User talk:After Midnight/Archive 10

AMBot
See diff -- Your bot is accidentally removing newlines after category deletions. It would be awesome if you could change it to not do this. If you don't have time, or whatever, email me (I've enabled it) and I'll be glad to help. (I've left a similar note on the bot's page) --Silas Snider (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify -- the newline deletion is a problem only when done in the middle of wikitext that depends on the new line (lists, tables, etc.), not in general. --Silas Snider (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the issue and there is an AWB fix pending for it. The edit that you cite is from 2+ weeks ago and I have been watching the usercat edits more carefully since then to reduce the change of occurrence.  Ideally, these templates would not be getting subst into user's pages as that would make it easier, but I realize that the bot does ultimately need to handle it.  I do expect that the AWB version that corrects this will be available soon. --After Midnight 0001 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: David Beck
Thanks for the catch - I usually check the article's history, but this time it appears that I didn't... GregorB 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on user's talk page where thread started... --After Midnight 0001 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Best seller no more
So it is. I stand corrected. Thanks :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I know how it can be when things seem to happen without a reason. --After Midnight 0001 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ammi Burnham Young portrait
Hi After Midnight. Would you please provide some guidance on what is remiss re licensing here? Would you share with me or give a little guidance as to what license you would like to see used? Thanks. CApitol3 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Portraits of Vermont Governors
Hi After Midnight. I've found what I hope is a more suitable license. Thanks. CApitol3 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, the portraits are not PD. You are taking pictures of the portraits and then claiming that you are the copyright holder.  This is untrue; your photographs are considered derivative work.  If you want to use these images, you would need to put non-free license tags on them and then apply non-free use rationales for each article that they are used in. --After Midnight 0001 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A number of the images you tagged are derivatives of pre-1925 portraits so are not in copyright violation. The portraits in the VT State House are apinted as the governor leaves office so this gives a good rule of thumb. Admittedly, some of the images concerned are of post-1925 governors, but not all. I have indicated this on the relevant deletion list, but thought you might appreciate the info Mickmaguire 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. If the proper information was added to those images pages, that would be helpful so that they might not be tagged by someone else again in the future. --After Midnight 0001 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a message...
I left a message on User talk:Anoshirawan's talk page, with some further advice about how to address the problem that although native English speakers think they know "Afghan" means a person from Afghanistan, people with local knowledge of the reason say that Afghan only refers to people from the most numerous Pashtun ethnic group.

In my comment I made some suggestions, and I suggested that you might offer some further help. I hope you have time to read it. And, if you have any further advice I hope you have time to offer it.

Cheers! Geo Swan 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment/Question?
Note sure how to do that. Please give me a step by step. JDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.41.17 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I ready have no idea what you are referring to. Did I leave you a message that you are responding to?  I would be happy to help if you can provide some detail. --After Midnight 0001 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Sorry this is late, but thanks for the revert done on Nan Kelley. I really appreciate it. Chris 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! --After Midnight 0001 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with Delta Sigma Theta Page
Hello After Midnight. I am attemtpting to add some information to the DREF section of the DST page. I not sure how to cite sources and references. I was attempting to post the information first. Then it was my intention to go back and post the sources where I obtained some of the information, before I could do so Miranda deleted my information and said that I copied without providing a source. Well, when I attempted to go back and cite the source to some of the information Miranda deleted my DREF sections again. First, I am not an expert. Are posters given an opporunity to correct or make changes to the information before it is deleted? Even now when I attempt to go back and post the sources with the DREF inforamtion cited she deletes it. Thanks for your help. You can also email me at historicdst@yahoo.com. Also, I post under ueser name HistoricDST (which was created first) and HistoricDeltaSigmaTheta. I was not sure if I could get my account back when I decided to leave initially. Also, if I am wrong can you show me how to cite the sources correctly? Thanks. HistoricDST 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if the information that you are trying to post is a direct copy of something else, you really can not copy it, even if you do reference it. What you would need to do is to paraphrase the information and then reference it properly.  I would suggest that you take a look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia and WP:CS. --After Midnight 0001 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Typo fixing within reference tags
I agree that there's no particular benefit in correcting capitalisation / spelling of text within reference tags, but since there's also no particular harm, I don't bother to override the 'corrections' suggested by the AWB typo script if other genuine corrections are made at the same time. Thanks Rjwilmsi 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted category=broken template
04:08, 23 August 2007 After Midnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:User en-ca-N" ‎ (per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007) You deleted this category, but when users have, it has a redlink to that category. Please fix the template.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ --After Midnight 0001 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hadassa Ben-Itto
The Bookcover of this author has been deleted.
 * I don't know why.
 * Can you help restore the image?
 * Thanks.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The image was deleted because it did not have a rationale posted. I have restored the image to allow you to post one, but if not, it will be re-deleted in another week. --After Midnight 0001 12:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

