User talk:RG2/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Aofwtemplate2.jpg)

While it's true that this image is not used in an article, it is an image that I used for the (now defunct) Animals of Farthing Wood Wikiproject. I have used it as the image for a userbox on my User Page as well, and at least one other user also uses that userpage. So the image is being used, but I'm not sure how to change it so that it doesn't get deleted. Can you help me with that? (I'm still not very experienced when it comes to things like that). Thank you for letting me know that it has been orphaned, and I would appreciate any assistance with the above request. MelicansMatkin 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This might sound a little off-putting or blunt, but I certainly don't mean it that way. The problem is that Wikipedia only allows fair use images in articles — not anywhere else, whether in templates, Wikiprojects, userboxes, and the like. You should also realize that our fair use policy is much more restrictive than any possible theoretical interpretations of U.S. fair use law. As a result, we restrict fair use images to the mainspace. — RG2 talk 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems very fair. Thank you for the clarification :) MelicansMatkin 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Orphaned fair use image (Image:ASB1.gif)

As the relevant article in which it was used has now been deleted, the image in question may as well be deleted now. Beno1000 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Gaiman article

Thank you for making that change, in order to draw attention to the state of the Gaiman article. I have just recently begun to watch this article, and have discovered all of the unsourced material. I was not sure how to go about bringing such attention to it. Thanks again. –m.f (t • c) 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem — I really just moved the template a bit higher up. Honestly, a lot of the article looks like it's in decent shape — some fact-checking would certainly be nice, of course, but it's a good bit of writing to work from. But delving into a "legal battle" without sourcing ... well, that just makes me a bit uneasy. — RG2 talk 10:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Userpage

Hey,RG! I'm also one of those people who don't want a userpage, so I suggest you redirect it to your talk, so it's much less vandalised. I use "#REDIRECT User_talk:Example". The Evil Clown 19:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a personal preference, but I'm not a huge fan of that. Appreciate the idea, though. — RG2 talk 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird Question...

Saw your RfA, but I didn't want to put this question there. I was checking around and was looking at the deleted history of your user page from 2005. User:Scm83x was the first person to make edits to your user page, edits that included biographical info. Is Scm83x an alternate account of yours? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: Nope, just a friend of mine.
As for my complete early history here: I dropped in anonymously starting in 2004, though it was very rare that I actually made an edit. In the summer of 2005, I was abroad, and Scm83x asked me to snap a few photos to place on Wikipedia. I sent him a few photos in e-mails, which he subsequently uploaded, using his own account — I had licensed the photos under the GFDL in an e-mail to him. In late August of 2005, I finally started using my own account to upload higher-resolution versions of those photos; you can see that my first edits came on 28 Aug 2005, adding photos to Cádiz. I suppose my user page was a red link, though I didn't think too much of it at the time. Anyway, Scm83x helped guide me around at the beginning, and put down a little blurb about me on my user page, along with a logo from a Web site I ran at the time (if I remember correctly; I can't see the deleted edits). — RG2 talk 04:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You can now...  :-)

[edit] You're a sysop!

Hi, RG2/archive3, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop!

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=
 PS Please add you name to WP:LA!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm happy to be the first non-beauracrat to stop by and offer my congratulations. Good luck with your shiny new toolkit. Of course you know you can always ask for help if you have any questions. Keep up the great work... Johntex\talk 07:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Orphaned fair use image

Hi RG2,

First of all Congrats on you being a Sysop :) Regarding the orphaned images i've used earlier on my user page, I've replaced these with 3 licensed images from wikipedia. Please let me know if any thing further is required from my side. Thanks -- G o a r a n y     talk   02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you

Thank you for informing me about sub pages. I was a little aggitated at first because I thought the pages had been deleted. Paskari 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for taking care of my page and blocking the bad vandal.Rlevse 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks as well, too. That sad little coprophytic needs therapy, not editing priveleges. Congrats on the promotion/damnation. ;) Thanks for being alert - Wikiepedia is always needing Lerts. Cheers! Arcayne 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Han Amos

Could you please block User:Tmurder21 please? This username refers to violence so it needs to get blocked indef. Amos Han Talk 02:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Amos Han Talk 02:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this. Just to let you know that I am about to make my 1000th edit soon. This edit (leaving you this message) is my 997th edit. Amos Han Talk 02:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proton neutrality

The article is far too... positive.--Ellissound 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of 195.92.168.164

Thanks for blocking User:195.92.168.164. Someone using this IP vandalized my user page twice. Amos Han Talk 21:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for explaining my comment and for defending my contributions to Wikipedia. It meant a lot to me. Danny 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Smile.gif — RG2 talk 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And thanks again, this time for the Congratulations :-) Danny 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Guard (clan)

Why did you delete this page? The page was under the guidelines for publishing an article.

~TG Harabek

It was tagged for speedy deletion by User:MER-C, who claimed that "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." I agreed that it met our criteria for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted it. If you would like more feedback on my deletion, please bring your concerns to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks. — RG2 talk 05:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Then what about this [[1]] ? This is an article about a band and does assert any specific importance.

It is possible that article should be deleted as well. Please take a look at the guideline WP:BAND and see what you think. At a minimum, the article needs references so I will tag it as such. Johntex\talk 07:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PatrickHaseldine1.jpg

I have today added a "GFDL-self-no-disclaimers" tag to Image:PatrickHaseldine1.jpg.PJHaseldine 09:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Chekhov

Thank you for reading and being kind enough to comment. It means a lot. qp10qp 18:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zmachine picture

RG2: Please see this response to your proposed deletion of Image:Z-machine480.jpg. As you will see, the picture has unique traits that can't be met by scaling from larger images. Greg L (my talk) 05:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia shooting

Hi, found the first admin I could via Recent Changes. Please nuke Justin McClain NOW! His article accuses him of being the recent shooter completely without evidence or references, and what's known about the shooter contradicts the info on him. --Kizor 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. — RG2 talk 07:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
*Salute* Thank you, sir! --Kizor 07:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plea to get back Image:FerrocementArmature_drawing-1a.jpg

This was a hand drawn image made by owner of ferrocement.com (if I spell it correctly). It later was placed on IfD as orphaned. I put it into ferrocement article as it was very handy here. Later it was removed by a bot as lacking license in machine readable form.

I ask if you can start a undelete review or something (I have no stamina for this). The picture is very useful, a lot of work was put into it and the author added it in good will and in the same form as his other contributions. Not being able to grasp the complicated formalisms that infested Wikipedia in recent months should not be disqualification for helping here and neither one should be required to stay on a daily guard against robots (it is very rude be flamed by a bot btw and I guess quite a few people left because of this).

TIA Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I can restore the deleted image, but images must explicitly allow free redistribution and modification for commercial and non-commercial reasons. I'm not sure the original wording explicitly allowed modification. Let me know if the owner is willing to license it under those terms, and I will restore the image. — RG2 talk 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance needed - Re: Previously Failed RfA

Dear RG2,

I would like to ask for your assistance. About 14 months ago, I self nominated for an RfA, which I ultimately withdrew (see here). During that RfA, you lodged an oppose vote, and I have taken a lot of the comments from that failed RfA on board since then. I am now up to an average of near on 875 to 900 edits per year, having only recently got back to the net from health issues (Throat cancer), and I am once again considering attempting a request for adminship. I am writing to all those editors who opposed my original self-nomination to ask them to see if they would be kind enough to review my recent work, and to see whether they consider that I have taken those points from my old RfA on board enough to warrant another attempt.

I am enjoying getting back into the swing of working on Wikipedia again, and looking forward to enjoying many more years of work. I am now using Twinkle and VandalFighter for my reversion work on RCP and CVU, and looking to the future.

Thank you for your time, and for your comments.

Thorsteinn A. Malmjursson User:Iceflow / Formerly User:Tmalmjursson 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why delete simcity 5 page

there is ample proof that it is comming this year.hell sims 3 has a page and wont be released until 2009 here is the proof http://www.gamespot.com/news/6086780.html?q=simcity%205


latest http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160951.html http://www.simcitycentral.net/simcity5/

plz create the page,i dont know how to create a page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Davis34.jpg

Pls see addl discussion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_5#Image:Davis34.jpg concerning permission to copy this image from official Virginia web site. Image:Davis34.jpg

It seems to me to be a use the Code of Virginia pretty clearly permits.

