User talk:Thivierr/archive-6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Picture

Hi Rob,

I'm not as clued-up about pictures as you... I found this picture here: [1] but am not sure whether it might count as a public image under the military thing? Just thought I'd get your advice on this :)

PageantUpdater 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but what little I know comes from learning from *many* mistakes on my part. Wikipedia's fair use policy is very confusingingly administered, and even the admins often bicker about what's fair. I suggest asking any questions at Wikipedia:Image legality questions. But, I'll try answering anyhow.

For this I recommend not using it. It seems pics from newspapers are almost never allowed. To use that image, you would need to have some content in the article specifically talking about the picture itself, not to simply illustrate Miss Kentucky USA. I suggest instead using a promotional image from her official web site, or from the Miss Kentucky USA site.

Side note: The fact she's with a couple marines, brings up a useful tip, which you might already know. If you can find a picture on the U.S. military web site, its usually (not always) public domain, and useable, in full resolution, anywhere, without any problem (the web site will tell you they're public domain). This is mainly where I (and others) got most of the pics for Commons:Miss USA and Commons:Miss America from. I noticed Miss USA 2006 contestants will be doing a USO visit soon. There should be some pics of them after on military web site(s) shortly after, which will be useable.. --Rob 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Wasn't sure whether it qualified or not - I prefer the pic I'm using for her page anyway... PageantUpdater 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are you dooooing?

You're reverting all of my beautiful work :-( Cyde Weys 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... you should have put in some switches to let users control the color schemes! LOL. ++Lar: t/c 05:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, on de-archiving, I realized I never did answer you. What I was doing, was following your April Fools user contributions, and reverting all the user page defacement I saw (which I considered vandalism, regardless of what day it is). --Rob 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charter schools are a type of private school

Thank you for your comments about my edits to the article on charter schools.

In Alberta, the School Act, section 31, says: "31(1) A person or society may apply to the Minister for the establishment of a charter school to be operated by a society incorporated under the Societies Act or a company registered under Part 9 of the Companies Act." That is, in Alberta, charter schools are operated by a society or not-for-profit corporation; they are not operated by a public school authority. In Alberta, a charter school may not use the word "public" in its name. Legally, they are a class of private school.

In addition, the facilities used by charter schools, in Alberta, are not, in any case that I know of, owned by the provincial government. In most cases, the school facilities used by charter schools are owned by a public school or separate school district, and they are being used by the charter school subject to a direction or authorization from the Minister of Education.

The reason we don't call separate and/or francophone school authorities private is that they have a universal electorate within a described population, and the board of a separate and/or francophone school authority is elected according to the Local Authorities Election Act, and may be removed by the Minister according to the provisions of the School Act. The Board of a charter school is not accountable to a universal electorate, it is not elected according to the Local Authorities Elections Act, and the Minister, while he may terminate a charter, may not remove the Board of a charter school from office.

By corporate organization, by exclusion from the provisions of the Local Authorities Election Act, and by freedom from the threat of removal of the Board by the Minister, charter schools, at least in Alberta, are private institutions. A similarly careful analysis of the charter school provisions in American states would lead to a similar conclusion.

I would welcome your thoughts.

David King 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help from "the box"

Hey, you requested some information about Lahser High school, a stub that I started! Well, I will be happy to provide information and other informaiton on other schools if you tell me you want some!

please reply, Boxbrown 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)boxbrown, the "box"

[edit] Wikipedia:Schools

There is no general agreement that school articles must contain x amount of knowledge or not be written. You know that. I don't see any problem with editing the article to include the viewpoint that schools just are "notable" and articles on them should not be deleted. If no one referred to the article, I wouldn't bother, but people do refer to it as though it were actually an agreed policy and not just something the deletionists cobbled together as the least they could stomach. If you want to discuss a version we are both happy with, I'm cool with that. But if you keep reverting me because you like the way it is, I'll revert you back, which would be a waste of time for both of us. Grace Note 07:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how you can call Rob a deletionist. This makes absolutely no sense at all. David D. (Talk) 08:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'll fess up. I'm a deletionist! It's true. She caught me. Here is another page that this deletionist cobbled together. On a non-sarcastic note, I think two reverts is plenty for me, and I'll let others deal with WP:SCH for the near term. On a serious note, the contents of WP:SCH were not "deletionist" oriented, and it reflected a good-faith effort to express the overall situation in neutral manner, albeit, imperfectly, and should be restored (but I will not be the one to restore the prior version). --Rob 08:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not restore the original version but I did remove much of Graces contribution. I did try to keep the spirit of what she was trying to do. See what you think. David D. (Talk) 08:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think what you did was pretty fair, thanks. --Rob 09:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Schools

Hi, I have protected the Schools page (at the wrong version of course). Try to reach agreement with Grace on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, I'm sorry for causing a hassle for you. I do however, think that there wasn't enough of a revert war, to warrant protection. I request unprotection, and commit to not repeating my mistake of repeatedly reverting. Removing protection will allow other editors to get involved, which is needed. --Rob 08:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I see you already did unprotect, thanks. --Rob 08:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Hills Elementary School

Hi, I saw and appreciate your comments on this afd. I had included the templates and categories for convenience (so that the discussion would be in a centralized location). Since it appears that the result of the afd is overwhelmingly "keep", I would appreciate it if the afd were closed at this point. I feel that it is inappropriate for me to close it myself considering I made the nomination. Thank you for your comments on the issue. ClarkBHM 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I can't close the AFD (for the remaining articles), since I was opposed the nomination (and closing it would "help my position"). You may wish to "strike-out" your delete vote, with "<s> and </s>" . Somebody else may close it early, but I don't know. Personally, I think you're actually the fairest person to close it, because you are the nominator, and nobody could accuse you of being unfair to your own nomination. --Rob 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:REDBLUE

I've updated the essay to reflect what we discussed on the talk page there, you're onto the right idea Deizio 23:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Gordon Lawrence

I am not aware of any way to selectively delete revisions of a page's history. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I know its been done many times. Basically, you first delete the whole article, and then, selectively undelete the revision(s) you want. --Rob 10:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) A small mention of of it is at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Partial undeletion. --Rob 10:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thanks. --Rob 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:CIVIL