CFD
Ugh... CFD was wrong on this one.... Category:Leporids is better than Category:Leporidae. Please pass any biology categories by some folks at WP:TOL before making these changes.... or at least alert us there is a CFD up that we might be interested in. And please undo the change made. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I actually didn't make the decision here. This was an old CFD which I found which I thought was not implemented, so I did so.  The actual decision was made here over a month ago.  I have notified the admin who made this decision.  Before I take any action, I would like for him to decide how he would like to proceed.  Please find that discussion here.  It is the bullet saying "Similar action...". --After Midnight 0001 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:PCD.jpg
Hi. You recently reverted an I9 speedy that I tagged this image with, with the edit summary of "rv - fair use was asserted - please read the CSD criteria that you are using to tag this". I have reverted this because you didn't check the previous content. The fair use summary was for a Buffy the Vampire Slayer image and had evidently been copied and pasted from another image the user had uploaded (which I checked in their contribs). Therefore it remains a copyvio. Seraphim Whipp 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I need a bit of help
Hey, it's been a while. If you can do me a favor, can you delete all previous versions of my talk page except the most recent one as you did with my user page? If you can, thanks. •The RSJ•   Talk  |  Sign Here  22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Do you mean just the main one or the 3 archives also? --After Midnight 0001 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead with the archives.  •The RSJ•    Talk  |  Sign Here  21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ --After Midnight 0001 00:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A question
"Miss World USA" - worthy of mentioning in the "notes" section of Miss USA state articles... or not? I thought I'd better get a second opinion before I deleted them all. I am definitely going to be getting rid of "Miss All Nations" and things like that :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs  22:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that representing USA at Miss World is notable, so that person deserves a note, but I don't think that the lower placements are worth keeping. --After Midnight 0001 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Image restored
After Midnight, I noticed you (correctly) deleted Image:FRIENDS.PNG after 7 days because it didn't have a fair use rationale. Just an FYI, I've restored the image and added a rationale. I knew you wouldn't mind, but wanted to let you know in order to avoid any appearance of conflict. Thanks, - auburn pilot   talk  00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me. FWIW, I would never complain about someone restoring an image and tagging it properly, but I do appreciate you coming by to let me know. --After Midnight 0001 00:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee
Amen. -- Boricu æ  ddie  00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If people want to comment on the process, they're free to at WT:MC. Cheers,  Daniel  04:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

CFD
Thanks, looks like I missed those. I'd suggest that a dispute about "leporid" be taken to that article's talk page, because at present the cat name reflects the article name.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Audrey Daston
I'm at work right now, so I can't just go to playboy.com to confirm something. So, would you mind going there and confirming the spelling of Ms. Daston's last name? The article uses the spelling "Datson", not "Daston", several times and I just want to be sure which is correct. Dismas |(talk) 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I've confirmed the spelling and fixed all the instances (I think). Would you believe that it was one of my first 100 edits, and my first page move, to send that page to the proper spelling, but I neglected to change all the spellings in the text at that time.  I was such a n00b. :) --After Midnight 0001 04:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! We're all n00bs at one point.  Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 05:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

