User talk:BigDT/archive200701a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. Please do not modify it. Leave new comments on my talk page.
Quick links: Main pageMy ContributionsTalk to meJun 06Jul 06Aug 06Sep - Dec 06Jan 07 aJan 07 bFeb 07



Contents

[edit] Thank you

In lieu of spamming eveyone's talk page with a message of thanks, I would like to place this message here for everyone who participated in my RFA.

Thank you. The tremendous show of support was humbling and heart-warming. This week has been an interesting one. I will strive to earn the trust that the community has placed in me.

I am placing myself in Category:Administrators open to recall. That means that if you feel I am ever using the administrative tools incorrectly, I want to hear about it, no matter how minor the concern is.

I will, as some have suggested I should, make sure that I spend more time on writing and on developing an encyclopedia.

Thank you all for participating in this process. --BigDT 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of fair use image

Ordinarily I don't get too involved in fair use image issues but the David Westerfield case you mentioned seems like a tough one. Given his current situation, it's obviously going to be pretty difficult to get a free picture of him anywhere else! Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I 100% agree that it's irreplaceable ... but news media photos don't qualify for fair use ... they never can unless the photo itself is newsworthy. It's one thing when we're talking about screenshots, logos, promophotos, whatever, even with a questionable rationale. But in the case of news media photos, the way the photographer puts food on his/her family's table is by selling the photo. By using the photo, we are directly competing with their intended market for the image. If it was legitimate to use these photos as fair use, why would a newspaper ever pay for an AP photo? Just use it and claim fair use. While Wikipedia could probably get away with it if sued, the commercial sites that use Wikipedia's content cannot. I don't have the heartache over promo photos that some people do ... but we really need to stay away from media photos. --BigDT 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image: RoseGardenLynn.jpg

I just want to let you know that I deleted that image, because I found that that particular image was not necssary for the article. Thank you anyways. LovePatsyCline 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the barnstar!

I love the new barnstar. Thanks very much for the appreciation. I look forward to sorting out and improving existing articles in the offseason.--NMajdantalk 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome ... I am absolutely amazed at the amount of time and dedication that has been put into the project. It's unbelievable what has been done in just six short months of project existence. --BigDT 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BigDT: I very much appreciate the barnstar that you awarded me, but am completely humbled. When I look at the contributions of the long time participants in the college football project like Nmajdan and Mecu, I cannot help but feel undeserving. Thanks!!--Tlmclain | Talk 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the BarnStar. It's always nice to be recognized. Have a great 2007!Football79 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you're psychic as I've been planning on doing a WP:CF barnstar myself. I'm also very appreciative and humbled to be recognized with one.

Now, I will throw a small damper on your efforts by noting that barnstars and WikiProject Awards are supposed to go through a proposal and approval process (and since I had been preparing my version, I know this one hasn't been through that). AUTiger ʃ talk/work 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ... I had never seen that ... but it looks to me like an "unapproved" barnstar can exist, it just can't be listed on the "official" registry. I have nominated the barnstar for consideration, but regardless of the outcome of that process, we can use it within our project. --BigDT 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recognition of Vanderbilt Commodores football. I also have to point out the contributions of User:Diezba who has done a lot of work in fleshing out my original article. Regards, PhilipR 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you feel that User:Diezba has made contributions that you would like to recognize, please feel free to be bold and give him a barnstar. See the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football for the code to use for the college football barnstar or, optionally, you can use another award from Wikipedia:Barnstars if you feel that something there would better apply. --BigDT 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my merging of related barnstar thank you notes into one topic on your talk page. Anyway, I'd like to mirror remarks made above and thank you for awarding me with a barnstar. It is always nice to know that someone appreciates your contributions. Thanks again, and have a great day! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

I thought the Tennessee page needed some history. Thanks for noticing! CJC47 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Iraq images

I would like to know why all of a suden you want to delete a large number of images from the articles about the Iraq war, some of them have been there for two months already and were not ever nominated for deletion and one that you want to delete the image of insurgents that are celebrating in the streets of Fallujah has been there for more than two years already. Top Gun 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

News media photos absolutely 100% cannot be used to illustrate the subject of the photo - they can only be used when the photo itself is iconic, eg Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, The Falling Man, or Kent State shootings. If you couldn't potentially write an article about the photo itself, it is not acceptable for fair use. I nominate every news media photo I find for deletion. If you take a look back through my nominations, there have been plenty unrelated to Iraq. The reason there were multiple ones from Iraq last night is that there was a whole series of Iraq articles that all used the same set of photos. Every time I would go to an article page to add the image deletion warning tag, I'd find two more photos that also needed to be nominated. I have no particular bias with respect to Iraq (I'm generally conservative, though not a Bush supporter) and that I can recall, I've never made an edit to an Iraq article other than reverting vandalism or dealing with copyvio images. I recognize that everyone who uploads these photos is doing so in good faith and doesn't realize that they are forbidden under our fair use policy. I wish we would make news media photos a criterion for speedy deletion so that well-meaning users wouldn't waste so much time uploading them. I hope this explanation helps. Please see WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. --BigDT 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know you won't find much support in deleting the images as I have already seen many users have expresed their opinion to keep most of the images you have nominated for deletion from the Iraq section. And just so you know some of the images, even if not so famous in the whole world like the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, they are iconic representations of historic events like the image of insurgents celebrating in Fallujah their victory. Most users will agree with me. --Top Gun 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You're 100% right about one thing - there are a lot who would agree with you. But the thing that we need to keep in mind is that it isn't a vote. Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia and cannot be a clearinghouse for copyrighted images. If this photo itself is an iconic image, can you find links or other references to it showing its status? In other words, has anyone written an article about it or has it been discussed, even on message boards? I offer as something analogous, this photo [1]. It was taken at a football game three years ago and quickly became almost an internet meme. There was a fark.com photoshop thread on it. The Virginia Tech message board posted it repeatedly. It was mentioned in plenty of news articles about the game. The photo itself - not just the game or the play it depicted - was significant. Obviously, a photo from a football game isn't going to have the same historical value 50 years from now as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but like the Iwo Jima photo, this football photo has a significance that transcends the event it depicts. Do any of these Iraq photos have that same significance? If someone has written an article about them or if they somehow demonstrably have an importance other than simply for illustrating the event they depict, then they are iconic. If not, then it would seem difficult to justify them. --BigDT 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Listen the Iraq war is an ongoing war and it is going to be realy hard to find images in places where they just say "here use this". Almost all of the images coming out of Iraq are coming from news agencies and they are the only source of things going on over there. The DoD also releases images yes but only from their point of view, and we can not use only their photos it would be in contrast to the Wikipedia POV policie. And the Fallujah image may not be iconic but represents a historic event. You try finding another image that represents the 1st of May 2004 situation in that city. But this is not just about that one image. The news agencies are almost the only source of images for the Iraq war. There are still no official public articles for that war in a whole. As far as I'm consorned the only one that bothered to start this debate is you. And I see no reason for your stance to delete these images. Listen I am telling you this politly the news agencies are almost the only source of images for the Iraq war. And also you said that this isn't a vote. Then why put it up for a disscusion. Why don't you just ignore the opinions of all the other editors and just delete the images. You can not delete images when the mayority of Wikipedia editors, some like me working here longer than you, do not agree with you. That is not a neutral point of view which is a more tougher Wikipedia rule than the one you are talking about. I already checked it's already for one image from Iraq 5 against 3 votes to keep, and for one more 3 against 1 to keep, that includes you by the way in both votes.--Top Gun 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Hey -- I noticed that back in June, you declined a nomination for adminship on the basis that you hadn't been around long enough. I noticed your comment about not having a delete button on WT:CSD and I think it's high time that you did, if you want one. Are you up for a nomination? I think you'd pass easily. Mangojuicetalk 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I have replied via email. --BigDT 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have officially nominated you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact me to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigDT 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. I'm adding my support now, but when you've accepted the nomination, please post the nomination on WP:RFA, as I may be away from my computer for a while. Good luck, see you on the other side! Mangojuicetalk 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am entering my acceptance and my responses to the three questions now. --BigDT 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on images

