User talk:Maxim/archives/dec07

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.

Contents

Automated Archiving of Wikiproject talk page

Not that I disagree that it needs it, because I mostly agree that it does. However, if you are going to put automated archiving on a talk page you are supposed to establish a concensus on that talk page first. --Djsasso (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I'm just being bold. Users will notice later on, but I don't think it's a big deal, and will do more good than harm. --Maxim(talk) 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, its more the how long you leave something on the talk page that is the issue. But its all good, just thought I should warn you since that is a big warning bolded and in different colours on the bot. --Djsasso (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I know. :-p but I think this is one thing where the will be no argument (especially from User:Resolute, who manually archives stuff of 150 KB monthly in different archives. :-S --Maxim(talk) 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how I missed this bot before, its definately more configurable than the one I use on my own talk page. I might have to switch over. --Djsasso (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Huh?

so so sorry, when reverting an edit made to Dr. Seuss you must have beaten me too it and i reverted your edit by accident then warned you, so sorry for any confusion =( Sirkad(Talk) 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know...

Updated DYK query On 5 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pete Muldoon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Woody (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Anonimu

I have unblocked Anonimu so that he can participate in his arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu. He is restricted to editing case pages only. Paul August ☎ 23:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is cool with me. Maxim(talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

a vandal

This IP:208.108.138.230 has caused some vandalisim to the Crash Bandicoot series article. Give him a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADBandicoot (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this page, in the future. --Maxim(talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

quick question about a reversion

Hi, Im a triffle new to wikipedia and i dont necerssarily want to start an edit war, but could you quickly follow the discussion outlined in st thomas about a city newspaper not being allowed an external link on the cities page and if you would agree or disagree with the matter (i wouldnt like to get into a messy issue with it by reverting the last edit), thanks :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You gave me a bad link... and I get a disambiguation page when I seach for St. Thomas... with about 20 different possibilities. :-( Can you give me the proper one, please? Maxim(talk) 13:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, St. Thomas, Ontario, thank you again for the time Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pong

Hey, Maxim. Get at me via email, I'm horribly inactive on IRC. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

.

Thanks for the . [1], I'm such an amateur. --Stephen 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Images

Can you restore the following images that you wrongly deleted:

Rather than just deleting them, you could have just put in the boiler template for the fair use rationale. That is what wikipedia is suppose to be about...

Thanks.

Apavlo (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't wrongly delete them. It's not my responsibility to fix image. And with that tone, I don't feel like doing it. --Maxim(talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
See this is what drives me crazy about Wikipedia. It was obvious that the images are fair usage, it is just that they were just missing "Fair Use Rationale" and got tagged by a bot or whatever happened to them. Nobody saw the message so then they get wiped out. It would have have taken you 30 seconds to put in whatever template the image needed, rather than just hacking it out. Apavlo (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've restored them to give you a chance to fix them. Cheers! Maxim(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. These image removals were far too quickly made without sufficiant notice or time given to correct any percieved mistakes. As per correct Wikipedia rational, a warning tag should have been given with enough time to correct any errors. Please do not jump the gun in the future. Artemisboy (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you have seven days to fix it, and I waited for seven days. There was a warning tag as well. The creator also gets a messages at his/her talkpage about it. I didn't jump the gun, but I appreciate your concern and suggest you go here to try to fix the policy if you don't like it; personally, I feel that seven days is more than enough to fix it.
Thanks! Can you check that I fixed them correctly? One of the problems is that there isn't a template or easy way to put this information in. I thought that just by selecting that the image is a screenshot, that's all you need. At least that's what I've done when I've uploaded other files, I wasn't the original uploader of these.
Oh, sorry but can you also restore Image:Phantasy Star Gaiden.jpg? Thanks! Apavlo (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

Well done on all the bad-image deletions tonight! Recent Changes is full of your edits! :D