UCFD for Category:User programmer
Regarding User categories for discussion/Archive/September 2007, I'm concerned about the process followed. I noticed when the cfr (not cfd) template was placed on the categories, and decided "I don't care one way or another if they are renamed in the stated fashion" so I thought nothing further about it. Then today a bot comes along implementing a "delete" verdict, which causes me to think "WTF? It was supposed to be a rename discussion!". I haven't decided whether I care enough about the matter for WP:DRV, but since one of the steps there is to contact the closing admin, I am doing so now. Anomie 14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. When a discussion begins on either CFD or UCFD, sometimes an unexpected result will occur.  Sometimes a suggestion to rename will result in a merge or delete and sometimes a delete will result in a rename.  At any rate, in this case, the minimal amount of comment (UCFD doesn't always draw very much) was in agreement, so I decided accordingly.  If you feel that you would like to have the discussion reopened, I have no problem with you taking this to a DRV to see if there is consensus to reconsider.  I am not so hung up on my decision that I would be bothered by whatever the DRV result was. --After Midnight 0001 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent closure
I am confused about your closure of Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. No one suggested that all the cats should be deleted, just Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. (Including Black Falcon, which makes demon's "delete all per Black Falcon" apply only to the single cat as well?) Could you clarify? - jc37 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Incidentally, I never tagged the operating system cats.) - jc37 01:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy cow. That is one of the more stupid things that I have done.  I have changed the decision, undeleted the 3 categories (with 1 talk page) and rolled back all of the edits that I could find.  Fortunately, I have good edit summaries for my bot, so I think that I got all of them fixed.  The categories look pretty well repopulated.  Feel free to look things over to make sure I didn't leave anything out or screw things up more. --After Midnight 0001 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid the word "stupid" and go with "mistaken"? (I personally like the word "oops" : )
 * And I think you did a good job at undoing it. If anyone was missed, they can always re-add themselves.
 * Someone else was concerned about this, I'll let him know it's been taken care of.
 * This aside, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as usual, for your encouragement. --After Midnight 0001 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A category issue
Hi, some time ago you closed this CfD and deleted Category:User ke and subcats. Now, a friend who was on wikibreak at the time, NikoSilver, tells me he would like it back. His point, which I think has some merit, is that "Ancient Greek" and "Koine Greek" are sufficiently different that many people would classify themselves as knowing Koine without knowing A.G. to the same extent. I guess this applies especially to many native speakers of Modern Greek, for whom Koine is significantly easier than "real" A.G. Indeed, there are a good number of users who give themselves higher Babel ratings for Ke than for Grc (see besides User:NikoSilver e.g. User:Kimon, User:KRBN, User:Brianbeck, User:Kupirijo, User:KaragouniS).

This has quite a practical significance for Wikipedia: if you seek a fellow editor who can verify a Greek quote from the New Testament for you, you might want to turn to somebody different than if you need someone who can translate a line of Homer.

Is the lack of an ISO code a serious problem? I'm not aware if there is a general consensus that only ISO-coded languages can be Babelised; I guess practical Wikipedian considerations should always take precedence.

