User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2007/10

Comment
Hello, sorry to bother you--I'm a pretty casual wiki user, and while I'm distressed about TTN's edits, I'm not familiar enough with wiki's structure to be certain where I should be addressing my concerns. I posted here, a couple of minutes after a post you just made, and have seen your comments on this topic elsewhere. I was wondering if there are any other pages where I should cross-post what I wrote on the noticeboard, to assure that it's seen by whoever might be in a position to address it. Thanks for any help you can offer. 24.90.146.245 11:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, it isn't necessary to cross-post this. If the issue isn't resolved on ANI the discussion will be taken elsewhere until it is properly addressed. Your comments on Ani will be linked to in such a case. It needs some time though. By the way you may want to get an account. -- Cat chi? 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and yes, I will. Up until today I hadn't seen a need, since all I did was read articles and correct the occasional typo.  Seeing "merge" notices at the top of all of The Wire's extensive episode articles (they're quite far from being stubs, they do have references, and the main article is featured) was quite a surprise, and a nasty one when I discovered that TTN seems to be doing this to every television show that he believes doesn't have enough wiki readers to consistently revert his changes.  On the bright side, at least he put the notices up without actually carrying out any destructive merges (yet). --24.90.146.245 11:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He merges them alright. Or someone else merges them for him. -- Cat chi? 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_2.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_2.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_3.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_3.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_4.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_4.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_5.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_5.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-10.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-10.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-1a.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-1a.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-1b.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-1b.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-1c.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-1c.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-2.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-2.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-3.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-3.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-4.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-4.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-5.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-5.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-6.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-6.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-7.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-7.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-8.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-8.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fr-Army-9.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr-Army-9.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your double redirect fixes
I appreciate it. 14:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How NOT to fix a double redirect

 * 1) REDIRECTestimation lemma

If ML inequality ever becomes an article rather than a redirect, then this page should be changed to redirect to that.

The redirect page titled ML Inequality currently reads as above. To change the second link to "estimation lemma" makes no sense at all. Please don't do that. Michael Hardy 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot processed the list at Special:DoubleRedirects.
 * Any link1 → link2 → link3 will become link1 → link3
 * This is the recommended action as per WP:2R
 * I am uncertain what exactly the problem is. Consider using softredirect
 * -- Cat chi? 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a clearer case of unwillingness to understand. Please look at what the page says. Look at the profoundly stupid form in which your bot left the page. Look at my edit that fixed the problem. My edit is consistent with the policies you cite, so you should have no objection to it on those grounds. On the other hand your edit obviously defeats a purpose that helps Wikipedia. "Softredirect" is for a different purpose. Michael Hardy 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My bot processes data as it appears on Special:DoubleRedirects. Anything beyond that is not my problem. If there is something wrong with Mediawiki's Special:DoubleRedirects page, that is a bug with Mediawiki, not my bot.
 * From what I can see the bot is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. You are creating a self redirect chain by linking to a redirect page (from a redirect page) and hence cluttering Special:DoubleRedirects.
 * What is the purpose of linking to ML inequality on ML Inequality (mind the case difference).
 * -- Cat chi? 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I disbelieve your statement that your bot's absurd edit is required by that page. Damage done by your bot IS your problem. Why do you ask what the purpose is? The purpose is obvious. Don't come to me citing policies that say different things from what you claim they say. I have no problem with fixing double redirects; if that's ALL your bot did I'd have no problem with it. But it did something else. Michael Hardy 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Look closely. you are/were linking to a redirect from a redirect. That is a double rediretc as far as mediawiki is concerned. You should not be having wiki-links on a redirect aside from the actual redirect link. Use an html link if you must - or just create a stub. Please stop fighting mediawiki. -- Cat chi? 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fighting mediawiki; you're fighting common sense. You say "That is a double redirect as far as mediawiki is concerned". That defies common sense. Policies exist for a reason. And if you're against even that kind of so-called "double redirect", why didn't you just remove the link, so the words would appear there with no link, instead of replacing it with something absurd and incomprehensible? Michael Hardy 03:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Take it to ANB/I. I have nothing to add here. With the amount of words you have told me you could have simply started a stub. -- Cat chi? 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This would be quite simple to fix by simply telling the bot not to edit the page that is the redirect in question. Instead, it can remove the square brackets that make a link. I tend to agree with Michael that the bot's edits in this case defy common sense; they are just the result of your bot's loigc not handling this case in a reasonable manner. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Simplistically usage of a template solves the problem: . Why is it so hard to do that? -- Cat chi? 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, your bot could do that. The point is that your bot needs to do sensible things in all circumstances. You can't always blame the poor state of the page when your bot does silly things. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Porthos-where_no_dog_had_gone_before2.jpg
I have tagged Image:Porthos-where_no_dog_had_gone_before2.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a mere human with limited time
I can't improve articles on demand. You mentioned Editors... I have been working on this series alone for quite some time. You seem to be in the know of the series. Would you mind help expand it? -- Cat chi? 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help out, except that right now, I'm working on a series of major upgrades to some of the Kim Possible articles, a series where I have a much better grasp on where to look for sources. By "Editors," I meant to suggest all those interested in the OMG articles; maybe you could ask on the anime-and-manga WikiProject's talkpage if they have anyone who might be free to help?  Rdfox 76 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I sadly tried and the end result was me watching the sunset alone :/
 * I did ask OMG fans off wiki for help. I have been waiting for their involvement since.
 * -- Cat chi? 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AMG Improvement drive
What is exactly required in terms of improvements? --Dynamo_ace 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we need more out of universe information for sure, as well as citations (such as in universe citation as well as out-of universe ones). We need a lot of improvement if we seek these articles to be featured. My strategic long-term goal is to make all of these articles featured. -- Cat chi? 22:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is to follow the example of the FFX charcather articles i think, those have "Survived" for a long time. What about the interviews in the magazines and TV specials? I myself could provide Widescreen pictures of the charathers if need be. And we also need a spoken word version of some of the articles. --Dynamo_ace 11:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interviews and TV specials on the series would be most useful. Spoken versions would be useful after we get featured articles... After all the content will change significantly to that end. Screenshots are fine but first we need content to compliment the screen shots. -- Cat chi? 11:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first place to go for interviews is the first DVD on the anime series (Either US or UK version). --Dynamo_ace 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamo ace (talk • contribs)
 * Sadly I do not own the dvds. Do you? -- Cat chi? 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have some of the DVDs, I'll have a look when i have some time. --Dynamo_ace 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamo ace (talk • contribs)