I consider your statement to me "you simply don't know what you are talking about" to be a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is obvious that you and I disagree on whether there should be a notability requirement for schools just as there is for Bands, Websites, and basically any other article on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, we are each entitled to our opinions and I think I am deserving of more respect than your statement.
In the future, please try to frame your arguments about the facts and not about the other editor. Thanks very much, Johntex\talk 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't sling mud, and duck behind WP:CIVIL when somebody replies. Since you can't handle a proper debate, I'll try to limit future responses to you. --Rob 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The person who can't handle the proper debate would be the person who resorts to incivility. Nominating a non-notable article for deletion is not slinging mud. It is taking a step I believe is in the best interest of the project. I welcome you to hold another opinion, though of course I hope you eventually come over to my position. Maybe I'll come over to yours, we'll see. In the meantime, I urge you again to keep WP:CIVIL in mind and reply to the arguments, not the editor. Johntex\talk 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
When I made my "sling mud" comment, I did give a specific link to what I was referring to. Accusing people of being in a cabal, is about as uncivil as one can get (not to mention just plain silly). So, consider following WP:CIVIL if you want to cite it. --Rob 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if that seemed uncivil. It was not my intent. The existince of various "cabals" are regularly tossed around wikipideida as a sort-of-joke. I was not trying to be "silly" as you say, but I was trying to be somewhat humorous while still making a point. Reading through the discussion of WP:SCH, it is very clear that a large portion of the regular contributors use it as a "save all school articles" rallying point. That is what I meant by cabal. Please note that this comment came only after you accused me of "not knowing what I was talking about". I do appreciate your more recent comments to the AfD discussion, however. Thank you, Johntex\talk 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Rob, I appreciate your not reverting my comment, but I think my comment is very different from Gace Notes. I don't tell anyone to "get over it and write some content". My post is not adversarial. Previously, the description there was one-sided and did not reflect the belief of a large set of people. It is not fair to call these people "deletionists". I haven't seen anyone who wouldn't want to keep an aritcle on a notable school. They just believe there should be something about the school that substantially differentiates itself from others of its type. Therefore, I absolutely see no reason to revert myself. However, I do appreciate very much you bringing this to me and I want to work with you. Therefore, I will go back and re-read my addition with fresh eyes tomorrow, assuming someone else has not changed it by then. Johntex\talk 06:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I agree that what you did wasn't a "mirror image" or "equal". But, basically, I'm calling for a kind of "cease-fire" on the page. For instance, its tempting for me, to add a counter-point somewhere, and you to add a counter-counter-point; and then others to chip in. I don't wish to revert you, but I also don't wish to use Wikipedia:Schools for more debate. There were two very substantial/lengthy/signficant rounds of debates at Wikipedia:Schools. I feel that's plenty for one page, and we should "leave it be" for now. Hopefully you see, that every sentence added to the page, invites another. I think it's hard enough for newcomers to the "schools debate" to get a sense of the background, and continuous changes to (what should be) a historical record, makes this harder. If you still wish to change Wikipedia:Schools, I strongly feel you should propose changes on the talk page first, and get some consensus. I think that's fair. --Rob 06:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cites

Hi Rob,

Why on earth would you think that the notable alumni on Pearland High School would need cites? How many other "notable _____" categories have you seen with cites? I've added numerous notables and no list has ever used cites. You stumped me on that one!

PageantUpdater 22:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I know its frustrating, but Wikipedia has changed substantially, especially due to recent controversies with bogus information. Things once tolerated, are less tolerated now. You'll see in WP:V, WP:CITE, (also their talk pages, to get the background, and to discuss any genral concerns you have), contributors are being asked to provide sources.
It's not incredibly important in what format. Often, a single general reference is good for a whole article. People unfamiliar with the topic, can't tell what's real, and what's not. If I thought the notable alum was bogus, I would have removed it immediately. I felt it was likely true, so I asked for a cite. This will likely *prevent* its future removal by other editors.
You really have to look at things from the "Recent Changes" patroller perspective. They scan over huge numbers of edits every days, and have to spot dubious information, mixed in with truthful, but unsourced info. It's easy to confuse truth and fiction. Sources are essential in doing this fact checking. When you don't make verification easy, you're forcing other editors to choose between risking keeping something false, or risking deleting something true. Also, your alum is a victim of "collateral" damage. I really was only concerned with the "murder alum" in the same article, but I thought I'd be consistent, and tag the beauty with the murderer. If I hadn't tagged your beauty contestant, the other editor would have accused me of picking on him (incidently, the editor did complain that other facts in the same article weren't cited, so I probably should have tagged those, as well).
Finally, it will take you very little time to add source for the facts you add. Compare that to the time of somebody, in the future, who doesn't know about something, to check the information. I think asking people add sources with their contributions is extremely reasonable.
If you feel I'm misinterpreting things, or this is a really bad approach in general, you may wish to have a discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. --Rob 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well its interesting to read your comments on this (love the "tag the beauty with the murderer" comment :P). In my opinion, it should be okay if a) the notable alum has their own wikipedia article (thus establishing notability) and particularly b) if that notable alum's article clearly states that they went to X School (or whatever the issue is). I've edited quite a few notable alum lists, and generally deleted those who did not have their own article (with some exceptions). When I get time I'll head over and read some of the discussion - right now I have an essay to write. PageantUpdater 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you have a point. How's this?: if the bio article states the fact, *and* the bio article is sourced (e.g. the external link link to pageant web site at the bottom of the bio), then that's sufficient. In this particular case, I probably over-reached, because I could have visited the bio article, which would have led me to the pageant web site, with a profile, mentioning the school. I think I was very justified for the other alum. I still do think, more cites are good, as I've done in cases like this. Also, please note, many of your alum additions have been showing up on my watchlist (as we have much overlap), and I haven't been running around tagging them all (and won't), as I feel your changes are generally quite good. --Rob 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rob - point taken :) I certainly have noticed that you haven't gone around tagging other things, which was why I was surprised when this turned up :P Of course I understand that an issue only arose because of the other alum so I see where you were coming from (that's all I was really worried about). No biggy :) PageantUpdater 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kelly Hu Head.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Kelly Hu Head.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