I'm not sure this is an issue for WP:DRV, because it's not a procedural challenge of the deletion closure, which was obviously valid. It's rather just an application of "Consensus Can Change". Would you mind terribly if he just re-created the category? We have no standard "official" process for allowing such recreations, I think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * responded here --After Midnight 0001 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I had also contacted User:Horologium, who had made the deletion nomination, but it appears he still doesn't like the idea, so it might not be fair to just consider the CfD overruled. Should we get some formal input somewhere? What would be your preference, WP:DRV or perhaps just WP:CFD again? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I read the interchange on Horologium's talk page and I am still in favor of a new category. This isn't some vanity category, such as the California English or some of the others that have been deleted.  If having this category will lead to enabling translations which will help the project, I think that it should be recreated.  Please let me know if a single category (without levels) called Category:User koine is what you are looking for.  If so, I am prepared to create the category and note it in such a way that it will not be subject to G4.  As the admin who closed the discussion, it is my right to change my decision based on further input. --After Midnight 0001 12:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Name "User koine" will be fine with me, or maybe "User grc-koine" or "User grc-k"? I don't know what precedents we have for that kind of sublanguage. I'm not sure whether a single cat rather than a full babel scale would be that useful, though; after all, most users who have the userbox seem to be using it explicitly to compare their knowledge of the one form with that of the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I can settle for just one cat (such as 'User grc-koine'). The reason being that nobody actually speaks that variant today; I'd be surprised if even Greek professors would be able to converse strictly within the specific era and not use earlier or later forms by accident. Not to mention, that the era itself is the most transitional era in the Greek language, with the greatest differences from its [conventional] start (~300BC) to its [conventional] end (~300AC). So, IMO, what that category states, is that 'whichever the depth of their knowledge in Greek, those users can understand Koine Greek with relative ease'. That would be equivalent to babel-3, IMO, for all cases, so one cat is enough. NikoSilver 12:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll create the category and put a comment referring to this discussion. --After Midnight 0001 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Closing Rfas
Thank you After Midnight for taking your time in commenting about my edit(s). I have thought about the closure of Betacommand's Rfa, and decided it was unnessary. As for my break, it's supposed to be a wikibunk, but please understand that I did not put up the template because I wanted to sit around and wait for the moment an RFA is scheduled to end and then close it. My understanding was that the Rfa was due at 20:17, 13 September 2007, when I closed it at 03:59, 14 September 2007. Again, thank you for your comment. Regards, -- Hirohisat Kiwi 04:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that your message on Hirohisat's talk page may be a bit bity. He/she surely closed the RfA in good faith, especially when you look at his/her message on WP:BN, as well as his/her message right above. It seemed unusual, but we all make mistakes, and we are encouraged to be bold when editing, aswell.--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was bity, but Hirohisat doesn't seem like a newbie to me. I was looking to send a message, and I think that the message worked, based on his responses.  Notice also, the order of the comments.  I will however leave him a final message. --After Midnight 0001 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then again, why should I bother when I see now that you have already taken it upon yourself. --After Midnight 0001 15:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining, and I really doubt that he/she would ever do that again. I can count on it. Sorry if you think I was over-reacting.--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And for posting on the talk page. And don't get me wrong. I'm sure no harm was meant on your part.--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out to you that WP:AAGF, is an essay, not policy. It may one day become a policy, and I'm sorry I failed to assume the assumption of good faith.--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you feel a need to point this out. I don't recall saying that it was a policy; for that matter neither is WP:AGF (it's a guideline). --After Midnight 0001 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're absolutely right. I have bite the newbies in the past, and got a message regarding AGF and WP:BITE. I will try to work on AAGF, at the same time, now. Please accept my apologies for failure to do so.--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh, no need to apologize. Just relax, have fun, and do your part to improve the project. --After Midnight 0001 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