Cf38 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


signature

Hi - may I ask how you created your signature? I would like to change mine but I don't know how to. Shiva Evolved (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Go to your preferences, and on the first page you see you should find the signature. Paste what you want in there (in my case, '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Maxim|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>'''). Feel free to "steal" it, but remember to change my names to yours. Maxim(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Shiva, if you do customize your signature, do not forget you will need to click the "raw signatures" checkmark, or they will not work. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks to both! Shiva Evolved (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cliffjumper-moviedeluxe.jpg

Greetings. I see you closed the Image:Cliffjumper-moviedeluxe.jpg replaceability concern with {{rk}}. Could you comment on Image talk:Cliffjumper-moviedeluxe.jpg as to your reasoning? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that was an error of judgment on my part.  ;-) I've restored. BTW, good to see you back. :-) Maxim(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 50 10 December 2007 About the Signpost
Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction 
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here" News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A peek in Special:Undelete?

Hi Maxim,

I'm an administrator on Commons and I was wondering if this image you deleted some time ago had any valid source here. You can answer here or on my talk page on Commons, I'll read any of them. Thanks in advance :). PatríciaR msg 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, another one bites the dust then, I'm afraid. Regards, PatríciaR msg 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season

Good day. In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season, you were good enough to explain your reasoning for the decision. (I hate when it just says "The decision was keep/delete" without any mention of how they evaluated the arguments.) I am perplexed, however, by how your decision seems contradictory to your explanation.

You stated that you felt "the arguments based in policy and guidelines are much stronger than the ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline". My argument to keep was based on WP:V and WP:DP policies as well as WP:NOTE guideline. The arguments for delete were that there was too much detail, the subject was not important, and there were no NCAA hockey season articles.

Could you please point me to what exact policies and guidelines showed this to be a deletion. Thanks DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:N, and WP:HOCKEY's guideline, which are, IMHO, are more important, as they are specialist guidelines, and I feel the WP:HOCKEY is most applicable hear. It clearly didn't meet it. Maxim(talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've searched WP:HOCKEY but, being unfamiliar with the project, cannot find the guideline. Can you give me a more precise link? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred Higginbotham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Webb Schools

May I ask, why did you delete Talk:The Webb Schools back in July? You said "(Non-notable (A7) (talk))", but the article itself wasn't deleted or even proposed for deletion. Someone has recreated it since then, and I'm inclined to undelete the old edits. Is there a reason the hsitory shoulnd'tbe restored? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my first day as admin, my deletion summaries were quite poor. That was basically deleted per CSD G8. Feel free to restore the history. Cheers! Maxim(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We've all made similar mistakes. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Image got deleted?

Why the Image:Ubi.jpg was deleted? I've followed the instructions to add at the image page the reason why it was used in the only article where it was used, so I don't understand why it was deleted... Crazy Murdoc (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad.
Thanks for the fix Crazy Murdoc (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player

I was just wondering if it would possible to add an optional field to the hockey player infobox for WHA Draft information. I have been creating articles on some WHA players in the last couple days and the only draft info I've been able to add to their infoboxes is the NHL info. That really isn't relevant for a player who never played in the NHL, but did play for the team that drafted him into the WHA. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I accidentally salted it, serves me right for editing at 9 at night. =p Do you want to do it, or should I. I've unsalted it. Maxim(talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like I was able to figure it out myself. Thanks for unsalting! Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I was intending to create an article on Neil Clark (writer) but I see that such an article used to exist but you deleted it after a prod. I think he is fairly notable. Could you please restore the article so I can see what the details were before and such? Thanks very much! juicifer (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikicide

You deleted Wikipedia talk:Wikicide under WP:CSD#G8. However, the exception "deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere" applies to this page. (I found it, incidentally, because this was the earliest VfD currently mentioned in WP:ADD). —Random832 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard block of /15 range

Hi Maxim. Would you consider lessening the block on an a /15 range you hard blocked for 6 months. That includes User:78.107.0.0/16 and User:78.106.0.0/16? I realize I don't know the history, but certain IPs are certainly getting caught up in it: User talk:78.107.204.152. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed up the block; as there's a spambot running on the range, I initially hardblocked but I've changed it so only anonymous users get blocked and account creation is enabled. Btw, I like your username; it's similar to my old one, "evilclown". =p Maxim(talk) 13:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting local versions of Commons images