Weatherman90 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Surprisingly, disambiguation pages are "supposed" to be as simple as possible. I'm not dogmatic about it, but that's why I left the first draft so spare. See also: WP:MOS(disambiguation)#Places and #Piping. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are some guidelines that are created from consensus, and there are some guidelines made by whoever the most persistent editor is. I recall the MoS on this being different than it is now. In the past, I even recall having somebody change a disambig I did, to be like what I just did with St Albans, and at that time, the MoS supported that. Anyway, I wouldn't have changed it, if I was adding another school. Also, while I'm pretty flexible on things like piping, bolding, and extraneous-linking; I quite strongly beleive in giving full information on each item, to be clear what/where each item is. Beleive it or not, not everybody even knows what "UK" stands for. But, normally I don't do what I just did, and generally, I do try to respect the convention, especially if a page already uses it. If you undo some of my changes (de-pipe, de-bold, de-link), but don't remove information (e.g. "England"), I won't revert you. --Rob 10:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable alumni

In reaction to recent additions to an article on my watchlist, Art Center College of Design I wrote:

  • The list of "notable alumni" is growing, which is a great thing. However, I notice that about half of the entries are "redlinks", meaning there is no article by that name. Having an article is the rough gauge of notability used around here. Now I have Google-checked a few names and some are certainly notable and deserve articles here. But it is also likely that there are also entries for people who are not yet notable. If there are any editors of this article that would like a good project I suggest that this list is place to start. Rather than creating a whole "stub" article, simply recording the most notable achievement (major prize, one-person show, famous work,) of the person after their names would be a start. After a decent interval, I'm likely to come back and delete the remaining redlinks. -Will Beback 06:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC) [2]

St. Albans follows this standard, and so do many others, but many others don't. Just adding redlinked names to a list is meaningless, IMO. For whatever reasons, some institutions seem more prone to "alumni notabilititis" than others. Do you have any thoughts on the issue? -Will Beback 11:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • For redlinks, I feel they must have an annotation concisely saying why they're notable (e.g. "Starred in film X" or "Won Olympic Gold medal"), as well as a reliable source citation to prove they attended the school, and confirming the notability claim. Otherwise, they should be removed. Art Center College of Design is quite simply appalling. A raw list, with only names, no annotations, serves almost no purpose. I'm inclined to just remove all the redlinks immediately, though I know that may upset people. At a minimum, they should be {{fact}} tagged, and removed later if not supported. As for bluelinks, I feel they also need a source, but that can be given either in the school article, or the biography.
  • So, I disagree with you, as I don't think its good to require an actual article (e.g. a bluelink). We shouldn't encourage the creation of a mass of stubs. Stating the notability reason, concisely in the school article, is good, as it gives interesting content to the school article. I did the alum lists for Bishop Carroll High School (Alberta) and Western Canada High School, which IMO, work fine, because every name has a claim of notability, and source to confirm them, even though they include redlinks.
  • Finally, I would much rather have a short list of notables, with details about them, then these long list of names, that tell readers nothing whatsoever. --Rob 11:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Hi there - thanks - I'm not sure that I agree with you - the page is supposed to be general guidelines for new editors, so asking people not to create an article for 'their organization', then linking to an odd kind of organization that already has an article, is confusing and ambiguous at best. I take your point, but if this page is to fulfil its role as help for the confused, I think we need to do better - do you have a suggestion of another organization that we could link to that would illustrate the point, or some pithy way of making that point that you shouldn't take guidelines too seriously? For great justice. 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the top of the page now does a good job, of explaining the points are not a list of "prohibited" items. I wouldn't want to add anything to a particular item to make the point, as that implies it doesn't apply to other items. I take your point that Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas is for newbies, who might not get the irony, and subtle "counter" message. So, I won't revert you. I'm content to leave the page as you left it. --Rob 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston in March 1999.jpg

I've emailed the MariahDaily.com website again and asked if they could clarify which images they own the copyright on and which ones they don't, as well as the names of the people who took the images that they do own the copyright on. Believe me when I say that I really wanted to avoid accidentally uploading a copyright violation, that's why I made sure to send them a Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. Also, I think the contributions you make that involve images copyrights are great, keep up the good work. Extraordinary Machine 18:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I intentionally avoided nominating MariahDaily.com images for deletion in Commons, until after you had a good chance to check it into it first. I certainly appreciate you've made the best possible effort to avoid any copyright problem. --Rob 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
They've emailed back and apologetically said that they do not own the copyrights on those images, but that outside sources send them in. Well spotted! I've tagged them for speedy deletion from the Commons, I'm really sorry about this situation. Extraordinary Machine 17:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate you taking care of it. --Rob 17:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your proposed {{fact}} and {{source}} solution

Regarding your suggestin at my Talk page: I've been giving your suggestion some thought. At first blush, it has some appeal, but the more I think about it, the more I think it is not the best solution. Firstly, it is redundant to apply one template the the whole article as well as a second template to a fact within the article. Secondly, it is POV to hold facts perceived as "negative" to a higher inclusion threshold than facts perceived as "positive". Johntex\talk 22:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

