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. |
Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I thought the deletion was final so thought that our article was just "done with". I have posted some comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chicago_Engineering_Design_Team though. Thank you, Engineer4life ( talk) 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I however, need more help. This image is a Logo of an Augustinian school; I'm pretty sure it has not been release into the public domain by the Augustinians. The original uploader may had been having some difficulty with copyright tags and simply opted to upload the image under GFDL. It's now orphaned too. Should I list it for IfD? Thanks! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 10:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll hack something up when I get the chance. BJ Talk 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please compare the img with the img here [1], they are the same - including dimensions. The Inscription is old but the digital creation of the text is perhaps taken from the copyrighted site.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, what is your intention regarding the protection of this page please? MSGJ ( talk) 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
From WP:RFPP:
Move protection. I keep disambiguating this page because of this reasoning, but another user keeps moving it back to Step by Step (song) while giving weak reasoning. I didn't disambiguate it again because I don't want to be accused of being involved in an edit war. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL ( talk) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Um... you might want to look at that again. The requester was in favor of moving the article to Step by Step (New Kids on the Block song). At the time the request was made, the article was at Step by Step (song) (and had been that way for awhile). Further, he specifically said I didn't disambiguate it again because I don't want to be accused of being involved in an edit war. And, yet, well, I hope I don't need to spell it out for you... -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. Could I trouble you to undelete Image:Cityflag.jpg? I believe a solid fair use case can be made for its use in the Rochester, New York article, as flags are commonly used for identification of government entities -- in fact, the same purpose served by the seal that's still there (the two together provide even more complete identification). Thanks in advance. Powers T 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In your edit here you have suggested a source. I have provided one that was used as a base. Do you think I need to provide any further details on it please? Wikidās 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Your warning was completely unnecessary. I was reverting vandalism, which I reported yesterday, but the admin who checked it saw fit only to warn the offending editor after a final warning had been issued. If 3RR applies to protecting WP from vandalism then we're in some trouble. Traditional unionist ( talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm just confused. I know my first edit was almost exactly cut and paste. My second edit was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! Did you even look at my second edit before you deleted it? Bcspro ( talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Look at this diff [2] Bcspro ( talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
>Please do not upload copyrighted images and claim they are your own work. Stifle ( talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Your message on my talk page here was about image I did not create or upload. Thanks anyway! Wikidās ॐ 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that Image:Win32-loader.ogg has been removed, allegedly because it has been "Listed on PUI for over two weeks".
However, I didn't receive any notification that the freeness of this content was being challenged (since 3rd step in Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images about notifiing was apparently ommitted). I tried to find it in the PUI listing, but I can't find any reference to my video.
Therefore I must conclude that the claim was spurious, and re-upload. If you want to discuss any possible problems I'll be glad to; but I obviously can't deal with claims if they aren't notified to me.
Thanks
Robertmh ( talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The user is asking for a review of the block. while I agree the block is justified per 3RR, the IP had already crossed the threshold of edit warring more than 3 times to insert that name before Tasoskessaris, even if it wasn't quite within a 24 hour period. Have a look at my comments there and let me know what you think. – xeno ( talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but per my comments here I'd like to ask you to remove the protection on that page. I don't mean to blame Hockey-holic, I have nothing against him or his motives, but I think his actions in requesting protection were very disruptive and completely in ignorance of the fact that we were working towards a solution already - one which he had taken virtually no part in. Of course I will respect your opinion on this over mine, but I personally believe he requested protection for all the wrong reasons, and in ignorance of the work we had so far achieved. Falastur2 ( talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
[3] - I think a block might be okay. Would you reconsider? Scarian Call me Pat! 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
As it shows you have put a protection on a articale that i made. your comment was "doesn't indicate real person. well it does as i have the offical website address and if you had a moment to read then you would of seen this spectacular person.
you have deleted that artical for no reason, which puts wikipedia down and i will take this further if you do not give a good explination of why it is not allowed.
i suggest you email me or contact me back within 2 days or i will have no other oppertunity than to write to wikipeida its self explaining the difficulty as a user i am having.
Many Thanks, Mr Parmar
The Page you deleted was :Jamie Parmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieparmar1 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
i am sorry to be threatning i just was angrey as it took me a while to make it and all of a sudden it was deleted.
Mr Parmar Jamieparmar1 ( talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle,
I'm one of Marcus Goldhaber's publicists and he asked me to create a wiki on him.
Although he is not of the stature of Michael Buble or what not, I really don't understand why his page was deleted.
He is a signed artist, and his first album was reviewed by People magazine (among other noted publications).
None of the content is a violation of copyrights because it was written by myself and another publicist.
