User:Fys/talk archive7

Undeletion request
"18:52, 1 April 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Leibniz-Russell theory of perception" (4 google hits - OR/vanity/nonsense)" in your deletion log. I am a retired professor of philsophy (University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada) and contributed this article in all seriousness. Perhaps J.O.G read it too hastily? If it cannot be undeleted then I would at least like to recover it for use elsewhere. My email address is hrobinso@uoguelph.ca. Thanks for your help --- Helier Robinson.

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. It was good to read that someone 'gets' where I am coming from on 3RR. :] --CBDunkerson 11:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the support
Hi Dbiv- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:BrightonPavilionGraph.png
I noticed that you removed the copyright notice from this graph. Please note that the GFDL is a licence and therefore has nothing to do with copyright--I retain my copyright unless I choose to waive it. JeremyA 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statement "When you upload a file to Wikipedia with a tag, you release from any copyright restriction for Wikipedia's use" is incorrect and completely at odds with the Text of the GNU Free Documentation Licence. The example of use on the above linked page includes adding a copyright tag. Copyright and licensing are two separate things—when I upload content to wikipedia under the GFDL I retain the copyright but licence the content for use by wikipedia (or anyone else) under the terms of the GFDL.
 * As for my creative contribution to that work, I would argue that I had much more creative input in the choice of how to display the data than someone who points a camera at a building and photographs it, yet that person definitely has copyright over the resulting photograph. The election graphs (of which I have created many) that I have uploaded are the result of many iterations of styles of presentation to arrive at the current version, so I strongly assert that they are a creative work. I have provided the data used for every single graph that I have uploaded—data, as information, cannot be copyrighted, so I invite you to make your own versions of the graphs and upload them as public domain if my asserting copyright ownership bothers you that much. JeremyA 17:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes please move my biography into my own page. Thanks.

No Crusade Template
You write "No reason why Islam as a subject should have special protection from articles its believers do not like.". May I ask why, then, what it is that justifies the Cabal within Wiki in deleting any article they do not like, and in hounding certain users, and apparently co-operating to have them banned (for cases, please look carefully at the Admin alert boards, although I am neither saying that every Admin is of the Cabal, nor that the Cabal is an Admin-only group). -- Simon Cursitor

Harry's Place deletion
I'm dropping you a line because I've noticed that you were involved in some earlier debates around the "Harry's Place" article, and have done some work on the recent Euston Manifesto article. Anyway, I was wondering if you knew that the "Harry's Place" article was deleted several weeks back. Apparently, this was based on the fact that an older "Harry's Place" article was AfD'd back in November, and deleted as "non-notable" (with a strong consensus for deletion). I think Harry's Place is definitely a notable blog and should be relisted, however, since the vote for deletion still stands, I'm not sure if its kosher to simply recreate the article. (The mirror article on Answers.com is still there, so it would be easy to rebuild the article based on that, unless an entirely new one is called for.) I'd value your opinion on this. Peter G Werner 13:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally think that Harry's Place is notable and should be recreated. Since the last deletion I have been building up a list of press mentions which should satisfy WP:WEB afficionados. Opinions differ on whether there is a requirement to go to Deletion review to argue for its recreation, or whether it is better simply to recreate the article and wait to see if anyone questions it. David | Talk 13:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you could send me the raw text of the "edit" page of the last Wikipedia version of "Harry's Place", that would be great. I'll use that as a basis and probably flesh it out a bit more. Also, if you know of sources that have background/biographical information about Harry, David T, Gene, or Marcus, that would be useful too.
 * I'd be inclined to simply recreate the article and specifically leave a note on the "Talk" page on why I think the previous AfD was in error. If it gets deleted again, then I'd take it to Deletion review. Peter G Werner 17:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've "gone live" with the Harry's Place article. I have left a note in Talk:Harry's Place on why I think the original AfD vote for deletion based on non-notability was in error. I've had some trouble figuring out how I wanted to format references - there are a large number of linked references, including links to one rich media (mp3) source, so I decided to use the "ref /ref" format, however, that unfortunately creates a large list of untitled links, and I really don't feel like going throgh every one of them and giving them a title. Peter G Werner 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