I suppose we could get a picture from the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anders.Warga (talk • contribs).

[edit] Quick thanks

Just a quick thanks-- thanks for the speedy, attentive work you did on the Carnage article earlier tonight. I was amazed at how efficient and on-the-dot you were in dealing with that vandalism.

So, many thanks for what you do around here. --Southwest 08:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Hello,

I am webmaster for the owners of photos you have tagged for deletion. They are all fair use publicity photos released by their owners through me. Thank you for your consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwbaumert (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fly Gibraltar

I see you have repeatedly removed my requests for deletion on this article rather than engaging in any defence of the mythical airline.

Their aircraft are a product of Adobe and the publicity would power Richard Bransons balloon. If they ever fly, I'll be the first to include it, but pigs stand a better chance.

Let it go. --Gibnews 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you even bothered to find out why I removed them. Please learn how speedy deletion and PROD requests work at WP:CSD and WP:PROD, respectively. — RG2 talk 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I find it badly explained and inscrutable, I assumed that inserting a template would initiate the process, as it did with another article, successfully binned; but perhaps instead of critisisig me for being ignorant, and simply removing my efforts, you could show me how its done for future reference. The article does nothing for the credibility of Gibraltar or wikipedia. --Gibnews 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I told you that PROD templates should never be re-added if they are removed. Additionally, the PROD template itself says that, "[i]f this template is removed, it should not be replaced." I also told you where to go next — to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where instructions are clearly laid out under the heading, 'How to list pages for deletion.' I don't know what happened on your end — laziness, stubbornness, or you just not getting the message after seeing it displayed in one form or another a minimum of four times — but it wasn't because of an inscrutable explanation.
But, OK, it was all my fault. You win. Better? — RG2 talk 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the idea is not to make a debating point but to delete the article, clearly I have not understood the process as you do, perhaps you could assist me in getting rid of that nonsense. Thats not arguing, its asking for constructive assistance. --Gibnews 18:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Brainsandwich.jpg

Why are you nominating Image:Brainsandwich.jpg for deletion? It's my photo that I uploaded.--Twintone 17:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a photo from a restaurant I worked in Evansville (where I'm from) called the Hilltop Inn. They are one of the few places that still serve brain sandwiches.--Twintone 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim O'Malley

Tim O'Malley uploaded his own headshot photo.--Twintone 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SimCity 5 deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SimCity 5. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Noclip 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assist needed

I'm still getting notices from User:BetacommandBot about rationale even though the below tag is placed on the image and discussion pages. Example: Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg. As you probably know, the Florida Memory Project template was discarded leaving many images either deleted or with notices.

Digital Image Information

This is a one of a kind unique digital image from The Florida Memory Project, Florida Department of State. It holds the archives' number of: 0000000. This image is needed to enhance and improve this article and no other representation exists.

Use: The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images. In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material.

Florida Department of State State Library and Archives of Florida 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 (850) 245-6700

What can be done? Need help from an administator. Go Horns, no Gators need apply. Noles1984 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FMP Thanks

Thanks a bunch on the info. It sure helps the cause. Noles1984 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with the Gators?

"What's wrong with the Gators? RG2

What's wrong with the Gators? Can I write an article on all that's wrong with the Gators? That's like saying "What's wrong with U. of Oklahoma?" :-) Noles1984 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link spammer

About time you block the spammer? Looks like they also spam using this account as well. BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already seen it all. This kind of likely one-time nonsense is very rarely worth the effort to block after the spammer is done for the night, so I rarely bother. I'll go ahead and slap a few blocks on, though. Not that I'm expecting him to remember how to log onto that account tomorrow. ;) — RG2 talk 06:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this allowed?

Check out the author signature on this image. Allowed? 130.164.76.229 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No; images should not be watermarked. However, since he or she has released that image into the public domain, there is nothing stopping anyone from taking out the watermark and re-uploading a clean copy of that image.
Frankly, it seemed a little surprising to me that we only now got an image of such a basic concept. But after looking through the history, it looks like there already existed some very similar, clean images — copyrighted, too, under the GFDL. — RG2 talk 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow attack

I only used the same licensing as this picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kayburleytsunami.jpg

Any help would be most appreciated. Cs-wolves 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Photos and screenshots (and similar items) from the press are almost always prohibited on Wikipedia. There is no good fair use claim to these images, as any third-party use infringes on profitability. — RG2 talk 21:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm still kind of a newcomer to uploading photos to Wikipedia, hence my lack of knowledge about the licensing. Cs-wolves 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. — RG2 talk 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IFD, PUI, etc.

Hi. Just thought I might let you know about WP:PUI, which is for contesting if an image is free. And for obvious copyright violations, the IFD page says to just tag it {{db-copyvio}}. The Evil Spartan 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm just being lazy, and it all gets taken care of, anyway. I don't have an automatic, one-touch button for the speedy template, either. ;) — RG2 talk 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I am requesting deletions on some of the pictures and please leave me alone i am trying to fix everything but all i am getting is messages from people and its really annoying!(Sparrowman980 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Prod

You said: “If anybody removes a prod template from any article for any reason, please do not put it back.”. However, in this case, somebody removed the template for no reason. Maybe could you explain me what is the correct procedure in order to delete a non-encyclopedic article, since its author will always want to keep it?

Consequently, I give up my deletion request for the moment. I assume I can still dispute the accuracy of Sahraoui Scout Association. --Juiced lemon 11:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I searched a delete template for a long time, and I selected the prod one in the end. Sorry, I misunderstood the use of this template.
Concerning the dispute, I suspect this article to be part of pro-Polisario propaganda. The principle of this propaganda is to make the reader to confuse Western Sahara, a disputed territory, with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, a state who claims it. You can check in this article: Fédération Nationale du Scoutisme Marocain that Morocco, who administers Western Sahara, have enough scout organizations. --Juiced lemon 12:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)

Thanks for copyediting the article, also the TIME article is a bit sloppy and I have noticed a couple of minor mistakes in it so it may be incorrect. I'll dig further. thanks again.--Vintagekits 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I would disagree with removing this detail. The cause of his death was disputed and that is way the specific medical explanation is added.--Vintagekits 21:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems that I was right in the reason behind why I thought it was so well written was because SHANE Mac THOMÁIS actually wrote it.--Vintagekits 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
SOmething seems to be going wrong with the formatting of the article at the moment as a number of paragrraphs are not showing up in the article - can you tell be how/why they are dissapearing?--Vintagekits 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I seem to be having the same problem at Tom Williams (Irish Republican) can you tell me what I am doing wrong?--Vintagekits 22:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers.--Vintagekits 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Block

Thanks for blocking 124.157.211.103 for me. Weird vandalism, just changing that one date around... *boggle* DraxusD 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Kinda hard to keep up with that guy. ;) — RG2 talk 10:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nate1481's impersonators

...seem to be cropping up everywhere! I've just gone through and deleted them all again, but for your work this morning:

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Well done for clearing up after a particularly messy vandal ck lostsword•T•C 11:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. You'd think after what - a fortnight? he would give up. Ah well :) ck lostsword•T•C 11:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, sensible. This way we only have to worry about the new ones (!) ck lostsword•T•C 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self Revert at Falkland Islands