nonfree content deletions
It seems that you are deleting many nonfree images without rationales where it is unclear that a rationale is needed in addition to the template. (Obvious example is CD cover, where we now have a template rationale, and another may be magazine cover.) Has there been any discussion about these deletions? Calliopejen1 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The images that I am deleting are all ones which are in Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 7 September 2007, which means that they were tagged for deletion over 1 week ago and that no one supplied a rationale in that time. Even CD covers and magazine covers need these rationales as noted in Non-free album cover and Non-free magazine cover. --After Midnight 0001 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Barclay1974.jpg
I'm not sure how this can have been deleted without my being notified. I took a deal of trouble contacting the owners of the band's official website to seek permission for its use, which of course, I obtained. If I got the copyright notice wrong, fair enough, but to have been given a chance to fix it would have helped. --Rodhullandemu 10:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget this, I did have a warning but mistakenly deleted it along with a load of other (expired) stuff. Having regard to the above, can the copyright issue be fixed? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) OK, it appears that you are referring to Image:Barclay1974.jpg, which you uploaded at 18:13, 8 September 2007 UTC and I deleted per WP:CSD at 01:42, 16 September 2007 UTC. It was tagged as not having a copyright tag at 19:05, 8 September 2007 UTC by OrphanBot, and you were immediately notified here.  You then removed the notification 2 days later as shown here.  I confirmed that there was no copyright tag present before I deleted it.  Now if you are planning to see that the image is licensed properly, I can undelete it, but you should consider the following: Is the website licensing the image under the GFDL so that anyone can use it or are they only giving permission to use it on Wikipedia?  If it is the later, it will still be deleted eventually, per WP:CSD. --After Midnight 0001 12:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can still undelete it, but you will need to determine the license that is to be used. It would be best for the wesbsite to release the image under GFDL. --After Midnight 0001 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I passed my RfA, and couldn't have done it without your trust and support. Thank you very much. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Rfd
I've responded to your concerns. Would you please comment? Thanks. - Mtmelendez (Talk 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow
How do you mass tag images like on WBBM-TV with Twinkie? ViperSnake151 12:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:TW for general instructions. As for tagging those in particular, I just opened each in a tabbed browser window.  Once that is done I clicked on the "di" tab, and then selected "No fair use rationale?", which takes care of the rest. --After Midnight 0001 14:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions
Is there currently any procedure for putting a note on talkpages of articles that link to an image that's been nominated for speedy deletion? Alternatively, is there any procedure for undeleting images? The image DangerousLiaisons Screenshot OpeningScene.jpg was an integral part of Dangerous Liaisons and, as one screenshot from a 2-hour film, used for the purpose of illustrating a notable scene, certainly qualifies under fair use - if I'd only known it had been tagged I could have said so! Now it's leaving an unsightly and unnecessary gap in this article. --Zeborah 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fact, the instructions encourage the user who tags the image for deletion to add a caption to the image to alert the readers of any articles where it is used to its possible deletion. Also, the uploader should be notified.  It looks like this didn't happen in this case.  I will undelete this image soon and retag it for another week to allow additional time for it to be remediated before it is deleted.  This should give you enough time to take care of any rationales, etc. --After Midnight 0001 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! --Zeborah 03:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. --After Midnight 0001 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with the deletion? Why don't you just get rid of the image instead of commenting it out?Brian Boru is awesome 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Images are commented out as a courtesy to the article writers. --After Midnight 0001 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Category move
Hi, can you stop the move re articles of unclear importance/notability. Seems to be a lot of mess out there. These are massive cats and will take the job queues a while to process, plus there are various processes that utilise them that need to be updated. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43 23 September 2007 (GMT).
 * Incidentally, there is a current proposal to do away with these categories altogether in favour of "whitlinkshere" solutions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46 23 September 2007 (GMT).
 * OK the destination categories are now in place. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:00 23 September 2007 (GMT).
 * Subject to the renewed discussions at CfD.... Rich Farmbrough, 21:13 23 September 2007 (GMT).
 * I actually hadn't done anything with these since yesterday. I'm surprised that the queue would be affected by this; I thought that I checked that all of them were processed when I made the change, with the help of just a few null edits.  I'm sorry if I caused any problems, can you be a bit more specific as to where I erred, so that I can do better next time? --After Midnight 0001 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The destination categories weren't in place (done). There are also other templates that refer to the categories, to be fixed up (articleissues at least (done)).  The process that updates the chart on the parent category also needs  advising of the change (done).  Dragonsflight cat tracker may not be functioning, but might need looking at.  Documentation needs updating (I have done some of this).  Also it would have been good to discuss on the talk page of the parent at, or one of the cleanup projects, since  there may be other changes to the name - "topic" to "subject" springs to mind.  Most of the articles have now moved across, I am keeping an eye on the old subcats to see when they are empty and can be deleted - or if there are more templates to change. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:14 24 September 2007 (GMT).
 * OK, so while I took care of all the articles that were in the parent cat, I seem to have neglected the monthly children. Thanks for that. --After Midnight 0001 10:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