This edit illustrates a wrong attitude exactly. If the uploader did not provide a rationale, write one yourself rather than mark the image for deletion. This is what happens when the concentration on content is replaced by the concentration of Wikipedia:Adminitis. --Irpen 06:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That image is an AP photo - it is going to be deleted one way or the other, whether it is speedied or at IFD. You are correct, though. I did not notice that it was uploaded before May 2006 and I should have taken it directly to IFD. --BigDT 06:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you should have written a rationale. It is precisely your anti-content attitude which is why I opposed your adminship. --Irpen 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What rationale could I write? I would have to lie - you believe that the image can be used, so you, in good faith, can write a rationale. I cannot. I don't have an anti-content attitude, I have an anti-copyvio attitude. The reason my mainspace edits are low relative to everything else is that if you nominate an image for deletion, that's 2-3 edits right there. (Warn user, WP:IFD, image itself.) Frequently, uploaders upload their entire porn collection or some such thing, so sometimes, it's 50 edits in a 5-minute window and it's less work than, say, 2006 Wake Forest Demon Deacons football team, which amounts to one edit. I have no qualms with images. I have no qualms with fair use images. What I have qualms with are images where Wikipedia can get into trouble. Media photos just plain are not acceptable. Usually, they are deleted without much fanfare. I'm sorry that there's so many hard feelings about them and that's one of the reasons we need to make it a CSD - if it's unambiguously on a list of things can be speedy deleted, there's no hard feelings a year after it is uploaded. --BigDT 06:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not doubt the fact that nominating each image for deletion takes many edits. But precisely your total concentration of policing instead of content creation is alarming. Now, the issue is not hard feelings. The issue is completeness of encyclopedic articles cannot be often ensured without fair use images. The issue is that certain users tend to take special enjoyment in policing instead of seeing it a necessary evil. Your calling this "anti-copyvio attitude" is misleading. Fair-use is not copyvio and fighting them is anti-encyclopedic. Encyclopedic would be to spend time searching for a free replacement and if none is available, spend time to find the non-free image to which you can provide a rationale. If I am mistaken and you can show the diffs that show significant content creation on your part, I will reconsider my opinion about your adminship nomination. --Irpen 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, there may not be an acceptable replacement. In the case of, say, promophotos, leaving them around unless or until a replacement is found may not be compatible with the new replaceability policy, but it probably isn't going to hurt anything. Media photos are different, though. There are commercial content providers like about.com and answers.com that use Wikipedia content for commercial purposes. So when we give them a media photo, we're supplanting the rights of the photographer or news agency to sell and collect royalties on it. With promo photos, that's not a huge problem - nobody is actually trying to sell the promo photo. But with media photos, that's how they make thier money. So media photos are in a special category of fair use problems. They can't just sit around and wait for a replacement. Couching it in terms of what is or isn't encyclopedic really doesn't change anything. As for significant contributions on my part? I'm not really interested in changing your mind or getting into an argument over it. --BigDT 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albania image