Please provide an explanation for the deletion of his page....
If you find it too PR-y, I will most certainly make edits. But otherwise, I think he deserves a wiki page.
thank you. Termeh ( talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)termeh
Hi Stifle,
I think you should revert the last edit before you protected the article. If no consensus is reached then I think the 2nd last edit would stand as what it should be. Kingjeff ( talk) 20:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I am asking you directly because you replied to the request for unblock on Druze. The users who were participating in an edit war on that page (and many others) have been banned for sockpuppetry. I'm not sure how to get consensus, as no one else other than myself remains to discuss the issue. In regards to the particular conflict - "Hakim's alleged divinity" - you can see the compromise version I posted on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah even after the user GreenEcho had been banned. I still included his views. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please restore ZipLocal? I was careful to include references with the article. With the story from the Montreal Gazette, you have to scroll down towards the end of the article to see the reference to ZipLocal, but it's there. -- Eastmain ( talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Manac did not properly present the 3RR violation by Pabopa, so I reformatted it (I also suspect Pabopa is evading his or her block sanction today). Please take a look at the case again. Thanks-- Caspian blue ( talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the image, the uploader claims that the video is the only permission required for Wikipedia to use the images. Gary King ( talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an editor who's been participating in some of the discussions at the Taekwondo page. As I'm sure you saw when you protected it, the page has seen quite a lot of disruption and argument in recent months, with no sign yet of any resolution. Yesterday I opened an incident at the Administrators' Noticeboard describing what I feel are the issues and asking for guidance, which User:Xenocidic marked as requiring attention from someone familiar with the matter. I don't know how closely you follow the page yourself (if at all), but I just wanted to let you know about the report and see if you'd be interested in offering comment or feedback. Thank you! Huwmanbeing ☀ ★ 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |
Please restore the deleted article for Blockdot. This article was already reviewed by one of the Wikipedia 'reviewers' and she highlighted the areas that she considered 'advertising'. We addressed those areas and believe that this deletion is not justified. Please let us know what you find 'offensive' so we can address. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcopollo ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edit note, in removing a {{db-a7}} template was "decline speedy, there are enough albums released to avoid an A7". A7 is not about notability. A7 is about stating the importance of an article in its lead, which is something that isn't done in the Aborted article. The number of albums would help establish notability if notability were the reason for an AfD, but that isn't the case. — X S G 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I thought the deletion was final so thought that our article was just "done with". I have posted some comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chicago_Engineering_Design_Team though. Thank you, Engineer4life ( talk) 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I however, need more help. This image is a Logo of an Augustinian school; I'm pretty sure it has not been release into the public domain by the Augustinians. The original uploader may had been having some difficulty with copyright tags and simply opted to upload the image under GFDL. It's now orphaned too. Should I list it for IfD? Thanks! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 10:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll hack something up when I get the chance. BJ Talk 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please compare the img with the img here [1], they are the same - including dimensions. The Inscription is old but the digital creation of the text is perhaps taken from the copyrighted site.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, what is your intention regarding the protection of this page please? MSGJ ( talk) 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
From WP:RFPP:
Move protection. I keep disambiguating this page because of this reasoning, but another user keeps moving it back to Step by Step (song) while giving weak reasoning. I didn't disambiguate it again because I don't want to be accused of being involved in an edit war. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL ( talk) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Um... you might want to look at that again. The requester was in favor of moving the article to Step by Step (New Kids on the Block song). At the time the request was made, the article was at Step by Step (song) (and had been that way for awhile). Further, he specifically said I didn't disambiguate it again because I don't want to be accused of being involved in an edit war. And, yet, well, I hope I don't need to spell it out for you... -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. Could I trouble you to undelete Image:Cityflag.jpg? I believe a solid fair use case can be made for its use in the Rochester, New York article, as flags are commonly used for identification of government entities -- in fact, the same purpose served by the seal that's still there (the two together provide even more complete identification). Thanks in advance. Powers T 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In your edit here you have suggested a source. I have provided one that was used as a base. Do you think I need to provide any further details on it please? Wikidās 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Your warning was completely unnecessary. I was reverting vandalism, which I reported yesterday, but the admin who checked it saw fit only to warn the offending editor after a final warning had been issued. If 3RR applies to protecting WP from vandalism then we're in some trouble. Traditional unionist ( talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm just confused. I know my first edit was almost exactly cut and paste. My second edit was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! Did you even look at my second edit before you deleted it? Bcspro ( talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Look at this diff [2] Bcspro ( talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
>Please do not upload copyrighted images and claim they are your own work. Stifle ( talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Your message on my talk page here was about image I did not create or upload. Thanks anyway! Wikidās ॐ 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that Image:Win32-loader.ogg has been removed, allegedly because it has been "Listed on PUI for over two weeks".
