User talk:Night Gyr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Night Gyr/archive

Contents

[edit] Ryaniverse

Following the note on your RfA I nominated Ryaniverse for deletion. Thought you'd might like to... sound off... Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kicked it's ass!

You sure showed that bot! :) Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I'm sorry for whatever I did to make you upset on that iPhone page. This is the comment I left on that page and I guess it acts as my apology and goodbye to Wikipedia:

I read the article about all those acronyms and everything and the whole WP:BITEing thing but I don't get what it is you guys are talking about. I'm not trolling, as far as I can tell. These are just some honest points of contention I wanted to bring up and now I feel like an idiot. My friend does a lot of Wikipedia stuff and said the community was really great and a nice place to learn and get to know people. I guess I don't see what she was talking about. I really wanted to help with this article because computers are really neat and I think having a phone-computer is a really good idea. I even have a friend with the older iPhone model and thought I could use some personal experience to build the best page we could. I'm still new and learning the ropes, or at least I was. I'm sorry for whatever I did. Cynthia18 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Thorpe (writer)

I have put up the article David_Thorpe_(writer) for AFD over notability issues. I noticed that you have editted the article multiple times and perhaps you'd like to take part in the AFD. --Quirex 21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

You're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to make this a better place. Be conservative with them, especially blocking, and re-read the policies if you unsure, and of course, ask if anything's unclear. If you do that, I'm sure you'll be fine. Again, congrats - Taxman Talk 14:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. May I be the first to congratulate you (besides Taxman, of course!)... Good luck with the tools! The Rambling Man 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I second The Rambling Man. Happy editing and mopping! —S.D. ¿п? § 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

[edit] Profanity

I would appreciate it if you would not use profanity when talking to me. I also would ask you if you think a Wikipedia article should be started about a doctor who has lost his license due to scamming? That, of course, is his only notability . According to your standards, that would be fine. Jance 00:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I have one. I will start an article - this doctor actually lost her license, unlike the lawyer whom you seem to think is "notable". The doctor was also written up by the Washington Post, unlike Shapiro. In fact, Shapiro is not "famous" outside his local area and has never been mentioned in a major US paper. I believe I am going to start writing nasty art

icles about every other profession, where there is any local media attention, and see how long Wikipedians think that is okay.Jance 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The medical journal is of a medical association, which is a lobbying group for doctors. That is not unexpected. And a law professor is surely the right person to be discussing law topics. Neither of those examples prove noteworthiness. I surely don't doubt that Shapiro is "over-zealous". I would say downright sleazy. But that does not merit an encyclopedia article, and the verocity with which WAS defended (and even tried to create multiple like articles) shows how NON-NPOV the purpose was. I did start an article on a medical doctor that was written up in the Washington Post. WAPO is far more likely to be noteworthy than are the examples you cited. Yet I find it interesting that Tyrenius implied that somehow WAPO was less a "yardstick" for noteworthiness than a medical lobbying group in an article on doctors, or a law professor/lawschool in an article on a lawyer. Somehow that just boggles the mind.Jance 02:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jasemaan

I restored the orignal indefblock you set on this account; somehow, he emailed me instead of you to be nasty and beligerent about his block. Given what he had to say, I don't see any reason to permit further disruption. I felt it was important to let you know; should you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Essjay (Talk) 09:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaaseman / Email / etc.

I already saw the message you left him. If you're curious why he emailed you, check out my userpage. Just a temporary bit of WP:BEANS inspired by [1]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd really prefer you didn't do that, as I'm not really comfortable with the potential implications of this. I've solved the problem on my end for now, but I'd appreciate it if you'd take care of it on yours as well. Essjay (Talk) 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BEANS

What a pity Essjay stopped your impersonation. (You know, you could still get away with it by redirecting to his page.) Anyway, your idea gave me a "great" one of my own: sig categories! --tjstrf talk 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still around, you know...I'd appreciate it if these kinds of tips weren't spread around, especially when I'm the one on the receiving end of the harassing emails. Essjay (Talk) 08:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

thanks for your opinion. Travb (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A solution for overcomplicated sigs

Have you seen this? Apparently you can set your monobook to block that crap out. --G Rose (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mobile_01

Hi there, I wanted to thank you for stepping in with User:Travb's behavior. I stumbled across this whole incident purely by chance following a sock puppet case that involved Virginia. I know neither of the two parties, but the attitude and nature that Travb has taken here towards Mobile01 has simply shocked me by its aggressiveness. As a result, I've found myself drawn into a skeptic and disapproving third party in the sock puppetry article. It was of great relief to discover that someone with a higher authority than Travb, had adopted a somewhat similar view. Anyhoots, I wanted to say thanks for stepping in and making your opinion known. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For Coming To The Aid of The Damsel In Distress Mobile 01Talk 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About your post

Hi. I agree with your opinion on the User cat discussion,[2] but I also think it could give ammunition to these man-haters. Someone might accuse you of not assuming good faith or abusing humor. Just be careful. 70.23.230.180 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anshe

Night Gyr, you give me the impression that you are quite emotional about Anshe. Your edit states negatives and accusations against Anshe and her RL husband as fact, while you downgraded positives to the level of personal opinions of her husband. After your edits the whole penis attack section also became longer than the whole rest of her biography. To call her a prostitute we would require a source that proofs that she actually had sexual intercourse with a client. A screenshot of a notecard that somebody claims originates from her in which she is supposed to have offered "mature" services and "love" may be a hint but doesn't proof that she sold sex.

[edit] Wesley Autrey

I have cited a source that his daughters were there.