Hi. please make sure that all the necessary information has been written onto the Commons image page before you delete the local copy. E.g. Image:Ann Bannon in 1955.jpg, Image:Ann Bannon in 1983.jpg and Image:Ann Bannon in 2002.jpg no longer specifies who took the image. Information which I assume was available on the local image page. /Lokal_Profil 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's the standard practice to say the source is en.wiki. And otherwise, they have OTRS permissions, so that's an non-issue in this case. ;-) Maxim(talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say standard practice since unless the image page states who actually made the file it's considered to be without source. if the only info is that it used to be on en.wiki but that page has now been deleted then there is no way for a someone who isn't an admin on en.wiki to find out who made the original image. For the specific case above there is an OTRS permission but nothing on the page indicating from whom it is or who owns the copyright. /Lokal_Profil 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Review of 2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season deletion rationale

Good day. I have asked for a deletion review of 2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season since, as you recall, I did not find your closing rationale to be valid. I would appreciate it if you would participate in the deletion review. Thanks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vaughnlogo.jpg

I know I did a FUR for this and I'm 95% certain it was correct. Can you check the deleted FUR from the image and paste it on my talk? Exxolon (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Hope that didn't cause too much inconvenience. Maxim(talk) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jacques Plante

Hey, I noticed you had Jacques Plante lined up for work at some point. I thought I'd let you know that I uploaded Image:Jacques plante.jpg to Commons a few months ago.-Wafulz (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice image, like it very much. It perfectly illustrated a section. Thanks a lot! :D Maxim(talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections

Please do not fully protect pages in my userspace without asking me. The bot is no longer running, and even if it was nobody can edit the voting pages, and even if they could I don't see why it's necessary to stop me editing my own userspace. This is a wiki. If you really must have a protected page with results on it, go make one in project space, but better still just do nothing and let people use this as a wiki like they're supposed to. Last year nobody seemed to think this necessary – Gurch 11:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for this action, I should at least have consulted you first. I see Ryan P. has unprotected it. --Maxim(talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use rationales lacking article links

Hi Maxim. This deletion popped up on my watchlist when a bot removed the image from the article. My view is that this sort of deletion (lacking an article link) is a waste of time - it is quicker to fix the rationale than to delete. I've looked at the deleted revision, and all that was needed was to add "Signs (journal)" to the article parameter in the rationale template. Would you mind if I undeleted and fixed this? I also took the liberty of looking through your logs for 15 December, and I noticed a large number of other NFCC#10c deletions (1163 image between 15:10 and 15:43 - over 1000 images in just over half an hour). Would you mind if I took a look through those and got some help with fixing them up? I see you deleted them all rather fast as well - did you have time to review all of them? I've commented at WT:NFCC and ANI before (I can provide links if you like) about how speedy bot-like clearing of image CSD tag backlogs just leaves more work for those clearing up afterwards (partly because there is a need to check that there are not other problems with the image). I hope you don't mind me bringing this up again at WT:NFCC. I'll pop back here with a link. On the other hand, providing a clear deletion summary like you have, is extremely helpful when people (like me) decide to do the thankless task of adding such links to satisfy NFCC#10c. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As promised, a link to the discussion at NFCC. I've also clarified some points there, as it is really the images that were using a rationale template that I'm interested in. ie. NFCC#10c is too broad and should be split up. Currently it encompasses both images with rationales (but lacking a link) and those without any rationale whatsoever (normally just a nonfree copyright tag). Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Angiogenesis

Hi Maxim: As you have deleted the two images (angiogenesis_heart_1 and -2) re. angiogenesis in the heart, I now re-inserted them, because there are no copyright problems at all: I created these images, they are the result of my own clinical research, and I own the copyright. I indicated that according to the copyright rules when I re-loaded the images. Would that be okay? Thanks.Thomasjst (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you reupload them under a proper, free license, and preferable to the Wikimedia Commons. Cheers! Maxim(talk) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I did! Cheers, too!Thomasjst (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hockeydb