Hi. This is what I just wrote on the Scouting project talk page: "That policy makes no sense at all. If there's only one known copy of a person/building, then it is not replaceable. What are people supposed to do, like in this case is to fly to Albania to get their own. This is expecting too much of people and another case of extremists getting control of wiki." What is the actual rationale (and I use that term loosely here) for this? Before long we won't have any photos useable on wiki and the articles will be boring text.Rlevse 13:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the WP:SCOUT talk page with a suggestion that we try to contact someone from the Albanian Wikipedia. As for the rationale for this policy, the biggest thing is downstream uses of Wikipedia content. Using one image from some guy's website may not really matter for Wikipedia (non-commercial, educational lets you get away with a lot of things), but it does matter for downstream uses. Also, Wikipedia's goal is to be as completely free-content as possible and allowing images like this to be used potentially discourages trying to find or create free replacements. --BigDT 15:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I can buy that. The downstream use from wiki is fallacious as there is also downstream use from the place wiki got it from, so no diff as far as I'm concerned. And since Fair Use is legal in the US, where the servers are, then there is no reason not to use FU images as log as the rationale is on the image upload. Wiki editors enforcing this are merely making it harder if not impossible to have pictures of lots of things on wiki. Too many image enforcers claim there is a replacement when there simply isn't, like this Albania image--can you find one? I can't. Wiki has lost a lot of editors over this and will lose more if they don't embracea more rational approach to this. At least with you, a rational discussion can take place on it--which is not possible with several image enforcers, most (in)notabley User:Durin. Attaining totally free content will never reach 100% unless you want some article with no pictures--like you couldn't upload an image of the Girl Scouts' award patches if it went to that extreme. Under this current train of wiki's are creative commons, GFDL, and public domain (just making sure), and whatever else still allowed? Rlevse 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are some Wikipedias that user no non-free images at all. The Spanish one is an example ... so if you go to Star Trek on the Spanish Wikipedia, there are zero images. I've seen that suggested for en once or twice, but always loudly rejected. US fair use law is very permissive (in that it really has no restrictions at all - restrictions are determined on a case by case basis in court) so that isn't going to fly here - we'd just be shooting ourselves in the foot. It's one thing to argue about replaceable images, but with the Girl Scout patches you mentioned or with screenshots of movies, there is no such thing as a free version. No amount of time or money would ever create one because it would just be a derivative work. The thing about en's new policy is that it used to be that a fair use image could be used until a replacement was found. Now, it can only be used if no replacement could logically be created. What would have been a really good idea that should have been done and was done 1.5 years ago when Wikipedia stopped using "non-commercial" images is grandfather the old images temporarilly. That way, you don't have bot-assisted deletions en masse of these photos and they can be replaced over time on a case-by-case basis. The original though/hope when the policy was changed is that Wikipedia was high enough on the search rankings that we could ask for and receive GFDL images from most celebrities. In the short term, that's probably somewhat wishful thinking. In the long term, it may be realistic and it will be interesting to see. To answer your question, CC licenses (as long as they permit commercial use and derivatives), GFDL, and PD images are, of course, permitted. --BigDT 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. CC-noncommercial-nodrivs aren't allowed on wiki anymore?
  2. How could one use Girl Scout patch images. Is with permission from GSUSA okay?
  3. I still don't agree at all with the way wiki is going here, but I also know it's a fruitless battle.
  4. I have Scout images I want to put on my flickr.com site and want them useable on wiki but don't want them sold or altered. What's the best tag for this?Rlevse 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Non-commercial images have been banned since May 2005 and actually, if one is uploaded, it can be tagged for a speedy using {{db-noncom}}. For girl scout patches, fair use almost certainly applies. As long as you are using the patch to illustrate an article on the patch itself, on rank advancement in GSUSA, or some such thing, that's fine. You couldn't use a Girl Scout patch that happens to have a picture of a flower to illustrate flower, but as long as you are illustrating the patch itself, you're fine. Just tag it with {{fairusein}} and give it a good rationale telling what purpose it serves. For Scout images, if they are scans of a 2-d object like a patch, it really doesn't matter how you tag them on flickr. Under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., scanning, photographing, or otherwise copying a 2-d work is not considered creative and no copyright is created. If they are photos from Scout meetings, I understand the concern. I wonder, if it were ever to be proposed, what the thought would be on allowing a no derivatives restriction for images that contain living people. If you use {{gfdl-self}}, the legalese is sufficiently complicated that most anyone who would want to use it for something less than nice would move on to something else. You can always multi-license them .... on flickr, license them as cc-nd-nc and on Wikipedia, license them under the GFDL. --BigDT 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's nice to have someone that knows Scouting and (what I consider hopelessly complicated) image tagging. Interestingly, I've already tagged my photos on flickr using cc-nd-nc (but so far I've only put up family ones, I was going to start the Scout ones this weekend--I have a PRO account). For our FAs on BSA (merit badge history and the Eagle Scout article) I actually talked to the BSA lawyer and got permission for BSA images (medals, patches, etc) on wiki and we use the "scout-logo" template along with a FU rationale that mentions this BSA permission. Any Scout stuff I'll GFDL on wiki and use cc-nd-nc on flickr (I didn't know you could do that). Thanks for the help...I dub you our projects image tag expert.Rlevse 17:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with this, I have contacted the authors of the site (four letters, one came back undeliverable). It's nice to have someone knowledgeable about this stuff-the documentation mystifies me. I just want to have good articles on here. Yours in Scouting, Chris 18:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words guys ... I keep WP:SCOUT watchlisted, but if there's ever an image question, feel free to contact me directly. --BigDT 18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question

If you are so stick on to the thing that you want to delete all of the images on Wikipedia that are from media or news services then how should editors represent through images new articles about new events. For example the Israel-Lebanon war there you have many imagaes that were taken from some news services. Also one more thing some of the images from the Iraq war that you have nominated for deletion don't have an AP photo mark on them. Even if they were used in AP news articles that doesn't mean that they were made by AP newsguys, AP can be using those photos also under "fair use". I think this point was also pointed out by another user. Here is the question. HOW DO YOU THINK EDITORS CAN CREAT ARTICLES ABOUT CURENT EVENTS WITHOUT USING IMAGES THAT ARE ONLY COMING FROM NEWS SERVICES? ANSWER ME THAT.--Top Gun 23:57, 6 January 2007

Well, first, please consider that some Wikipedias permit no fair use images at all. For example, the Spanish article on Star Trek - es:Viaje a las Estrellas - has no images because there's no such thing as a free Star Trek image. So one answer is that, in some cases, we may not have images in the short term. Another thing to consider is that we can sometimes find images from Wikipedias nearer those events, for example, the Hebrew Wikipedia. But using news media photos is not an acceptable solution. Yes, you are correct that if the AP is merely reprinting a promotional photo and doesn't actually own the copyright, we may be able to use it, but that needs to be demonstrated on the image description page. --BigDT 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question from RPage

Why do you delete my content when I see IBM and Microsoft and others everywhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RPage (talkcontribs).

Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The page you edited, Redwood, is a disambiguation page. Its purpose is to provide links to other Wikipedia articles with the same or similar title. If an article on your company were to exist, it would need to have its own article. Before creating it, please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Most companies are not considered "notable" according to Wikipedia standards. If an article is created about a company that does not assert the significance of the company, it may be deleted by any admin at any time. I hope that helps. --BigDT 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folow up to the previous question

Well in that case why don't you put some effort in finding evidence that some of the images that you want to delete are actualy not AP images. Do you think that we should wait for the Iraq war to end in 10 years and then eventualy we can use images for that article. Also I have added a source link to the page from where the Image:Ramadi-insurgent3.jpg was taken which proves the image is in free use and that it was not an AP photo. --Top Gun 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question from User:Ed eichinger

hey is there something wrong with my submission - it's OK and verifiable - let it go or tell me what I need to do to make it work —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed eichinger (talkcontribs).

Please see Wikipedia:Notability. Unless a person has done something notable and there are multiple independent verifiable sources, Wikipedia is generally not the place for an article. Wikipedia is not free webhosting and not for things made up in school one day. It also is not for novel theories and other original research. From what I saw of that article, I didn't see any potential for it to be a good article, but if you believe that there are reliable sources, consider working on it in your own user space. If you use your own userpage - User:Ed eichinger - or a page under it - User:Ed eichinger/sandbox - you will be able to work on it until it is ready for Wikipedia space, but before you spend any time on it, please read Wikipedia:Notability and some of the other related guidelines - I don't believe that the topic appears to be one that is acceptable. Thank you and please feel free to ask if you have any other questions. --BigDT 04:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wrong

can you be wrong(?) Kingofallclergy is well known in his community and revered as a spiritual consultant. The ideals and facts put forth in this contribution are ALL safe and correct. You want something "made up" think about how you made up the idea that it IS NOT a good wikipedia type submission and how it must be struck. sorry you are wrong and I "appeal" please don't. can you be wrong(?)" Kingofallclergy is well known in his community and revered as a spiritual consultant. The ideals and facts put forth in this contribution are ALL safe and correct. You want something "made up" think about how you made up the idea that it IS NOT a good wikipedia type submission and how it must be struck. sorry you are wrong and I "appeal", please don't.

If you would like to contest the deletion of the article, please see WP:DRV for instructions ... though you will probably want to have a list of verifiable sources of information about this person before doing so. --BigDT 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you very much for your help on Rush Limbaugh! Hopefully we can put this one to rest soon. GertrudeTheTramp 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey

whats your problem man.. a spirtual law is different than a religious law R U "teachable" or do you consider yourself already spiritually enlightened enough to edit sanction someone you barely know —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed eichinger (talkcontribs).

Do you have a specific question? The topic of spiritual laws is covered elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for original research or novel religious theories. --BigDT 05:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] of course you are wrong wrong

Spiritual law is way different than a religious law. Spiritual law is more independent and seperate in nature than that of a law originating from religion(s). So since I see the other page being worked on now...[religious law] of course you may want to divert my efforts so you can define the phrase yourself and add it later...I've made an appeal to some other users on here, and if you don't start helping me I'm gonna start writing the people that affect your admin thingy. good luck! "one can NEVER really copy-write the truth" - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed eichinger (talkcontribs) 05:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

If you want to undo the redirect, all you have to do is go to [2] and you can revert back to your version. Be aware, though, (1) making threats is considered not nice and a personal attack, (2) nonsense articles can be speedy deleted by any administrator, and (3) the article needs to have verifiable sources for it to be acceptable. --BigDT 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
To Ed eichinger, if you really think that there is a difference between spiritual law and religious law, you can make the point in the religious law article. -- RHaworth 19:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Limbaugh and BLP

HI BigDT, saw your response and wanted to run my original question by you to see if it changes your interpretation or not. I believe that the edit in question is a BLP problem because by posting the quote from the newspaper into the section talking about his problem with drug addiction and the deal with the prosecutor which dropped all the charges, creates a false comparison and implies that Limbaugh committed a criminal act and got off easy compared to what he said should happen to "drug offenders".

The edit in question "Reporters for the Associated Press contrasted this deal to Limbaugh's previous statements regarding drug offenders' punishments. On October 5, 1995, Limbaugh said on his television program, "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

Limbaugh was not found guilty of any crime or of illegally using drugs, but the statement suggests that the two situations "Limbaugh's situation" and "other drug offenders who violated the law" are equivalent, suggesting Limbaugh is a lawbreaker. Again, he was never found guilty, in fact no case ever even went to trial. All charges were dropped. Two years into the case, and six months before all charges were dropped, the state attorney said "I have no idea if Mr. Limbaugh has completed the elements of any offense yet.". Limbaugh certainly developed a problem with the drugs he was taking, a condition not that uncommon with people who are prescribed heavy pain killers for dealing with constant pain, but he was also not found to have obtained any drugs illegally. So, no valid cites that limbaugh made illegal use of drugs exist.

But this quote again, by saying "Reporters for the Associated Press contrasted this deal to Limbaugh's previous statements regarding drug offenders' punishments"...implies Limbaugh is a "Drug offender" and a lawbreaker and no where is it accurately sourced that he is.

It would be like, if we were writing an article on someone (who in the past said that "Horse thieves should be whipped" who was later himself investigated for horse thievery and had all charges dropped and never went to trial...and then we put into the article right after the part about dropping the charges "So and so contrasted this deal to Black Bart's previous statements about how horse thieves should be punished"...would we not be inferring that Black Bart should be considered the equivalent of a horse thief?

Sorry to take up so much time. I am sure you are busy with your RFA, but I never mind getting the opinion of others when it comes to this sort of thing and would appreciate your comments. Caper13 06:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. I don't really think it's a BLP issue, though - it's almost more one of NPOV. --BigDT 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from 80.6.201.220

Completely unnecessary accusations of "vandalism"

I merely accidentally posted in the wrong section and quickly corrected it.

Get off your high horse —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.201.220 (talkcontribs).