I had actually self reverted myself because I didn't at first realise that the previous edit by Mr Kuntz was also a self-revert, to a previous version that contained both "sides" and a {{fact}} tag. I would encourage you to revert yourself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note the comment in the discussion page. I took the article back to where it was before the edit fest. Justin A Kuntz 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake and pasted the wrong URL in a reference. I hadn't realised what I'd done, which is why I was reverting to what i thought was a consensus view point. See above.
Right now I'm finding it very difficult not to post something that doesn't come across as a personal attack, mainly because I feel the way I've been treated over this was very harsh and unjust. Funnily enough having my contributions to this article described by you as ridiculous and absurd, I kinda took as a personal attack. Also as the guidelines suggested I did suggest talking this to talk and arriving at a consenus before making edits.
So I'm kinda wondering why I was the one blocked for breaching WP:3RR when in fact I'd only made 3 edits in a 24 hr period. Not more than 3 and I wasn't planning on making any more. You did exactly the same thing and nothing happens. WP:3RR is supposed to apply to all Wikipedians, so if there is a punishment as a result why isn't it equally applied?
Can I also respectfully suggest you put Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers on your reading list. Justin A Kuntz 00:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't break WP:3RR; you did. Please read the guideline more carefully and look over the history at Falkland Islands.
And this has nothing to do with not biting the newcomers. I clearly know what I'm talking about, yet you continually refused my requests to look over and understand WP:V and WP:RS before reverting. I clearly and repeatedly told you why I was reverting, but you dismissed the completely valid reasons as "smart ass." This isn't about biting a newcomer who doesn't know about policy. This is about reverting the actions of a newcomer who refuses to learn about policy and take advice. — RG2 talk 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And for information, look at the edit history yourself. In the 24 hr period before I was blocked I'd made 3 edits. In the previous period I'd made a couple, decided that what I'd put in was against the consensus and then self-reverted. Please note the comments from t above. So I didn't break the WP:3RR rule either. So in which case, why was I blocked?
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers "Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before defining what he or she is doing as "wrong" or "substandard"." I could quote other relevant sections. So in the light of that is describing my edits as "ridiculous" and "absurd" not biting the newcomer? Also did you ask what I was trying to do? No.
Yes I made a mistake, I pasted the wrong URL. Also I guess from your comments you'd noticed the URL I'd intended to put. I'd also clearly told you why I was reverting, I'd spent a long time going through the discussion, trying to find out how and why that consensus was achieved. I'd also told you I was revert to text that was arrived at by consensus. So the question in my mind is why you felt that your own personal POV was more important that the consensus?
And for the record, the remarks I dismissed as smart ass were:

"And the insertion of poorly worded, unreferenced, unverified, and misleading claims for the sake of balancing out the view isn't helping, either. — RG2 talk 22:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

Would you consider that a constructive comment? I took that as a personal attack.
And further for the record, I perceived the way you behaved as arrogant, high handed and bullying. I am perfectly willing to learn about policy and take advice. I don't, however, respond well to your style. Justin A Kuntz 08:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Was it poorly worded? Yes. Was it unreferenced? Yes. Was it unverified? Yes. Was it misleading? Yes.
Come on, let's move past this. — RG2 talk 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at the history again. Did I break WP:3RR?
Was it poorly worded? No I didn't think so. You may disagree thats your perogative.
Was it unreferenced? Accidentally yes, I pasted the wrong URL. Had I put the correct URL in it wouldn't have been.
Was it unverified? WP:V allows an editor time to find suitable verification - I'd put a place holder in and was working on it. The text was agreed by consensus. Do you think consensus doesn't matter?
Was it misleading? No it most certainly was not. Its clearly an issues given the volumes attached to it in discssion.
Were your comments constructive? No.
I'll move past this when I get an answer to my questions. Did I break WP:3RR? Because I'm sure I didn't. Do you think consensus doesn't matter? Justin A Kuntz 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No response? Is that because perhaps I was right and didn't break any rule? Justin A Kuntz 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's because you clearly did break the rules (at 22:35, 7 July 2007 at 22:40, 7 July 2007 at 22:58, 7 July 2007 at 00:37, 8 July 2007 at 01:31, 8 July 2007), and now you're pretty much just trolling. Quit wallowing in self-pity and making yourself out to be some kind of victim. — RG2 talk 00:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Suggest you check again, noting the comment above from User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick as already pointed out to you I self-reverted in order to stop an edit war rather than start one. In fact I've repeatedly pointed this out to you but it seems you can't be bothered to check. I believe that self-reverts don't count to WP:3RR. While we're on the subject, suggest you also look at my comments where I asked to you many times to take it to talk. I also posted a comment on your talk page. My conduct was doing everything possible to avoid an edit war.
Suggest you also check WP:civil and WP:No personal attacks and while we're on the subject Wikipedia:Assume good faith, personally I tend to think Quit wallowing in self-pity and making yourself out to be some kind of victim does count as a personal attack. Similarly and now you're pretty much just trolling does not strike me as assuming good faith or being civil either.
Just a suggestion but before adding a {fact} to one of my edits it might be a good idea to check the reference already cited. Thank you.
Now at the beginning I would have been content with a simple I made a mistake, I apologise. The ability to admit to and apologise for a mistake is not a character flaw. I would probably in turn have apologised for calling your remarks smart ass. Please don't bother now, it would ring hollow after your last remarks. PS I'm moving on, moving past this and considering it a learning experience.
You have a nice day now. Justin A Kuntz 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Red Hat said he reverted his own edit. But, if you can show me the self-revert to any two or more of the specific edits above — meaning, you would have made only three reverts — I'd be happy to leave a message in your block log exonerating your of breaking any policies. Unfortunately, I just don't see it.
So stop trolling, wallowing in self-pity, and making yourself to be some kind of victim. Those aren't personal attacks, as it's pretty clear that's exactly what you're doing. And it's rich to see such accusations coming from someone who calls my work smart ass and goes on to use smug, smart aleck edit summaries]. — RG2 talk 08:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent. Thank you for the more recent edits on those articles, I'd missed the formatting errors. Ciao. Justin A Kuntz 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By your command. And to keep a complete record.

01:31, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (Talk | contribs) (37,381 bytes) (undo)

Is a self-revert to the previous consensus view point, please note that this was pointed out to you by Red Hat and I quote.

I had actually self reverted myself because I didn't at first realise that '''the previous edit by Mr Kuntz was also a self-revert, to a previous version that contained both "sides" and a [citation needed] tag'''. I would encourage you to revert yourself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Justin A Kuntz 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Aw, aren't things better when you ask nicely and stop throwing bizarre accusations of newbie-biting and personal attacks around? Anyway, I see that the 01:31 edit is different than the previous couple of edits, but I don't see how you think it's good enough to be considered a "self-revert." Here's what I see:

  1. John removes a few lines.
  2. You revert John's edit.
  3. I revert your edit.
  4. You revert my edit.
  5. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick reverts your edit.
  6. You revert The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's edit.
  7. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick reverts your edit.
  8. You revert The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's edit, adding back in additional lines about General Moore.

Clearly, these four edits all change ". The English language is in common use there." to "with the English language and names in common use rather than Spanish varients promoted by some foreign media" and change "Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", whereas Spanish-language media refer to the territory simply as "Las Islas Malvinas"." to "Largely as a result of the Falklands War of 1982, many Falkland Islanders now consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", whereas the Spanish-speaking media refer to the territory simply as "Las Islas Malvinas"."

The only difference with the edit at 01:31, July 8, 2007 is that this one reintroduced the line about General Moore, but it still reverted everything else that the previous three had. Introducing a new line, and changing nothing else, doesn't make the fourth revert completely different from the others.

And why was it reverted?

  1. Unreferenced? Yes. No reference was ever actually provided, except one to a mirror in the fourth edit, which I assume is a reference to the letter on the talk page.
  2. Unverified? Yes. Without references, we cannot verify.
  3. Poorly worded? Yes. Qualifiers like "some people" do this, or "many people" do that, really aren't clear and helpful terms, especially since some of these changes aren't in the lede. There is clearly room for terms that aren't pointlessly general (See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms). Additionally, there's a misspelled word in your edit.
  4. Misleading? I thought John put this pretty clearly on the talk page here. — RG2 talk 09:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The longest response I've ever had from you. For once actually helpful and had you done that originally I would probably have responded differently. Did you also note the comment above John from myself.

For now I've reverted to the previous consensus presenting both sides, I suggest that in line with the guidelines on disputed articles that a discussion takes place before edits.

The edit I presented took everything back to the consensus view point before everyone had gotten all excited and the people involved were happy. The words might have been different but the sentiment was there. As noted by Red Hat above it was a 'self-revert'.