When I said "negative" I meant, almost, but not quite (legally) defamatory. We absolutely do hold a special standard for such facts. Per WP:LIVING (I know this is about a school, not a person, but I think similiar principles apply). I beleive Jimbo's personally removed/deleted a number of items, based on the premise the potential defamation or harm to character requires exceptionally high sourcing standards. What we can't allow is for people to use Wikipedia to attack an entity with unsourced claims/associations. It's far to easy for people to slip negative things like this in. A kid (or anybody) just lists some notorious killer as an alum. Now, I realize in this case, its true (I do trust you, seriously I do), but we can't pick and choose who we beleive. I have fact checked hundreds of schools, and I can't play "who do I trust". I also can't remove all unsourced facts (I would be blocked if I tried). Many unsourced facts pose little harm if left in temporarily. Some facts do pose harm immediately.
Also, I'm still being NPOV becaue *all* unverified information will be removed eventually. I am not suggesting unverified information can remain. I'm just saying, I have priorities, about what to remove first (The {{fact}} tag warns somebody, which item is likely to be removed first). Somebody should have recognized the negative rumors of John Seigenthaler, Sr. were somehow more important than other types of unsourced claims.
Now, if you seriously wish to treat all the unsourced information in the article "equally", then I will cheer you on, if you remove *all* unsourced information. This will give you full neutrality. Even if that means making it into a substub. --Rob 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Added: I just decided to go ahead and remove what's not sourced (e.g. not on the school web site, or anywhere else I can find, after I looked). There may be more that needs to be removed. --Rob 23:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rob, thanks for your reply. Here are a few of my thoughts:
  1. Please post me a note on my talk page when you reply. If you want to centralize discussion in one place, that is fine - just a simple "replied on my Talk - Rob" would be fine. Then I get the little Pavlov's Dog message notice.
  2. I agree with you that anything that is potentially libelous should get special treatment.
  3. I appreicate your trust in me that I would not make this up. However, someday, you and I will both be dead and gone and hopefully Wikipedia will still be going. Eventually, perhaps, no one will remember whether I was trustworthy or not. Also, even generally trustworthy people get facts wrong, misinterpret policy, etc. Therefore, I wouldn't expect my personal say-so to be definitive in such a case, at least not forever.
  4. I don't agree that there is anything potentially libelous in this informaiton. If his status as a murderer were in doubt, that would be one thing. If we said he committed murder because of a twisted environment at his high school, that would be another thing. However, we are just noting that the school has a famous alumni, who happens to be famous for a negative thing. There is no potential for libel against the school in that statement, therefore, I think it is wrong to compare it to WP:LIVING or to hold it to a higher standard.
  5. I don't agree that this fact should be any quicker or slower to be removed if it is not verified. Since libel is not a concern, then there is no reason to treat a negative fact differently.
  6. I think we have to be careful that Wikipedia is being used right now as a source, not at some future date when it is finished or something. Therefore, we need to be NOPV in today's version, not at some future date when all the facts are supposedly checked and verified.
  7. There are 3 NPOV options I could support: (1) Tag the article with {{source}} but don't pick and choose which facts to tag a second time. (2) Tag all unsourced facts with {{fact}}. (3) Remove all unsourced facts.
I think (1) is the best solution. (2) is my second favorite. (3) is my least favorite. In some ways, (3) should be our ultimate goal, but doing that would be to hold this one article to an extremely high standard which I don't think is practical. Even articles that achieve "Good Article" status make it to that status without every fact having an in-line citation. Johntex\talk 23:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have made changes to the article and posted on that Talk page - Let's take the discussion there since it is a discussion mainly about that one article. Johntex\talk 23:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rv on Schools policy page

Hi Rob. I reverted it blind, I have to admit, because some guy seems to think that it's not editable! Feel free to edit it as you choose, including reverting to your version. I obviously don't support the "other side's" edits, but I was returning the article to the state before the "you can't edit this any more" revert. Sorry for the confusion. Grace Note 23:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cent

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

Hi Rob,

Just wondering if you can help me with a page protection issue - Krystal Barry has been vandalised three times now, all by an anonymous someone from the Boston/Lawrence Massachusetts region (after checking their ips - 3 different ones). This has ranged from simply making accusations that the page is copyvio (which it is not), to the latest making a personal attack on me (using my pageant message board pseudonym "x"). I have reason to believe this is the same person who has been attacking me on the message boards over the past few months.

Anyway, I'd like to request this page be temporarily protected under the rationale "Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism" but I also saw "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." which seems to preclude me from requesting the protection. Think you could help me??!

Thanks, PageantUpdater 21:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm not an admin, all I can do is suggest going to WP:RPP to ask for page protection (no harm in asking). You'll find admins are reluctant to do it, and generally they will remove it as soon as possibly. At best, they will do temporary semi-protection in a case like this (that stops the anonymous users). More important, be sure to leave a message on the culprit's user page every time they vandalize. See WP:Vandalism for more information. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to report incidents (I think). If you make a point of warning the user after each incident, the admin will see the person was already warned multiple times, and it is more likely to block. Generally, I think the preference is to block individual vandals instead of protecting pages (though sadly, both are temporary). Personally, vandalism, and the lack of action against, is one of my pet peeves of this place. --Rob 22:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image removal

I've been writing a list next to my monitor of images that are valuable, impressive or whatever, and been shifting those into articles where they are relevant, or planning on doing it in the future. Some of these images, like ones of jessica simpson, are really quite useless. As for the fairuse vs. public domain, I didn't realize there was a difference and I think you are mistaking me implying copyright misuse for me grabbing the incorrect tag. Where would I find the tag to nominate a public domain, orphaned image, for deletion? Cornell Rockey 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Oyoda alongside Zuikaku.jpg

DUPLICATE IMAGE > Image:Oyodo alongside Zuikaku.jpg. Stop before you undo everything I have done. Many of these images are really not worth saving, even If I used the incorrect deletion tag. Also, I am not deleting them, I am nominating them for deletion. Some administrator should make the decision, not you just removing nominations left and right. Cornell Rockey 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bea Arthur / gay icon