Oh My Goddess!

 * A goddess descends to your talk page

Hi, I noticed your username appears on this category and would like to invite you to take part in a general improvement drive on all articles relevant to Oh My Goddess! including character articles, episode articles and others. -- Cat chi? 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Answering the call
I just wanted to let you know that I got your message, and I would like to help. I'm more of a grammatical "cleaner" who fixes writing errors, but I'm willing to take a look at the articles and see what I can do within the confines of my free time (which isn't much, but I'll do what I can). talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, any help is most appreciated. If you could add citations as well as spelling and grammar corrections this would be most helpful. -- Cat chi? 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Porthos-frengi.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Porthos-frengi.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 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK on AMG
Yeah, my offer to take a look still stands. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1995 Turkish operation in Iraq
I'm afraid you're mistaken about Operation Steel. It was in 1995, not 1994. All of the sources on the page say so. So do news archive reports...I think you have some incorrect information. PBP 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See: http://fotoanaliz.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=6755&p=2&rid=4369 -- Cat chi? 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. See, , , , , and every news source from 1995, all of which state that Turkey went into northern Iraq in 1995. I started the article using sources from 1995. And yet you bring up a single source from a non-news site that says it took place in 1994. It's my five sources (and I could go on) versus your one. PBP 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hürriyet is the largest newspaper in Turkey. Which in turn sources Saygün Öztürk's "Sınır Ötesi Savaşın Kurmay Günlüğü" - Translates as "An Officers Diary Cross Border Wars".
 * Your first source is a non-peer reviewed query to the NYT and is not a reliable source. I haven't reviewed them, but looking into it.
 * -- Cat chi? 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's an article from the NYT. How is that not reliable? Do you know what LexisNexis is? Look up information on this incursion in 1994--there are zero results. Accept it--the date "1994" is a misprint, since no other source in existence claims the raid was in 1994. PBP 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There might have been a more minor campaign in 1995. But the information presented is for the one in 1994. -- Cat chi? 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_cr/s950328-turkey.htm. Convinced yet? This is a congressional record from 1995.PBP 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am merely seeking the most accurate information. Please calm down. Looking now. -- Cat chi? 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing there that establishes Operation Steel to be in 1995. No element of the operation is even mentioned. I'll need a more clear link for WP:V purposes. The memo could have been sent the following year of the operation or it could be for a smaller operation in 1995. There are countless mini cross-border operations aside from the big four we have articles on. You are right 1994 may have been a misprint but I need evidence to this end. -- Cat chi? 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more sources that conclusively prove the incursion was in 1995:. Please do not drag this out any further...this is a rather trivial issue, yes, but you seem unwilling to accept the truth. I have provided seven sources that say "Operation Steel" was in 1995, yet you provide one source that says it was in 1994. No other source refers to such an operation in 1994, therefore your source is mistaken. It's like saying the Iraq war started in 2002 instead of 2003. It's not reality. Please accept that the incursion was in 1995, or I will get an admin's intervention in this matter, and they will with certainty side with me. Please. PBP 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, firstly admins have no authority to interfere with content related disputes. Calling one in would be pointless. As for the you provided, it seems to adequately establish the campaign in 1995. You can alter the dates while 'ing to this source. -- Cat chi? 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You are being dicussed on ANI
See this. Viridae Talk 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicity and Wikipedia
The method you employed for having those categories deleted (by misrepresenting the time they had been empty) is unacceptable. The merits of "Kurdistan" nonwithstanding, you employed deletion templates in such a way as to perform an "end run" on consensus by essentially tricking someone into deleting them under false pretenses. A user with your experience should know better, and this type of action is simply not proper. This, in conjunction with the many other dramas you've been the center of over the past two years is making it difficult for me to assume that you're consistently editing in good faith or using good judgment. Reconsider the means you're employing to edit the project, this can't continue. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not involved with any drama. No idea what you are talking about unless you count every disagreement I have as "drama".
 * I have been harassed for the past 2 long years. My only mistake was seeking community help. Community was more than slow in dealing with a user who dedicated his entire contribution in harassing me. That indef block could have happened two years ago.
 * Merits of "Kurdistan" nonwithstanding, User:Diyarbakir, my harasser (one of the indef blocked sockpuppets anyway) had added this kind of categories to the articles on occasions simply to bait me (this evidence is present on the checkuser case I believe). I looked the other way for ages so as not to create what some may call "drama". After waiting for so long I decided to make a few edits. I haven't just mass removed the categories instead I recategorized on many occasions from "Kurdistan" -> "Iraqi Kurdistan".
 * I have requested an inclusion criteria for these articles numerous times. I have attempted a discussion numerous times. They were all ignored. The only time a response is indeed posted seemingly is when one of these categories get deleted or nominated for deletion.
 * And for my highly slow-paced consensus seeking attitude I am accused of bad faith.
 * -- Cat chi? 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris Conley
I see that you are a commons admin. Would you look at something unrelated to tv stuff for me?

was just uploaded from Problem is, the original uploader on English, User:Punkguy182, has claimed that he is "Hal Horowitz" — http://www.halhorowitz.com — yet on his user page he says he is a web developer. It is highly likely that this user is a reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3 — and others.
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chris_Conley.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chris_Conley.jpg

So my request to you is to look into the possibility that commons is now hosting a copyvio. I have tried to find it online, but have not.

This has been reported but not acted upon; note a second image that I did find.


