User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Earlynovemberacousticep.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Earlynovemberacousticep.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed deletion ANNA BONANNO
I am a Maltese contributor to the wikipedia and I have been contributing for a long time on the Malta project. I believe that no due consideration was given when deleting this article. One should consider Ms. Bonanno is also mention in various Eurovision wikipedia articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 1992 and Eurovsion Song Contest 1997. Maltesedog (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTRA request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Montana Vandals back
Hey Katie, remember me?
Well, the vandal that was hitting the GM minivan articles (Buick GL8, Buick Terraza, Saturn Relay, Chevrolet Lumina APV, Chevrolet Venture, Chevrolet Uplander, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Pontiac Trans Sport, Pontiac Montana, Opel Sintra) is back, and is creating accounts to vandalise these pages as well as many userpages with a prewritten response attacking many specific editors and talking about how the GM minivans are great. Anyways, I thought I'd let you know, since you helped me deal with this guy before, and to see if you can help me end this crap all over again. Karrmann (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)
 Issue XXII (December 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:
Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated. | ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Your Back!
Hey ;) Tiddly-Tom 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Heaven Project. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ALLSTARecho 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the feedback
appreciate the feedback on new article, will work to clean up. --Strangerette 12:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikistress
Thanks for the message, KrakatoaKatie. It was very nice. My wikistress level was actually out-of-date and I forgot to update it, but all's well and good now!!
Anyway, what articles are you working on at the moment?? I'm editing anything and everything right now!! --Solumeiras talk 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, thanks
I have never seen your name before. Hello!
Thank you for putting a box around the AFD that I closed. How is that done? Is there a better way than cutting and pasting from an AFD that is already closed? Archtransit (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Article for Deletion process
Can you verify I correctly followed the procedure to list List of foiled terrorist plots in the United States for deletion? I am unsure as I do not see an article deletion discussion page. Thanks, --69.218.57.86 (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
unprotect Bobby Fischer page
IPs from main page should see it is possible to edit and may have much to contribute. The vandalism was managable and being handled. Thanks. 86.42.111.78 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The page has had more than 250 edits in the last 5 hours, many of which were nonsense or vandalism from IPs, so I semi-protected the page just for 24 hours. Any admin who disagrees, though, should feel free to unprotect it or shorten the duration. - KrakatoaKatie 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Surely not? More like 110-120 in the five before your post, with about 45 non-reverted IP edits and about 8 reverted IP edits in that period? 86.42.111.78 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are IPs not worthy of response or something? Or is it just me? 86.42.113.244 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since you're busy (now, but not in the last two days) and I'm coming off all cranky, here's the kind of thing I'm looking for.
86.42.113.244 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC"While I realize that [some big big number] of blocked potential editors came and went without either a chance to contribute or an understanding of the project as open and self-corrective, this was not the end of the world. However, if your figures - no doubt a quick count from a busy person, and after all maths are not everyone's strong point, no offence - have some bearing in reality, that is certainly food for thought, and indeed an insight into perceptions of IP contributions versus reality, one which I will bear in mind when dealing with IPs in the future. You have my thanks. Here, have some money."
- Since you're busy (now, but not in the last two days) and I'm coming off all cranky, here's the kind of thing I'm looking for.
Thanks for the Ruth Adams page cleanup!
- Nice job with citing the works and cleaning up the links, very much appreciated! -Jkazoo (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Any protection against false reports/accusations?
This wouldn't be the first time, so I'd like to ask if there is any protection against being falsely/misleadingly reported for 3RR while asleep at night. For example:[1]. Some admins get it[2], but others do not and I can't tell my version of the case while being asleep. Squash Racket (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wish all admins used the noticeboard to stop edit wars and not to punish for cases that happened hours before. That would solve the 'reports at midnight' problem. 'Worrying about pixels on the screen'? Well, Wikipedia is a very popular website nowadays, the articles here may influence public knowledge, opinions etc.