[edit] Webroot Software

Thanks for your help with the Webroot Software page afd. I'm not exactly sure why they didnt think it was notable as it is a major company. Thanks again --Mgarnes2 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Beatles audio samples

When speedy deleting a page, make sure that you've also deleted the talk page, if one exists. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay POV template

Sounds good to me! I wasn't sure what to write, so feel free to change that. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with Itanium

last week I tried to unscrew the Itanium mess by creating a disambig. You reverted, but now I don't know what to to.

The story:

  • Intel named their first processor "Itanium." we then created Itanium
  • Intel name the follow-on processor "Itanium 2". we created Itanium 2
  • World+dog refers to the entire product line as "Itanium" and finds the first article, thinking that it refers to the whole line.

This is the case even though the lead paragraph very carefully states that the article is about the FIRST processor, not the family. The problem is that first processor was a total disaster, so objective statements about it are taken by marketing droids to cast aspersions on the whole family. Marketing droids then add a bunch of stuff about the new processor to the old processor's page.

This just happened again, and I don't know how to fix it within the context of the origional article. My idea was that folks would see the disambig page and then jump to the more recent processor. Would it be OK if we (i.e., you) move Itanium back to Itanium (original), move my old disambig page back to Itanium or make it a redirect, and then I can edit the Itanium page so that is is not a disambig but is instead a short explanatory page about the family? We can then let family-related non-technical stuff clutter up this new "family" page, while the two existing pages can stay relatively technical and objective. If you like this approach perhaps we should put a heads-up on the article's talk page first?

If this is not a good approach, then please suggest a better alternative to unscrew this mess.

Thanks. -Arch dude 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pffff. I had this talk page in my watch list for some reason. Sooo... I thought I'd stick my nose in. Seems to me Itanium 2 should be a redirect to Itanium, then the Itanium article should have all the info. Like this, this, and this. (admittedly, I haven't read any discussion on the topic. This is just a blind observation) Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This would work, except that Itanium 2 is already big and complicated: It's an entire subfamily and the article is long, so we need to keep the old guy (Itanium) out of the bigger, newer article. Your analogy is otherwise fairly close. The other problem is that many in the industry see Itanium as an unmitigated disaster, and there is a huge amount of money involved: I'm looking for a way to keep the articles as encyclopedic as possible and somehow suppress the advertizing wars. We should probably take this discussion back to the Itanium talk page. I'm here only because NightGyr reverted my move originally, for what I'm sure looked like a good reason. -Arch dude 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted blanking of Satellite Navigation System

Hey there,

I reverted your blanking. Prior to executing a major change such as this, please discuss your proposal in the discussion area to gain consensus. In this case, the page had not been blanked because SNS and GNSS are not the same thing. We'd love to you have contributing, so please post a note on what your thoughts are for the article. - Davandron | Talk 13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: sigcontract

I agree; currently, sigContract serves no constructive purpose. It's original intent was to attempt to resolve a conflict with Tony Sidaway. -- Where 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets revice G8

I'm commenting on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G8_needs_revision. I didn't really understand how you wanted to change G8, but I think it should be weakened. I'd like to open a larger debate about deleting talk pages. What's your take and would you like to help? Thanks a bunch! Mathiastck 11:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCIS episodes

  • I have discovered that List of NCIS episodes links to articles about every single episode (there are many). None establish notability, none have references, all contain (at most) plot summary and quotes (plus a sprinkling of original research-type observations). I tagged a few of them before I thought there must be a better way to go about getting these AfD posted and merged or whatever. I'm not really sure. As you have been a pundit in similar areas of concern in the past I am hoping you might want to take a look at the assemblage and handle it somehow.
  • Also, User:MatthewFenton has been removing notability and reference tags and has ordered me to "cease". I'm not sure how to handle this either.

Can you help here? I'm at a loss. Thank you alot. -Shaundakulbara 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Order of Smile.png

I don't have the know-how to propose a AfD. I tried yesterday and it didn't show up correctly. I guess I should go ahead and try to master the mechanics of that. I was hoping someone else might do it for me, but I guess I'm on my own. Thanks anyway. Shaundakulbara 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

FrontPageMag.com up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD clarify your vote please

On the presidential trivia afd, I was confused by your vote... the comment seems to say merge then delete, but the bolded text says weak keep. If you mean merge then delete, then please change it. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 04:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the comment on my photo. I appreciate it.--Housed 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

[edit] Gun Fu - Animal Fighting Styles

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Gun Fu - Animal Fighting Styles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. UtherSRG (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user

A user has sent me an email requesting assistance. He says that you banned him indefinately for what he admits was a spree of inappropriate behavior. He claims that he has learned his lesson, but that he has not received any response from you. The user name he said blocked hm was "User talk:Night_Gyr/archive". He may have been using that name to try to contact you. You can see his email and my response on my talk page. Jerry lavoie 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know his wikipedia user name yet. The username you posted looks like it would be someone named "Jason", which is not part of this users' email address or real name provided to me, so it might be somebody different. If/when he replies I'll let you know. Thanks. Jerry lavoie 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rudi approach

I understand that, but from where I stand it just is'nt good enough, as negitive beheavour has driven far too many excellent editiors away from us. We must deal with this just as that guy Guilliani did in New York. I know we can never get 100% results, but we must try. Even 95% would be a huge improvement on what we have to put up with these days. Fergananim 12:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide intervention

The article "Medical views on suicide" didn't contain the various medical views on suicide (euthanasia and assisted suicide, for instance), and therefore was misnamed. Its content consisted entirely of intervention procedures and resources. Therefore, I've moved it back to Suicide intervention, and have worked on it further to present that topic better. There currently is no article on "medical views of suicide" other than this one on emergency procedure. The Transhumanist   13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide warning signs

