User talk:After Midnight/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 11

Contents

Marilyn Hanold - FYI

Just to let you know, I posted a message on the anon's talk page about blanking out info on their "mother's" page. In that message, I directed them to WP:OTRS since I'm not sure if they know about the article histories. Dismas|(talk) 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, but used the edit history since I didn't know if they had a static IP address. Good idea to have the message in both places. --After Midnight 0001 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
They edited the same article in basically the same way a couple days ago and it was also from the same IP. Figured it would reach them on the IP's talk page. And for what it's worth, you beat me to the punch by a few seconds on the revert this last time. Dismas|(talk) 03:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. We are making a good pair. --After Midnight 0001 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems so, indeed! Dismas|(talk) 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

National Teenager

Hi! I haven't been in touch lately (been focussing on my own website so have had little time for Wikipedia) but I just thought I'd pick your brain and alert you to a potential issue. I just found Miss Wisconsin National Teenager and have prodded it. You can read my reasons on the talk page... just wondering whether you can check it out and see whether you agree with my actions. I just don't think that pageant (at least on the state level) is notable enough for individual articles... particularly after the individual MAOTeen state articles were deleted.

Hope all is well with you. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 06:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If MAOT Wisconsin is not notable, Miss Wisconsin National Teenager can hardly be so, either. --After Midnight 0001 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi I just noticed your question on this, and do appreciate you suggestions on the Wisconsin National Teenager page. I do hope you read the discussion section. I posted some articles on the pageant, and explained why there aren't more (renovated newspaper websites is mainly to blame with very short archives). MAOT for Wisconsin was not in need of its own website or notable because it has only been around for three years - wonderful system but not much of a history to write on. So many small MAOT articles did not make sense. National Teenager on the other hand is one of the longest running teen pageants in the state of Wisconsin as well as the country. I believe the longest running is Junior Miss at 50 years. Also many former Wisconsin National Teenager queens have gone on to be very successful in Miss Wisconsin USA as well as Miss Wisconsin, for instance - Meghan Coffey, Tracy Gest, Jena Schulz, and Maria Kim to name a few. If you would like more information, please feel free to contact me. --Pageant Girl —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

October 1

Well, it's about time... But I think I'll wait until tomorrow. (Confused? Wait and see : ) - jc37 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that you are going to put in the request for AMbot to tag all those categories that I listed for you back a few weeks ago. Am I a winner? --After Midnight 0001 11:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem so : )

The Special Barnstar - A special award for a "special" winner : )
- jc37 (Talk)
- 11:42, 30 September 2007


  • Sure, why not? : ) - jc37 00:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ready when you are : )

See User talk:AMbot/requests. - jc37 11:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, starting on it now... --After Midnight 0001 03:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you : ) - jc37 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No fair-use rationale

Hi there. I noticed that an image that I changed the license tag for got speedy deleted because I forgot to add a use rationale. Would you mind undeleting so I can add the rationale? Thanks. Carcharoth 11:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - I've set out the date another week to allow you time to get that added now. --After Midnight 0001 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Carcharoth 13:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thank you

I don't know if I mentioned it already, but the 48 hour before archive seems to be just about perfect. Thanks again for that. Even though you're basically doing all the archiving atm, we should probably document "how-to" somewhere in case others might want to help. Any suggestions? - jc37 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did actually think about that a while ago and I think I go stuck trying to decide where to put them. My 2 thoughts are 1) at the top of the UCFD page where the link to the archives is and 2) at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive. Any preference or other ideas you may have are welcome. At this exact moment I think I am leaning towards #2.... --After Midnight 0001 10:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me (especially considering that there's already sort of an explanation how to archive already on that page). Another thing that would be nice would be to jump forward or back a month while on an archive page (similar to how you can go forward or back a day at CfD). Though I don't know what code/templates are used for that. - jc37 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done and Y Done --After Midnight 0001 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, wow, that looks great! : ) - jc37 07:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alemannic or Albanian?