Hey Maxim, I had to revert your last edit to the template. It was screwing up the bullets in articles- the template would not work within a bulleted list. Feel free to take a look.-Wafulz (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The same thing is happening with Template:Legendsofhockey. The bullets aren't working. See Andre Lacroix (ice hockey) for an example. Flibirigit (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. --Maxim(talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 51 17 December 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication 
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee 
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam" 
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
WikiProject Report: Plants Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scrubscard.png

Could you undelete this image? I didn't notice it was put up for speedy before, but I'll add some rationale for it when it's restored. Let me know when you've done it. - Zero1328 Talk? 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've restored it. --Maxim(talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wentworth NSW pics swap

Hi Maxim, In Wentworth NSW I swapped around the 'Darling St' picture (in the info box) with the location map (in the gallery), because I think it makes more sense to have it that way. I also added a 'Gallery' heading and subheading. These changes were removed by the bot. May I suggest that you instruct the bot to change them back? cheers Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.217.40 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on the error, I've reverted to the proper version. Maxim(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxim - don't forget the Darling St/Location map swap! cheers Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.217.40 (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it... --Maxim(talk) 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

On C++ 'vandalism'

err, Hi Ive deleted the part of C++ page you reverted back becouse its factually incorrect, and i think providing no information is beter than giving misleading one. I tried to indicate taht in discussion page (as i dont feel like i could write that part well enough myself - as far as my english is considered). Please remove that part of C++ article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.86.225 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on the error, I've reverted to the proper version. Maxim(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and Season's Greetings

Thank you so much for notifying me that the info from the Palden Lhamo article has been included in the DYK section today. I hope you enjoyed the reference! All best wishes for 2008. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of SR Song Play.jpg

Hello,

May I request that you undelete the image mentioned above from the article "Symphonic Rain"? Firstly, it is merely a screenshot from the game, and secondly, is quite needed to explain how the game engine works alongside the description (if you read the accompanying text).

If a screenshot of a game that is beneficial to helping people understand its system constitutes as a violation of "fair use" rules, you might as well remove all the selections under "Licensing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephillim (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If I undelete it, will you fix the rationale? --Maxim(talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:RFPP

Moved from WP:RFPP by Deskana in order to keep the discussion on topic. Redrocketboy is referring to this

Explain how it is trolling. And also how moving a page to a logical place is nonsensical? Thanks, Redrocketboy 17:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA:Russell777

It shows on this page that you supported a user in his Rfa, is it true, becuase the page history only shows an IP adding it. Please see it here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Russell777, thanks!--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE No Way Out

Thanks for protecting the above article. However, the wrong version has been protected. Could you possibly rollback and protect the article to this version. Cheers, Davnel03 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Davnel, Maxim asked me to explain to you why the article's version will not be changed until the content dispute is resolved. Administrators do not selectively protect articles in a specific version upon request, as that would not be neutral, nor fair to the parties in dispute. Per the page linked: "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page." Thus, articles are protected in whatever version they happen to be in when the protection is implemented. Please take a look at m:The wrong version, which is a humorous explanation that an article is protected in whatever version is currently up, and all disputes need to be worked out on the talk page. (That page should be read fully understanding it is a facetious essay). I hope that helps you understand! Ariel♥Gold 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a legitimate formatting problem in the article here. The last few edits before that were IP vandalism, hence why I need it reverting back. Cheers, Davnel03 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the IP edits done prior to the protection, and they amount to this. This is removal of a bit of information, and the addition of an improperly formatted wiki-link. Not something that is a huge issue, but I will leave this message on Maxim's page as well, and if he feels it is a valid reason to remove it, he can. (copied from a note left on my talk page) Cheers!Ariel♥Gold 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE No Way Out