There's no lack of information about warning signs on the web. On google, "suicide warning signs" gets 28,000 results. "Suicide" and "warning signs" on the same page get 774,000 hits, while "suicide and "telltale signs" on the same page get 141,000 hits. The warning signs of suicide are very widely reported. The Transhumanist   21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:659 hornet.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:659 hornet.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the FinnishDefenceForce template obviously lacks enough information to stand on its own, as there is no indication that modification of these works is allowed. All of these images therefore need a fair use tag and a fair use rationale. "Sheesh." — Rebelguys2 talk 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, well, I'll IFD them, then. We don't assume we have certain rights to images, though. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:659 hornet.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:659 hornet.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. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hennessey

Hi, I'm interested to know why you reverted my edit to Hennessey. Are you going to create a page about Hennessey Performance Engineering? Deiz talk 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet as. Deiz talk 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim Zumbo, 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.

--Yomanganitalk 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Damnit

You screwed up the archiving on WT:A, hiding two pages and half a month of comments. In the future, make sure that you don't lose links when you change between schemes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must have forgotten that two of the archives were named differently. Not sure how that happened. Sorry – Qxz 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "...that deleted revision is incredibly revealing..."

(x-posted) Actually, that wasn't the link I intended. I've added the link I'd meant to provide, this one. I think it provides insight into the mind of someone who engaged in this type of credential fraud. -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link in MediaWiki:Revision-info

Night Gyr, I noticed that you removed the link to the current revision of an article in MediaWiki:Revision-info. I liked it; it's unfortunate it did not work outside of the article namespace. I think, however, that you could change the text to This is an archived version of this page as of $1, last edited by $2. It may contain inaccuracies or errors not present in the <a href="/wiki/{{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">current version</a>.. It should then work outside of the article namespace. --Iamunknown 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please

That's not a helpful comment at all. If you want to explain why you think the old caption is not NPOV, then we could have a reasonable discussion. But simply to point me to NPOV, when I'm obviously aware of the poliy already, is just a way of saying "it's not NPOV because I say so, dammit, and if you disagree that must be because you just haven't read it." It's very condescending. Next time you leave me a message, please assume I'm aware of Wikipedia policies and simply have an honest disagreement with you about how they should be applied in this instance, and proceed from there. —Chowbok ☠ 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whose arguments you're talking about, but my arguments certainly aren't that policies should be ignored, simply that nobody has pointed to a policy that applies in this instance. In your case, I certainly don't see why it's not NPOV to say a cow is a potential victim of cow tipping any more than it would be to say that a person is a potential victim of pickpocketing. —Chowbok ☠ 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's just my opinion that a cow doesn't suspect it may be tipped? Isn't that taking verifiability a little far? You're really reaching. —Chowbok ☠ 01:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia community

I created the Wikipedia community article. After thinking it over, it is redundant and is already in the Wikipedia article. I suggest nominate it to merge or just delete it. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to start an AFD. Please start the AFD to delete and redirect. After careful consideration, I understand it is redundant information that does not need to be repeated twice. There already is a Wikipedia article. Also, we don't need to write a self-promo ad about the community. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
One more thing. I recommend to delete the histroy or it will be reverted someday in the future. Some people just wanted an article about us. I was one of them. I wrote a promo ad but that was not my intension. I apologize. I am still learning. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like permission to start an AFD and have a link provided for instructions on starting an AFD. I do know how to do this. Or you could go forward with the AFD process. Redundancy articles do not help our mission. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed in the AFD a lot of people crossd out their votes. I did not know why. I did a some searching. The article survived because of vote canvassing.Take a look at the date of March 8.Here is an example of canvassing for votes. This may be grounds to open a deletion review or re-nominate for the deletion to get an accurate measure of true consensus. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia community

In case you are somehow being pulled into this and don't know the full history, you might want to review this. - Denny 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see that post (or it slipped by my watchlist radar) on the Wikipedia article, since it wasn't posted also to the Wikipedia Community article... I posted this here to help address this. - Denny 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new userbox--what do you think?

A discus
 This user is a member of WikiProject Elements.

Abridged 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KRR AfD

So could that be described as Delete article, move necessary content into article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killer Whale FPC

Hello. A Featured Picture Candidate you commented on, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf, is now in the section for "Older nominations requiring additional input from voters." Contributors have tried to improve it after you commented, and your opinion is welcome as to whether any one of the available versions deserves promotion. I am sending this message to everyone who participated in the FPC. Thanks! Kla'quot 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question About TfD Vote

Hey Night Gyr, I was just wondering what promted you to say {{Obnoxious}} was inflamatory and hostile - just caught me a bit off gaurd there.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?)

I'm not sure what you mean about the tone - but I agree with you on the template name. I originally used obnoxious meaning essentially the same thing as over the top - or overwhelming - but I wasn't thinking about how negative the word was - which is why I changed the text (I mean - who cares what the template NAME is - although should it survive the tfd I would move it)Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golly

I suppose it's impossible to please everyone all the time, but gee... Could you expand upon your objection to User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle? I started it for several reasons:

  • To help motivate good editors. I've gotten responses along the lines of I already have a DYK and two FAs...yeah let me get back to you after I polish up a page to GA. If that results in more quality content for the site, so much the better.
  • To help identify quality contributors as potential sysop candidates. My hunch is that a lot of the people who could make good administrators are out there writing articles and we don't know their names yet. This may should bring some of them out of the woodwork.
  • To motivate problem editors to come back from the brink. What really inspired this was one editor who took up a standing offer of mine: I'll give the Resilient Barnstar to anyone who's been sanctioned at ArbCom (short of sitebanning) and creates a new article that gets highlighted at DYK. A few days ago I handed out one of those barnstars and offered the editor a second one if he raises a page to GA. He thanked me for the challenge and was delighted when I followed up with a special user award that he could aim for. This is someone who's been an editor for over a year but spent most of that time in one terrible editing dispute. For a few months now he's been branching out and becoming more Wikipedian.