John Smedley (developer)
Hi there. You protected this a little more than two weeks ago. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough to unprotect it now. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general? CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. Thanks. -Splash talk 22:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites
Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

St. Neots
Didn't realise that, cheers. Wham2001 18:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

TB sprot
Thanks. You may want to join in a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy SP-KP 19:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk elections Cuba
Thanks David for taking the time to consider my request. If it is not too much trouble, I am curious to learn about your reasoning of your recent 'take no action' decision on the Wikipedia Personal attack intervention noticeboard. BruceHallman 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Personal attacks have only taken place where another editor has criticised you as a person, not your edits or pronouncements. When Adam stated that he could not begin to express his views about you, he was not making a personal attack. He then went on to express his opinions of what you had written. There are therefore no personal attacks to admonish. David | Talk 17:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)".

I appreciate the time you took to reply, and I appreciated that the statement we are talking about was at best 'thinly veiled', but none the less veiled, you are right. Though, I am also curious if the statement "because BruceHallman and Scott Greyban were running it as their own private Fidel Castro fan page." amount to a personal attack? I am just trying to learn the distinction, thanks for helping. BruceHallman

Harry's Place Deletion Review
I've put the Harry's Place article up for Deletion review here.

Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006
Hi David. I have listed the LibDem leadership election article for peer review. Please consider helping with this review. Thanks. &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion request (sort of)
Concepts in Atlas Shrugged and Technology in Atlas Shrugged are both mentioned under WP:DRV. Both relate to Atlas Shrugged, and AfD decided to delete them and transwiki to Atlas Shrugged, with their histories. They seem to have been deleted, but not transwikied. Could you finish the process, or get someone to do so? Septentrionalis 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Invite to join/help organize Wikiproject LGBT studies
Hello. (Sorry for the form letter) In my various travels in Wikipedia, I have run across your name as someone who takes an active interest in LGBT articles. This is an invitation to check out a new project: Wikiproject LGBT studies. The initial goal is to create an within Wikipedia a unicversity-level academic-quality reference encyclopedia for LGBT and Queer Studies-related topics. The goal is two fold: 1. bring as many as possible up to Featured Article quality, and 2. prove that LGBT-related topics are as academically relevant to WP as other anthropology subsets. - Davodd 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN
...is a very ignored page, and you seem top be the last admin who visited. Do visit again plz, for I have posted a complaint there and crave sysop attention. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Ahmramsayeton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ahmramsayeton.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox
As I'm sure your aware, there's a rather heated dispute on-going on the Kcordina Talk 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If Kcordina is AWOL for weeks then you probably need to seek another mediator as this revert war can't go on foreverAlci12 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Statutory Instruments
Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa thanks
Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Amazing Racist
Dude, is there any way I can see what the text of the Amazing Racist article was, from before it was deleted? Thanks dude. --TheMadTim 11:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Awesome dude, thanks for your most expedient reply. --TheMadTim 23:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the friendly advise at User_talk:Jim Heller. Please note that in the last month or so, this user has been blocked twice for WP:NPA, once for WP:3RR and yet another time for bypassing a block by the use of sockpuppets (See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jim Heller), all related to comments and editing behaviour in articles related to Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
...for reverting vandalism to my userpage. I've reported him to WP:AIV.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  ) '' 09:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Stan 04:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin?
Hi, of you're an admin, could you please see to a little grievance I've placed at WP:ANI. Thanks. Telex 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Respect Parliamentary Candidates
Ah, I got the idea that Respect didn't run any other parliamentary candididates because the Wikipedia entry on the 2005 elections said they had no parliamentary losses. But I misread that, because they were only counting incumbent losses. Thanks for the correction. DanielM 13:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-added
The tag has been re-added. I will addd it again if you remove it. Who are you to impose arbitrary time limits?--Irishpunktom\talk 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell
David, there's been a complaint about you protecting Peter Tatchell even though you're involved in editing it. Would you mind unprotecting and asking an uninvolved admin to take a look? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll take a look, but the problem now is which version to protect on, if any. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Grampound
You've included three 1640 returns for Grampound: for the Short Parliament, the Long Parliament, and a third (returning Sir John Trevor). Is this the correct date? Choess 01:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. That makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately for those of us inconvenient to a research library, this page abruptly terminates in the Ps, but Coryton appears as member for Launceston, so doubtless Trevor took his place. Choess 20:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace
Since you've voted on the last AfD which resulted in DELETE, you might be interested, that the article is still here and I've created another AfD for it. Raphael1 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lady Howe of Idlicote
Sorry, I don't buy it. Nothing trumps accuracy, and if you don't believe that then you're in the wrong project. (Oh, and please provide some sources for what you're claiming. A quote that peerages are ranked according to who holds them rather than by date of creation (which is what everything else on the subject says) might be nice. I know it'd be a novelty, but it would be nice for you to say something about the Peerage actually backed up by evidence.) Proteus (Talk) 12:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe by any means that I'm the only one who knows about it, merely that you clearly aren't one of those who do. Your statement about precedence demonstrates perfectly what I mean, since it's complete nonsense. Wives of peers rank alongside their husbands, and above peeresses in their own right whose titles were created after their husbands' titles were. Lady Thomas of Winchester, the most recently created peer, is outranked by every single other peeress, both substantive and by marriage. If you'd read pretty much any guide to precedence you'd know this. Clearly you have a basic level of actual knowledge on the subject, but you seem to have filled in the rest by guesswork, and so are running around making nonsense claims without any evidence (like your ridiculous "wives of barons aren't baronesses" rubbish). You never seem to justify anything that you do, and when I ask you for evidence you just spout "everyone knows this" as if that's an acceptable source. It's more than a month ago since I asked you for sources on Talk:Jamie Lee Curtis, but not only have to failed to give any but you've continued to revert after my requests (still providing no justification either on the talk page or in your edit summaries). And yet it's me who's behaving inappropriately! You are clearly used to people accepting that what you say is right without question, and if you're incapable of behaving differently here then I suggest you go elsewhere and stop ruining our encyclopaedia. At the very least leave Peerage issues alone and stick to politics, which you clearly do know a lot about. (And I'm not disputing that she's better known as "Lady Howe of Idlicote", but that's beside the point. Such an issue should (and does) effect the name of the article, but has never affected how we start it. If you paid attention to policy rather than just directing people to it you'd know that as well.) Proteus (Talk) 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I may regret entering into this private spat it seems preferable to keep it off the article talk page. David, your statement "There is also the issue of precedence, given that the holder of a Life Barony is higher in precedence than the wife of a Life Baron." is not and never has been true. The wife of any peer derives equal place, precedence and pre-eminence to that peer. In the example she married a peer (creation 1992) and so derived precedence above all life peerages created after that including her own. The only way she could gain higher precedence in her own right would be to gain one of the various royal offices or by royal warrant. The only thing her peerage therefore gives her that her title by marriage doesn't is a vote in parliament.