So are you going to keep your promise and leave a message in my block log? Justin A Kuntz 09:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Only now helpful? The original point was that it was unreferenced, unverified, not neutral, though that didn't seem to faze you much. I suppose the length of my response is more important than its content, then. Anyway, I am going to keep my promise, but I am still waiting for the evidence.
You added, at least four times after John's original removal of the content, "with the English language and names in common use rather than Spanish varients promoted by some foreign media" and "Largely as a result of the Falklands War of 1982, many Falkland Islanders now consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive."
That's a violation of the 3RR policy, plain and simple. — RG2 talk 09:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I'd actually done my level best to keep it neutral, I notice you've had a look at the other edits I'd done. Are they not NPOV?
I'm also curious, why did you choose today of all days to go and have a look at my edits? I noted earlier you went and slapped a [citation needed] on one, when it already had a reference supplied. Just curious, nothing else because the tone of your response does indicate a certain hostility. But then text does not convey emotion well.
Two other editors considered what I'd done a self-revert and were happy. As I have pointed out many times, I took it back to a consensus view point. I've admitted to an error on my part and indicated that I probably shouldn't have addressed your remarks as smart ass. So having pointed to a self-revert are you now going to keep your promise or not? Justin A Kuntz 10:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I went back today because you happened to bring it to my attention. You positioned the reference before the line in question, so I didn't see it, though I suppose your subsequent edit summary was a bit wise-ass. But, anyway, I've rearranged it.
As far as I can tell, you undid John's edit, undid the revert, undid the subsequent revert, and then undid the revert after that, adding in an extra line. Of course I keep my promises. But you still haven't shown where you undid one of these edits. — RG2 talk 10:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are simply going to argue semantics over what is or is not a self-revert, then to my mind that does not assume good faith. I made what I considered a self-revert, it took the article back to a previous version that contained both "sides" and a [citation needed] tag, please notice not my words. Now if you look at your edits, they removed the consensus view point. I've pointed out that both of the editors considered it a self-revert why don't you? Justin A Kuntz 11:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Because you re-added the aforementioned content four times. A self-revert would have been undoing 22:40 to John's revision, undoing 00:37 to Red Hat's revision, or undoing 22:58 or 01:31 to my revisions. At this point, I don't think the blocking administrator, Tariqabjotu, was mistaken in his decision to do so. However, you can bring it back up with him on his talk page, or you can contact the administrator to declined to unblock you, User:Kurykh. — RG2 talk 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I take it that means that you're sticking with a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a self-revert and I won't see you making good on that promise anytime soon then? Thats fine, somehow I didn't expect you to. Well its been an interesting learning experience. Farewell. Justin A Kuntz 12:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent

Just for information BTW.

And why was it reverted?

1. Unreferenced? Yes. No reference was ever actually provided, except one to a mirror in the fourth edit, which I assume is a reference to the letter on the talk page.

Response: An error on my part, I had pasted the wrong URL in the reference. It was intended to be the reference that I have now included in the article not the letter on the talk page. Was it the fourth edit? I thought I'd put it in earler.

2. Unverified? Yes. Without references, we cannot verify.

Response: See above, if you had asked what I was trying to do then perhaps this would not have arisen. With the correct reference it is easily verifiable. You seem to be hammering me for a simple mistake, for which I have already apologised.

3. Poorly worded? Yes. Qualifiers like "some people" do this, or "many people" do that, really aren't clear and helpful terms, especially since some of these changes aren't in the lede. There is clearly room for terms that aren't pointlessly general (See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms). Additionally, there's a misspelled word in your edit.

Response: This is the first time that you've pointed out a typo or indeed to that policy, none of your responses actually helped by pointing to something like that. None of your previous comments have been a constructive criticism. Personally after looking at that policy I don't think my edit falls into that category.

4. Misleading? I thought John put this pretty clearly on the talk page here.

Response: Actually I agree with John's comments, which is why I reverted to the earlier consensus. Please note that you don't appear to have appreciated that John's comments in fact agreed with something I'd just posted. Justin A Kuntz 13:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK? This is kind of after-the-fact? I don't really really hammer on anything unless you bring it up. Come on now -- quit dwelling on it already. I was certainly a bit surprised when you messaged me still worrying about this earlier today. — RG2 talk 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait -- what? John said that "with the English language and names in common use rather than Spanish varients promoted by some foreign media." wasn't good wording. That's the thing you stuck in there four times -- what are you talking about? — RG2 talk 13:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually those weren't my words but the previuous consensus text to which I reverted. Had you asked I would have explained. Personally I'd have been more succinct but I chose to revert to the previous consensus text. If you care to take a look at the talk page, sentence structure is so sensitive there are reams of text dedicated to dotting every i and crossing every t. You will note I'd agreed with John that the article needed tidying for grammar and spelling.
Now the article is tagged as a controversial topic and asks that editors take it to the talk page before making changes. I asked you to do that but you chose not to. You first response to me was:
And the insertion of poorly worded, unreferenced, unverified, and misleading claims for the sake of balancing out the view isn't helping, either.
Now that I don't call a constructive criticism or pointing me to the error of my ways. In my response I pointed out:
Noting this is a sensitive topic I thought it better to establish a consensus here first. I'm working on references to how the Islanders view the term Malvinas. If i can't find any I'll delete it myself.
Now the only thing you could really fault me on, was referring to your first comments as smart ass but hey no one is perfect, not even you. But it was in response to your own hostile posting.
Before you waded in, an edit war had nearly started but the people involved had chosen to sort it out between themselves. All had agreed to call a stop to it. It really is interesting to see the lengths you'll go to after the fact to justify your conduct, if perhaps you'd done the same before the fact it would never have happened.
And I only came here today because you didn't have the common courtesy to respond before. I have a pretty clear idea why now. So once again, I'll move on and consider this a learning experience. Farewell, adieu, adios, abschied, addio and прощальное. Justin A Kuntz 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
How many times were you planning on saying goodbye? — RG2 talk 14:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Very good, very droll. Justin A Kuntz 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I do try. — RG2 talk 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange ocurrence with Pikachu and 911 articles

I found this administrator page in the 911 history section, and I needed to tell an administrator about this. As I typed in Pikachu in the search field, I ended up at the 9-1-1 article. At the top it said, in plain text above the article's tags, the same thing a user not logged in would see above an editing field: "You are not currently logged in..." It still said that the article was called "Pikachu", and when I clicked on the "History" tab and went back a page, I ended up at the true Pikachu article. I don't know if this was vandalism, a glitch, or what? I typed "Pikachu" in the search field again, and this didn't happen. Savie Kumara 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. — RG2 talk 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small=yes problems

In some web browsers, if you have a lot of stacked right-aligned items like you do on Talk:Sub-Saharan Africa, the Edit boxes don't look right. In my case, the Edit box for the first section, Comment, appears to the immediate right of the edit box for the second section, Minor formatting edits should help review, intial comments on references. Fix one problem, cause another :(. Too bad the archive box can't be made into a full-width rectangle. davidwr (talk)/(track) 22:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that. Oh well, future headers are going to be further down the page, so they won't be too much of a problem. — RG2 talk 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikpedia

Hello, User:Rguy2 and welcome to Wikipedia. The way Wikipedia works is: people who have conflicts open a dialog with each other before wrecklessly thrashing in articles. Apparently, you felt some urgent need to delete an image I recently created, in a mistaken assumption that it was an identical recreation of a previous image. Wrong. Did you do a bit-for-bit comparison? Or what? The reason why people discuss issues with each other is because issues are so complicated that most people cannot understand the issues when they try to think. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you understand that WP depends on dialog before unilaterally deleting or blanking or vandalizing. -Wikid77 10:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit-by-bit comparison? That's rich. Nice try, though. — RG2 talk 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are making my time on wikipedia a waste.

the few contributions I have made have been for nothing. It is so frustrating to spent time working on a entry and have it snuffed. There must be alot of folks who just give up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noshoes (talk • contribs).