I have replied on your talk page. --BigDT 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improperly Labeled Image

I noticed that the image file for the band Cross Canadian Ragweed has what appears to be misleading upload justification (link [3]). On the one hand it says that the image is taken from the Cross Canadian Ragweed webpage and was created by Thomas Powell. On the other hand, user Dustind claims that he created the image and is releasing it to the public domain. The only reason I am bringing this to your attention is that I noticed you recently removed one of Dustind's images and from your user page you appear to be an expert in image removal. I am a complete WikiNewbie and sincerely apologize if I am wrong in bringing this to your attention. --See Jay 08:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the tag to {{promophoto}} and left a note on the user's page inviting him to use Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if he is uncertain how to tag an image. Thank you for pointing this image out. --BigDT 13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yarrow Abyssinia Pic

Cheers for the heads up on the "What is a troll" page - hehe --PopUpPirate 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project image in Commons

Some put our project image, Image:Scoutsgreengoldnoscroll.png, in Wiki Commons, which is probably a good idea. My question is the image now info now says it may be deleted so what will happen to the hundreds of links to that image? Will they automatically point to the Commons version? Thanks. 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It will all work automatically. Any image on Commons that does not have a corresponding Wikipedia image will be displayed as if it were a Wikipedia image. See some of my image uploads for examples ... ie, Image:2006 VT UGA CFABowl kickoff.jpg. If you go to that image page, the "image" and "discussion" links are both redlinks because the image is at Commons. But the image shows up anywhere that it is used on enwiki. If someone were to try to upload an image by the same name (in other words, try to block the commons image from coming through), they will get an error. So basically, it's all good. ;) --BigDT 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
and the purpose of commons is a handy place for free images? Don't they have to be free to be on commons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talkcontribs) 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes. Commons only accepts free images (no fair use ones). Its purpose is to be a library of images that all Wikimedia projects can draw from. Commons has "articles" like Commons:glasses or Commons:Virginia Tech that are essentially just galleries. If you take a look at commons:User:BigDT, I've uploaded all or just about all of my images there ... that way, any project can use them. It might be a good idea for us to create Commons:camping or Commons:Boy Scout or other similar articles at some point ... that kind of thing has been one of our goals at the college football project (WP:CFB). --BigDT 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be Commons:Scouting to include all associations of the movement and match the project name. So it takes GFDL, PD, and standard CC? Rlevse 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey ... looks like Commons:Scouting already exists. That's good to know. Yes, GFDL, PD, and free CC licenses are fine. I will watchlist the Commons copy of the image just in case someone decides (incorrectly) that it is a trademark and wants to have it deleted, but it shouldn't be a problem. --BigDT 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Our logo was loosely based and a Canadian image and has the Girl Scout trefoil around it, so it's our own design. Could you put a blurb on the talk of WP:SCOUT about this, what it's for, what goes there, etc.? Rlevse 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure ... something else that might be nice to do with that image ... I know that there are people at Commons who are proactive about converting logos and symbols to SVG. SVG images are vector graphics, so they are completely scaleable with no loss of quality. You could size the image to be desktop-sized or userbox-sized and it will be perfect. I'm sure that there's a request tag over there - one of the "someone else should clean this up for me" tags ;) ... I'll look for it in a bit. --BigDT 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What CC images (cc-nd-nc?) can not be used on Commons?Rlevse 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No ... only the free ones ... they must permit commercial use and derivatives. See Commons:Commons:Copyright tags for a gratuitously long list. Commons:Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons licenses has the CC ones. --BigDT 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey ... see the bottom of Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. I've put in a request for someone to create an SVG version of the WP:SCOUT logo. Hopefully, we'll get a taker there somewhere. --BigDT 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I got a response to the thumbnail problem already on Commons. A guy, I guess an admin, said he purged the image. It works fine now. That was quick! Yeah. I'll xfr more as I get time.Rlevse 10:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Patchbook

Dear BigDT,

As the user who left the most recent official warning on the above users talk page, i hope you don't mind me addressing this to you. In adittion to Patchbooks ever gorwing list of personal attacks, vandalism and other infractions, he recently left the following on the Article Watch list on the Article Watch list:

If should be noted that new wiki member PATCHBOOK is a nationally published and recognized expert on the subject matter of the article and has a legitimate difference of opinion regarding the edits being made my other wiki members

I personally find this unacceptable, as he has no right to use that space to continue his arguements as that space is for the members (particularly myself and other unofficial admin staff of the wikiproject) to list articles that are causing problems, not to further his own arguement. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this problem, though personaly I would like to see a block involved. SGGH 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on the IP's talk page. If he continues to create a disruption, either as User:208.127.49.118 or as User:Patchbook, the issue can be referred to WP:AIV. --BigDT 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have referred him to AIV, hopefully they will block him, his conduct is WAY out of line, hopefully I won't run into him again. Cheers for your help, BigDT. SGGH 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
He's started removing the FBI image from the law enforcement wikiproject (WPP:LE) cause he says its againt the law. Is that right? SGGH 12:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Resica Falls 1980 camp patch.png

This is tagged PD,but I don't think it is. Take whatever action is appropriate.Rlevse 13:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a Commons image, as is the other one in that article. They are marked as PD images and there is a note that Wikimedia's permissions tracking system has a letter of permission releasing them into the public domain. Unfortunately, the way the description page is worded, I'm betting the permission is from the guy who scanned the images for his website ... while interesting, that doesn't mean the Scout Council released them into the public domain. I'm leaving a message with User:Jkelly on his commons talk page asking him to look into the OTRS system to see who the permission is from. Thanks. --BigDT 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aga Khani and Islamic cults

Can you join the discussion on the following Aga Khani and Islamic cults

trueblood 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I took at look at the deletion discussion for this article. I don't really know that I have anything that I could add there. Is there anything in the article that can't be covered elsewhere? For example, in the Aga Khan article itself? Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. In general, Wikipedia discourages having two articles that cover the same material, just from different points of view. Really, it should all be in a single article and from a neutral point of view. --BigDT 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custom Scout images

See my 18:14, 9 Jan 2007 entry at User_talk:NThurston#Scouting_images. Aren't images like the one he made for the Eagle knot userbox and I made for Gilwell still free and per our scheme he and I are talking about go into the Scouting images gallery? Pls leave answer on NThurston's talk page. thanks. 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:NThurston. --BigDT 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variable image size in the World Scouting template?