List of recurring human characters from Futurama
Hello, I see that you removed the images from this page stating that it is an improper non-free image gallery. I thought it was common practice to have images on list of characters pages, is this something that is being rolled out wiki-wide, similar to the removal of images from list of episodes pages, or was this a problem specific to this particular list? Would it be appropriate to have some images on this page? Sorry this is a few days after the fact, any advice for future image use would be appreciated. Stardust8212 13:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that these pages are much like discographies and episode lists. A few images are probably not a problem, but too many make it look like they are there for only decorative purposes, which would violate the non-free usage criteria. --After Midnight 0001 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alberto Campos
Hi there, I noticed that you are around so I was wondering if you could attend the article Alberto Campos. I keep requesting speedy deletion but the creator keeps removing and I might not be around for too long to keep reverting. Thanks, take care -- Kudret abi Talk 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ --After Midnight 0001 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That was fast: ) Thanks very much, take care Kudret abi  Talk 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. Happy to help. --After Midnight 0001 04:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for taking the time to delete User:Justinmorris/RE-15 :-) --Justinmorris 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Happy to help. --After Midnight 0001 10:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User Dsrt
I was bold and made the userbox changes discussed in the UCFD discussion. I also moved the page. Would you be willing to use your bot to fix the redirect links? (It seems that this is not the first time the page has been moved.) Else, I'll go through and manually fix them later. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Template:User Dsrt


 * I started to look at this and I'm assuming that redircets are fine, just double redirects are not. I've fixed the one of those and all the regular redirects should work just fine.  While not exactly what you asked, I think that it accomplishes what you are looking for and saves the database a little work.  If not, please let me know. --After Midnight 0001 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Though I might have also fixed the single redirects (and then deleted those redirect pages as really unnecessary), as you noted, it's not that important : )


 * Thanks for your help. - jc37 07:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. Just remember redirects are cheap. --After Midnight 0001 10:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI
I stumbled upon this CfD you deleted awhile back. I noticed there are about 700-800 user pages still linked to that category. If there is a bot that can clean up those links, please see if it can be alerted. If not, then nevermind. Regards.--Old Hoss 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I bet that there is a template to modify that will kill most of those backlinks.... I'll take a look. --After Midnight 0001 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a couple links left, but 99% are gone now.... --After Midnight 0001 01:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Flying primates image
As a neophyte trying to get me head around the rules, can you explain why the image flying_primates.jpg was deleted from the "Flying primates theory" page? There was an associated text explaninig that the image was not copyrighted and that its creator had no objections to it appearing in Wikipedia. What would be the appropriate licensing arrangement in that case?

Fluminense 11:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Fluminense 27 Sept 2007


 * The image was deleted because it contained no image copyright tag. Please see Image copyright tags for more information regarding requirements in this area.  --After Midnight 0001 00:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC).


 * OK, I tried to figure this out so the image was back, but couldn't do it. Basically the owner of the image has stated that he is happy to release for use in Wikipedia, but this does not appear to be allowed as a valid copyright arrangement (the image was tagged for "speedy deletion" after I added what I thought was the proper tag. Any suggestions regarding the appropriate tag? The exact text of the reply email exchange is:

Q: Jack, is the drawing of the flying primates theory (in allegorical form, as branches of a tree) that is in your web page copyrighted? If not, would you object to have that picture uploaded to a non-profit online encyclopedia (Wikipedia)? A: It is not copyrighted. I had the drawing commissioned by Schouten, so it belongs to me. I have no objection to it appearing elsewhere. All the best, Jack


