalo City page, or Syracuse city page (both cities of similar size and geography) and you will see a similar number of images. I am adding these image thumbs on the left and right of the page, where there was only previously "white space".
Also: Kodak, Xerox, Bausch & Lomb, Wegmans, and Paetec are all Multi-Billion dollar entreprises. Therefore they are prominent in terms of local employment and politics, have a large real-estate and industrial presence locally and world wide....
Thanks again.
I am here to help, not harm.
Brian Stiehler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnybs2004 ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason why the footnotes need to contain quotes of the references. If a user wants to verify a statement, they will click the footnote and visit the link. Wikipedia references never include quotes. Also, I standardized the format for the reference lists - why did you revert the formatting? We need to keep formatting in standard WP styles for consistency, using templates. -- Dan Leveille TALK 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your observation that No free lunch in search and optimization needs illustration, and have solicited advice. ThomHImself ( talk) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, if you find an article like Karu which has been wrongly tagged for speedy deletion, you can just remove the tag. Only the original author isn't supposed to remove it. Anyway, good catch there! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BubbleWrap.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
User Opinoso don´t respond to my messages about stop deleting a sourced and researched image I provided for the article Rio de Janeiro. He just stated on the history page that the picture Image:Rio de Janeiro 1565.PNG is not aestethically good to the article, and "anyway, old flags are not important". He is in an edit war with me, he just erases the picture, showing a biased judgement. And, worst, he deleted my messages asking for him to stop deleting the image I provided. Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about you....I am just telling you about user
Opinoso, you already had discussed with him about another edit war
Emerson —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Domaleixo (
talk •
contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Google Adsense logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — PNG crusade bot ( feedback) 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)