While i agree with your protection of the page you should have removed the ec match. We dont include spoilers on this site according to the wrestling project guidelines. Will you remove it?LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lifestroke, Maxim asked me to explain to you why the article's version will not be changed until the content dispute is resolved. Administrators do not selectively protect articles in a specific version upon request, as that would not be neutral, nor fair to the parties in dispute. Per the page linked: "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page." Thus, articles are protected in whatever version they happen to be in when the protection is implemented. Please take a look at m:The wrong version, which is a humorous explanation that an article is protected in whatever version is currently up, and all disputes need to be worked out on the talk page. (That page should be read fully understanding it is a facetious essay). I hope that helps you understand! Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Gp75motorsports

This was a manifestly excessive block of a good-faith user who was not being intentionally disruptive. I have reduced the block to 48 hours; personally I don't think you should have blocked at all, but I don't plan to wheel-war over this. (I apologise for not discussing this first; I did in fact attempt to notify you in advance, but accidentally left the message at User talk:Metros instead of here, due to confusion.) I'm not intending to attack you, but I do feel the block was inappropriate, given that Gp75 had made a number of bona fide contributions to the mainspace. WaltonOne 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that reducing a block length is still undoing an administrative action. Short block lengths don't need to be reduced, and longer ones can be discussed first. Discussing for a bit (maybe even the full two days) and then unblocking as "time served" would have had much the same result. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the situation following a complaint to unblock-en-l, and I feel that this block was clearly outside established blocking policy and in extremely bad judgement. I am unblocking completely.
Maxim, there is very little that a user can do regarding "community stuff" (short of personal attacks and so forth) which would be cause for use of admin tools. That is not what administrators are here for. If you want him to stop creating that stuff get a policy in place and then enforce the policy. Blocking in this manner is grossly inapropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
George, you seem to miss that this policy is exactly intended for such blocks. He's clearly disruptive. If the community wishes an earlier expiry date, so be it, but unblocking outright without at least try to consult me is even more inappopriate. Maxim(talk) 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No, he's not clearly disruptive. He did not (as far as I can tell and am aware) harrass people on article or user talk pages, disrupt or edit war on articles, bother people in Wikipedia project space.
By and large, other than personal attacks, most of what people do in their userspace is not disruptive by definition. Some of it is inappropriate and unencyclopedic, but that's a different question.
This is what user conduct RFCs are for. This is what warnings and topical community bans are for. Maybe, this is what a 15 minute block to get attention is for. This is absolutely not what longer blocking, and particularly blocking for a month, is for.
Getting frustrated with users is different than users being actually destructive to the Encyclopedia or community. It's important for administrators to know the difference, and step away from the situation when we're frustrated with it, rather than engage with admin tools in inappropriate manners. Pulling the block trigger, especially on established users who are not doing something clearly abusive, has to be done only as a last resort and with careful consideration.
Please be more careful with the mop. It's not here to stick it in people's faces. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace in DYK?

Hi there Maxim. Was it you who just updated DYK to the front page? I happened to notice there seems to be quite a gap between the line From Wikipedia's newest articles and the first DYK entry. Did a bit of whitespace creep into the update at the last minute? You might like to check. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed, I'm not sure by who, but thanks anyhow :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting deleted page be restored

I'd like to request that Talk:List of Robotech characters be restored. I think it may have been deleted in error (I'm not sure if it falls under CSD G8's exclusion "This excludes any talk page which is useful to the project"), and rather than simply recreate the page, I think it would be better to restore any discussion that it may have originally contained

It was suggested in AFD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Dixon_(fictional_character) - that a page "List of Robotech characters" be created, and existing character pages be merged into it. I think the talk page may have contained some discussion to that effect. If not, then that would be useful to know before I re-create the page, since I have recently created the corresponding article and plan to work on it (as well as try to encourage others to) per the consensus in the AFD debate TheBilly (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, twas no big deal. --Maxim(talk) 01:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Randall and Hopkirk deceased

