User talk:After Midnight/Archive 8

Football box start
What's the problem? I haven't see any obvious issues with the "Foo seasons" template I surveyed. Circeus 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was seeing issues with articles that used Copa Libertadores Seasons and CAF Champions League Seasons, such as CAF Champions League 2007. I made some reverts to both of those template and the problems went away, but now they are no longer "standardized" I think.  --After Midnight 0001 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect what happened was that changes were made to the software that broke the (silly, IMHO) system of noinclude-ing the fb start template. Circeus 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I could easily believe that. --After Midnight 0001 22:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:UBX/MSF
The MSF userbox, located in user space, was not part of the category discussion. Please restore the deleted userbox. --DieWeisseRose 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. I don't know how I made that error. I must have thought that I was deleting the category and accidentally deleted the userbox.  Thanks for pointing it out and please accept my apology for the inconvenience. --After Midnight 0001 21:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology and thank you for your refreshingly friendly and cooperative response. --DieWeisseRose 22:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Article Improvement
Thank you very much, I wasn't really expecting anyone to see it (and certainly not that fast). I found it while making a dab page and ended up fixing it instead of doing what I had planned ;-) Thanks again,  Tewfik Talk 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Request from Ttturbo
After Midnight, please look at one of the most recent communications from Ttturbo which appears to summarize his mindset and goals. Given its content and the nature of the back and forth communications of the past few days, I'm suggesting that the best course going forward is to not directly engage Ttturbo any more (including responding further to his Help request). Even the most conciliatory and rational communications with him prompt suspicions of secret police machinations and accusatory responses. There seems to be a deadline approaching over the next five days that is driving his crusade. It's possible that once this deadline passes, Ttturbo may move on to other projects. Feel free to review all of his Talk page: it ALL bears on his request (as well as Red army crimes in Lithuania). Jim Dunning | talk  03:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: it seems like he needs to write a historical treatise very fast (within the next five days), and he may be only here on English Wikipedia to get help on that treatise, because he got banned from Lithuanian wikipedia . Googling, I found that metai means a "year" in Lithuanian.--Pan Gerwazy 09:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya
What do you think of the Miss USA year articles now (the latest is Miss USA 1990). I'm improving as I get through the years, and one of the things I love the most now is being able to include scores (thanks to Youtube). Is there anything else you think would be good to add? I've now done Miss USA & Teen USA back to 1990 and will work to complete the Teens and then do more of the Miss articles. PageantUpdater 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good. The colors in the table are a nice touch. No additions come to mind at the moment, but I'll keep thinking about them later. --After Midnight 0001 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Burger King logo
Why did you remove the ? I put the fair use statement as per the notice on the discussion page from 1 June 2007, was there another issue that needed to be addressed? If there was, why did you not post a warning on the discussion page? Could you please reinstate the image so that I may correct the problem?

Jerem43 16:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am assuming that you mean Image:Burger King Logo.svg... I did delete this about 6 hours ago, but no edits had been made to the image since it was tagged on June 1, so maybe you put the rationale someplace else? I will restore it now, but I'm going to leave it tagged for deletion, so please go out there soon and put the rationale on it and then remove the tag.  If someone else "re-deletes it" before you get to it, let me know and I'll restore it again. --After Midnight 0001 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought I tagged it as such, if I did not that was stupid of me. As soon as it reappears I will put the proper tag in place.

The tag is in place and I believe that it now conforms to the standards of Fair Use as required by Wikipedia, I thank you for your assistance with the issue.

Jerem43 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC), revised 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. --After Midnight 0001 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Image:Ilaiyaraja_-_Thiruvasagam.jpg
Dear After Midnight: This image (Image:Ilaiyaraja_-_Thiruvasagam.jpg) was deleted because you said it has a "fair use tag but no fair use rationale for more than seven days". I uploaded the file, and may have forgotten to type up a fair use rationale for the image. I would have provided the fair use rationale had I been notified that the file was up for deletion in seven days. I wasn't. Could you please undo the deletion so that I could add the following fair use rationale: "This image is a digital camera image of the album cover for Ilaiyaraaja's Thiruvasagam album. This image is used because there is no other way of depicting an example of this artiste's album. A digital camera photo is used so that readers can see what album this artiste has released, and how the album cover looks like." Thank you. AppleJuggler 09:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored the image for 24 hours to give you time to post a rationale. --After Midnight 0001 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. AppleJuggler 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