I'd thought this award was a warm fuzzy little thing that honors people who deserve our collective thanks. If I've missed an angle please set me straight. DurovaCharge! 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheqel sign

Hi, I would like to first point out when you put the merge template, you forgot to put one up on Israeli new sheqel currency as well. Second $, €, and ₪ are indeed Punctuation marks, see Template:Punctuation marks. Also for instance, Euro sign and Euro currency are two different pages.

Thirdly, I removed the merge template later not because of that but because Sheqel sign will now also include the oringal sheqel currency (1980-1985) (Israeli New Sheqel and Israeli sheqel) as it had a different symbol as well as the current currency (since 1986). Epson291 13:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not revert the wording at Todd Goldman

A Something Awful post cannot be a reliable source for an article about a living person. Period. Please read our biographies of living persons policy. This is not negotiable. We have to reliably source it. If you don't like that wording, then the whole thing has to go, because the forum post can't be a source. Thanks. FCYTravis 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't understand that it's not negotiable. Forum posts are not reliable sources for biographies of living people, nor are blogs or anything else which is self-published and not edited. This is established policy on Wikipedia, and you can't ignore it because you don't like it. We have a reliable secondary source which is reporting on the controversy, and thus we can and must attribute the reporting to that reliable source - rather than to a forum or blog. Again, read our biographies of living persons policy. Just because he might be a plagiarist and that he's involved in OMGWEBDRAMA doesn't mean we ignore our basic principles. Thank you. FCYTravis 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something about Nuristani, Kalash, Chitral, and people which think they know, but for real, they don't know

Hello Night Gyr. I want congratulate you for you changes on the Kalasha page. It's a perfect example how to make an article worse, - and, at the end, to discredit the Wikipedia. I'm sure, you intention was "to improve", but unfortunately you make the opposite.

What I talk about? It seems, that there is some fundamental mistake in your definition of an ethnicity and how this concerns to the term Nuristani.

Please note, don’t understand the term Nuristani as a homogeny ethnic group. It’s much more a collective term, a language family, but not a clean 100% purely ethnicity. Therefore it’s not correct to describe the Nuristan Kalash(a) only as Nuristani; it is alike wrongly and inaccurate to explain the Chitral Kalash(a) just as Dards.

Regards --lorn10 16:20, 13. April 2007 (CET)

[edit] World Tree (role-playing game) notability template

There are references and I feel that you added the notability template simply because you feel the game is not "popular" or you just don't like it. As an article identified for inclusion in WikiProject RPG, I have followed their guidelines on creating articles as defined for their purpose. I noticed that your edit summary for adding the template said "no third party sources", which I feel is a conclusion that you can only come to if you didn't actually read the article. Bear Eagleson 13:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] todd goldman personal attack

Sorry buddy I forgot that it's ok to be a jerk as long as you don't say dirty words like "ISP" :p -Rebent 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

POTD
POTD

Hi Night Gyr,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:5-54-Mark-45-firing edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 20, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-20. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Good Girl (pornography)

I edited references, so are sources now better? Problem of those are that there weren't really good sources. Lot of blog and such coverage though, mostly spanish and italian, but with those it is hard to say if they are "credible" and most notable like comstock, fleshbot and some russian magazine, but they didn't really said anything usable as reference. That was the reason why i orginally sticked with first hand information from Lust Films site. --Zache 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashlee Simpson edits

Deleting is constructive if the section is useless. This is a user edited encylcopedia. You don't like my edits, you improve the section. My opinion is the article is best without the section. That's a constructive edit, because it makes the article better. Your method will result only in a glut of useless information. Inutero22222 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glock 19

Please see requested edit on Talk:Glock 19. PubliusFL 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I removed those images. Modernist 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing these guidance suggestions to me: Wikipedia:Non-free content, I'll study them and if there are some images that I can retain, then I will put them back. Thanks again. Modernist 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit war glock_19

you'll notice several of the same people doing the same thing here at

[3]

Read here for some information about the 4 users that were doing this on the glock page as well as the w22 page. You'll see attitude with them in no problem and SwatJester left a few of them warnings in which they just gave him a "yawn"

[4]

Maybe that will shed some light on what's going on with these 4 users that just basically terrorized the Glock_19 article and have now moved on to the w22 article. CINEGroup 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Wanted

Hi, When you have time, can you copyedit Zile article and remove the tag? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 09:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HowardZinn Photo

The photographer (Birnbaum) gave clear permission to use the low-res photo on Wikipedia. His note is incorporated in the file.

If I specified the wrong category of permission, please state that.

I don't know what you want.

Do you want the photo taken down?

Don't send me another robotic message. It is not understandable. Plain English works for me.