The reason I didn't add a citation or reference as to the fact that Bea Arthur is a gay icon is because it is common knowledge. VERY common. Since you requested one, I have added one - one which took me less than 60 seconds to find by searching the terms "bea arthur" and "gay icon" together on google. Pacian 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm happy to hear that you added a ciation. I see what I did worked effectively, and will continue to tag other cases. I suggest in the future, you place a citation from the beginning. I haven't had a chance to check your source, I'll do that later. --Rob 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I should mention the background, and the reason why I was a littly hasty. I tried going through Category:Gay icons. Most articles don't even say the person is a gay icon. The ones that do (like this) don't cite sources (but do now). There are so many, that personally hunting for sources for each, is not practical. That needed to happen before they were added to the category (when it would be quick and easy). I've still only managed to do a small fraction of articles in the category. Given how easy it was to a cite, I'm mystified, why it wasn't done by whoever added the information in the first place.--Rob 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Rob, I am all for citations on Wikipedia, but I am a firm and outspoken proponent that the demand for citations on wikipedia articles is becoming overburdensome and ignorant. There seems to be no point to where the line is drawn - even published printed encyclopedias and reference materials don't go this far. Obviously stating Arthur is a gay icon is not as common knowledge as stating she is of the female gender, but when something is, in my opinion, excrutiatingly commonly known, I don't personally cite the fact because it seems superfluous. Bea Arthur has been a legendary gay icon for upwards of 35 years, starting with her Broadway performances through her television roles as outspoken liberal characters, and so forth. So where you found a citation necessary, I found it to be superfluous. I suspect that I could go into several articles that YOU have written or contributed to and find information that I have never heard before and have no evidence of, and ask you to cite it, in places where you didn't bother because you didn't think it was necessary. I might just go do that now, not to be vindictive, but to make a point. Pacian 03:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Having reviewed your recent edits, I am extremely disturbed at the heavy removal of "gay icon" tags that you have been doing. There are some removals you have done that I find absolutely unacceptable and verging on vandalism. As an example, singer Ani DiFranco is a hugely well known and outspoken bisexual who spent a great deal of her career identifying as a lesbian. She is on par with someone like Ellen Degeneres or Melissa Etheridge in terms of her gay and lesbian iconic status, and for you to demand a citation of it is just a little bit over the top. The text of the article itself explains exactly why she is a gay icon. On the other hand your removal of the tag in the Frenchie Davis article makes sense. The only claim she would have to being a gay icon is that she was in the musical Rent. You need to take an hour and go back to each and every one of these articles, and you need to carefully consider the text within. Then you need to stop and say to yourself "Has the personal and professional history of this individual, as displayed in this article, clarified adequately why they would be considered a gay icon?" And then you need to restore the tag to some of those articles. If I don't see that you've done this in the next week or so, I feel like I am going to have no choice but to assume you have some kind of a personal problem with the gay icon tag, and I'm going to have to report the edits as vandalism. Please explain yourself and your actions. Pacian 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If I stated something in article, and none of the sources (even general refs, or external links) I included, support that statement, then please do mark it with a {{fact}} tag. Note, if Bea Arthur had *any* references (even general references) to support the claim, I would have left it alone. If I make any kind of statement about a living person that some *might* not want said about them, please do put the {{fact}} tag next to that fact. Also, I would hope you would consider that I did *NOT* remove the statement. I also left her in Category:Gay icons. I removed other bios from that category, only if the bio did not support being in the category. I have *NOT* removed information from the bodies of these articles. Nothing has been lost. In fact, the article is *better* because people can read the source, and confirm it. If "everybody knows" something, why write it? Obviously, somebody wrote it because some people don't know about it. How do those people confirm it's true, and distinguish it from all the other bios branded "gay icons"? Please read WP:V which makes clear, it is the people who add information, who have the burden of proof, not me. This is the post-Seigenthaler Wikipedia. Get used to it. Also, to repeat I have *NOT* removed information from the bodies of these articles. I removed a category that was *NOT* supported by the body of the article. In fact if an article had the word "gay" in it, I left the category in. In the case of Ani DiFranco, at the time, did not have the word "gay", "icon", "lesbian", or "following" in it. So, how does the article support the claim she is a gay icon? --Rob 04:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(undent)I still feel Ani DiFranco should have explicity said, with sources, she was found to be a "gay icon", but given there was the "bisexual" reference, I put back the category. You seem to be doing original research here. Just because somebody has certain characteristics, doesn't mean we should conclude they are a gay icon. That should be determined by reliable sources, who must be cited. There seems to be rampant violation of core policies, in the use of this category. Also, your "vandalism" charge, is itself a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I notice in all your comments, you have failed to mention in guidelines or policy to support your poisition. Also, apparently, you've intentional missed, that in going through A-J, I didn't remove articles that actually said they were "gay icons". This *entire* mess was created by the editors who irresponsible added this category to bios without updating the article properly with facts and sources. Hopefully, you will learn from this experience, and not add more unsourced information to Wikipedia. --Rob 04:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something interesting I just read

From Pacian:

My new mission on wikipedia is the elimination of fanboy information from celebrity/famous-persons entries. As knowledge of the existance of Wikipedia has grown, more and more fans of famous people come here to add their information to wikipedia about those people. And more often than not, the information added is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have become vigilant - many would say overly zealous - in my aggressive approach to weeding out these contributors and their inappropriate edits.
If I have crossed wires with you, please confront me in an honest, open, but constructive way, and we can find out how to meet in a middle ground. Cheers! Pacian 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gee, isn't this interesting. You're running around removing anything you find to be "fanboy" material. You ask people to respond positively. You realize it will upset people. You admit you may be over zealous. Perhaps you could have extended me the same curteousy you asked of others, before visciously attacking me for being a little zealous in dealing with unsourced material, in violation of policy. --Rob 06:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't find anything I said above to be a personal attack or constructive. I legitimately feel like you *MUST* be doing the edits you're doing because of some form of personal feelings about the topic in question. None of your edits actually make any sense, and all of your explanations here aree weak straw man arguments. To insist that an article about a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered person be sourced when stating that person is a gay icon is completely irrational. Especially someone as proflific in the lesbian community as Ani DiFranco, my example from before.
If you want me to quote policy, then fine: policy dictates that you should NOT have removed any of those tags. You *SHOULD* have started a discussion in the talk pages of the articles in question asking for citations, and you should have added the approprite tags within the body of the article. By removing the tag completely you are asserting, regardless of what your edit comments state, that the tag does not belong REGARDLESS of what other info or citations might be added in the future. Now the only way someone knows that the article once had that tag but now requires a citation in order for it to be there again is if they view the edit history of the articles in question. They can't simply view the article, see the tag, see the request for a citation, and include one. To sharpen my point - one can't solve a problem one doesn't see. Pacian 13:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You're not quoting policy, you're simply making it up (do you know what "quote" means?). I think you may wish to start up a conversion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability to get input from others, about interpretation of policy. Remeber, all of these problems were caused by somebody adding this category, over a year ago, to huge numbers of bios, with no fact checking, no sourcing, and nobody bothering to update the articles properly. This created a *MASSIVE* backlog, that needed cleanup. If only a few biographies had problems, obviously, I would take a much more cautious approach. Incidently, I did revert myself in a few articles, including the one you're still ranting on about. Instead of attacking me, I suggest you and others follow policy, and provide sources for information you add to Wikipedia, to avoid causing *ALL* of these problems. If people didn't cause these problems with additions of unsourced material (usually sitting for a year), then I wouldn't have to cleanup their mess. You and others had the power, for over one year, to prevent all these problems. --Rob 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karmacoda