Hi DT, I saw that you edited the Infobox WorldScouting to enable variable image sizes. Why? The NOT being able to change image size has been intentional (at least by me), for standardization purposes. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, consistency is a good thing, I'll admit ... but sometimes flexibility is needed. For example, if the image is something like a council strip - what I put at Tidewater Council - 140px is too small. I would suggest, as a third alternative, leave the option in there, but edit the description page to say, "for consistency, the suggested size for logos is 140px" or something like that. I have no incredibly strong feelings about it ... I just added the option because the patch on Tidewater Council looked bad with the smaller size. Also, you could have something like a 150px or 130px logo, where resizing it to 140px would create awful scaling. --BigDT 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Problematic scaling is just a technicality, which should not be directive for design choices. For using a low/wide picture, it just needs a bit of creativity. What do you think of my current copyedit? I followed your textual suggestion and copy-edited the template accordingly. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Looks fine to me. --BigDT 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wproject Delete

I find myself in sympathy with your views expressed there, which I understand as--that it is a project to make the deletion process more equitable and more efficient, not to increase the number of deletions. I've commented there on the qy.DGG 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Two Witnesses

Dear BigDT - Appreciate your input on the Two Witnesses - we are continuing the article (about 10 of us) until completion (as you can see) - now, however your technical ability on moving the links to more asthetic positioning is deeply appreciately - i.e., can you help us to do so? This article is highly linked--we do not wish to compromise its research; however, we do wish to secure a better "reading appearance" and, what you have done, technically, is something that we should do - so, HELP :) kriegerdwm

Yes ... anything that is an internal Wikipedia link should not be linked with a URL. In other words, instead of this:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology eschatological]

... do this:

[[Eschatology eschatological]]

I think that's a big part of the formatting issues in there. Also, things like "Additional links/content will be added within 24 hrs." are generally a bad idea - see WP:ASR. Basically, you want to avoid references to Wikipedia itself.

Lastly, see {{cite web}}. This template lets you cite a website and is better than linking everything inline. So what you can do is this:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.somewhere.com/whatever|title=Name of website}}</ref>

Then, at the bottom, add:

<references />

Everything will neatly be displayed at the bottom. --BigDT 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BigDT - I finally figured out how you do the links - thanks so very much for your keen interest and help - I got the messages and am moving through the Wikipedia fog now that I have you as my pilot! The Two Witnesses

[edit] Need Help in Cite Web Linking

BigDT - I'm still have difficult on these links for the TWO WITNESSES article. I received your message but I obviously did not understand it (although I thought I did); therefore, the Eschatology eschatological seems fairly clear - I simply cite the Wikipedia name as it is in the Wikipedia cite reference and then add my equivalent word next to it with a space in between for separation.

Next - this {{cite web}} is what's troubling. Firstly, I can't find where the template is located - what are the steps to finding this template? Apparently, as you say, the template "lets you cite a website" - then, precisely, what are the steps in doing this? How does one go about placing the <ref>...</ref> and incorporate this into the {{cite web|url, etc. I know this must sound really stupid, but when you're dealing with "dummies" it's not so easy . . . any help will, of course, be greatly appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriegerdwm (talkcontribs).

If you click on {{cite web}}, the template description page gives the syntax for using it, along with a number of examples. What I do every time is just copy and paste one of the examples and then edit the URL, title, date, etc, to be what I want it to be.

So, using one of their examples, if you type this code ...

{{cite web | title=My Favorite Things Part II | url=http://www.example.org/ | accessdate=2005-07-06 }}

... then this will be generated:

My Favorite Things Part II. Retrieved on 2005-07-06.

Any time you put the "ref" tags around anything, the Wikipedia software will automatically display it at the bottom of the page in the references section and provide a little [1], [2], etc footnote tag. So if you do this:

<ref>{{cite web | title=My Favorite Things Part II | url=http://www.example.org/ | accessdate=2005-07-06 }}</ref>

... then, in the article, you will just see a [1] where you put that tag and down at the bottom, you will see the full citation. You can put anything inside of ref tags ... it could just be a note for clarification, like:

<ref>Some people think that "God helps those who help themselves" comes from the Bible, but actually, it comes from a book called Discourses Concerning Government</ref>

... or ...

<ref>John was also the author of three epistles and a gospel.</ref>

Does that help explain it? --BigDT 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K. - I'll give it a shot - the significance of this topic is so incredible that it deserves a "stand alone" for sure - and it involves Zechariah 4 and, of course, scores of apocalyptic texts throughout "The Book" - Indeed, we need the patience of Job to get through this one . . . and, you are right - shocking, isn't it, that something hasn't been written on this most crucial subject?--but it hasn't and it's implications are simply overwhelming, given the current interest amongst the end-time crowd/throng, let alone general public interest--researchers need to understand the ramifications of the dynamic involved in this subject and NOT to incorporate it into the Revelation - it's implications extend out beyond Revelation's imagery and/or give profound and immediate consequence regarding today's events leading up, as many contemplate, to the "end of days."

[edit] Commons license checking

WikiCommons seems to only check for a free license, not if the image actually is free. The Scouting gallery seems okay, but the BSA cat on commons has lots of patches that aren't. Don't know what to do though.Rlevse 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In re: commons:Image:Resica Falls 1980 camp patch.png and commons:Image:Resica Falls 1971 camp patch.png, it looks to me that your suspicion is correct, and what we have is permission from the photographer of the design, not the designer, which is meaningless. I've left a note that this needs to be cleared up on both image talk pages. Jkelly 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{historicphoto}}

Thought you might want to see this response I got from Jimbo as guidance on the media photos/historic photo issue. Mangojuicetalk 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. --BigDT 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry to but into this discussion, but while editing a section above, I happened to see this. Would you recommend to use this template for some (beautiful) pictures that I have of Japanese scouts attending the 1955 World Scout Jamboree, and no possibility to get permission of the original photographer (i have tried extensively)? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Please see WP:FAIR for Wikipedia's fair use policy. As long as it serves an important purpose in the article, it would likely be fine. The big key is whether or not the image is potentially replaceable for the purpose for which you want to use it. If you are looking to use them in an article when discussing previous Scout Jamborees or BSA history or something like that, I wouldn't see a problem at all. Just make sure that you write up a good rationale saying what you are using them for. I have created Template:Fair use rationale, which may be helpful in writing a rationale. --BigDT 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Game