I'll try again. PLease can you tell why you didn't inform me that you were deleting fifty or so of the images. I as always would have been happy to quickly correct it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit better now. Let's get this straight first, I refuse to answer any exceedingly uncivil messages. Second, BetacommandBot tagged the images for deletion. Third, I deleted after the seven days' warning was given to the uploader. Fourth, I can't find any images that deleted from the article. And fifth, if there were 50 non-free images in 1 article, that extremely abusive. --Maxim(talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No they were all images from the episodes not the actual page. There wasn;t 50 images on one page!! LOL! They were sctattered across the various 26 episodes -hard work which I out into wikipedia to get started. You deleted them around Dec. 15 ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What I am furious about is that I spent a lot of time answering the bot before by adding detailed rationales -I later learned it is the title of the page the bot is looking for -but they were deleted before I could add the titles. There were 26 episode images and perhaps a screenshot for each one ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Theres probably nearer 30 deleted. Starting with All Work and No Pay. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically they all had full rationales like for Image:LateLamentedPartner.jpg but were only missing the titles -which you could have told me to fix. I would have been glad to quickly sort it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you honestly say the images you came across didn't have rationales? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

They were invalid rationales. If you give the list of images you wish to be restored, I'll restore them so you can fix the rationales. --Maxim(talk) 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Again? Deleting images with incomplete rationales without checking? Oh, sorry. Its still the fallout from that big clearing of a backlog. These images may have NFCC#8 concerns, but they shouldn't have been deleted under NFCC#10c (or you should have cited NFCC#8 in the deletion log instead of NFCC#10c) because it would have been quicker for you to fix those images while you were manually checking them before doing that Twinkle run. I accept that a lot of the images in that deletion run were simply missing rationales, but I was hoping that there weren't large numbers of incomplete rationales that you had deleted. Before I go looking, can you remember whether, on your manual check, there were large numbers of "Lacks article link" images or not? Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
For god's sake, Carcharoth, I'm deleting these images per policy, images failing to satisfy NFCC#10c WILL be deleted, all of these deletion were made within policy, this was done before you even approached me, and will you stop constantly following me around?? First the Young drama, then the WT:NFCC stuff, then you making snide remarks at my talkpage. Maxim(talk) 16:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to reduce the number of "delete" -> "undelete and add article link" cycles and replace them more efficient "add article link" edits. If you said something straightforward like "oops, it would have been easier for me just to add the article link - I'll try and do that next time, sorry", then that would help reduce the delete-undelete cycles. Taking Image:Randall14.2.jpg as an example, if you look at the version that you deleted (see here), you will see that this is an old-style rationale. One that gives 10 points designed to correspond to WP:NFCC. I agree that these images are overused in articles (such as Who Killed Cock Robin? (Randall and Hopkirk Deceased)), but as I said before, that is not a reason to delete under 10c. Finally, I apologise if this feels like I'm following you around - I have lots of people's talk pages on my watchlist. I can take your talk page off my watchlist if you like and work to get policy changed on this matter, but I think the Randall and Hopkirk image deletions are directly related to the issue I raised before. They are part of the same half-hour batch of deletions, and a failure to recognise easily fixed rationales. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this again at WT:NFCC. See Wikipedia talk:NFCC#10c reasons in deletion logs, and the preceding two sections. It's not very active at the moment, but as you can see from the rest of that talk page, I've been active in other image areas. I'd quite like to get this resolved so I can get back to working on historical images here and on Commons. I'm hoping that you will agree that at the same time as manually reviewing the images it would be possible to automate the addition of a reason why the rationale is invalid. That would address practically all my concerns about batch reviews and fast deletions. East.217 described it this way: "[he] manually reviews all the images first, queues up the ones that need to be deleted, and then wipes them out in a single batch using a semi-automated tool" - would inserting one of the three reasons I provide over at WT:NFCC be possible? Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. It always makes me feel good to know that there are people out there that look out for others. Thanks again! (mastrchf91) 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Harsh Warning

In my opinion the warning given to 69.179.2.62 by you was a bit harsh, don't you think so?