Yeah, I know... but we got a letter at the foundation and he was being uppity. It really shouldn't have been nominated to begin with...didn't meet deletion criteria. So if you want to revert me, feel free... or even substitute your name for mine... or... whatever...

ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the sig

FYI, per WP:FAIR you can't use fairuse images outside of article spaces. That means Image:Team Canada.gif, probably shouldn't be in your signature. I'm not an admin, so my comment is just informational. --Rob 04:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good advice, thanks, changed the sig. Cheers. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay icons

Don't you think that your contributions are harmful? What kind 'sources' should support an inclusion in this category? -- tasc talkdeeds 07:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claims that effect a person's reputation are harmful (remeber Siegenthaler). They are a violation of WP:V (core policy). Everything in this encyclopedia must be verifiable. It is the responsibility of those adding the claims to prove they are true. At a minimum, a source should simply use the term "gay icon" to describe the person. Wikipedia should not be a publisher of original opinion. If nobody has ever expressed an opinion, then Wikipedia should not be the first to do so. I am removing the category, only in cases where there's no possible basis given in the article. In cases, where somebody's stated a plausable reason (see above), I've reverted myself, and put back the category. --Rob 07:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
are you kidding me? how does it affect person's reputation? some things cannot be verifiable. do you agree with definition in gay icon article? -- tasc talkdeeds 08:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if this is rude butting in, but some people, such as 5-time Olympic swim star Ian Thorpe have always been the subject of gay rumours, so putting this cat on his page, as has been done sometimes, could count as defamation - he has always asserted not to be gay.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
it has nothing to do with being gay! -- tasc talkdeeds 08:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I know, but unless explained in the text, a reader may probably assume that the category implies that the subject itself is gay, so its probably good to show restraint.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the history of this category's use, you'll see that in most cases, it was used to tag people known as gay, or possibly gay, or living up to gay stereo-types of behaviour (e.g. flamboyant), or stereotypes of what gays like. That's how the category has been used for a year now. The only way to ensure proper use, is for each article to properly explain how/why somebody is a gay icon, and who says that they are. There is a clear misunderstanding of the term "gay icon", and the adders of this category, are partly responsible for this, by their mass misuse of the label. --Rob 08:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


I have moved this discussion to Category talk:Gay icons, to keep a central discussion. --Rob 08:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi Rob, I noticed your supportive vote on Niki Ashton, and found a similiar AfD on an NDP candidate in the 2006 election that's already had one AfD vote to Keep. Right now it's hovering, and just needs your Keep vote. Please go here Thanks. CanadianElection 10:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. While I appreciate you had the best of intent, it's generally not good to request votes from people, based on their past voting. Such requests (which everybody can see), will sometimes trigger the opposite reaction expected, and encourage others to show up, and vote the opposite you hoped for. Again, I appreciate you did this, with good intent, but I recommend not requesting votes like this in the future. --Rob 10:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Cooper

Hi,

My edit wasn't intended as interference -- it was intended as a "speedy" resolution to the issue, in accordance with established precedent. I've done this before, and this is the first time someone has complained. I can leave the afd notice up if you want, but I'm not sure what good it would do. The candidate isn't particularly notable on his own and the information has already been merged, so an afd doesn't serve much purpose. CJCurrie 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If everybody in the AFD (currently just the nom) agrees with the speedy merge, I would be fine with it. Otherwise, it should wait. --Rob 23:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. I didn't see my actions as being particularly controversial, but I see how they could be taken as interference -- sorry if there was a misunderstanding. CJCurrie 23:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shared IP Policy

I apologize for the drastic change to the proposal after you had already voted. The polling was carried out in a rather inappropriate manner, and it was agreed upon that the policy needed to undergo some severe changes before we could seek consensus. I do, however, encourage you to read over the current proposal and voice your opinion about it. The votes on the previous proposal will not, by the way, be viewed as votes for consensus on the current proposal; thus, they have been archived to a subpage. Sorry about the confusion. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs on Williamsville North

Rob- Thanks for cleaning up the references on Williamsville North High School. Unfortunately, if you look at the Regents report, you'll see that it is actually the report for West Senaca East Senior High School. I'd love to help in adding references to this article, but I don't know where to find them. Jesuschex 12:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

oops. now fixed. --Rob 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Civility

Regarding your apology: Please note this policy states "Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working well" which is *serious* example of unacceptable behaviour. I ask you to *never* again suggest that you are "sorry" that someone doesn't "understand the meaning of words". Please do not engage in this behaviour. The statement "sorry, if you don't understand the meaning of words in the English language I can't help you", isn't a reference to an actual inability to understand words, its a reference your failure to adquately explain your behavior. You're smart, so must have known that was rude. --Section borrowed from my talk. Buh-Bye Arbusto 07:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Buh-Bye. --Rob 08:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:AGF