 * Copyright problems/2007 October 8/Images

--Jack Merridew 11:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons images
Please do not remove images you nominated for deletion from articles. A bot will handle the task more efficiently should the images get deleted. Not every deletion (even speedy ones) get deleted. -- Cat chi? 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop mass deleting and removing rank insignias indiscriminately. Medals of the US federal government are public domain just like all Federal works by the US. -- Cat chi? 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not removing images indiscriminately from articles. I'm removing copyvios from articles.  While medals issued by the US are certainly public domain, photographs and drawings of 3D objects are entitled to copyright protection, just like photographs and drawings of public domain objects like landscapes.  Medals issued by other governments may have an additional level of copyright protection (in the design of the medals themselves).  The Husnock situation has been discussed at length in many places over time, including most recently here, here and here.  Just because a copyvio image remains on Commons does not mean I should leave it in place in Wikipedia articles.  If you have further questions on this complicated situation, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! -- But |seriously |folks   16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but commons cant see all that (the discussions). I also do not see a speedy deletable images. Please restore them back to articles and initiate a case at commons:Commons:Deletion requests as this is as you point out a complicated case and not obvious. If it is really a copyvio, it will be removed by a bot and can be restored just as easily if for any reason the images get undeleted. Process is very important if we are juggling 2 million images on commons. I would ask you to have a bit more patience with it. -- Cat chi? 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to let Commons take its time deleting the images. My primary concern is with en.wiki.  There is consensus here that most of Husnock's images are copyvios and that he generally misrepresented his sources (where he identified them) and as an admin here, I am entitled (if not required) to remove them from articles while Commons takes its time deleting them.  Husnock uploaded thousands of images to en.wiki, and probably 80% of them are copyvios.  I have been working my way through them, looking at each one and making a determination whether it should stay or go.  As you can see from Husnock's upload log, I have left hundreds of images in place.  (I'm working from the most recent uploads backwards in time.)  Anyway, as I said above, I have no problem with Commons taking the time to get up to speed on this issue and take action.  But we have already worked through it here at en.wiki, and these images can't be used here.  If you have questions, please feel free to ask me.  If you simply disagree and do not feel like discussing it, please feel free to take images to deletion review, WP:MCQ or WP:FUR, or you can start another thread at AN/I if you want.  I won't be offended! Cheers! -- But |seriously |folks   17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Imagine a case where commons community rules that these images are not copyvios... By removing them like this in advance you are complicating things for commons and commons people. You are actually strongly discouraged from removing images until discussion concludes in commons when there is a chance that images may stay. There is no reason to rush things and we do have bots that can take care of the task more efficiently. I as a commons admin do not see an acceptable reason to speedy delete these images as it is not obvious. They may be still deleted via a commons:Commons:Deletion requests discussion. You can make a bulk nom. -- Cat chi? 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with bulk nomming them is that they have different issues and were uploaded / transwikied by different commons users. I've been nomming them individually as I come across them based on their use in en.wiki. For my information and guidance, do you know of a policy at en.wiki relating to use of / removal of Commons content?  As I'm sure you are aware, many persistent infringers turn to Commons as a place for uploads that have been deleted from en.wiki.  I have no idea whether it's true, but there is a belief out there that few people patrol images at Commons and that less obvious copyvio images are therefore less likely to be deleted at Commons.  (This is typical of the information I see circulated.  Incidentally, the recipient of this particular message is a reincarnation of Husnock, the one who caused all of this.)  Also, are you saying that I have been removing images without nomming them?  If so, it's unintentional.  I'm trying to be careful, but it's possible I've missed some.  I am required to remove redlinks from deleted en.wiki images.  Finally, if you would like to discuss specific images, I'd be happy to do so.  Just leave me a note here as I don't often check my Commons user page.  Thanks! -- But |seriously |folks   19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, what I am saying is unless a nomination isn't an automatic deletion, it should not be mass removed. We have bots that can preform delinkage (removal of images from wikipedia, wikisource and all other wikis). It does not matter how many people have moved/uploaded images to commons. Bulk noms can be conducted in a topic spesific manner. On commons we take copyrights more seriously than on any other wiki. People on commons are (for the most part) specialized on image related issues. Unless a deletion is obvious (these aren't obvious) deletion must follow the commons:Commons:Deletion requests process. So PLEASE follow that. I will not be nominating these images for you as I normally would (I am a bit busy with other matters). -- Cat chi? 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (undent) I am confused why you decided to roll back many of my edits at Commons. The templates I replaced specifically say: "If there is no proof for the public domain status of this work, please replace this tag by 🇳🇱 " (PD-USGov-NARA) and "Please check the copyright status of this work and replace this tag with an appropriate copyright tag" (Military insignia).  I'm the first to admit I'm not an expert at Commons, but if you don't want the tags replaced with 🇳🇱, the template shouldn't tell people to do that.  Also, there is no appropriate license tag, as these images are copyvios.
 * I am also concerned about your interpretation of copyright law. Specifically, you reverted my edit to Image:Txlmoh.jpg, inserting a template that indicates that it is PD because it is a work of the US Government.  But it is not a work of the US Government.  It is the work of the State of Texas, and therefore protected by copyright.
 * Like you, I am busy and don't have a lot of time to deal with the Commons issue right now, but just to show you the degree of this problem, I took the time to find the source for a few of the stolen images. Maybe these examples will help:


 * Image:NewSSColonel.gif
 * Image:SS2ndLTptch.gif
 * Image:SSCaptptch.gif
 * Image:Ogrupfhr.gif
 * Seriously, you can do what you want at Commons, but we cannot allow copyvio images to be used here at en.wiki. You can keep them as long as you want, but we will delete them when we see them used here, per consensus here that they are copyvios.  Take care! -- But |seriously |folks   02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the date given on the template. Is the upload after the given date? No. Therefore these are not speedy deletable.
 * Stop treating me like an alien from outer space, it is quite rude. There is no "we" or "you" (plural) here.
 * I told you already. As a commons administrator I do not see them as speedy deletable as it is a close call. In other words I need opinion of other people on commons. My decision is not absolute and I told you at least four times to use commons deletion requests. You are making life unnecessarily difficult for yourself. You will need to restore those images if commons consensus rules them not to be copyvios as per WP:CCC if not common sense. I will not clean up your own mess.
 * We have a working system in dealing with possibly problematic images and what you are doing is only complicating that. If you do not have the time to file a commons deletion request, perhaps you should not be removing images from articles. It takes less time to make a bulk nomination on commons than remove images from individual articles. At most it is the same amount of work.
 * -- Cat chi? 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not attempt to use me or commons as a means to resolve your personal dispute with Husnock. If the images are problematic you can simply file it on commons deletion requests and community can decide. -- Cat chi? 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was uncalled for and warrants an apology. I have no personal dispute with Husnock.  AFAIK, I never heard of Husnock or his apparent reincarnation OberRanks before a week or so ago when I became aware of the hundreds of copyvio images he had left us.
 * What does the upload date have to do with my edits? The sentence about replacing the tag with nld is set apart physically and in a different color from the sentence about uploads after a certain date.  I think it's an extremely strained interpretation of that template to claim that it should only be replaced for recent uploads.  How long should a deprecated template remain?  I just posted about this question over at Commons.  Feel free to join in that discussion.
 * Also, as I told you before, I thought I had tagged all of the images I removed for one or the other of the Commons deletion processes. If I missed a couple, I missed a couple.  I'm dealing with several hundred images here.  Please stop making me out to be some kind of scofflaw.
 * Finally, I have asked you for some authority that consensus at Commons trumps consensus at en.wiki. I would think that would have come up at some point.  If there is no policy on that, then I am properly removing copyvio images from articles based on the en.wiki consensus. -- But |seriously |folks   08:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I told you at least 6 times so far. You NEED to use commons:COM:DEL. These are not obvious cases and hence are not speedy deletable. When an admin contests nld that is for the most part the end of story as far as speedy deletion is concerned. In such cases we use commons:COM:DEL. The discussion on en.wiki has no binding bearing on commons. Discussion over the copyright status of commons images should be conducted on commons. I really am tired of repeating myself.
 * Deprecated templates stay forever. It should not be used at all any more. As for past uses they should be processed. Most rank insignia are ineligible of copyright much like flags of countries. Country flags had a similar license confusion and commons community is familiar with such cases of problematic licensing.
 * -- Cat chi? 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Help!
I gave you the sources from which the images were "borrowed". Please explain to me how copying images created by another website is not sufficiently obvious to require their speedy deletion. While you're at it, you could also explain to me how simply removing SD tags is preferable to replacing them with the proper tag, as I am careful to do at en.wiki. Because if I happen to be correct that these are copyvios, your conduct is preventing them from being reviewed by others and keeping them here. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I need to better clarify what I am doing to you. Here it is.
 * Why I closed as keep:
 * Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright. For example the flag of Canada pictured here is in the Public Domain no mater who draws or redraws it. I can "steal" it from any website, or use any scan of it at my leisure legally. en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case is the foundation behind the logic of this approach. So if the source object in question is ineligible of copyright all faithful reproductions of the image are also ineligible.
 * "Stealing images" is not a crime provided the images have a free copyright status. The site you linked for certain does not own the copyright for the images in any case. The copyright in any case would be held by the millitary or government of the country that own the rank insignia.
 * Nazi era material may also be free of copyright since any "image shows (or resembles) a symbol that was used by the National Socialist (NSDAP/Nazi) government of Germany or an organization closely associated to it, or another party which has been banned by the en:Federal Constitutional Court of Germany." Who would you go to file a lawsuit?
 * The designs of the images are very simple by very nature of rank insignias and are hence ineligible of copyright.
 * These above were in my mind for consideration when I closed the speedy nom as a keep. Hence why I closed the speedy deletion as a "keep" or "too close to call" at worst. Commons have dealt with images from en:Flags of the World site. They were eventually deleted after free alternates were made. While FOTW images were never copyvios, we are nice enough to redraw better alternatives and delete them afterwards. This is why most flags have an SVG version actually.