 * Are you saying that you recreated the image? I don't see any record of that in the logs.  In fact it looks like you have never uploaded an image and that the original image was uploaded by a different user.  At any rate, there are only 2 options that I see. 1) Tag the image with a non-free copyright tag and make a rationale of why the image may be used even though it is not free. 2) have the owner of the image release it with a GFDL licence, making it a free image and tag it as such, also likely requiring an OTRS email.  Finally, please note, that images can not be "used with permission" per deletion criteria WP:CSD. --After Midnight 0001 10:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am trying to help my dad (who did the original upload) to figure it out. We would appreciate if you could have a look at what we did now, and if this reflects the proper conduct. This is all sounding too hard, and it is a pity because the image completments the page really well and the owner of the artwork has stated he does not mind it being released elsewhere. However if for whatever technical reason this can't be done we will leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluminense (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Odyssey page image deletion
I see that this image was deleted for some reason by you, though I'm not quite sure why the image that was here was deleted, also not sure on how to restore the image since I believe the image was deleted incorrectly. Please advise on how I should proceed on this from here, and why the image was deleted in case I'm not understanding the reasons for it. BeoHF 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The image was deleted because it contained no non-free usage rationale. Please see WP:NFURG for more information. --After Midnight 0001 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No 7 day notification was given to anyone however, and the image was a creation of the Odyssey team, and uploaded by the Odyssey team, there being the rationale as a promotional material image of the production. Please advise on how this image can be restored. BeoHF 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's see how the facts check out here.... The image was uploaded by User:Scooby Doo47 at 02:04, 27 July 2007 UTC.  It was licensed with Non-free poster and the only text with the image was "Teaser Poster/Pic from Star Trek: Odyssey", which does not qualify as a rationale.  The image was tagged for deletion on 09:44, 20 September 2007 UTC by User:Pd THOR.  If you click on this link, you will see where Pd THOR notified Scooby Doo47 that the image would be deleted in 7 days.  No further action being taken following that, I deleted the image at 01:41, 28 September 2007 UTC.  Now, as far as how the image can be restored.... I will do so, but I will keep the image tagged for deletion.  You, or anyone else, will have 7 additional days to remediate the image with a rationale, but if you fail to do so, it will again be deleted. --After Midnight 0001 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmph. I can provide the image with a rationale upon its restoration. The upload was not from the Odyssey team then, though I originally thought it was. Thank you. BeoHF 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is all ready for you now. I restored it when I made my prior response. --After Midnight 0001 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you replaced the speedy deletion tags. I've amended the image again. I think it is now in a condition to be left alone.. although perhaps I'm just not quite grasping exactly what I need to do and why the image is causes so much of a ruckus. As you can imagine this is getting to be somewhat frustrating. BeoHF 23:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks good now. Thanks for sticking with it. --After Midnight 0001 23:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Activity
I believe is its time to be deleted, it was never adopted is only fair. Anyway thank you for letting me know about it. Greetings. John Manuel - 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CHADS image
Why do you delete such an image when the authors have given it for use by wikipedia? You are expected to use discretion to promote quality of Wikipedia articles and not be an automat who deletes everything you don't lile. YOu've detracted from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.120.126 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted the image because no one provided any license tag or source information. If you, or someone else, is willing to correct this, I will happily restore the image. --After Midnight 0001 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin
Hi, can you illuminate me on your speedy close of the above MfD? The argument was that the pages were a violation of the protection policy. I'm not sure why you're saying that the forum was incorrect. Regards - Videmus Omnia Talk  18:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Any of the 3 forums that I mentioned would, in my opinion, be a better place to discuss a change in policy than MFD would be. --After Midnight 0001 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not asking for a change in policy, I'm saying that the pages are a violation of existing policy. Could you re-open, please? Videmus Omnia Talk  18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I knew what you meant, but didn't express myself clearly. There are many other pages like these, such as Protected titles/Twinkle‎  which seem to be well endorsed.  As a result, the policy as written may be ambiguous and require further discussion. --After Midnight 0001 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - do you mind if I ask at WP:ANI for a review of your speedy close? I still believe that the MfD is the place to discuss these specific pages, which I think are pretty unambiguous. Any needed policy change can probably be discussed elsewhere. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * DRV would probably be better as the place to discuss having my close reverted. --After Midnight 0001 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you think I acted in bad faith, in which case ANI may be better. (But I can assure you that while we may disagree here, I think that we are both acting in good faith.) --After Midnight 0001 19:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you're acting in good faith also, we just happen to disagree, that's all. Nobody ever disagrees on Wikipedia, right? ;) Videmus Omnia Talk  19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with WP:DRV - I'm really just looking for a quick third opinion on whether I should take it there. No need to clog up DRV with something obvious unless absolutely necessary. I'll drop a note at WP:ANI - thanks for your time. With respect - Videmus Omnia Talk  19:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've listed it at WP:DRV here. I probably should have listened to you and listed it there first, there likely would have been less drama. Regards - Videmus Omnia Talk  02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, yeah, noticed that. --After Midnight 0001 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

*cough*
Rolling eyes smiley and all that... HalfShadow 00:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. --After Midnight 0001 00:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)