When it deals with PDL I am all buisness. I need these images and I have recruited 2 members to wikipedia. I felt that I could inform them of upcoming events easier on their talk pages. I also am 100% devoted to make sure that they do not vandalize pages. I brought them in and I will keep a good eye on them. But seriously I need those images! Big Boss 0 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... what is PDL? Do any of you guys plan to contribute to articles? I appreciate your willingness to bring in new users, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not free webhosting. --BigDT 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well aware of that but PDL is a democracy. Every member has a voice meaning every member has a say in what shoul or shouldn't be on our user pages. I put a list of the rules on their pages for convience. If I edit anything I will edit it on their pages. And yes I will be taeching them how to properly edit and contribute but at the moment we need these pictures. PDL needs these pictures. And as far as the New World Organization, it is what all PDL members are contracted under. Big Boss 0 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you are describing sounds like a game. As for the images, please see WP:FAIR - this is Wikipedia's policy concerning "fair use" images. In order for Wikipedia to host a "fair use" image, it must be used in an article. If it isn't, it gets deleted. Please consider contributing to the encyclopedia rather than spending all of your energies on user pages. For example, there are a number of articles on video games. You could find one that interests you and improve it. --BigDT 03:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I take this as seriously as life or death! For PDL information checkout my userpage. But it is important to keep these images because they are being used in an small artical on my userpage. Check it out. Not to mention my stress level is through the roof because I could lose something that I worked very hard to get on wikipedia and keep it there. Big Boss 0 03:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Sorry but I will have to log off within the next 15 minutes. Big Boss 0 03:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] claen up

Please if you can, try to clean up this page for me, so it looks proffesional....if you can, i am not real good at ths type of stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hueys20 (talkcontribs) 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks for the college football barnstar! Happy editing.-PassionoftheDamon 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Good luck with your RFA, I'm right behind you! The Rambling Man 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I love the user name ... and I think sometimes it describes me, too. ;) --BigDT 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For helping me clean up after it. Regards, Tuxide 07:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Always glad to lend a hand ... when I saw you starting at the bottom, I started at the top figuring we would meet in the middle. ;) --BigDT 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so that was your big idea, huh? Sorry, I wasn't watching in front of me :P Tuxide 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes to vigil-n userbox

BigDT, since you don't have the vigil-n userbox transcluded onto your user page, I wanted to let you know that it looks like it will soon be changing. The details are on the Scouting WP's page at the bottom (sorry, it doesn't section link correctly because of the headline I chose). Please feel free to add your two cents and switch to the new template if you want the new features. Thanks. z4ns4tsu\talk 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Standard test

Template:Standard test has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Oden 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

You're now an admin. Spend some time on the reading list, re-read the policies as needed, and generally be conservative with the tools. Also spend some time self reflecting on what comments in opposition might help you be a better admin, and let the rest go and just help build an encyclopedia. Have fun, and again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!Rlevse 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Take care to avoid burnout. Jkelly 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your acqusition of the mop and bucket. Glad I was able to help.--Anthony.bradbury 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all. This week has been a very humbling week and I hope to be worthy of the confidence that the community has shown in me. --BigDT 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Top drawer, me old mucker. You've earned the mop, good luck with it. Just don't forget what it was like to be normal! The Rambling Man 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Congrats. :) This has been a learning experience for me, too. I guess my advice is twofold -- listen to the people who opposed you, because you won't be getting that kind of input at any particular point in the future. If you ever need advice, drop me a line, email or talk page. Oh.. and while we're at it, let me drop you one of these:
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For vigilance against improper images above and beyond the call of duty. Mangojuicetalk 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You became an admin and didn't send out any greeting cards? Anyways, congrats on getting the tools! We can always use more help! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words ... I put a note of thanks up at the top of my user page instead of spamming talk pages ... personal preference I guess ... but I'd be happy to leave a copy of the note on your talk page if you would like. ;) --BigDT 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Speedy for Gender debates on Narnian creatures‎

First off, congrats on your confirmation. Secondly, though, I still believe that Gender debates on Narnian creatures‎ is not a valid article by itself. There are no references, no citations even to the text, so it would require cleanup. However I don't see how this even merits an article itself. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you ... the article is questionable at best. It isn't really nonsense though. Nonsense is banging on the keyboard, incoherent babbling, or some such thing. I'd suggest a prod - that way if the original author does have sources for this article, he can add them. At any rate, I'm new ... not infalible ... if you believe it is nonsense, please feel free to put the tag back on and let another admin take a look. --BigDT 02:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Just 'cause you're new doesn't mean I can push you around... ;) In any case, I suppose the nonsense reasoning was perhaps the wrong tag, I guess a prod is a little better. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected broken redirects for deletion

I have noticed that you are working with the speedy deletion of pages. If you go to the What links here page fr User:Marudubshinki/cologneblue.js, there are several redirect pages that need to be deleted because they have broken redirects. Please help me by deleting these pages. Thanks, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --BigDT 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found another page that is a fully protected broken redirect: Template:Tintin books. Thanks again, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy tags

Will you explain to me the appropriate use of the {{db|because}} tag for me? Its existance seems to contradict the point you made about speedy deletion of the Fyren in your edit summary. TIA, Rklawton 15:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. That tag is most useful, to me anyway, when there is some other explanation that needs to be given. In other words, the administrator needs some technical knowledge or needs some background information in order to understand why this article meets a speedy deletion criterion. For example, criterion G4 refers to previously deleted articles. But suppose that the previously deleted article was called "Bob Smith" and this one is called "Robert Smith". Looking in the deletion log, I'm not going to see that there is a previously deleted article there, so if you just tag it as db-g4, it would get removed. But if you tag it as {{db|G4 - this article is a recreation of the deleted Robert Smith (see AFD)}}, then whatever administrator looks at it would quickly recognize it. Another time I would use it is on empty description pages for Commons images. If I just put db-noimage on there, then over half of the time, I get a message saying, "the image that you want to delete is at Commons, please see Commons:deletion requests if you would like to have it deleted." But really what I was asking about was the empty description page on Wikipedia that somebody accidentally created and which contains no meaningful GFDL history. So I started using db|explanation for that as well. At any rate, unless there is a speedy deletion criterion that fits, the article needs to go through another process. In this particular case, you made reference to it being a future film. We have plenty of articles about future films ... We Are Marshall, for example, was substantially complete well before the film was out. I hope that explanation helps. Thank you for all the work that you do. --BigDT 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's much more clear. I was applying db-because in cases I thought were wp:snow but didn't have a clear category.