However, I didn't receive any notification that the freeness of this content was being challenged (since 3rd step in Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images about notifiing was apparently ommitted). I tried to find it in the PUI listing, but I can't find any reference to my video.
Therefore I must conclude that the claim was spurious, and re-upload. If you want to discuss any possible problems I'll be glad to; but I obviously can't deal with claims if they aren't notified to me.
Thanks
Robertmh ( talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The user is asking for a review of the block. while I agree the block is justified per 3RR, the IP had already crossed the threshold of edit warring more than 3 times to insert that name before Tasoskessaris, even if it wasn't quite within a 24 hour period. Have a look at my comments there and let me know what you think. – xeno ( talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but per my comments here I'd like to ask you to remove the protection on that page. I don't mean to blame Hockey-holic, I have nothing against him or his motives, but I think his actions in requesting protection were very disruptive and completely in ignorance of the fact that we were working towards a solution already - one which he had taken virtually no part in. Of course I will respect your opinion on this over mine, but I personally believe he requested protection for all the wrong reasons, and in ignorance of the work we had so far achieved. Falastur2 ( talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
[3] - I think a block might be okay. Would you reconsider? Scarian Call me Pat! 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
As it shows you have put a protection on a articale that i made. your comment was "doesn't indicate real person. well it does as i have the offical website address and if you had a moment to read then you would of seen this spectacular person.
you have deleted that artical for no reason, which puts wikipedia down and i will take this further if you do not give a good explination of why it is not allowed.
i suggest you email me or contact me back within 2 days or i will have no other oppertunity than to write to wikipeida its self explaining the difficulty as a user i am having.
Many Thanks, Mr Parmar
The Page you deleted was :Jamie Parmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieparmar1 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
i am sorry to be threatning i just was angrey as it took me a while to make it and all of a sudden it was deleted.
Mr Parmar Jamieparmar1 ( talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle,
I'm one of Marcus Goldhaber's publicists and he asked me to create a wiki on him.
Although he is not of the stature of Michael Buble or what not, I really don't understand why his page was deleted.
He is a signed artist, and his first album was reviewed by People magazine (among other noted publications).
None of the content is a violation of copyrights because it was written by myself and another publicist.
Please provide an explanation for the deletion of his page....
If you find it too PR-y, I will most certainly make edits. But otherwise, I think he deserves a wiki page.
thank you. Termeh ( talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)termeh
Hi Stifle,
I think you should revert the last edit before you protected the article. If no consensus is reached then I think the 2nd last edit would stand as what it should be. Kingjeff ( talk) 20:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I am asking you directly because you replied to the request for unblock on Druze. The users who were participating in an edit war on that page (and many others) have been banned for sockpuppetry. I'm not sure how to get consensus, as no one else other than myself remains to discuss the issue. In regards to the particular conflict - "Hakim's alleged divinity" - you can see the compromise version I posted on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah even after the user GreenEcho had been banned. I still included his views. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please restore ZipLocal? I was careful to include references with the article. With the story from the Montreal Gazette, you have to scroll down towards the end of the article to see the reference to ZipLocal, but it's there. -- Eastmain ( talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Manac did not properly present the 3RR violation by Pabopa, so I reformatted it (I also suspect Pabopa is evading his or her block sanction today). Please take a look at the case again. Thanks-- Caspian blue ( talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the image, the uploader claims that the video is the only permission required for Wikipedia to use the images. Gary King ( talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an editor who's been participating in some of the discussions at the Taekwondo page. As I'm sure you saw when you protected it, the page has seen quite a lot of disruption and argument in recent months, with no sign yet of any resolution. Yesterday I opened an incident at the Administrators' Noticeboard describing what I feel are the issues and asking for guidance, which User:Xenocidic marked as requiring attention from someone familiar with the matter. I don't know how closely you follow the page yourself (if at all), but I just wanted to let you know about the report and see if you'd be interested in offering comment or feedback. Thank you! Huwmanbeing ☀ ★ 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |
Please restore the deleted article for Blockdot. This article was already reviewed by one of the Wikipedia 'reviewers' and she highlighted the areas that she considered 'advertising'. We addressed those areas and believe that this deletion is not justified. Please let us know what you find 'offensive' so we can address. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcopollo ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edit note, in removing a {{db-a7}} template was "decline speedy, there are enough albums released to avoid an A7". A7 is not about notability. A7 is about stating the importance of an article in its lead, which is something that isn't done in the Aborted article. The number of albums would help establish notability if notability were the reason for an AfD, but that isn't the case. — X S G 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)