 * Wrt "It seems to me common sense that Baroness Howe is known principally by a title awarded to her in her own right rather than one which devolved upon her by marriage." I would say this is also mistaken. She was publically known as Lady Howe from 1970 and derived her title from her husband for the next 31 years. She has held a title in her own right for five. It is normal wiki custom to use the highest title, with some very specific articles where two titles are given for clarity. I'm dubious in this case that much clairty is gained as both titles are essentially the same - if she had been created Baroness Idlicote there might be some value in persuing this line. However, with all the above said I think we are being more consistent with other articles as well as 'correct' by using the highest title alone.Alci12 14:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Assistence of an experienced wikipedian is needed
Dear David, I would be very greatfull if you answer my question concerning the NPOV policy. Regards,--AndriyK 11:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Denis Walker
Denis Walker was a junior minister in the Rhodesian Government and therefore carried the designation "The Honourable", just as ours carry "The Right Honourable". You must know that even after losing office you continue to retain the designation. Why have you removed his? And why do you have two pages for yourself on Wikipedia? They should surely be merged? Sussexman 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

fyi
I thought that maybe you'd be interested in this discussion: -- Karl Meier 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother
Re: - how do you know? —  Fire Fox  • 19:59, 06 June '06


 * From Digitalspy. David | Talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks =) —  Fire Fox  • 20:09, 06 June '06

DYK
thanks!  + + Lar: t/c 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)