 * Why have I not retagged:
 * If I had that kind of time I would be processing commons:Category:Unknown. I am only expected to either delete or keep the images. I am not even required to inform you of my decision or even talk to you at all.
 * My decision was a keep and it would not be right for me to file a commons:COM:DEL request on something I closed as keep (per coi).
 * Also as a result of all this you are now more familiar with the commons process in handling non-obvious cases. I learned about it in a similar manner. On en.wiki an admin removing a PROD notice as keep does not have to replace it with an afd. For the most part a nomination is the problem of the nominator and not the processing admin.
 * Process on commons and why it is important:
 * On commons "reviewing" of non-obvious cases are conducted through COM:DEL. Majority of cases on COM:DEL are alleged copyvio cases. Speedy deletion is only and only for obvious copyright violations such as TV screen captures or corporation logos.
 * During a deletion discussion the images in question should NOT be removed.
 * commons:Commons:Deletion requests has a lot of images being discussed. If they all were removed from articles as you did with the rank insignias, this would have created an unnecessary amount of workload. Images may be deleted or kept. This is not a big deal and happens daily.
 * We have bots that will automatically remove links to images from articles of deleted images from commons. Manually doing it is unnecessary and problematic.
 * We however do not have a bot that will readd images if the discussion ends up as "keep".
 * Also on English wikipedia images that are suspected of violating copyrights are not removed from articles until they are deleted. Typically the closing admin removes them or sometimes there are red links.
 * Process on commons should be observed. We deal with over 2,041,655 files on commons. Thats over 40,000 images since last threshold pass (2 million) on October 13. It is common to have 5,000 new images a day. These processes are designed to handle this work load with minimal use of resources.
 * P.S. can we keep this discussion on one wiki?
 * -- Cat chi? 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, a lot of that does make sense to me. I would argue that these stylized, "cartoonish" if you will characterizations of patches and badges are sufficiently creative to acquire copyright protection, but that's a discussion for another forum.  I thank you for taking the time to fully explain your position and how things work at commons.  (I know from my adminship here what a pain that can sometimes be.)  Sorry if I was being think in the head.  -- But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad we understand each other better now. I put serious amount of thought behind any admin action I take and sometimes forget to appropriately explain myself. Sorry about the late explanation.
 * I would encourage you to restore the insignia images here on en.wiki until the commons discussion concludes. They would be re-removed with an appropriate link to the commons discussion by a bot if they do get deleted. Do you see the advantages of this?
 * -- Cat chi? 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh by the way I merged your request to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Nazi SS rank insignia images for a more effective bulk discussion. I hope you do not mind. -- Cat chi? 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee/Nominations/Coolcat
All of the comments on the mediation page and on the disputed talk pages refer to Coolcat. It may be appropriate to delete these old mediation requests as useless cruft, but altering their contents is misleading and pointless. This has been discussed on ANI, and you were told to stop making these changes. —Centrx→talk • 15:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. People were told off to drop the matter even at an RFC level (the rfc) as well as numerous times on ANI (one example). Please stop. -- Cat chi? 16:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dropping the matter includes you stopping. —Centrx→talk • 16:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I will be removing referances to Cool Cat as per privacy reasons. I do not know about you, but I really dislike rl stalkers. Your action clearly is without consensus. You haven't even bothered to engage in the most basic dispute resolution and made a point to avoid it. You have not even bothered to commented on the arbcom case for example. -- Cat chi? 16:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing private about the name "Cool Cat", your new username is directly associated with "Cool Cat" in several places, and your actions have increased those associations. You are lying. —Centrx→talk • 16:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Had you not mass reverted me very few people would have noticed the change. All you have done has been to put me in great rl risk. I obviously am not going to discuss you with the "informative" detail as to be frank I do not trust you. I have forwarded some of the details to arbcom rather reluctantly as I am very very protective of my privacy. Assume I am not lying for the sake of the argument. How is your edits helpful then? -- Cat chi? 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The only way changing text on Wikipedia would protect your privacy is if that text itself contained personal information, such as if your old username were your real name. If someone had personal information about Cool Cat, they hold that personal information and can act upon it regardless of whether you change your username on Wikipedia. If there is some personal information associated with the name "Cool Cat" which you do not want to be discovered by Wikipedia editors who interact with "White Cat", then the way to prevent that is to create a wholly new username severed from connection with "Cool Cat". Otherwise, anyone can easily look at the old contribs of your user and see your old username--and those contribs are much more obvious because of your signature changes,--not to mention that you list your old usernames directly on User:White Cat. —Centrx→talk • 16:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to throw away all my contribution merely to satisfy your sense of whatever. Indeed it is possible to "dig deep" and find that I used to be "Cool Cat". I want to make it less obvious for example rather than being the page title. I may switch accounts only after referances to "Cool Cat" are removed or minimized. By mass advertising it of course you are not helping. -- Cat chi? 16:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to "throw away" your contributions in order to prevent "great rl risk", which is your present justification for altering archives. If there is no real risk, then you have no justification. We courtesy-blank rather than move AfDs that contain a person's real name and hateful or personal information against his will, so I don't see why we would move a page that contains no personal information and that was created by the person himself. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you want to force me to leave wikipedia will not mean I will go just to satisfy your sense of whatever. If the AFD's title puts the non-notable person at risk, then it can be oversighted. Please do not confuse it with WP:BLP violations on already famous people with this case. Completely different issues are at work on an article and a discussion archive page. How do you know there isn't an article on me? I am not saying there is one. All I am saying is pages I edit and comments I make on wikipedia (my wikipedia persona if you will) should not be tied to my real persona or at least the connection should be as vague as possible. Even if there was an article on me this is possible to achieve. -- Cat chi? 17:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not care if you leave Wikipedia, and creating a new username does not require you to leave Wikipedia. Simply, if there is real risk the way to prevent it while continuing to use Wikipedia is to create a new username that is not associated with your old usernames. Potentially libellous or privileged statements pertaining to a person's real name are more serious than no such statements pertaining to an anonym. —Centrx→talk • 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that you care little about what happens to me or anybody. It is obvious with how User:Moe Epsilon was treated. I am uncertain what you mean with your last sentence. -- Cat chi? 17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is about the comparison between AfDs with junk in them, that the content of such AfDs is more serious than the presence of the name "Cool Cat" somewhere on Wikipedia. Also, I am not a ruthless killing machine. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Cool Cat, this is a formal warning for you to stop your disruption of the project, specifically your efforts to whitewash the past and modify inert archives. This is getting ridiculous, and if you continue, you will be blocked. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a block will be contested at an arbcom or foundation level as my privacy has real world implications off wiki. -- Cat chi? 16:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no realistic chance that your connection to the name 'Cool Cat' will ever be dissolved, especially in light of your increasingly bewildering editing to update connections between the accounts. If you were actually interested in privacy, you would stop editing under your latest account and start afresh, never touching any of those other accounts or edits.  Since you haven't, and in light of your edit history, there's no risk that the Arbcom or the foundation would ever seriously consider you're operating in good faith if you were to cry 'privacy!'. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were to block him for something as banal and harmless as renaming archives to match his current user name, it would not look good for you. Maybe you should read this AN/I section which indicates several administrators consider the making of an issue out of this to be disruptive and pointless, and reconsider your behaviour on this talk page in light of that. - Mark 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan... which have a talk page...
Hi! While a discussion is going on related to the borders of Kurdistan, you reverted and added your "source" without any explanations and discussions! Ill be glad if you find some time to discuss at articles talk page if a POV by a "Dictionary of English language" is a good enough (and reliable) source to justify your revert on political geography. Especially if the other descriptions in the same page cited by you are marking different borders. Thanks in advance and sorry for distarbing you here! Andranikpasha 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that the borders of Kurdistan are defined by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. There are many definitions that are at a state of flux. "American Heritage Dictionary" is a peer-reviewed notable, verifiable, reliable and neutral source. So it is fair to establish borders stretching as far as Armenia. CIA's map (this is being treated as a map of Kurdistan even though it isn't labeled as such) also has a chunk in Armenia as well. -- Cat chi? 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects with heaps of following text
Hello. I would like to know if your Computer could be modified to flag redirects that have heaps of extra text following the redirect tag. For example, when Computer made this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erusea&diff=160868752&oldid=160406683 Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 06:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot itself is not capable of doing that. Why do you seek this? I can come up with a better answer or solution then. -- Cat chi? 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I ran across a set of pages like that and they totally screwed up Special:Whatlinkshere such that it looked like things were redirecting in bizarre ways (see also Administrators' noticeboard). I wondered if there was a way to generate a list of "long" redirects (where long was anything beyond the redirect and optional redirect templates) but didn't find one. So yes, a better solution would be much appreciated! Ewlyahoocom 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey White Cat. Just wanted you to know, I finally got my signature fixed. w00t! ✗iℎi✗ (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