As a result of Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:User_als_and_subcats and [1], many users of {{user als}} are now lost without any category, neither Category:User als-N, Category:User als, Category:User swg nor Category:User gsw.-- Matthead discuß!     O       01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think that the problem may be that the users of {{user als}} is being used for Alemannic German, which has 4 ISO 639-3 codes, which are 1. gct — Alemán Coloniero, 2. gsw — Swiss German, 3. swg — Swabian German and 4. wae — Walser German. So the question is which of these is proper for each user. It is possible that a gsw speaker may not want to be classified as wae or other similar issues. Maybe the box should have 4 options to let each user choose the one they want. Do you have any suggestions? --After Midnight 0001 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is "D’alemannisch Wikipedia" at "http://als.wikipedia.org/", and "http://sq.wikipedia.org/" is for Albanians, I presume. Does the CfD affect them, too, does anyone want to change the subdomains? I think "als" is really needed for many users, the deletion is wrong IMHO. gct and wae will hardly be picked by anyone, while the remaining swg only suits people in Württemberg, and gsw only those in Switzerland. This leaves millions living along the Rhine, Liechtensteiners, Austrians in Vorarlberg, the many Germans in Baden and the speakers of Alsatian language in France without an appropriate code. Why not "ISO 639-2: alb (B) sqi (T)" for Albanian, there is Category:User sq already, and the interwiki of course. For subdivisions, "variously: sqi — Albanian (generic) aln — Gheg aae — Arbëreshë aat — Arvanitika" are free if needed. I think ISO got it wrong here, with wasting "als — Tosk" for a subdialect instead for the general Alemannic and the current interwiki. I'm confident that the less than 3 million Tosk speakers are outnumbered - surely in terms of Wikipedia users. de-Wiki has 647.711 Artikel, als-Wiki has 3.132 Artikel, that is only 0.5%, yet still roughly the size of the whole sq-Wiki which has 17.446 artikuj, covering also an independent country. One would expect a Tosk Albanian interwiki with 80 artikuj or so then. Has anyone ever asked Albanian editors if they are interest in it at all? -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you have quickly exceeded my ability to be able to help here, I think. I closed the discussion based on the arguments; I have no personal knowledge of these languages. May I suggest that we move this conversation to WT:UCFD? If we put it there, I think that we are much more likely to get people who understand this better than I do to help you work out a solution. If you would like me to, I would be more than happy to move this entire conversation there on your behalf. --After Midnight 0001 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, please do so. -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, it is here. --After Midnight 0001 01:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Galileo Affair Cover.jpg

Just a FYI: Someone offered to provide a ratonale for the image (I ended up putting one in myself), and since you only deleted it for lacking such I just went ahead and overturned your deletion of it rater than doing the custumary "ask deleting admin to undo" round trip. Hope you don't mind. --Sherool (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing. I am happy to have any image restored as long as it is remediated. --After Midnight 0001 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk question

I know you don't normally hang out on the Wikipedia references desks but would you mind responding to this question for me? I guess I could copy and paste it here but I also wanted the question/answer to be centralized. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agüeybaná

I've answered your question there. I hope my answer is satisfying. --Agüeybaná 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in the Freemasons

Could you point me please to the discussion which resulted in the category's deletion? The link you provided [2] makes no reference to this category. Thanks - Rklawton 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - found it. Rklawton 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The archive hadn't yet been moved over, which is why that link is at the top of the archive to point users to the live page. Hopefully you found it that way, if not, I would be happy to have suggestions on how to make it more prominent. By the way, it is there now. --After Midnight 0001 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Land of Bosoni

"Private picture" isn't a an acceptable rational for pictures is it? Because User:Ancient Land of Bosoni is removing the "no source" tags claiming their private (also leaving a nice note on my page besides.) -WarthogDemon 01:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that by saying "Private picture" they are claiming that they are the source. I would suggest that you encourage them to be more specific. "Along with a tag, specify the source or copyright holder information. Provide as much detail as possible." is from the applicable guideline at WP:TAG. --After Midnight 0001 01:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [3]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. --Cheeser1 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting

I see you've relisted several. What do you feel was missing to determine consensus? (For example, would it help if I shifted from neutral in two of the discussions, or clarified that I don't oppose deletion in the other two.) - jc37 19:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly some of these have been discussed before, so unless the consensus is more clear, I was hoping to get some additional discussion. Certainly, you still have the ability to sway things, but I am not specifically looking for you to do so. Among other things, while I could probably render a decision now if required, I would like to attempt to avoid DRV, and there is no harm in waiting 5 more days, I think. --After Midnight 0001 19:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that. Taoism was the main surprise to me. Anyway, it looks as if the page will remain a "long page" for awhile longer. : ) - jc37 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I could have probably actioned that one, but I just (lazily) kept all 4 of them together. --After Midnight 0001 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of user subpage