Skywriter 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man 4

I'd rather that the article be deleted and protected from recreation because there are novice editors who are way too eager to start this over a film that is not guaranteed to be made. There's no director or cast yet, and no production start date set up. I don't think the redirect is necessary because there are already rumors going around for what villains are going to be in the next film, which is only in development. Take a look at the article's deletion log -- it's been deleted as recently as April 17, and there has not been any solid production news since then -- just reiterating that it was in development (which was already first indicated when they tapped David Koepp to write a script last January). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Then take it to RfD. It's not a valid speedy, because a redirect is not an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that another admin superceded the consensus of that deletion review for Spider-Man 4, and opened the page back up. Their words were "UncleG's page looks beautiful, which makes this all moot". I personally don't believe this is fair, that an admin can ignore everyone just because their opinion of the matter differs, especially when in the hours that followed their unprotection of the page and move of information, there has been nothing but constant rumors, speculation, and vandalism to the page since.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucid Dreaming Howto tag

See the talk page for why I removed the howto tag you placed on the Lucid Dreaming article. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rat

Could you please review the Rat article? The revision history is not visible to non-admins, and the page was moved by a vandal. The page has been moved back, but I cannot review the revision history, or the content. See also:

Cool Bluetalk to me 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3WC

My apologies on that, learn something every day. Thanks for the heads up, I was trying to be bold and create the correct page. :) Wildthing61476 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Trendy

Hey!

By way of explaination, Trendy's article has been previously nominated for deletion based on lack of notability. There have also been threats to renominate it. The phrase "He is notable for..." was originally added to the article to dissuade future nominations of that sort. As I'm sure you noticed, the article is protected because it has been repeatedly vandalized. I understand the point you're trying to make. Perhaps the defensive posture on his notability is no longer necessary. Best Regards, Cleo123 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qian Zhijun

I'm coming into this one way late, it seems. This is what, the fourth go-round for this? Does the meme have a better name than 'Little Fatty'? that we could move this to? I'm back to the AfD to see if I can be the hero and end this once and for all (yeah, right) :) DarkAudit 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced image

I've searched flickr, and couldn't seem to find any licensing information. I've said delete on Commons. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Gail Mangum

Please delete the history of this article, at least for now. I believe Thebainer's close was clear "This is a real no-brainer" on the subject of the unsuitability of the content in the history to Wikipedia. If you dispute this interpretation, please do me a favor and delete the history for now until you've had time to consult Bainer on his close. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect is an editorial decision, if the content should go, take it to AfD. Unilateral action and surviving DRV are not the way to do it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that--remember that I was the person who turned the article into a redirect in the first place so we're back where we were when I started.
I'm just asking you to consult with Thebainer about whether he intended the history to be undeleted. It seems to me unusual in a BLP case. Usually that's the end of the content, for pretty obvious reasons. If you don't want to delete the history in the meantime, that's not an urgent problem. The important thing to do is to consult with Thebainer. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark 48 torpedo

Yes, the image is from the navy. I though this one was deleted already, since there was a discussion on this before. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Micronation Wikiproject

I've published a proposal to gauge the level of interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject, which I thought might be of interest to you based on your past contributions. Comments and suggestions are welcome: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Micronations --Gene_poole 02:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Hornbeck

Is mirrored on my site here. You can direct the family to view that, it's a copy of what Wikipedia used to have. Wjhonson 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

David Mestel(Talk) 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD closed

Sorry, I didn't realize I could just start another AFD fr Jurassic Park 4 since it was last discussed for deletion quite a while ago, because I didn't know there was a general time span for how long a decision stands in an AFD.To me it kind of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia:deletion review, unless you someone feel so strongly as to contest the decision right away. Rodrigue 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Baldwin

You seem to be ignoring the BLP issues I raised - the material in the article still has the possibility of hurting the living, making it very much a BLP issue. Phil Sandifer 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an article about a barely-notable dead child. Keeping it is hurtful to surviving and innocent family and friends. There is no doubt an article to be written about, for instance, Jeffrey Baldwin incident or the name of the reforms passed in his name. But this article doesn't even support the claim of reforms, little yet focus on it. Phil Sandifer 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Griswold Frelinghuysen

What happened to the original article I created? It's never worth doing the research over. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial discretion

I see that's not a redlink any more. Nice start to a needed essay. When I get a chance, I'll see about lending some thoughts to the page. I'm happy to see it was created, though. I had considered doing it myself, but then concluded that I really wanted to wait for someone else to do so, and see what came of it. Thanks! Serpent's Choice 03:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allison Stokke

I noticed that the page was recreated, and then deleted. There can be no discussion if the page doesn't exist. What's going on? I have no way of doing anything about this, as I'm not an admin. Lampman 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the matter has to be brought before Wikipedia:Deletion review. I believe we're in agreement about the need for an AfD debate. Would you care to bring the matter up to review? As I understand you have administrative privileges, I think it would be better coming from you. Many thanks! Lampman 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fingers crossed! I'm more than willing to bow to consensus, but the abuse of power by certain admins angers me. Lampman 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems a particularly inauspicious time to be undeleting things that were deleted for apparently valid BLP concerns. ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please keep conversations threaded per my talk page header,thanks. If you'd rather continue at my talk that is fine, let me know. But all BLP is by definition, urgent, once discovered. Undeletion is just not ever a good idea without first understanding the issues. Which I see no sign you did, all you apparently did was undelete. Not on. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do want to contact the subject, her father is keeping a close eye on what is happening on the internet. He is Allan Stokke of the law firm Stokke & Riddet, and can be contacted at the company's home page, contact page here. Lampman 08:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, let's definitely not do this right now. Newyorkbrad 14:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have submitted evidence, and raised a proposed finding of fact, concerning your recent actions in restoring histories and articles where the deleting admin had cited the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Process and living persons

This section removed, as it was sparked into an unnecessary conflagration by a post I wrote in the heat of debate that lacked a sense of considered argument. FCYTravis 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted content threat