21 October 2007 Hakkari PKK attack
Is there any reason why you removed the flags and removed the section on US? -- Cat chi? 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, section titles should not be wikilinks. I remember reading it somewhere, but I don't know where. It might be some technical thing. DenizTC 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing. I was asking why you removed the flags in general, not just the ones in sections. -- Cat chi? 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reasons for flags there, it is a short section, we already have the EU etc wikilink, it has distracted me, can distract others as well, we don't have a table or long list there, and it does not convey much. I won't revert again, but I think this way it is better. DenizTC 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see: Response to the 2005 London bombings for the more standard practice. -- Cat chi? 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I said it is a short section. In the link you gave me, there are like a hundred (maybe more) states there (it is like a long table), so flags are useful to identify stuff. Here we have like five countries, the flags are unnecessary/not much helpful, and at that moment they had distracted me, and I am also a wiki reader. Also I think 'other counties' should stay together. We had also an issue of US-UK alliance, which was introduced with two flags. When we have more countries, we can change back, I don't know how many. Like I said, you can go ahead and revert me, I am not going to revert, but like I mentioned, I prefer this version. Also also also DenizTC 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedians
Hi, I really like the page a lot. I do feel however it would be better at the multilingual meta.wikimedia rather than here on en.wikipedia. -- Cat chi? 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating a mirror Deceased Wikipedians there. I'd thought several times about doing that but I wasn't familiar enough with meta.wikimedia to know where to put it. One question: do we maintain the english version or simply redirect to the meta site?--Alabamaboy 21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We can simply use Softredirect on wikipedia side. All information should be kept in one location. -- Cat chi? 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also moved left over images to commons. En.wikipedia copies should be deleted. -- Cat chi? 21:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I now see that you brought up a MfD on the item. I don't have a problem with having the memorial page on meta and a redirect to that works for me. However, I see Newyorkbrad's point and we can leave both of them up for now. I'll just be sure to update and watch the meta page along with this English WP page.Best, --Alabamaboy 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The MfD was merely intended to gather consensus for the move (well I have done it in a bold manner anyways). The intention was not a delete at all, if you check my nomination I make no mention of a delete. It would be very demanding to pay attention to seperate discussions on two wikis. We will end up having parallel discussions on same topics. -- Cat chi? 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Computer (08)
Hello.