Hello, you have recently deleted this page: User:Bearly541/Userbox/Ebayaddict. Your comment was CSD U1, but I don't think this user ask himself to delete because his last contrib was on January 2007. This page is also transcluded on many user pages. Could you restore this page? At least inform others users that the "template" has been removed. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The user did in fact ask for this to be deleted and I honored that request. I won't restore the page, but if you want me to put the contents somewhere for you to create your own userbox, I will do that. Please just let me know. --After Midnight 0001 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Queer Wikipedians et al

Hi, AM. Could you clarify your reasons regarding the "strength of arguments" for the user categories "Gay Wikipedians", "Queer Wikipedians", etc? I recognize CfD's aren't votes, but counting the !votes comes to 6-6, with reasoned argument from both sides. Thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I second this. I find it discriminatory and offensive that you deleted the psychiatric condition categories for they can be quite enlightening but there at least you were reflecting consensus in the discussion as there were no supporters aware of the discussion going on. In case of the sexual orientation categories you acted against expressed community will. Proper judgement would have closed this as no consensus and left the categories intact as they have been kept before. With admins like you, almost no user categories will remain. I think you ought to apologize for this destructive behavior: Roman Czyborra 09:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Many of those favoring had arguments of "bias" (as the comment here by Roman Czyborra) or of "stop trying to delete these", neither of which seems a "reasoned argument" to me. --After Midnight 0001 10:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to start a statement with "I know CFD's aren't votes...", it's probably not a good idea to end with "... but I counted the votes and you're wrong". It's contradictory, and doesn't lend any strength to whatever argument you're trying to make. (Just one closer's opinion.) --Kbdank71 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

why did you get rid of my links?

On my profile you got rid of links to my forums, the servers are blacklisted but not themselves, my forums have not done anything, but there is one at the top that wasn't mine though.-hotspot

I had to do a null edit on your user page to clear a user category. In the process, I could not save your page because of the spam filter, so I cleared the links that it was complaining about. --After Midnight 0001 01:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality and gender identification categories

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sexuality and gender identification categories. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kolindigo 15:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WWF LOGOS

Why did you delete the WWF logos on WWE page? Hardcore Hak 18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Hardcore Hak

If you tell me exactly which image you are referring to, either by giving me a link to the image or the article it was in, I can check to be sure, bit most likely, it would have been deleted for not having a non-free usage rationale, per WP:CSD#I6. --After Midnight 0001 01:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They were on the WWE article. They were known as "WWF logo's" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcore Hak (talk • contribs) 12:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I did delete 3 images on that page. They were Image:OriginalWWFlogo.jpg, Image:Oldtymewwelogo.jpg, Image:WWF Attitude Logo.jpg. Each one was tagged for deletion on October 1 , and I deleted them 7½ days later. The issue for each image was that there was no non-free use rationale, which is required for all non-free images. --After Midnight 0001 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. One of your concerns was I had no record of interactions with other users. This is not entirely true. I prefer to interact on IRC, however I have had a fair amount of interaction with other users on my and my bot's talk pages as well as my bot's false positives page. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete an image?

Hi there. I was wondering if you would undelete this image [4]. It's a U.S. book illustration from 1895 and is actually Public Domain. The uploader just had it tagged incorrectly. Actually, it looks like the uploader did have it tagged as PD. Uploader owns the magazine and scanned the cover, so that's the source (see summary [5]). Thanks! The Parsnip! 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The uploader did put some text there, but did not what was in the edit summary (no mention of PD) and it did not have a tag. I'll restore it and push the expiry out 72 hours to allow time for it to be tagged properly before anyone should try to delete it again. --After Midnight 0001 09:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

HELP ME MIDNIGHT!

I am blockerman200 and I have posted articles before, but they keep getting deleted. I want to post an article on a local author in my hometown named Evan Sackett who was jusr recently published. I was wondering if you could help me post a legit article on him so it won't be deleted. I would really appreciate it. Blockerman200 12:28 13, October 2007(UTC)

What kind of help are you looking for? --After Midnight 0001 20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Humble requests

As I have never run a bot on Wikipedia. I have no idea how much work it entails to perform it's tasks (ie how much is automated, and how much involves the user). So while I love the idea of having bots, I always am hesitant to ask (because if it's the same amount of work as to do it manually, I can do it myself, rather than burdern someone else with the task, though it's time consuming).