Providing or threatening to provide the content of deleted articles to outside persons is a violation of policy, and you'll lose your sysop bit for doing it. Indeed, you could lose it merely by saying you will do it. [5] FCYTravis 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; this is unacceptable. Ral315 » 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If you did indeed mean e-mailing it to the subject, I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Ral315 » 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I will be listing this at WP:ANI. Corvus cornix 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I don't understand what point you're trying to make, but your actions here have made it clear to me that you should not be an admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been desysopped now [6]. --Durin 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes, you may want to reconsider remarks like this one: [7] as they are totally unacceptable ways to make points. I cautioned you that undeletion of BLP related matters was not prudent. I cannot say it strongly enough, you must not reveal deleted content, it is a violation of the trust the community places in you. Please think long and hard before you apply for reinstatement++Lar: t/c 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: this is only a temporary suspension, when the arbcom is available it up to them to confirm it or re-appoint you. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: this is temporary. I don't know you and I have nothing against you particularly :) Your edit was ambiguous and as I have explained on WP:ANI, the risks of making a mistake in desysoping you were lower than those of having a disclosure of deleted. I am sure you understand and I hope a bureaucrat will give you back the tools soon. Cheers, guillom 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't panic over this. If you meant that you'd send it to the subject only, there no reason I can see why you shouldn't be resysopped soon. WjBscribe 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just amused. I wasn't using it right now anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the edit, went "WHAT ON EARTH", did a headless chicken impersonation and went to #wikimedia-stewards to say I couldn't find a current arb and to ask "WHAT ON EARTH" - Guillom then emergency desysopped and I said I'd find an arb as quick as I could. Which I am doing right now. My apologies if I overreacted (and rereading, I may well have), but jeez, saying that given the current arbitration case on living bios, when you're actually listed in said case ... Anyway, still seeking out an arb as we speak - David Gerard 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just found Fred Bauder and Morven, who are looking at it right now - David Gerard 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. No harm done from a temporary thing like this if all is cleared up? Don't you agree Night Gyr? ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think it's odd that we'd consider that so harmful when, like someone else said, a user wouldn't be desysopped for undeleting in the article and revealing it to the world, so why for forwarding it to one person? I went back and read the everyking case and the issue there seemed to be more that it would reveal personal information, rather than mere article text. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
When you get through arguing about this and we can depend on you not doing this, or similar things, I think the Arbitration Committee will be happy to resysop you again. Drop us a note when you are ready. Fred Bauder 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Undeletion can be reversed; sending deleted content off-site can't be. That's why doing so is a bad idea, and why you shouldn't if the deleted content could be even remotely controversial.
Like Fred, I'd support a re-sysop, but only if we can depend on you not doing this or similar in future. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I gather from your note that it was just a misunderstanding. Fred Bauder 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That's close, I think. Undeletion can be undone, but if not undone immediately, there's still a risk that someone has stored a copy off-site. The difference here is that an admin is the one guaranteeing that an off-site copy is made. Also, in this case, the admin tools weren't being used to further the encyclopedia's goals, but it was suggested a copy would be sent to a non-Wikipedian, for non-Wikipedia-related purposes. --Interiot 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it's done now and no point crying about it, but well, it did seem, looking at this comment on Badlydrawnjeff's talk page, like Night Gyr was just planning to go on a fishing expedition, sending off deleted content to the subjects of articles in the hope that one would say "hey, that's okay, we don't mind you keeping that article." Which kinda misses the point that the article has to pass our standards, and maintainably so. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It's just a reaction to the crowd of people who want to delete articles that meet our standards, but might be offensive to their subjects because they say potentially embarrassing things. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not keeping count or anything, but there seems to be a great spate of endorsements from noted Wikipedians that suggests that the articles somehow fail to meet our standards. It's obviously not just some out-of-control faction at work. --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If you count the reasoning, most of them have something to do with 'it'll hurt the subject of the article.' Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ethics, matey. Same reason a lot of websites have been taking down articles about that pretty pole vaulter. It's a bit more complicated than "will our particular stuff hurt her". --Tony Sidaway 03:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, but an encyclopedic article, like a fair and respectful news story, is not going to be anywhere nearly as harmful as the lewd blogs that are being taken down. Washington Post, CBS News, other papers, all wrote good respectful stories, which is a sign that you can cover this series of events in an ethical and respectful manner. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What does ethics have to do with the current newspeak mission to remove any mention of their names whatsoever? Doesn't that strike you Tony as a bit overboard? Wjhonson 04:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Where the name of a person isn't necessary to cover the event, it's probably best to remove it. The classic case I'd cite is Baby 81, about a four-month-old baby. This event will be long forgotten by the time the child is of high school age, unless we memorialize it with an article in his name (which is what we were doing before I fixed it). The references still contain the name, and the surname can be inferred from the parents' names, but the child's name is not a search term on Wikipedia any more, and that is probably the right outcome. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because content got deleted doesn't mean it's somehow a radioactive secret we must keep hidden at all cost and this content wasn't. There was nothing there not already widely and easily available both in online and offline sources. The article content was certainly no worse than that of the Washington Post article. Discussing a BLP article with its subject is often a completely reasonable thing to do, I've done it myself with good results (admittedly not initiating the communication but I don't see why that option should be completely ruled out). I think the desysopping is uncalled for. Haukur 09:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone is the subject of hundreds of news stories in such sources as Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, or the Washington Post, I believe that a balanced NPOV article in Wikipedia will in no appreciable way perpetuate their (perhaps) undesired notoriety. With Proquest or other search engines I can and have dug up content from over 100 years ago. News archives are searchable for any name, and full text articles can be retrieved. The sources do not "fade away," allowing someone anonymity after their 15 minutes of fame have expired, as some seem to think. If the subject of one of these stories is someday a school teacher, or is applying for a job, even a perfunctory search will bring up a wealth of detail including every time they were mentioned in a newspaper or magazine. This recent obsession with a "1984" like expurgation of their names just makes Wikipedia look silly. Desysopping someone for daring to preserve the content of an article that thousands of people have read, and could well have stored a copy of on their hard drive, goes beyond locking the barn door after the horse escaped. It is more like locking onself in the barn, starting a fire and then beating the dead horse. Edison 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we can write this article in 2009 or something. We're not a newspaper archive, but we should always be aware that our actions may influence the "notability" of a person who, in two years or so, might turn out to be just one of many great Californian athletes: worthy of a mention, but surely not deserving of the ignominy that would be visited upon her if we gave undue weight to some horny perverts. Whatever other sites may o do is immaterial. They do not own us, we are free and we will decide what content we host. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The piling on which occurred in this case was wholly inappropriate and draws into question the judgment of anyone who participated in it, including Night Gyr. The whole thing was about unwanted, abusive publicity. Fred Bauder 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
LexisNexis has 8 stories on this event. Quoting briefly, Gorgeous Allison Stokke, 18, has become a reluctant internet sex symbol. Almost 200,000 admirers have watched the three-minute clip on YouTube and photos of the teenage beauty have been put up on dozens of sites and inspired an unofficial fan page dedicated to her. But distraught Allison is desperate to shun the limelight and revealed she is terrified of being targeted by obsessed stalkers. (Daily Star (UK)). Is this what Wikipedia aspires to be? Thatcher131 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the Daily Star's interpretation as the most accurate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer the LA Times' take? Parry Aftab, a Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y., lawyer who specializes in issues of cyber crime, privacy and abuse, said Stokke's predicament is "what happens when you accidentally reach the popular blogger or luck out and Google catches it just at the right time. Your profile shoots to the top of search engines, and all bets are off." That's not how I would define an encyclopedic topic. or Keith Richmond, chief executive of Break.com, has a term he uses for the instantly famous: "e-lebrities." His site bills itself as an "entertainment channel for guys fueled by user-created media." "It's amazing how quickly someone can go from obscurity to fame," Richmond said. "Most of the time those becoming e-lebrities are seeking the publicity. But sometimes it's accidental." Thatcher131 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's her own words: "I worked so hard for pole vaulting and all this other stuff, and it's almost like that doesn't matter. Nobody sees that. Nobody really sees me."[8] So why not help things by presenting a neutral, balanced picture of an accomplished athlete, instead of leaving the lewd pages to be the top hits on her name? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is equally a violation of WP:NPOV to intentionally help someobody as it is to intentionally harm them. It is wrong to let our editorial decisions be driven by what other media are doing, nor is it our place to worry about hit placement on search engines. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but when people are claiming 'do no harm' as a reason to delete the article and not even give it a full afd, then you need to consider whether it's really a negative to have it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
We do (and should) worry about placement on search engines and what other media are doing. It is not a violation of NPOV to intentionally help someone if the way we can help them is by presenting a neutral article. Haukur 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You quote here own words, in which she makes it absolutely plain that she does not welcome this attention. A neutral and balanced article can wait until this blows over. Right now the only people who will want to look at it are those interested in recent events. If she's done anything of note (I hear she broke a few records) there are or should be articles about the sports in which it is conceivable that one could mention the current national record holders, and that would set her activities in a proper perspective. --Tony Sidaway 03:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about me