I'm sorry, but I've denied the request for task 8 of your bot. The complete reason can be found at the BRFA subpage, but the short of it is that there is little hope that consensus would form that this task was required, especially since other tools already exist to perform that function.

Keep up the good work! &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am kind of confused. If a tool is used for the task, it would add ridiculous amount of noise to RC unlike bot flagged edits which wouldn't. I could use the tool through the bot's account and not flood RC for example. Having something like 20 reverts per minute would annoy just about everybody. -- Cat chi? 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the discussion on the village pump, but when an admin rolls back edits, he can (manually) flag them as bot edits so they don't show up on RC. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. Half of the concern is over how necessary it is and that admins can manually preform this. Of course this can be manually done like any bot edit but in the cases of a more dedicated attack that'd overwhelm an average admin or ten a bot would be useful. The idea is to have the access ready for the times it will be needed. Imagine a case where a vandal/spam isn't noticed for-say a week. Although very rarely, this does happen. In such cases deploying a bot could save time.
 * Any abuse as mentioned would be a permanent ban of the bot so I do not think that is a serious risk. I certainly am not that much of an idiot. Mass reverts always need to be based on solid consensus on obvious cases for the sake of sanity. Bot operators are responsible of every edit by the bot so I would have to deal with every mistake manually. No bot operator would wish to deal with hundereds of mistakes.
 * The bot can be made so that it reverts an edit on a certain time frame...
 * Also the bot has an advantage normal admin revert lacks, a proper edit summary.
 * I am also saddened by the semi-panic closure of the bot request. I'd wish it to be fully discussed. I only wish the idea be given a full thought process. Weather it gets accepted or not is a community decision. The location for this kind of discussion should be at the bot request page.
 * -- Cat chi? 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to (be saddened). You are more than welcome to acquire consensus (VP really is the best place for that and come back to BRFA with it.  That's generally the best thing to do: it allows the BRFA to concentrate strictly on the technical side of things.  Bot requests are denied without prejudice, and you're welcome to try again&mdash; but I would strongly suggest you come with a good consensus behind you that this bot function is useful and harmless, and that it is desired.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you wanted to have that conversation here or on my talk page. I've responded there.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do not mind I'd like to keep the thread on two places. You can merely respond on my talk page and I'll copy my and your response here. It's hard to keep track of it otherwise for me. -- Cat chi? 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)