[edit] Sahraoui Scout Association

Wow, I totally don't feel like that guy above, I value your contributions, and you saw POV I had not intended and was not seeing. Are there any more POV issues I need to address that perhaps I was overlooking? I don't think the thing needs to be redirected, and hope you can see what I am trying to do, land area instead of political entities. Chris 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, and you and I are reading from the same page. I am trying to change the name of the page to Scouting in WS to be more inclusive, as it is a special situation. Of late I have not been clear in my speech and do not know what to attribute it to, but you make all the points I would. Having survived an AfD, which is what the two editors really want, to see the thing gone so it doesn't remind them that the status of the area is not de jure decided, I'm not willing to see the thing broken up just because it is controversial. I would be happy to even section the article into ==Scouting in the x zone of demarcation== and so on, with
Main article: Scouting in x
as a lead. But for splitting it up to get rid of it, Jergen and you and several others worked really hard to source the thing and I will not give in to POV pushers after that. I wish I could have stepped back and seen where you were going before the POV I didn't see was pointed out to me, sorry I didn't. This was one of my earliest babies as the guy helping the whole thing is a friend from the 89 NJ, and I can't just say "well, delete it" to some guy who wants it gone but knows nothing of Scouting or what we're about. That being said, my gut inclination is to respond to the guy, but lately I sound like the doctor on House, really snarky and ugly, and I am not that guy. I have put the move to Scouting in Western Sahara through the proper channels, it is presently at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog, but it will require an admin to look at it and make the move. The move itself does not seem to be controversial, but the existence still is, even though it passed AfD. Can you suggest a course of action? Thanks again, Chris 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:3RR

Hi thanks alot of the notice. Actually in my previous 3RR report with the same user, I was similar blocked along with him for the same offence. Unfortunately, the user has chosen to remain obstinate despite extensive discussions after the block, and partly due to the lack of interest amongst other editors, I find myself wasting plenty of time just trying to understand what his primary concern is over the new format I was trying to impliment (which up till today has remained a mystery). My patience is wearing dangerously thin in my dealings with him, despite my attempts to cool off from the whole incident by not forcing my version in for some weeks now despite discussions which were in my favour...--Huaiwei 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously I dont know. I just find it rather sad that I am potentially being "disciplined" when dealing with a user who has proven to be seriously disruptive, almost veering to the point of vandalism. Moving the originally titled World's largest airline to The World's largest airlines [2] without discussion is just one example. I even strongly suspect that he has created a sockpuppet just to do some self-rewarding of barnstars! [3]--Huaiwei 05:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes the barnstars are really amusing. I was about to consider reporting it, but heck...until he does some serious damage with the sockpuppet, why bother? ;) Anyway I see that you have already opened a discussion on the above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, so lets see how it goes than. I suppose I shall remove the 3RR notice for now too. Many thanks once again for your suggestions, and I do feel some comfort knowing I wasent alone in dealing with characters like him! ;)--Huaiwei 05:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Btw just noticed your comment there. Would you still allow me to rescind the notice?--Huaiwei 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks loads!--Huaiwei 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Play boy jazz

I leave in LA and i go to the Jazz festival who you think took those photos and only the playboy jazz festival happens in LA so it should be called that and it on the 19th and 20th!Sparrowman980 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Got a problem

What are you Big Brother or something all you are doing is watching me i believe this is abuse.Sparrowman980 22:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also why dont you stick those right up your ass were they belong!Sparrowman980 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparrowman980

Sure thing. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for keeping cool. Lucky number 49 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

I never Blanked any page that was yous i tried to restore it Sparrowman980 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspammer

Can you deal with user Smyd286 (talk - contribs) appropriately for me (I don't really know the procedure)? The account's only edits are spamming RollingStone.com links. Thanks! <3 JYi 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring on Falkland Islands

I would like you to consider removing the violation of WP:3RR from my block log. If you look at the edit history, in the 24 hr period before I was blocked I'd made 3 edits. In the previous period I'd made a couple, decided that what I'd put in was against the consensus and then self-reverted to the previous consensus. The two other users involved were happy with what I'd put. I'd reverted RG2 edits because they were changing what was the consensus agreed. Please note my comments on the talk page and given that I'd self-reverted I believe the block for breaking WP:3RR was a mistake. Justin A Kuntz 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, Tariqabjoutu — I think he worded his request a bit poorly, so just to clarify: I told him that I'd leave a note in his block log saying that the original block was unjustified if he could show me that he didn't actually break WP:3RR. Obviously, we can't usually remove stuff from block logs ... — RG2 talk 12:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
To start, one does not have to make four reverts in twenty-four hours to be blocked for edit-warring. That being said, between 22:35, July 7, and 01:31, July 8, you made five edits to the article (four of which can certainly count as reverts). Less than twelve hours later, you made more two reverts. Thus, Justin made a total of six reverts in twenty-four hours. I'm not sure what you're contesting there. -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plan II Honors nominated for deletion

As probably the leading contributor to the page, I thought I should notify you. Guanxi 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template cleanup

A few templates you created, Template:Characters on The West Wing (TV Series) and Template:Characters on The West Wing (TV series), have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Sorry but could I check with you why there is a mass change of several articles to become redirects? [4] [5] [6] [7][8]. Thanks!--Huaiwei 09:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The data is redundant to that in the main article, and I feel that those subjects are far too specific to warrant their own articles. -- RG2 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Rock and roll. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sparrowman980 04:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't troll, please. -- RG2 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparrowman980

Thanks. Rothorpe 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again. Rothorpe 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it – thanks for the update. I've been cleaning up the messes this guy has made for quite a while now ... ha. -- RG2 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, quite a history. It'll be interesting to see how long he persists with this - Rothorpe 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be trying to follow the Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you non-policy. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Johnmcginley4x18.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnmcginley4x18.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. BetacommandBot 14:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Judyreyes4x15.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Judyreyes4x15.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. BetacommandBot 05:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meh

Maybe it was harsh, but it was my user page. Thanks for changing it (I intend to simply delete it now). Thanks for trying to keep me out of hot water. — BQZip01 — talk 08:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines

Hey there, I was wondering if you could please take a look at the following sections of the Singapore Airlines talk page, and perhaps weigh in with your opinion: Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Parent_company, Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Singapore_Airlines.2C_Singapore_Airlines_Limited.2C_Singapore_Airlines_Group, and from Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Infobox_updated_again_and_removed_2_sects. onwards. I have requested a RFC but it hasn't had any response yet, and this issue does need to be resolved for once and for all, as it is having implications on other airline articles, such as we have seen with fleet numbers for Qantas. Any input on this issue would be appreciated, as outside opinion is definitely required on this issue. --Russavia 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, if you could take a look it would be good. Even if you don't know much about the subject, perhaps that is what is needed in this instance. Cheers, --Russavia 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC/USER discussion concerning (ThreeE)

Hello, RG2. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — talk 11:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your detailed reply to the RFC. You may some very well-reasoned statements. I appreciate your calm voice of reason concerning this heated situation. Johntex\talk 01:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had stated things fairly clearly. All I'm still trying to accomplish is to get ThreeE to expand his pledge beyond following 3RR to all of the wikipedia guidelines and policies with regards to the article, specifically WP:V and WP:RS. I have not yet seen any indication that he is willing to do so, and that has been a fairly large roadbump to this point. The talk page edits I linked ([9] [10]) show that as recently as this afternoon he was still challenging sources that qualify under WP:RS. .. which has been addressed a number of times since the 11th on the article's talk page. -- Upholder 06:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Singapore Airlines