I request that you retract or revise your comment about me on AN/I: "Also I'd like to note that Everyking's desysoping came after offering to reveal personal information, not article content." This is not what I did, and I don't want this kind of misinformation spread about me. I offered to post a deleted revision without knowing what it contained that had been deemed objectionable, if anything; the whole point was that, because I could not determine it, I was offering to post it to see if someone else could figure it out. If I had thought it contained personal information I would never in a million years have made such an offer, and moreover people who have looked at the revision since then have disagreed on the actual nature of what it contained. Everyking 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sysop powers restored

Per AnonEMouse's comment on the Bureacrat's noticeboard, I've restored your sysop bit. Raul654 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know that the main page can live in fear again. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stereo Type (Puw)

Nice save on the dodgy link there, thanks. I'd made the same mistake in the main article too - shows how useful a second pair of eyes is. Regards, Bencherlite 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA / Checkuser

Hi, just wanted to let you know that a checkuser has been completed on the SPAs who supported my RfA, they were sockpuppets of User:Molag Bal. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pax:Vobiscum RfA

Hey, Night Gyr! I just wanted to inform you that one of your reasons for oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pax:Vobiscum, the sockpuppetry votes, were disproved. They weren't some sockpuppets with a grudge, but rather disruptive sockpuppets who apparently went to WP:RFA and were looking to cause trouble. They were found to be sockpuppets of a banned user, confirmed here. I've saw your other reasons for oppose, but being a neutral user, I just wanted to inform you of that. Thanks! Cool Bluetalk to me 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Highway 401 18 lanes.jpg

Oh dear. then it must be deleted quickly if it is infringing on any copyrights... The Legendary RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, however..if you could email a copy of those images to me at johncoonfox@hotmail.com i won't be reuploading them due to their copyright violation status.... The Legendary RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bus Uncle featured article review

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

How exactly do I go about contacting someone through OTRS? You indicated that I should do so at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Dailykos_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29, but I was unsure how to do so, and the question scrolled off the page before anyone else responded. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's kind of my problem. I took a look at the page, and couldn't make heads or tails of it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The block text at the top of the page gives a link to the list of OTRS personnel which resides on the meta wiki. What's the problem, how can I help? --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Paul Wilkinson Photo