Anyway... I have a request on Ambot's talk page, and I have a request if you would tag all the subcats of Wikipedians by website.

I'll have a few more large noms (as I'm sure you may have guessed by now) but I would like to wait for the page to clear out a bit first.

Thanks again. - jc37 09:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.... I've responded about the new bot request at that thread. I'll also start shortly on the subcats of Wikipedians by website. --After Midnight 0001 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries, and thank you : ) - jc37 10:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Embrace (UK band)

Hi there, I notice that a while ago you moved Embrace (UK band) to Embrace (English band) after User:172.189.4.168 did a cut-and-paste job from the former to the latter. This change appears to be a bit of political POV-pushing by that user (see his/her other edits) and the general concensus (at the United Kingdom talk page at least) is that "UK" is the correct term for people or entities from the United Kingdom (we have UK citizenship, not English, Scottish, or Welsh citizenship) unless there's a specific reason for doing so, such as a historical context. Could you change it back? Cheers, Miremare 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. When I did that move, I wasn't actually moving it, but rather, as you noticed, was repairing the improper cut/paste move. If this move is disputed, I would feel uncomfortable reverting it without further discussion, since, unless it was vandalism, it would probably be better handled at WP:RM. I will note however, that since no one has touched the redirect since I created it as part of my maintenance, you can boldly write over that redirect yourself, as per WP:MOVE#Moving over a redirect, and if someone takes issue with that, you can always refer to WP:BRD and take it to WP:RM later. --After Midnight 0001 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know about that. Done it myself then! Cheers, Miremare 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Furry Wikipedians

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Furry Wikipedians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GreenReaper 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Furry Wikipedians

By my count, there were two delete votes, one of them being the nominator, the other a completely explanation-less "per nom". There were five keep votes, all with lengthly explanations. How, exactly, is this any consensus other than 'keep'? (And I would have voted keep, but had no idea it was up for deletion! needs to be some way of notifying people in categories...)

"Decision based on strength of arguments" ... What strength? Only the nominator (of the two people for deleting it) even made an argument, while all of the keep voters did. "precedent and the cited DRV" ... The precedent of being kept every time, and the DRV overturning a non-discussion-based deletion?

I'll try to assume good faith, but really, how many times will this be out-of-process deleted? Please restore it and save everyone the hassle of yet another DRV. Thanks, Bushytails 06:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Proposed disambiguation

Hi, could we disambiguate Gerhardt so that it reads Gerhardt chassis (or something like that)? See the list below:

All the best, <KF> 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I say go for it. 1) Create an article for Gerhardt chassis (or similar) 2) change the links that you identified to point directly to the new article 3) add the new article to the existing dab page. Just make sure that the new article is notable and sourced so it doesn't get deleted. I think that you can do all this without administrative assistance, but if you need additional help with the writing or technical aspects, please let me know. --After Midnight 0001 01:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've copied this to Talk:Gerhardt, hoping that someone will do the job. This is not my area of expertise. <KF> 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

This is random, but you edited a page on my watchlist. I just want you to know that I like your username, because of its Eric Clapton reference. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for dropping by. Feel free to drop by anytime you wanna let it all hang down. --After Midnight 0001 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by active status. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --evrik (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Shinigami eyes

I can't say whether the past images had their stuff in order but this current one not only has proper copyright tagging but also the necessary rationale for non-free use (illustrating a significant plot point). What concerns me is that all of the previous images were deleted with the same reason on the same day with no apparent history of having been tagged and now this one is also tagged linking to the CSD for images despite it not fitting at all. There's no discussion on the discussion page, no warnings that I can track down, and no justification. I can't even find anything related to it on your contributions page or who uploaded it. To me none of this adds up, especially if the other images were as far from the CSD as the currently tagged one is. Given the speed and uniformity with which the images were all immediately deleted without any traces, tagging, or discussion I figure either someone is trying to be a little orwellian or someone's bot had a bad day. --Superslash 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the image has no non-free usage rationale. Someone removed the tag from the image page, which is probably why it appeared that there was no warning. --After Midnight 0001 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If things relating to the image (or on it's page) are removed when an image is deleted that could definitely lead to an item's history seeming to dissapear. Damned if you do and damned if you don't I suppose. I figured there was something missing, a botched tag somewhere or something.--Superslash 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of seleucuscoin.jpg