Hi, you are quite right concerning that long-standing dispute, although it wasent exactly confined only to that article alone. Hence while I too would normally avoid "confronting" anyone this way in an unrelated talkpage, his continued reference to Singapore Airlines to bolster his POV in numerous instances is some cause for concern, thus prompting that comment from me. Meanwhile, would appreciate if you may check into the inconsistencies in the fleet list too, for I find it one of the poorest-referenced sections in that article.--Huaiwei 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have previously commented on something related to this[11], even thou there has been no response. The primary point is consistency, so its either all of one or the other. As for my comments in Sparrowman980's talkpage, it is of little consequence where my point was actually posted, even if it is in Sparrowman980's talkpage. If a point I dispute is raised in any talkpage, I do not think it unusual to respond to that. If a user's behavior invokes a comment in his talkpage, I do not think it unusual to relate a similar experience I had in the same talkpage either. If this helps to stop a similar behavior in my talkpage, than I suppose that helps in the situation as far as my talkpage is concerned. I do not think my mistake over Sparrowman980's archiving practices is related to this discussion, by the way?--Huaiwei 16:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright let's just drop it. But I think at least we agree on one thing - that of Sparrowman980's behavior!--Huaiwei 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the intiative, RG2. I would just like to point out that the issues over at Aeroflot are quite distinct from this debate, which is primarily centred over the issue of parent companies. The issues at Aeroflot are over cencorship/advertising. My behavior issues aside, I think the current status now over the SIA issue is already closing in on some form of concensus, although not exactly in a form Russavia would like, hence the continued heated debates. I admit my behavior in recent posts isnt exactly cordial, even thou this has been the result of past histories of insults hauled from both parties. I clearly remember Russavia's constant reference to contributors in the SIA page as "fanboish contributors" when he first came into the scene, and his continued use of that term (or its equivalent) despite repeated reminders for him to stop from several members who were similarly insulted. I am not saying this to support my current behavior, but to provide the context behind the long-standing disputes which rages on in that article. I am of the opinion that much of the motivations behind the disputes are far less objective than they should be.--Huaiwei 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Johnmcginley4x18.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Johnmcginley4x18.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media 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. Wizardman 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories

Tuktoyaktuk University originally was used as a joke sweat shirt many years ago. It was of course abbreviated to "TUK-U". Todya they even have their own site but it's not a real university. However to make things confusing the site indicates that they are owned by the "Northwest Trading Company" but it appears to have no relationship with curretn The North West Company who run stores across the North or the older North West Company. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am just trying to reach a consensus

That is all. I am trying to reason with ThreeE, but that does not seem hopeful. I am not threatening to escalate anything, but I fail to see any other options for getting a blight ({{POV}}) removed from a perfectly good wikipedia article. I was trying to follow the advice of other admins as to where I should go with this and instead I feel I'm getting beat over the head (say it isn't so...admins that disagree!?! [/intent of humorous sarcasm])

So, how do we go about getting this removed from the article in question if not through an RfC, etc.? I'm all ears! — BQZip01 — talk 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When someone unjustly questions my integrity, yes, I get defensive, especially when it has no merit. I was just trying to keep the RfC current (I thought we were supposed to do that). I think it would be best if you led the discussion then. If we aren't going to use the quote, I suggest starting with the current phrasing in the body of the text and then focus on single-word or single compound word changes and incrementally come up with a solution. Your thoughts? (You can just reply here and I will check later). — BQZip01 — talk 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't ming me jumping in here on your talk page, RG2.
BQ, slow down. I know the tag is annoying but take a long-view. Don't be in such a hurry.
Don't assume that we aren't going to use the quote. ThreeE's preference (to pull it completely) is not going to happen. Unless someone else comes up with a better idea, then using the quote is what we are going to do.
"Consensus" does not mean "unanimous". At the end of this, some people may be unhappy. That may include ThreeE. That is life.
Please stop adding new sections. They just take attention away from the valid points that have been made. We need to wait for other people to comment in the section titled How did this get started and what does it imply going forward?.
In that section, Johntex, BQZip01, and Upholder all agreed to use the quote. Karanacs seems to be OK with it as well. Thedukeofno and ThreeE objected.
If we have 4-2 to use the quote and that is the best agreement we can get, then we are going to ride that out the door and move onto other stuff that needs doing. Johntex\talk 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm also largely OK with it, which I explain here. I'm getting too tired of this "debate" to keep on typing, hence the link. ;) -- RG2 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I had missed that comment. Fortunately for me I have not read every single word of the "debate". Thanks for pointing that out. Johntex\talk 01:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uranium

I would first like to thank you for not banning me or yelling at me but for Uranium i did provide prrof thou i understand the first time i didn't but the second i did.Sparrowman980 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Srt i added that before i added more proof please check the page now.Sparrowman980 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I got the new one from ABC News Australia.Sparrowman980 22:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No thank you!also i apologies for my past behavior on many things!sry!Sparrowman980 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acceleration

I would like to apologize i did not realize that the section was so recent. I agree with your points. WikipedianYknOK 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uranium 2

They have reverted my edit but it clearly states Australia has 40% and comes from a reliable source.Sparrowman980 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stevenson Ranch

I have the info you have been asking for.Sparrowman980 03:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What am i doing

That was a mistake if you could fixing i am sry.Sparrowman980 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What am i doing again.

That was a mistake if you could fix it please.i am sry.Sparrowman980 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg

Can you point in the right direction to Nom for move at Commons, If move isnt possible then delete Gnevin 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, most helpful Gnevin 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Margaret6x17.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Margaret6x17.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media 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. —Angr 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Pics

My neighbor gave them to me knowing is was going to put them on Wikipedia. Sparrowman980 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC) He gave them to me as they are mine so i am to do what i like with them and if that means commercial than yes.Sparrowman980 07:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinua Achebe

Thank you kindly for your recent copyedit on Chinua Achebe. Perhaps you'd care to comment on the article at the Featured Article candidacy? Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr review

Hello. I have granted you flickr review status at the Wikimedia Commons. Feel free to ask me any questions. Happy reviewing! --Agüeybaná 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Sukesaburo Nakanishi

I question whether this was a 'fair' deletion process, in that this article was lumped into a group with others, and deleted due to the argument 'other crap exists.' But the articles weren't the same...Mr. Nakanishi was ranked as the second-oldest man in the world. We had an obituary for this one, but not for the others. Notably, we have articles such as Henry Allingham with great fanfare. This does seem to be a problem of 'cultural bias' and even 'localism'. I'm not accusing you of that, but I am saying that this is a problem on Wikipedia.Ryoung122 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close a debate

You redirect Domini Santiago but you forgot to close the debate. Friendly, Magioladitis 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for reconsideration

Hi RG2, I noticed that you deleted the cartoon/logo image: Greenwald at salon logo (link goes to recreating a deleted page). I believe this was in error. WP:IFD states that images are ". . .eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised" There was no consensus and an objection was raised. The only other opinion offered was the nominator's, under the ambiguous and subjective criteria, NFCC#8 (link to image entry at Images and media for deletion/2007 October 25). I am thinking this was a simple oversight, and am asking you to reconsider and restore the image. I believe that there are strong grounds here for listing this at WP:DRV based on the merits, but I would prefer to skip that if possible. Thank you for you attention to this matter. Respectfully, R. Baley 15:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The deletion was not an oversight. The image description page stated that its purpose was to "show the logo and image of greenwald as seen on salon.com, where he currently blogs." I believe there exists some subjectivity to NFCC #8, but this image clearly doesn't significantly add to reader understanding.
You said it best in that it only serves as an "identifier/logo." That's right; the image might only allow readers to identify Greenwald's column, not better understand it. And besides, I wouldn't even consider this an actual logo, but rather something more akin to, say, a Wall Street Journal-style hedcut, or perhaps one of those headshots you see in opinion columns. As such, it's closer to being a non-free image of a living person than anything else. These images are often deleted due to NFCC #8 -- they're just around to identify, not understand.
The fact that other questionable things exist doesn't make a convincing argument. And yes, there's a free image in the article already. That doesn't justify the addition of unnecessary non-free images. :As such, I saw no valid rebuttal of the original nomination, and I deleted the image. Feel free to take this to deletion review, but I believe there are no grounds to do so. -- RG2 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I did say that it serves as an identifier for his column at Salon. That is an accepted use comparable to thousands of images on wiki that can/will never be free. It affirms that he writes there in a way words can not. But I think there's a procedural issue here that's important, deletion policy for images says to do so when there is no objection, I don't think you should say my objection isn't valid. I made a common argument for keeping that's in line with many valid non-free images used, and nobody deemed it worth their time to respond or to rebut it. This shouldn't be a downhill process that ignores editor input and that's why this deletion is against the process described for admins here. Specifically it says that, "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following:. . .(#2) No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." (emphasis in the instructions, not mine). Please reconsider, R. Baley 16:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that administrators should base consensus to delete not only on the immediate discussion, but on what they judge to be community consensus from previous discussions and other precedents. This goes on frequently even at Articles for Deletion, but given the often-scarce amount of discussion that goes on with each individual entry at WP:IFD, I believe it's even more applicable there. That said, I think it's pretty clear here that this fails NFCC #8, while I also think it's pretty clear that it's not a straight-forward logo and quite possibly just a nonfree image of a living person. Free free to go to deletion review, as that's what it's for, but I think that at this point, it's just a pointless exercise in bureaucracy. If the image is restored, there's good reason for another deletion nomination, anyway. -- RG2 20:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Rutstein Afd