Dear Night Gyr, I am a student at the University of Dundee and Paul Wilkinson is the Professor at St. Andrews, the parental University. Paul Wilkinson is also occasionally presents lectures at our University, and I have full rights to the picture and Paul Wilkinson himself grant me permission to use the photo as suitable. Thanks,--Cyril Thomas 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fusker

I am the original author of the fusker software, but make no claims towards its notability or lack thereof. I originally published the now-defunct url on a blog called sensible erection (under the username Carthag) 5 or so years ago, and I suspect that's where the idea has spread from since. Seeing as I am involved in the issue, I'd rather not make large edits due to possible conflicts of interest (I try to limit my activities on the page to cleanups and such). Apparently, it has since made its way into a webcomic, urban dictionary as well as various mentions on blogs and other such low-profile sites. Google (while not a real test) claims 379,000 results for "fusker" on English sites that do not mention wikipedia. Bear in mind that given the nature of the use of the software, most of these links are very not work safe. Mikkel 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alf Edits

Perhaps you could explain what about the DAB was a mess to you. I get the missed wikilinks, but I am not as sure about changing the subsections, which don't seem to correspond with other DAB pages. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining your perspective. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis

The Current Events Barnstar
I, Sean William, award you this Current Events Barnstar for your excellent work rescuing the article on Jesse Davis from deletion. Keep up the good work! 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Cheers! Sean William @ 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball player naming conventions

Thanks for your input into the proposed naming convention for baseball players (made either here or here... or both). Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed guidelines. If you get a chance, please review them here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks again, Caknuck 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikigroaning

I realized something upon doing some investigation. The page on Wikigroaning was linked to from Something Awful, the creators of the term, shortly after the AfD started - I believe that a large number of incoming SA users with conflicts of interest may have soured the results of the AfD. I wanted to bring this up at DRV, but, per procedure, decided to ask you about it first.
Furthermore, what's preventing this content from simply being merged? There's very little more there than a dictionary definition, and I really don't think that the notability of any neologism could be established in less than a month. I know we're supposed to follow consensus and not policy and all that jazz, but it seems like the neologism policy is just being disregarded by the keep votes, rather than responded to.
On a procedural note, I've noticed this being more and more of a problem with neologisms - since somebody uses them, there's always a source, and that (in the eyes of the keep votes) seems to be enough to satisfy the policy's insistence that they be widely accepted. - Chardish 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'm going to bring this up for DRV immediately, on account of the above and the fact that your membership on the Something Awful forums constitutes a conflict of interest, even though I still believe you acted in good faith. - Chardish 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There definitely was a pretty good argument to delete, given that the neologism is weeks old and the page was not fleshed out beyond a dictionary definition. However, I'll be the first to admit that there was no consensus to delete. Nonetheless, "merge" is a valid result of AfD discussions [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] - and that's just from closures from the past few days. - Chardish 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderboobies

Thanks for putting the missing text back. I would have done it myself but i don't know how. 86.153.216.204 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT IS THIS THING FOR?

um do you know what the wikicookie is for? And why some are so angry to see it?8th sinn 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)8th sinn8th sinn 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] myg0t on DRV

I saw you made contributions to User:Android Mouse/myg0t, and I think you might be interested to know that the myg0t article is currently on deletion review. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the group's notability. --Android Mouse 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democide

Please do not edit the comments of others

I'm not aware I had; I got involved in a messy cut-and-paste and must have lost something in the process. Sorry. You can see from my edit history that I don't do that kind of thing. Gordonofcartoon 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I see what happened - the quote. I've mended it. Gordonofcartoon 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy steam roller

Hello, is this normal? It did not look like concensus was achieved, and also allegations (now understandable, I just made the connection to one meaning of the TLA SPA) that the Afd was not in good faith is in fact a violation of good faith. I cited official policy. Others cited failed policy attempts as well as the existence of other articles that fail the actual policy. Spa toss 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just checked, and Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, and under which of the four items did you speedy close? Thanks. Spa toss 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You may respond here. I am still waiting for an answer. Under which of the four criteria did you speedy close. Thanks again. Spa toss 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edna Parker References

Yeah, you're probably right. It's not that big of a deal really, as long as the page is properly cited, which it is now. So I'm content. Canadian Paul 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] numerological coincidences - - -

"numerological coincidences"?! obviouslsy you do not know what a numerological coincidence is... too bad 84.227.48.33 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#what_a_source_is.3F.21

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Korolev2.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Korolev2.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

  • Image:Korolev2.gif

Thank you. Alex Spade 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Image Problem: F-15E

I noticed a possible problem with an image of an F-15E that you have uploaded. See my comments at Image_talk:RAF_F-15E_Strike_Eagle_Iraq_2004.jpg. I didn't want to make any changes myself since I am not an experienced Wiki contributor and I do not know what kind of guidelines are in place for that sort of thing.

--Txtad 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?

Hi, Night Gyr, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. Last time around, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC),

[edit] A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spear.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Spear.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag in nuclear bunker buster

Hi Night Gyr,

it seems you added a POV tag to the criticism section of the article on nuclear bunker busters without stating your reasons on the talk page. That makes it hard to decide whether your concerns have been addressed in the meantime. Could you please take a look at the current version and either remove the tag or briefly state on the talk page why you still think the section is POV? Please keep in mind that a section focussing on criticism is not POV in itself, as long as it merely reports notable criticism that has actually been expressed and does not state the opinions of the critics as facts.

Thanks,

Joriki (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sean Bell family photo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sean Bell family photo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research in Tank classification

Hi. You added a tag to Tank classification with the edit summary "these conclusions seem original", but I can't easily determine which claims you were referring to. Would you please have another look at the article and expand on the talk page? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-06-04 02:49 z