If I (or any editor) create a project page, consider the possibility that it is in order to describe something which might otherwise be misunderstood. Just zis Guy you know? 10:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm mainly here to write articles for the encyclopedia. So, I'll probably never be able to properly understand those focussed mainly in other areas. So, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But, I honestly just don't see the purpose of making multiple project pages, wich serve little purpose, other then to bolster arguements. If you want to communicate your interest in a better encyclopedia, go make some more really good articles, and others will get the message by example. As for questioning motives of the creator of a project page: I see that as no worse then suggesting an article page is made for vanity, which is leveled often in AFD against a person's first article, even though there's no track record of the person doing that. Since you've in the past accussed me and others of being in a cabal, you may wish to read the AGF guideline yourself. --Rob 10:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"I'm mainly here to write articles for the encyclopedia." Be sure to let know when you intend to start. Until then, see you at WP:AFD. FeloniousMonk 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I started long before you arrived. Did you know there are actually articles in Wikipedia that don't involve a religious POV conflict. --Rob 20:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like Albert Frey, Battle of 73 Easting, A. Quincy Jones, E. Stewart Williams, Buff, Straub, and Hensman? You're right. I can only aspire to contribute Julie Dubela, Big Brother, and Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders cruft. FeloniousMonk 21:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You're top ten are all religious. That is your primary focus here, and you are well aware of it. You're using Wikipedia as you soap box. That is wrong. --Rob 21:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, the so-called "cruft" you refer to, shows you how I have zip interest in religion, or politics, or any POV. Julie Dubela, as you'll note is my most-edited article, with every sentence citing at least one source (an exception in Wikipedia, for non-controversial articles edited by mainly one person). That, sourcing, is my focus. Incidently, I also made another user equally mad over challenging edits in a Big Brother related article, because of bad sourcing. So, there's my "bias" for you: sourcing. You've been edit warring so much with real right-wing Christian conservates pushing a POV agenda, that everybody who objects to something looks to you like another one. Sources give our articles credibility, and you accomplish nothing by putting in unsourced facts. Anyways, there's nothing I would hope for more, then you providing proper sources, and letting me get back to entertainment related articles. It takes really awful sourcing to get somebody who didn't even know what dominionism was until recently, so heavily involved. You're your own worst enemy on this matter. --Rob 22:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, between the two of us, I'm the only one who's bothered to add any supporting cites to the articles in question, whereas you just delete the content rather than be bothered looking for supporting cites. What can we conclude from that? FeloniousMonk 23:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now, I see, you were talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skepticwiki. Read WP:WEB. No non-trivial independent coverage, no article. --Rob 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, because an article may be deficient and may need help today is no indication that it can't or won't be fixed tomorrow. The pattern I'm concerned with here is your rush to delete rather than fix articles or issues within articles that run counter to your viewpoint. Again, it's a pattern. FeloniousMonk 21:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, that's a lie. --Rob 21:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking

Stop Wikistalking FeloniousMonk. This is your final warning. --Cyde Weys 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-archiving

Note: Everything above was in archive#6. The last two sections were archived separately. Below, you'll note, there was some pecular objection to this. I have therefore de-archived. I will re-archive in the future. Anybody who doesn't want their comments archived in the future, should say-so when they leave a message, and specify the time frame they think the comment must stay in place. --Rob 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking

Regarding Cyde Weys previous comment (now archived), I can only add that Wikistalking is forbidden by policy. Please desist at once. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the archiving of my warning message sixteen minutes after it was posted very disturbing indeed. Obviously this user saw and had a strong reaction to that warning message, so he has no further excuses for any behavior of this sort. --Cyde Weys 00:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

He did the same to my post about his incivility. Arbusto 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not see what is disturbing, as I have agreed to avoid any article, where there was an edit conflict with the user in question. Also, archiving isn't hiding. I do not accept the above characterizations of me. I consider this matter closed. --Rob 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to implied threats, I have withdrawn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skepticwiki, which is the basis of the most recent complaints against me. --Rob 07:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer it would go through the AfD process since it has been up for deletion for a few days. Arbusto 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I was forced to withdraw from the debate, when I was prohibited from freely speaking about my concerns, such as poor quality sources. It is unimportant what happens with the AFD. Nobody will look back at it, and think there was a proper deliberation. --Rob 02:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn or not, the article was deleted. Arbusto 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Viva verifiability!!! --Rob 03:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lucy Hale AFD

I have changed my vote according to the information you have provided. I consider she is WP:MUSIC notable, since I can't verify that the album sold over 5,000 copies (although I have little doubt about that, knowing how good reality shows usually fare around the world, including down here), but notability per WP:MUSIC is as good as per WP:BIO. -- ReyBrujo 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another image prob

Hi Rob - I found a picture of Miss Rhode Island USA 2005 Allison Paganetti here - she is a military cadet. The problem is that the page the image supposedly comes from (found on a google image search) has no link to the hi-res picture. What should I do? PageantUpdater 08:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convicted criminals

Hi, Thivierr. I noticed that both you and another user have removed the category Category:American criminals from the articles on Phoebe Doty and Adeline Miller. Per the instructions at WP:LIVING, you are both correct to remove it; someone must be convicted to have the category apply. However, it's a strange situation in that WP:LIVING deals only with living people, and the fact that Doty and Miller were both well-known madams and prostitutes in their day. They didn't try to hide the fact, and they were basically tolerated by the police, despite the fact that their professions were decidedly against the law. Can you point me to some policy for usage of Category:Criminals and its subcategories? Does the standard for WP:LIVING apply to dead folks as well? Thanks, — BrianSmithson 12:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and consistency requires we categorize dead people like we do live people (somebody doesn't became a criminal the day they day!). However, the difference is, unfair/unsourced/original/negative characterizations of living people require *immediate* removal of the unsupported negative characterization, and blocking of editors who try to repeatedly put it back in the article. For dead people, there's no such rush, or need for *immedidate* verification of a conviction. Also, frankly, its just less important. They won't sue us. Now, obviously, we need a consistant approach in that category, but I decided it wasn't worth a revert war, or intanst action. Hence, my self revert. But, I do still feel the category is exclusively for verifiably convicted criminals. Otherwise, anybody could go over somebody's life, see a technical criminal offense, and toss them in the category. For instance, anybody who admitted at any time, smoking pot, could be tossed in their. There are an incredible number of activities that are technically criminal offenses, that police/public/government in certain places/times just don't enforce. Retroactively, tagging those people as "criminals" is extreme POV. You open a real pandorous box with your presumption of guilt. There are incredible numbers of people "everybody knows" are criminals, but haven't been convicted. It's not our role to decide who should have been found guilty, but we should merely decide who has been found guilty, and nothing more. --Rob 15:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's an exteme hypotethical example. Somebody murders their accountant for defrauding them (no conviction). Can we put the murdered accountant in Category:Criminals and not the still-living unconvicted murderer? --Rob 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Dead people. --Rob 15:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:FAIR