I curious to your motives to keep the article. Might I ask you what 'no consensus' means when most people in the discussion suggested to delete? Did you read the discussion, did my proposal not make sense? Please correct me if the article passed any of the items I suggested it did not. Please reply here. --Shuki 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My motives? Please don't be ridiculous, and assume a little good faith, please.
In the discussion, a few editors explicitly argued to keep the article (GlassCobra, DGG), while a few explicitly argued to delete the article (RamiR, gidonb, Yahel). Let's then discount CN, even though I'm not sure how valid it is to do so. GRBerry makes no opinion on the deletion of the article, and I feel that Shirahadasha's comments are not extremely strong in either direction. Three anonymous IPs made edits, but I'll disregard those.
The remaining two editors involved in the discussion were IZAK, who argued to "merge contents to Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories," and you, the nominator, who agreed to "move the relevant and documented information to Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories." When you argue to merge information into a main article, you're no longer arguing to delete it. Rather, merging is an editorial decision that can be made by any editor, in which the relevant information should be moved to its target. The original article in question should be redirected to preserve edit history in accordance with the GFDL. See how to do so at WP:MERGE. -- RG2 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
'Motive' has an alterior meaning? It has nothing to do with AGF, and everything to do with what you wrote above which is exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks for clearing that up, a simple 'no consensus' is inherently an unexplained and vague keep. --Shuki 00:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, after a second look at your inquiry, I can only suppose I read it wrong the first time, and I apologize for that. I'll have to admit, though, that nearly every other time someone has used the term "motive" in regard to something I did, it's been a pretty obvious jab at me. I jumped too quickly to conclusions this time. -- RG2 00:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vijaya Karnataka pic

Whats your rationale for tagging it for deletion? I've removed the tag. Feel free to tag with rationale. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow the link to IFD. Since it's not a speedy tag, I'm going to revert, as regular deletion tags shouldn't be removed until the discussion closes. -- RG2 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete FU image in order to make a free image appear?

Hi RG2. I'm new to this subject matter, and would like more detail on the argument in favor of this IfD. "If we allow this image we would never get a free image of this band" Is it really established policy that we should delete fair use images just on the chance that a free image might appear in the future? Wouldn't it make more sense to delete the FU image after we have a free image in hand? Or is it thought that deleting the FU image might actually make a free image more likely to appear? Thanks. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that line of reasoning says that if the article doesn't have an image, editors will be better motivated to go out and find one. If we simply fall back on a nonfree one, well, there's already a good image there, so there's no need to go out and find a free one. In practice, this has resulted in many editors actively trying to find the copyright holders of such images to obtain a release, and it's worked many times. Not at many times as would be ideal, of course, which is why you see the ugly "no free image" templates all over the place, like you do here, for example.
But nonfree images of living people are deleted in almost every single case, save for very, very exceptional circumstances. If a free image can be created, we wait to do it ourselves. If we don't have an article yet, we don't steal it from Encarta or from the Encyclopedia Britannica or from some random Web page; we write it ourselves. The same goes for images. I really doubt the administrator that closes that debate will keep the image.
See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for a basic rundown of the conditions that need to be met for us to use a nonfree image. Also see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images for a list of (only a few) examples of unacceptable nonfree content. The This Is Me Smiling photo fits example No. 12, as it is clearly possible to take a picture of the band members. Let me know if you have any more questions. -- RG2 09:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Click "show" to see my message.

[edit] My picture

Hello. I uploaded the picture Image:J_B_Aristide_AP.jpg. Thanks for letting me know it's listed for deletion. When I uploaded it I asked someone if they thought it was fair use, but since it turns out it isn't, oh well... Regards --Atavi 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic League

I noticed in the Catholic League article that benjiboi has put in a huge amount of POV. I tried to fix it a bit, at his "invitation". However this really need to be looked at and reworked by someone without an agenda. Really, this is unworthy of wikipedia. A total rewrite is needed without the polemics. A controversy section would be fine if the rest of the article was NPOV. Thank you.136.242.228.97 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of living persons

I noticed that you deleted some images today because they feature living people and that they're considered replaceable. I wonder, how come those images of living people which were uploaded long before aren't facing similar scrutiny? Kinda unjust. FoxLad 06:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They are facing similar scrutiny. It's just that there are an incredibly high number of copyright violations on Wikipedia, with an incredibly small cadre of editors working to fix them. In the past 24 hours, over 2500 images were uploaded to Wikipedia, and they each have to be processed by hand (not to mention, I wouldn't expect Sunday to be our busiest day of the week here). It's no wonder things are missed. -- RG2 06:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The images I uploaded in the Gerry Peñalosa and Jorge Arce articles are in danger of deletion because someone considers them replaceable and that free ones can be added. If free pics can be applied on them, then why nobody did so in the first place? I guess this shows that free images are too much to ask for. We would take pictures of those persons ourselves but some of us live in very remote places that to go and obtain them translates to travelling cost. Of course we don't want to spend to much just to add something to an article. We just do what we can afford. I'm not sure regards to the other option of requesting permission. Perhaps this may lead to extortion. Anyway, why non-free pics showing living persons oftem get removed? Why can't they let them stay? FoxLad 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Because we are a free (as in freedom) encyclopedia, with very few exemptions. The images of Gerry Peñalosa and Jorge Arce aren't free. But are they necessary? Clearly they aren't. And are they replaceable? Clearly they are. You might not be able to replace them yourself, but that doesn't mean that the nonfree images you've uploaded are simply irreplaceable. -- RG2 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:General Sturnn.JPG

I notice you removed the Invalid Fair Use template from Image:General Sturnn.JPG despite the image not actually having a fair use rationale for the article it appears in! I've changed the rationale for you, but you might want to check more closely before removing templates next time! ;-) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, must have missed that. Next time, you can ask for speedy deletion by disputing the fair use rationale. -- RG2 10:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The move

Exactly, thank you! Aaker 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Sintheg3.20

FYI, I think you will find he is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Sintheg2. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did see that. So many reasons to block, though -- I just picked one at random. -- RG2 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images I've uploaded

I've noticed that ALL images I've uploaded for international_Durastar and international_Transtar have been listed for deletion when the decision to keep was made last week, as they have fair-use rationales according to admins User:Shell_Kinney and User:Maxim and I'd really like Image:tractors.jpg restored as it has the same rationale as the rest. And Image:8500_dash.jpg has the same rationale as Image:4000_interior.jpg yet one is listed as replaceable while the other is not? And all of the images in those articles are backed by company release as stated here: http://www.internationaldelivers.com/site_layout/absolutefm/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=7 is where it is stated that images may be used in a way that is not detrimental to the company. A positive article on Wikipedia is hardly detrimental :) I'd really like these images kept as I have no way of replacing them, especially group or interior images. Thanks--Lpimlott (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They're all photos of trucks that are either still in production, or at the very least, still in use. Since it's reasonable that a free image could be created, these images fail our nonfree content criteria. -- RG2 21:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have access to large vehicles as I live and work in a national park. It was decided to keep these images until I can get my own. I would like them left there until I am able to. I don't exactly have the time since I work 40+ hours a week (or money at todays gas prices) to go out driving around taking pictures. And the company states images from their site may be used in a non-detrimental manner. There are other articles about trucks here--are all those images going to be deleted too??--Lpimlott (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not that you yourself may or may not be able to find a free photo at this moment, it's that someone could reasonably create one. And, yes, the other images will eventually be deleted as well, unless they are free (reproduction and modification permitted for both commercial and noncommercial purposes), or unless an equivalent cannot reasonably be created. -- RG2 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IFD

Yep. I missed that one. I deleted it. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 21:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Grey