Not exactly... that was the appropriate warning for vandalism in that case. --Maxim(talk) 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic triple crown

It gives me great pleasure to thank Maxim for outstanding content contributions with this imperial Napoleonic triple crown. You are a Napoleon among editors. DurovaCharge! 20:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It gives me great pleasure to thank Maxim for outstanding content contributions with this imperial Napoleonic triple crown. You are a Napoleon among editors. DurovaCharge! 20:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, 90 Wikipedians have triple crowns of various sorts, but only eight have received the Napoleonic crown. I wish I had something better to award in thanks for your monumental work on behalf of the project. You really make this a better encyclopedia. Please know that your efforts are appreciated. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 20:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ron DeGregorio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

69.106.224.0/19

I've unblocked the range since it was a few days old and an editor was caught in it. Don't hesitate to put it back if you think it's safer to leave it blocked longer. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Weather in 2005

Question...do you have a suggestion for a new title of the page? If yes (and if I think it's nice, I'll move the page. Cheers, Jonathan 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but the current title doesn't look good to me. Maybe "World weather in 2005"? Maxim(talk) 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There are already weather in 2006 and weather in 2007. Should I move those too? Jonathan 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE No Way Out

I'm sorry, but I have to ask that either the page be unprotected, or that you recommend where to take this "dispute" to next. Quite frankly, I have nothing left to say. User:LifeStroke420 is clearly not going to to change his stances that the article must be spoiler free and that the only reliable source that can be used is the company's official website. Not to mention that he refuses to cite any sort of actual policy to back up his points, simply stating that it's project policy. Mshake3 (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So you wish to continue the editwar? The protection's there to prevent it. I suggest an article RFC or even mediation of some sort. --Maxim(talk) 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete based on bot claims, please

You deleted Image:Euskadi escudo.png baed on what a bot claimed. Obviously the bot was wrong. It claimed:

Image:Euskadi escudo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bots can't understand what is a "fair use rationale". Don't listen to bots please, specially on copyright/fair use issues, they are destroying Wikipedia.

And, as I see it, restore it ASAP. (Note: it wasn't "my" image, just that I find this kind of so frequent bot errors, sanctioned by fleshy humans without a second thought, absolutely disturbing). --Sugaar (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the bot was correct. And the bot is correct almost all the time, so am I. :-) And to be honest it's the other way around; non-free media and the whole bunch of it is destroying Wikipedia, not the bot. If you wish me to restore it so you can fix the rationale, I can by all means do that, otherwise, I'm no budging. Maxim(talk) 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Enigmatic unblock request

See here. I can't figure out what this is in reference too ... a range, maybe? Or what it was about? Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Great triple crown race of 2008

As a Napoleonic crown recipient you might be interested in this. Cheers and happy editing! DurovaCharge! 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

You say in your evidence section that I was one of 8 administrators revert-warring, although my only edit to that page was to disambiguate my name from Sean Whitton. ([2]) I get many PMs on IRC that are meant for him, and confusion still exists on-wiki ([3]). Thanks, Sean William @ 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologize, there was a bunch of reverts and I must have made a mistake jotting the names down. Sorry, will strike. Maxim(talk) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You've also linked to and named the uninvolved User:George (presumably a typo for Geogre). And there is a header level mistake. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I stepped on toes - I already fixed the Geogre spelling mistakes. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 52 26 December 2007 About the Signpost
Wales appoints six arbitrators Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible 
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Plants 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Next update

Were you planning to do the next update or should I? I was just looking to add that hook on the 13 episodes! Royalbroil 14:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We both came at the same time, but you got the {{inuse}} before me. And I clicked on the + when you message me. And the edit conflict. ROFL!! You can choose, make me do it, or do it yourself. --Maxim(talk) 14:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you? There's an article that I'd like to work on. Thanks! Royalbroil 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing. --Maxim(talk) 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That dash thing

I see you went thru the Wayne Gretzky article replacing hyphens with dashes. Now many of the season links don't work. Flibirigit (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Many apologizies, and I've noted this for the next time I use the script. Maxim(talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Linkin Park

I see you changed 3 <br> tags into <br /> tags. I don't see what the point of this would be as it makes no difference in how the page looks and just adds extra unneeded source code. Could you please explain to me the reason for doing this? Timmehcontribs 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed other punctuation issues, the <br /> stuff's included in the package. Maxim(talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What I don't understand is what purpose it serves. It just adds extra code to the page and doesn't make any difference in how the page looks. Timmehcontribs 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)