I expected as much... oh well, it was fun while it lasted.--Isotope23 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editing/leaving comments within a history log

Hey Thivierr - I see that when you edit a site you add a comment so that people know what it is you are doing.... how can i do The same ? I dont' know how to add a message.... Please let me know if possible.... Thank you - Julie

[edit] Thank You

Hi Rob, Thank you for your help :o) Julie

[edit] Thanks so much

Hey Rob - Thank you so much for your helpful information , so far I am loving Wikipedia, but I am still learning, so it will take a little bit of time to become a pro :) Keep up the good postings ! And as for your helpful links, they are great ! Thanks again Miss BC Coast (lol I hope i did that right,... if not it's back to the sandbox for me...)

[edit] Re : AfD Still Open

Ah, I see now. I'll re-list the debate in this case. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miss BC Coast

Hey Rob

Thanks for the heads up... I've put a little memo up as well... & I agree with your comments about US State Preliminaries being accepted.... Good statment

Julie

[edit] image copyright

hey - how is the copyright different from that of the article page that you posted ? im not certain how it works, but wouldn't it be the same for a user page ? Julie

[edit] Miss World Canada

Hey - Unfortunatly BC is the first province to hold regional competitions. They are planning on expanding over the next few years, they are just having trouble finding regional directors. Sorry I can't be more helpful.. Julie

[edit] Ramona Amiri

Hey - Actually under the Headline : BC Reps at MWC - Ramona was never Miss BC Coast, nor was Kim Murphy, they were simply BC Reps... & the current title holder for Miss BC is Sasha Abunnadi, for 2005, the 2006 has nto been held yet, and Ramona would not have been Miss BC 2005....

[edit] AfD: Friends of Real Lancashire

I have done a little research on this group's activities, and have added my input at the AfD page - I would be interested to hear your comments. Many thanks, Aquilina 13:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Update the article, and I'll reconsider. Also, at least some of the links are not related (I haven't looked at most). --Rob 14:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How did U know bout Netivot HaTorah Day School

Hey, Im just curous how you know about Netivot Hatorah and decided to start that article cuz i used to go there and no 1 from there would ever have started a wiki entry lol.--Gregorykay 02:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pageants wikiproject?

Hi Rob,

I've been doing some thinking about contributions to beauty pageant articles etc and a few other things and I was thinking of maybe starting a Pageant Wikiproject to try and write better, more complete, and more consistent articles related to beauty pageants on Wikipedia. I know you've obviously shown some interest in pageants, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in this (currently completely hypothetical) idea? If you can think of anyone else who might be interested feel free to put the message out :)

-- PageantUpdater 01:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome the project, though I'm not sure how much I'll do myself. Having some standards for consitancy would be nice. --Rob 01:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I've just added this to the list of proposed projects: Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects (at the bottom) -- PageantUpdater 03:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on WP:OWN

Hi Thivierr. Do you remember User:99jonathan? He has apparently taken the liberty of removing some old warnings & suchlike from his talk page. I've currently got a question in at Talk:WP:OWN regarding user control of talk pages, and this is a prime example. No one there has replied to me yet. Is removing warning tags from one's own talk page acceptable? These are fairly old and I'm willing to assume good faith that 99 has reformed. His recent contribs seem to show this. But it's a case in point of a question that's been nagging me. Do you happen to know how (or whether) WP:OWN applies to talk pages? Cheers, Kasreyn 09:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yah I remember. It can be considered vandalism to remove legitimate warnings (if not archived). Those messages should have been archived However, in this case the warnings are a little old, and a small number, and he seemed to reform (pretty much); so its not a huge deal. So, I think its ok to drop the matter. --Rob 09:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] States holding copyrights

Admittedly, I don't know crap about copyright law, which is double funny b/c I am a law student. All I can tell you that I successfully disrupted several attempted prod's and AfD's in favor of keep with the state-government-cannot-hold-copyright argument ;), which I picked up from other WP users....... are you sure about that? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "wikipedia keeps all verifiable real K-12 schools"

Before I take this to AfD, can you point me to anyplace where this policy is cogently formulated, or at the very least, applied? I understand you track school articles here and are therefore in position to cite this policy, if indeed it exists. Thanks for your time, for I am genuinely confused. It doesn't sound right. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an accurate description of what we do, but it is not stated as policy anywhere. Although precedent is considered signficant in AFD (which is nearly 100% keep verifiable real non-attack non-copyvio articles). You're free to take it to AFD, althought the result is pretty much predictable. It's similiar to (though not identical to) keeping all municipalities, even though policy doesn't require their retention. --Rob 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle schools in Ottawa

Another editor tagged Category:Middle schools in Ottawa as a category for deletion, but has yet to put it on the list. I looked it up and, this school year, there are 12 English public intermediate schools in the Ottawa-Carleton school district. Therefore, including the one private school so far, that would make 13+ articles, plenty for a category. -- Usgnus 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the number of middle schools. That nomination was listed, see here. It seems, that for some reason, no admin has closed the discussion, but they did remove the whole day (May 16) off the WP:CFD page (which is why you can't find it, from following the link in the tag). The tag should probably be removed, IMO. --Rob 23:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I just "voted". Do you think my reason was overkill? ;-) -- Usgnus 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X Vietnam (album)

I have received your message. Thank you for noting the band Quilapayún, which is very vital to show any notability. I have changed my proposed deletion to vote to keep the article.--Jusjih 12:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to The Bride (film)

Hi, I have addressed your edit on the film's talk page. Aguerriero (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parade magazine

I've fixed the links. Thanks for the note. tregoweth 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] West Haven High School

This is clearly a notable school, so I'm not sure who deleted it or why it was deleted. Using verifiable sources, I have rewritten the article from the ground up, please review my work and add to it as you see fit. Silensor 22:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/i/User_talk%7EThivierr_archive-6_bdf9.html"