- Regarding Central European topics the debate gets heated sometimes, but you are right, I try to avoid getting into edit warring. It is a bit difficult, when the problem can't be solved by adding new information/references, because the dispute is about one single name. Squash Racket (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Single page application
Hi - I'm not sure how this works, but I replied to your post on my talk page. Hope you'll find it there. Thanks - Thron7 (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Trottoirism page
Some days ago the Trottoirism page was deleted, because it didn't give any hits at Google. I can understand why you would do that, but since trottoirism is a recently-founded movement it is quite logical that it does not yield any Google hits. We would greatly appreciate it if in the future this page is not deleted, since this is a serious movement, however weird it may sound. Trottoirism (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
please tell me why the page for Tom Holland (Blues Guitarist) was deleted. Tom Holland is very well known blues musician on the Chicago blues scene, the most important and influential blues scene in the world. He is current touring with one of the legends of the blues, harmonica player James Cotton, as an important member of James Cotton's band. I understand that he is not a household name, but this is the blues -- not a mainstream pop artist. Please give reasons for deletion, and what is required on the article to be added/changed to allow it to stay. I believe this young guitarist is important enough in his line of work to be allotted a page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yemdividedsky (talk • contribs) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Hindoestanen ethnicity
Hi there, thanks for the message. I forgot to move the template first before listing for deletion, but it has now been deleted. Green Giant (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
possibly messed up AfD for Okopipi (software tool)
Hi. I'm not sure if you are the right person to contact about this, but someone put up an AfD for Okopipi (software tool) on Jan 11th (or so). This AfD is still around, but it appears that it should have been taken care of by now. Looking at it, it appears that a new user may not have correctly done the AfD stuff, so it may not have been linked into the system correctly, nor gotten the proper reviews or suck. Can you take a look into this? Or, can you tell me who I should contact about it? Wrs1864 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, was _that_ a mess! It took 20 minutes to fix – it already went through one AFD, so he moved that one to an /Archive 1 page and recreated the current discussion without '2nd nomination' . He didn't add {{afd2}} (the header for the AFD page) and never listed it with the other AFDs for January 11. Figuring out the puzzle, moving the pages back to their correct places, and fixing the thing took an entire 30 minutes, but it's now listed on today's (January 21) log and will get the five days. Thanks for letting me know about it, because it would have been in no man's land forever! - KrakatoaKatie 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
CSD Exercises
Hey. Thanks for making them. I have completed them - How did I do? :P Tiddly-Tom 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey - My article just got deleted - Ironic ;) Would you be able to retrieve the content and then tell me how far off it was for being notable. Thanks, I intend to go and do some more exercises now :) Tiddly-Tom 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pretty please :) Is the first one ever in Cambridge, quite a famous city in England. Tiddly-Tom 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
re:Closing AfDs
Wow, thanks for the instruction! You've gone out of your way to make sure I don't make a complete Jack out of myself and I appreciate it! I've only closed 3 AfDs (thankfully!), one was fixed by you, the other two by two other editors. Again, much appreciated. I woulda kept doing things My Way had someone not stopped me:). I've gone back and looked at the diffs and can see exactly what I was doing wrong, so if I mess it up again, please hit my talkpage again, perhaps with a trout...Keeper | 76 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Note
I left a note on this item. [3] Anthon01 (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Gwen Gale's RFA
You made a comment opposing Gwen Gale's RFA that, in part, mentioned my opposition. I want you to know that I've since supported Gwen Gale, after discussion. While I still think the comments made at that diff were poorly chosen and inflammatory, I personally believe that these issues are largely in the past. If you have the time, I'd ask you to look at Gwen Gale's response to me, and consider whether your concerns still apply. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand why you deleted this article on a notable scientific research institution. Did you not see the reference to the article on this in the Encyclopedia of New Zealand (1966)? AfD it if you must, but to speedy it is a grave error of judgement. I have restored it.-gadfium 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Atlantic Baseball Confederation Collegiate League page
What authority do you have for deleting the content I entered for the ABCCL?
Do you have any expertise or knowledge that justifies your action. This is the second time it was deleted and there is absolutely no reason for removing accurate and factual content.
Whomever provided you with deletion authority was gravely mistaken since your abuse of it is appalling. You are obviously hiding behind a fictious name. I'm not and I'd like to know your rationale and also who you report to in the Wiki hierarchy of authority.
This is the first time I'm entering a user talk entry and I assume by contact information is included, but if not I'll try to reenter it. Pkapsales (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
soloist
i have ,in accordance,put two reference on the soloist.one is an interview with joe wright,which confirm the news,and another is a news report.i have add other links on the talk page-Iane talk) 09:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA!
|
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
| Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable concerns about me. I will take heed and carefully address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Spam?
I saw your name on the Wikproject:Spam participants list and wanted to get your opinion of non-blue-linked spam advertising on this this user page.
BTW, I love your username! I remember that Mighty Mouse cartoon...and that sexy, grass-skirted litte mouse! lol... Dreadstar † 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Apology
KK I hope you can apologise to me for the incorrect block on me. I hope you can apologise, more importantly, for apparently failing to remove the block having said you would. I am relaxed about this and realise mistakes happen. I make them to, but an apology would show good faith.Mccready (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Okopipi (software tool) AfD problems again
Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but it looks like AfD for Okopipi (software tool) may be messed up again, or still, I don't know. It was closed early (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okopipi (software tool) (2nd nomination)), but there is still the header in the article about it being up for deletion and there isn't anything on the talk page about the second AfD. I do not know if this is all fall out from the first incorrect listing, of if the "non-administrator" closing it did something wrong, or if this will eventually sort itself out. Anyway, if you could either check into it, or let me know who I should contact about this, I would greatly appreciate it. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like the non-admin who closed it just closed the discussion without removing the AFD notice or placing the result notice on the talk page. I'll take care of it. Thanks - KrakatoaKatie 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your help. I personally, have never liked that particular project and it seemed to be distraction and a waste of time on the anti-spam effort, still, I think it qualifies as being notable and included in wikipedia. It kind of bums me that it has continued to live on by draining time from wikipedia efforts. *sigh* Wrs1864 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
ML - Master Lists
I am trying to follow up on the ML - Master Lists. I'd be interested if there are other comments posted. 75.93.8.231 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Myotherapy
"Why did you delete Myotherapy"?