I feel as if my image seleucuscoin.jpg has been unfairly deleted, as the following images, obtained from the exact same source AFTER May of 2005, are still being maintained here:

  • Image:Solidus-Justinian_II-Christ_b-sb1413.jpg
  • Image:Half follis-Justinian I-sb0165.jpg
  • Image:Solidus-Justinian_II-Christ_b-sb1413.jpg
  • Image:Claudius_EXSC_PP_OBCIVES.jpg
  • Image:RSC 0022.jpg

If indeed I have used the wrong tag, then I shall change it. If I am unable to maintain this image, then I request all of the other images from CNG Coins be speedily deleted as they are exactly the same as mine in the interest of fairness. Thank you. Monsieurdl 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly the same.... I checked 3 of the images you listed and they are in commons, no on wikipedia. Also, they are licensed with OTRS confirmation, which your image does not have. You may feel free to follow the same process for yours if you like, however, the version that I deleted was tagged with an invalid license. --After Midnight 0001 03:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I found a replacement image... it is mind-boggling to me how others can upload at will under an all-encompassing banner, which seems unfair. I know it is not you, but the horrid system. Thanks for being patient with me, the struggling historian! Monsieurdl 04:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Curious

I'm curious as to how you're weighing the comments by Marlith and Allstarecho. - jc37 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been giving no weight to WP:POINT boiler-plating of comments. If I had more time I might warn them to not disrupt the project. If you think that I did take make an error on one, let me know, but I think that all my decisions would be the same as if their comments were not there. --After Midnight 0001 04:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There were a few that would be questionable (or at least no consensus) if we counted votes (smile), but none that I would strongly disagree with your interpretation. (Just because my personal opinion may tend towards inclusion, doesn't mean that that's how a discussion should be closed. : ) - jc37 05:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion question

Hi, I think I messed up the usage rights information when uploading Image:Brisbane Independent School tree logo.png. I believe this image to be owned by the Brisbane Independent School of which I was an office bearer at the time I uploaded the image. Can it be undeleted please? Also how should I show the usage rights correctly? Could you reply to Talk:Brisbane Independent School please? Regards RowanPatterson 04:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that image was created last October and deleted in January by another admin per the [6]. I don't think I was involved in this. I think that it would probably just be easier for you to re-upload it. You can consult Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for more details regarding tagging and usage of copyrighted images. --After Midnight 0001 10:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion

I was uploading an image in the sandbox just to figure out how to upload images. And you deleted it before I could add any details. Please explain.

(UTC)

Gsumarji 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I show nothing in the log of you ever uploading an image. Can you please provide some links? --After Midnight 0001 10:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

It looks like I will need to go through a sock puppet's contribution history and revert all their edits. Do I need to do this manually? Or are there other bots out there that take requests such as this? (I'm asking because I presume you know about bots, not because I'm hinting that you should take this on, btw : ) - jc37 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If all the edits are "top" then the easiest thing to do is to pull up all their contributions in a tabbed browser and then just open the revert link for each in a new tab. If the edits are not top, you can always try the undo links, but this can be quite laborious and I wouldn't recommend the trouble unless it is vandalism, especially since undo won't work through edit conflicts. --After Midnight 0001 13:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
So in other words, it's probably best to do it all manually. I probably won't revert everything, but the user pretty well spammed some talk pages with "polls" (which several people appear to have not been happy about), and wasn't following current consensus concerning userboxes and Wikipedians cats. (Some of the many reasons the user was indef blocked in the first place.) Anyway, thanks for the insight : ) - jc37 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't be more helpful. It's always possible that someone at WP:AN will have some other ideas. --After Midnight 0001 20:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries, sometimes when you ask a question, the answer won't be an easy one. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the "wrong" one : ) - jc37 02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

UCFD banner

In light of the recent and upcoming nominations, I think that it would be a good idea to place a notice at the top of the page. Something about how comments should address content, or the categories under discussion, not the process or other Wikipedians, such as those doing the nominating. But I wanted your thoughts before I do so, for transparency reasons, since I'm doing much of the nominating.