Thanks for the page move, but something is odd about the resulting Talk pages. Talk:George_Grey redirects to Talk:George Grey (disambiguation) rather than being the original talk page, which seems to have been left behind at Talk:George Grey (Premier of New Zealand). Pm67nz (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Sparrowman98

I happened upon User talk:Sparrowman98 while perusing C:CSD and imagine the {{db-userreq}} situated there to be dealt with best by you. In general, as you probably know, user talk pages are not, at least in the absence of an explanation by the requesting user, deleted per G5, and in this instance the requesting user is not even banned; since the page history contains only your blocking message, though, and since some admins tend to delete, rightly or wrongly, talk pages that consist only of indef-block messages (just as user pages that are created solely to comprise an indef-blocked user template, as, for instance, {{Temporary userpage}}) a month after the issuance of a block (in the absence, one supposes, of an {{unblock}}), I don't know that there should be any particular problem with deletion, and so I've refrained from removing the speedy tag in order that you might, should you like, undertake an IAR deletion here). (If you're scoring at home, that is, indeed, four-plus lines on an exceedingly silly matter, but it is that sort of verbosity that one gets when I'm drinking.) Cheers, Joe 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you a pass if you've been drinking. ;) I've been dealing with this user for months now. I don't care strongly either way as to whether the page is deleted or not, but since it seems like the user just wants to put this past him, I'll just courtesy blank the page for now. I don't really know if there's a policy about how long we keep these pages around, but it's not really worth the effort to look, as it's not a big deal. The warnings on his main account's talk page are properly archived, anyway (last I checked), and the block reason is still in the block logs of both accounts. If anyone really cares about this block, the logs aren't hard to find. -- RG2 04:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dodge Spirit

RG2, is there some reason why you carry on reverting WP:Subst actions on the infobox at Dodge Spirit? --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotchya! Sorry for misreading the situation. I've reinstated your cleanup of the pseudobot's changes. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More pics of mine nominated for removal.

When I logged on this time, I became depress to know some more of the images I uploaded have been nominated by Rettetast for removal because it is assumed that they are replaceable. These are images from articles Nobuaki Kobayashi, Takeshi Okumura, Marco Zanetti and Semih Sayginer. It is fine for me to have the one from Semih Sayginer taken out but I would like the rest to be spared. I don't think they're replaceable. I even gave perhaps sufficient reason on why.

Since you're one of those administrators that determine the fate of certain pics, I decided to let you know now.

If you check those pics and also say that they can't stay, I prefer to have them deleted before the deadline. I feel like I suffered enough disappointments already. FoxLad (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They meet the commonly accepted definition of a replaceable non-free image, which is contrary to Wikipedia's goal of being a free-content encyclopedia. Sorry about the delayed response. -- RG2 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

At first, I assumed that the pics I added on those articles aren't likely to replaceable despite that they feature living persons. My reason is that they are athletes of a not-so-wellknown sport and that the chances of having someone to apply a free content are close to zero. This is different from a very popular sports like football (soccer) where the chances are high. FoxLad (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright photo guidance

Hi RG2. Due to the fact that I have not been 100% clear on the copyright images rules before, and because you have deleted all of those I uploaded, I thought it proper to display this message here to get your thoughts. I recently created the Leonore Annenberg page. I've searched Google (using the search term "leonore annenberg site:.gov" and later "leonore annenberg site:.mil") and no images of Mrs. Annenberg came up. So I just tried "leonore annenberg" and many images came up. Although they were all good images, my guess is that very few are in the PD and the only one I am sure is free is this with President Reagan. The problem with that image is that I'm trying to find one of specifically Mrs. Annenberg, and even cropping that would only display a somewhat blurred side shot of mainly her hair. So I looked at a few more pictures, ruling out those from the AP and other wires or newspapers, but I found two image of which I feel just might fit the non-free criteria: this and the photo of the Annenberg's here.

The first image I listed is not from a government or military site, but rather that about an upcoming museum of communication in Washington, D.C. The photographer's name is listed (Douglas Kirkland), but no agency is given. The image seems to fulfill non free criterion number two as uploading it would not infringe on his commercial opporunities.

The second image is from a private foundation and no author is given so we are not infringing on commercial opportunities. The image is small, however, so it would be my least favorite of the two but would probably still work.

Although Mrs. Annenberg is still living, she is eighty-nine years old and rarely makes public appearances. I believe her most recent was in early May at the White House with Queen Elizabeth and President Bush. Anyway, if you could please respond that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. For now, I will use the image of the Annenberg's with the President Reagan, but will definitely contact the foundation. Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

You wrote earlier

Careful at Image:Senate in session.jpg. Nobody mentioned even once in the deletion debate that it was a work by the U.S. Senate. Rather, they all claimed that it was a public domain image from C-SPAN's video coverage of the U.S. Senate. Unless someone says otherwise (and nobody has, as of yet), your tag is misleading. But I'll fix it for you.

Thank you. The tag was a template of the U.S. Congress, for Congressional works. Should a sentence noting C-SPAN as the source been written beneath it? <snip material about Jiang.>

And per your other uncivil comment regarding my supposed paranoia: Nice cop out, but I'm very well aware that the chances of negative legal repercussions are often slim to none. But we're trying to build a free encyclopedia, and people like you clearly don't understand what that means, but would rather unabashedly steal photos from people who make their living trying to sell those same photos.
Off Wikipedia, the photographer makes money by selling his or her photo to a paper, and the paper makes that money back by advertising to those to view the image on their site. In our case, we simply stole an image to unnecessarily decorate an article, giving nothing back to the people who worked to create it or to purchase the rights to it. And there's a clear difference between the image in question and those that are actually iconic, such as Image:Kent State massacre.jpg, which I myself wrote a detailed fair use rationale for.

Who in the world would go to the paper just for the purpose of seeing said image? But anyway that's beside the point. I'm currently finding you to be uncivil. Why couldn't you have pointed out that argument on the deletion page? As I later noted after engaging in some research, our fair use guidelines are very restrictive, and are not at all obvious. I even modified a few pages to point future uploaders to that position. But simply asserting "this should have been speedied" without pointing to the specific policy is misleading, and only serves to generate resentment. As the closing admin for the Senate image reminded everyone, we are to assume good faith. And to prove I'm reasonable, I did push for delete on the other image in question once it became clear that it fails our fair use policy. Anyway, let's call it a day and move on, shall we?Ngchen (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Senate image - a logical deduction

Thought I'd save you the trouble of searching through C-SPAN archives. I have a very simple logical deduction that would show that regardless of the image source, it would be OK copyright-wise. The worst possible outcome would be that the image remains mislabeled. Here goes. In the U.S. Senate, only authorized cameras are allowed. The only cameras that have been authorized are those that are either (1) government ones, or (2) those of C-SPAN. If something falls under case 1, then its public domain. If case 2, then C-SPAN had placed it in the public domain.

What about the case of it being a republishing, say by the AP? If that were the case (I doubt it myself, but for the sake of argument) I still believe the image itself would be public domain. NOT the "wrapper" or anything that might surround it, but the image itself. My argument goes by analogy. Let's suppose The Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens is public domain. Publisher X produces a copyrighted version of it with a beautiful green cover, and a novel foreword. The cover and foreword, as well as the particular printing/styling of the book would be then copyrighted. However, the words of the story itself would still be public domain, since something that has entered public domain generally cannot be "pulled back" from that. HTH.Ngchen (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the AP possibly having sharpened it, or whatnot. That was something I didn't think of at the time. As for The Christmas Carol, I am going to argue that if a publisher went so far to modify the text itself and still called it The Christmas Carol (and nowhere notes that it's an abrigement or modified version), the publisher has committed fraud if the "real" Christmas Carol was in the public domain. Under this scenario, wouldn't rules like unclean hands and such come into play? I doubt any court will accept a copyright infringement suit if it became obvious that the plantiff deliberately made something look like public domain for the purposes of trapping someone into copying something that is technically not. Anyway, good luck with your C-SPAN hunt. I'm assuming you have image comparison software to find the exact frame in C-SPAN's archives to verify it. It's been a decent learning process. All the best.Ngchen (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)