On a separate note, how can a movie be notable while it's still in production? Yes, I see a few movies hitting this criteria - Star Wars sequels and Waterworld come to mind. However, I see nothing unusual about this movie. I've been working on-again, off-again on a documentary, but I wouldn't dream of creating an article about it here. Rklawton 20:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know ... that's an issue where people can disagree. I kinda draw the line at whether or not you can write an article about it that is more than message board speculation. If it's a real movie (not fan fiction or something) and there are verifiable sources of information, I don't see a problem with having the article. As I said to one other person above, though, it's fully possible that I'm wrong ... feel free to put the tag back and let another admin take a look at it. Having a flag set on my account just gives me an extra button - it doesn't make me smarter than anyone else. ;) --BigDT 20:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACC Template

That's a good idea. I don't know what image you are talking about, but sure, you can put it on there since i can use the logo. Thanks for the info --AceKingQueenJack 17:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --BigDT 17:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA (continued)

Congratulations. Glad I was able (I think) to help.--Anthony.bradbury 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I was thinking last night about something ... I saw one RFA thank you note for an RFA that passed unanimously that said something like, "your vote was not the deciding vote, but I thank you anyway". Well, in mine, your vote was the deciding vote.  ;) I appreciate the trust that the community has put in me and I hope to prove worthy of it. --BigDT 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, and just some unsolicited advice: it's best not to hold any grudges against the oppose voters. --Cyde Weys 06:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Your support meant a lot, Cyde. I appreciate it that you've forgiven me for some of my early mistakes. --BigDT 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well. Although I opposed, it wasn't for any lack of respect for the excellent work you've done so far, and I hope you keep it up. Nor do I think that a maintenance focus in any way guarantees problems as an admin. Do take care, though, to make the extra effort to put yourself in the shoes of the people you are dealing with, and remember the attachment that people have to the work they have contributed here. Administrating (particularly in contentious areas, some of which you are involved in) consists largely of long spells of tedium punctuated by people getting angry at you. It's crucial to remember that generally those people are angry because they care about and are invested in the project and the work they have done. So bear that in mind, react appropriately, and if it ever starts to get to you go do something more fun. All the best, and happy editing! --RobthTalk 06:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. --BigDT 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your adminship! You know, when I first noticed you on IFD back in ... April? last year I was thinking about nominating you for adminship but it was too early at the time. Afterwards, I guess it slipped my mind, and I don't visit RFA much anymore, otherwise I would have voted on yours. Again, congrats! howcheng {chat} 18:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I've learned a lot working on IfD. --BigDT 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hybird_Systems on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hybird_Systems. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Ok, but please put new messages at the bottom of the page. Thank you. --BigDT 20:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hybird_Systems. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Updated listing. Please read what I have posted. Thank you!Hybird1050 08:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image uploads

Ok, thanks alot for letting me know and giving me advice on how to solve the problem, I really appreciate that. I'll try contacting the creators of those images to release a more free license. Thanks again. --Behnam 05:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --BigDT 05:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I contacted the author of this image and he gave me the following reply:;

"Hello!

Your welcome to use any pictures I upload,if you can leave the watermark intact as there from the department of national defence were I have permission to re use.

Pierre Gazzola dndtalk.ca

I upload new one twice a week"

So do you think this is sufficient, or does he actually have to change the license on that image? --Behnam 07:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. Unfortunately, his statement isn't sufficient, for two reasons. (1) He is given permission to reuse these images, but that doesn't necessarilly imply permission to sublicense them. In other words, if I lend you a hammer, I'm not necessarilly authorizing you to lend it out to your next door neighbor. So he would need to clarify that he has the right to sublicense the image. (2) Wikipedia's policy doesn't allow images where derivative works are prohibited. In other words, the restriction about removing the watermark wouldn't work because someone can just create a derivative work of it that doesn't include the watermark. --BigDT 13:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Patrobertsonmetaler.jpg

Look at what he is doing with his fingers. It looks like that he is making the Devil's horns with them. Anyway the guy that uploaded them was just making a joke, and there is no longer any use for the image, as something like that is of course inappropriate on the article, where the fair use license can apply. -- Karl Meier 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I see what you're talking about ... someone with arthritis may have trouble bending their finger down so I didn't think anything of it. If it stays an orphan, it will be deleted once the waiting period is up ... if it ceases to be an orphan, it can be nominated for deletion at WP:IFD ... but unless it is just being used for vandalism, it doesn't really need to be speedied. Or at the very least, I'm not going to be rogue and speedy it. ;) --BigDT 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:American dragon s02e07(2).jpg

You closed this deletion with the comment "uploader was not notified and image was not marked with {{ifdc}}." When I did place {{ifd}} on the image, another editor went and removed the tag. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. There are three things that need to be tagged - the image itself (using {{ifd}}), the uploaders' talk page (using {{idw}}), and the article where the image is used (using {{ifdc}}). (Alternatively, if leaving ifdc on the article is impractical because it is an icon or something, a suitable message could be left on a talk page.) As far as I could tell, the uploader was not warned and the article where the image is used was not marked. I took a look and it looks like every episode has a thumbnail ... so I would strongly suggest leaving this one in there until it can be replaced, at which time you could simply tag it with {{subst:orfud}}. Alternatively, if you would like to re-nominate it for deletion today, making sure to notify the uploader and tag the image where it is used in an article, that's fine too. Thanks. --BigDT 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thanks for the ideas and encouragements! I will do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dphantom15 (talkcontribs).

You're welcome. --BigDT 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DH

Hey. Thanks for subst'ing my template properly for me, I was in such a rush I forgot to check, cheers! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --BigDT 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)