Incidentally, as I mentioned recent to WaltCip, I've been taking this slow (roughly one or two groups of noms at a time) in the hopes of reducing disruption. However, I'm beginning to wonder if by not just doing them all at once (though creating a possibly prohibitively long page), I'm prolonging things. What do you think? - jc37 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a banner is appropriate, as are warnings for inappropriate actions. Unfortunately, I've only had enough time to close discussions and check messages recently, and I tend not to read discussions until I am prepared to close them, to stay more neutral, so I would have a hard time doing any real-time warning. You are about as even handed as they come, I think, so you should be fine to place a notice, but if you feel uncomfortable, let me know and I will take a crack at it. As far as taking it slow or not, I really don't know which is best, but if the ultimate solution is to get rid of all or most of the categories, maybe a RFC would be more centralized and productive. --After Midnight 0001 20:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm pruning the bushes, not uprooting them. (See comments on User talk:Black Falcon, for an abbreviated form, if you're interested.) - There are only a couple of the larger group noms left (you know of one already). After philosophy will likely be the alma mater cats. Then the renaming/merging of the location cats. Then, presumably, some smaller noms. (More by organisation, for example.)
And I'm fine with making the banner, I just felt/feel that having at least one other person comment would be better for transparency. I'm rather tempted to simply remove Allstarecho's pointy "votes" entirely from the page, as they are just copy-pastes, of a version I had to modify to make them even barely civil. If you agree, I'll remove them all. Marlith's seemingly WP:POINT (or at least satirical) comments, and some of the others involved in prsonal attacks can probably be ignored, but combined with all those, allstarecho's are really making it hard to read discussions, at least in my opinion. - jc37 02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See User_talk:Allstarecho for current events. - jc37 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. It looks like it may be over and done with now? Let's hope so. --After Midnight 0001 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. besides there, there was an AN/I discussion, and another editor tried to start a UCFD talk page discussion, as well. Feel free to check out my talk page history for other comments, as well. - jc37 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see you were all very busy while I was in the office today. --After Midnight 0001 02:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV for Category:Demoscener Wikipedians

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Demoscener Wikipedians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Just FYI. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the DRV btw. I saw that it is not included in the template. Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:Demoscener_Wikipedians --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the DRV without discussing the subject with you first. I should have done that as I did already once in the past. I forgot about it, because of the most recent case where I was involved in a DRV (I did not initiate it), where another editor did the DRV against a clear consensus. Ugly story... anyway. I hope you accept my apology. I also left some comments and suggestions regarding some of the guidelines and procedures at the DRV, which you might find useful and want to relay to the admin board. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --After Midnight 0001 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're on AN/I

Just thought you'd want to know. --Kbdank71 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've replied now. --After Midnight 0001 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to sincerely apologise to you. I am guessing that being the closer lately has introduced a bit of additional stress. That wasn't my intention, obviously, (though I do feel that these categories need to be discussed). I'd offer to help in whatever way I could, but besides not nominating them for discussion (which I obviously don't see as actually helpful), I'm not sure how I can help. Anyway, I hope that despite all of this, you're having a great day : ) - jc37 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's ok, the Xfd Closer Club members are getting together later for a drink. Wait a sec, this isn't my talk page. Sorry, move along, nothing to see here.  :) --Kbdank71 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, do the club members have T-shirts? I could imagin seeing TINC in capital letters. Why TINC? Why it's the sound of us labouring away tirelessly with "the tools" of course. TINC, TINC, TINC... : ) - jc37 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I can take it; no need to apologize. I wasn't too happy with the comments of some of our fellow "editors", but I'll get over that. Feel free to keep up your nominations and I'll keep trying to do the best I can with my closings. You can drop off the t-shirt later. :) --After Midnight 0001 01:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. If "I" gave you one, it might appear I was giving it to you for to promote General Reasonings And For Talk : ) - jc37 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of picture of ship Aviva Reik

On the page for Shmuel Yanai, former commander of 2 Palyam ships, including the Aviva Reik. The picture was provided by Paul Silverstone, who provide full release and permission to use it. The rational for including the picture was to show how precarious the transport of illegal immigrants was, given the condition and size of the boats used to cross the Mediterranean. What else must be done to comply with rules of fair use?SZAgassi 11:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was tagged as having an invalid license, specifically, that "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted", and had this tag {{Non-commercial from license selector}} placed on it. If you clink on that link, you'll see some instruction regarding how to remediate the problem. --After Midnight 0001 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You recently removed the Fair Use Rationale Missing or Incomplete template from the following images without completing the Fair Use Rationale:

As these images are screenshots of a computer game they may only be used in the article about that game. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to check your templates and criteria. The template on those images is for WP:CSD#I6, which is for images with no rationale. If you disagree with the rationale of feel that it is incomplete, you can feel free to correct the rationale, or you can proceed with a different deletion criteria and thus, template, but these are not I6 deletable. --After Midnight 0001 10:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You have been templated in violation of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Once your amazement at being templated has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this templating is unjustified, you may contest the template by adding the text {{Templater}} on User:JediLofty's talk page. --Kbdank71 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But, but, but... That's only an essay!... - jc37 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You guys crack me up! --After Midnight 0001 00:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott Walker Picture

This picture was authorized to use. We had the appropriate rights and permission to post the picture. The previous picture that was present, was a slander towards Scott Walker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.234.108 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 October 2007

Not exactly authorized for use.... The image was tagged as having an invalid license, specifically, that "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted", and had this tag {{Non-commercial from license selector}} placed on it. --After Midnight 0001 00:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Archives of Cfd

Could you put the archive tags on the talk pages of the Girl Scout cats? thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Patience, please, I'm still cleaning up. I assume that you mean on the one that was kept only. --After Midnight 0001 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, sorry, didn't know you were backed up. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Looking at my contribs, I can see how you would have thought I had finished and missed it. --After Midnight 0001 20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The British Army Rumour Service

Hi mate,

You deleted the image 'Arrse.png' from The Army Rumour Service page citing CSD:6 here. Clearly happy with what means, but the image belongs to me, and I was - and still am - happy for it to be used. Could I trouble you to come back to me with any other good reason why it shouldn't be reinstated - if I hear nothing fairly shortly, I'll do it anyway as I can't really see who you are seeking to protect in this instance if I am happy! I'll come back to you here if you are agreeable? Gormenghastly 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems odd.... The image was uploaded by someone other than you. Also, the image was tagged with {{Non-free web screenshot}} which is a non-free image tag. For non-free images a usage rationale must be provided, unless you can verify with OTRS that you created the image and are willing to license it into the public domain. --After Midnight 0001 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a very dull long story. Thanks for your assistance - I will do as you suggest. Gormenghastly 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tornado trackmap picture removal

Not sure where I went wrong on this one. If I contacted the creator and he gave permission as long as I use it for non-commercial purposes then can't the photo stay? I noticed the image was removed per (CSD I3) which if I understand correctly ... is for images with a non-commercial purpose. Did I tag it incorrectly? If I have permission, shouldn't I be able to post the image? Any obvious clarification would be helpful and since I'm new to this, probably necessary. HeadSnap 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was tagged as having an invalid license, specifically, that "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted", and had this tag {{Non-commercial from license selector}} placed on it. If you clink on that link, you'll see some instruction regarding how to remediate the problem. If you need additional help interpreting my response or what the policy says, please just reply here and I'll be happy to try to help. --After Midnight 0001 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like I'm going to need some help. I understand now that the non-commercial part was the issue. The author has given me permission to use the image and he is not a wikipedia 'member' so I would like to upload the image and credit the author with creating it. However, I can't find an 'option' to license the image and do just that. GFDL seems to be correct and if so ... should I upload the file again and tag it or revert the previous upload and change the tag? HeadSnap 16:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. I think that it will help. --After Midnight 0001 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FU deletion

Hello After Midnight,

I was hoping that you could undelete Image:PIJ emblem.png (logo) and Image:Ramallah-lynch01.jpg (iconic photo), both of which should be valid FU images, so that I can add the rationales. Cheers, TewfikTalk 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted both and reset the timing on each to give you another week to get them tagged. --After Midnight 0001 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if they are good now. TewfikTalk 03:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They look fine by me. --After Midnight 0001 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletes Pictures on History Pages without Comment!

You deleted a picture on "The History of Jews in Germany" page. No reason was given for the deletion. Is that asking too much of a moderator? Please reinsert the picture ASAP, or at least leave a comment on the Talk page. Thanks! Nellov5 05:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of explanation there for you to see. This edit [7] shows that the image was removed from the article because the image had been speedily deleted per WP:CSD#I6. Note the the image was only commented out of the article during that edit. Also, if you look here [8] in the deletion log, you will see that this "was an image with fair use tag but no fair use rationale for more than seven days." Such images are deleted per image policy if they are not remediated, which this image was not. Hopefully this answers all of your questions. --After Midnight 0001 10:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)