That's a very good question, since looking at it I can't imagine why I did so. Admittedly, half the article is a copyvio, but that doesn't require the second half to be deleted or the A7 reasoning. I'm going to restore the article, minus copyvio; and please accept my apologies. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Leo J Meyer
I would hope you would share this with Dhartung, Doctorfluffy and CitiCat and anyone who has no respect for the American serving his country. It is strange that the Welshman didn't look down upon American soldiers. Thanks for your time. Extracted from a 1998 article by David Baillie posted at http://home.earthlink.net/~scottie16/3-C.I.B.-M.O.H..html I hope this is not taken out of context. ..The C.I.B. is one of the most respected awards a soldier can receive and most honored, even more so than the Medal of Honor. It has been said that the CIB is the only award worn above the ribbon of the Medal of Honor on the Army uniform. Many holders of the Medal of Honor have not also been bestowed the CIB. Yet it's also one of the most talked about and controversial awards the Army has.
The C.I.B. was established, and back dated, to 6th of December 1941 for action under hostel fire while engaged with an enemy of the United States of America, when the United States is not the belligerent party.
In general that is what the first criteria stated. Since then this wording has changed and been interpreted a 100 different ways, and there in lies the problem. That and several other facts one being the effort, well meaning as it may be, to use it to make up for the missed acts of "Valor" and service while "under fire". Consequently the Army has made it possible for a soldier who received the CIB or the Bronze Star Medal to be eligible for the other, there-by getting both..."
For the exact same historical period, 41 to 07, there have been 575 Medal of Honor awards and only 303 triple Combat Infantryman Badges.
And I thought you folks were suggesting that I make adjustments to the article, I updated it not knowing you archived the article. 4 Bard, Bob. Making and Collecting MILITARY MINIATURES. New York: Robert M McBride CO., INC 1957. LC Control No.:57010757 5 Bowen, Martha. Scrimshaw: Variations on a Theme. San Francisco, CA: Martha Bowen, 1988. LC Control No.:88070736 Meyerj (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyerj (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sparkfun Wikipedia entry
Hello, Please can you revert the deletion of the Sparkfun Electronics entry so that someone (me or someone else)can have a bash at editing it so it does not sound like an advertisement? or was it so badly an advertisement that it could not be repaired? I know Sparkfun might of created the page which is a taboo in itself so can some one (me or someone else) recreate the page based on teh data in the previous article?
There is some debate on the deletion here.
Thank you very much Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc169 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
tempercalm??
Katie. I am an avid fan (and reviewer) of Tempercalm who regularly uses Wikipedia as an up-to-date profile for accessing alot of new and shrewd information that I might miss elsewhere.
I made my way to this page to get a few extra details for a review that I'm compiling and found that it has been deleted!
The page has been here for a long time as far as I'm aware, and it has suddenly disappeared? After navigating my way through several pages I found the so called "deletion log"
It says that Tempercalm are not a notable band? The band have had many commercial uses of their music, including use on the platinum selling XBOX 360 game Saints Row to name one.
At this current time, with the imminent release of their album, it seems very rude and downright wrong for their wikipedia page to be wiped off.
The band are currently being reviewed by dozens and dozens of publications around the world and for a source like Wikipedia to be removed, is completely unethical.
Please restore the original page for the sake of everyone who needs to get the information they need! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.194 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Milhist coordinators election has started
- The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration
Please note I submitted a notice for arbitration due to your abuse of power from the inappropriate deletion of a submission and failure to respond to multiple inquiries for your reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkapsales (talk • contribs)
- Pfft. Avruchtalk 21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should really add that rouge template to your userboxen. :) Orderinchaos 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Some Advice Please
Hi,
The link above is to an article submitted about me. I was wondering if you could advise specifically what the editor would need to do to get it published? I have looked over the section on notability and would like some more info.
Thank you in advance,
Andy S
Andrew Sharkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.238.48.90 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the notabiility requirements for biographies and the criteria for speedy deletion. You should also be aware of our stances on autobiographies and conflicts of interest. It wasn't a good idea to edit a 2006 AFC submission because nobody's going to look in a 15-month-old log. You could resubmit it to WP:AFC, but if I were working there I would decline it for the same reasons I gave in 2006. - KrakatoaKatie 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)