McGloff redux
Hi, just to let you know, I found the detailed log of a past vandalism you posted here very helpful in making a case against the same vandal(s) over here. Thanks. --CliffC 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. That all happened before I became an admin.  I do remember being a bit sore that more action wasn't taken at the time, as you could probably tell from my long post.  I still notice that vandalism showing up on the JoeD page from time to time, but not often anymore.  I'm glad that my analysis was helpful. --After Midnight 0001 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by Myers-Briggs type
Hi,

I am concerned about your decision to delete this category here. The votes were basically evenly split, yet you deleted the category anyway. Can you give me any insight as to why you did this beyond what you wrote at closing? I read the arguments for and against deletion and both seemed of equal strength to me.

Cedars 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the deletes were based in policy of WP:NOT, while the keeps were based on WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Also if you look at some similar recent discussions like User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007 and User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007, you will see that they were both closed delete as well. Hope that helps. --After Midnight 0001 00:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was doing it too fast...
I am going to Vanish soon, so I was changing my signature to remove my name. AVTN 06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg
Sorry about that. I changed the license to fair use and deleted the notice as some can be deleted... this obviously shouldn't have. Noles1984 17:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigma Lambda Beta
Thank you for bringing that fact to my attention. The image is being used under fair use policy and I have illustrated that fact. Again, thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nguerrero03 17:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA
Sorry about this, I started writing a comment then changed my mind and deleted the whole section by accident, rather than just my post. --Deskana (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh - no problem at all. If you hadn't told me, I might not have noticed. --After Midnight 0001 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Miss USA/Teen USA articles
Hiya! What do you think of all the additions to the Miss USA/Teen USA state articles? I see you've been doing some cleanup... I did a bit myself last night. I think that quite a bit of this stuff is good but there are quite a few formatting issue and wl's for the year articles (of Miss Universe, Miss USA, Miss World etc) that needs to be added. I've been taking out references to some of the less notable pageants (Miss World USA, Miss Asia Pacific, America's National Teenager and a few other even more obscure ones). Does that sound like a good idea?

And on the subject of wikilinking the year articles... I don't know whether you have time but if you do at some point, would you be able to wikilink in the new year articles I've created for Miss USA and Teen USA. I hadn't really thought about it until now and will do some myself but some help would be nice :) I've got down to 1990 for Miss and up to 1986 for Teen (although they mayaswell all be linked because I'll be writing the last 4 articles when I get a chance. Just a question... I'm not that good with AWB... can I only use find/replace to do one year per article, or can I do multiple find/replaces? Or is it just easier to do them individually?

Thanks! PageantUpdater 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I saw all the activity going on from the new anon. I've been fixing really obvious wikilinks, but I've been leaving the rest as is for now; figuring that they are still hitting the articles multiple time.  I thought it would be easier to do all the notability clean-up at once instead of bit-by-bit.  Is Miss Oktoberfest notable?  Regarding the wikilinks for the years, I can knock that out easy.  I'll get it later this week.  Best regards. --After Midnight 0001 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Miss Oktoberfest is a bit of a moot point but I think it's just notable enough and has some really interesting results. If I get a chance I might see what news stuff I can pull up on it and possibly even write an article.  Many of the contestants/winners competed at Miss USA and America and some international pageants as well.  I'm busy working on updating my own pageant website right now so am a little distracted. PageantUpdater 06:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh I've found tons of articles on Miss Oktoberfest... definitely worth an article when I get time. PageantUpdater 06:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've linked all the years for the MTUSA and 1990-present for MUSA. If there is anything else, just let me know. --After Midnight 0001 22:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Port towns in the United Kingdom
The result of the debate was rename to 'cities and towns'. Why did you drop the word 'cities'? --Redaktor 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is actually a page (WP:CFD/W) where the closing admins list instructions for the bots and their operators that control this activity. It looks like the closing admin made a simple mistake when listing the instructions for this one, which I then followed.  It also looks like someone else alerted the closing admin to this and he has listed new instructions to correct it.  If someone else hasn't gotten to it by then, I will talk care of it when I get home from work.  Thanks for the alert and also for your understanding. --After Midnight 0001 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phiacrest.png
Added Fair use rationale for Image:Phiacrest.png. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Hopefully I did it right 2much 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

MAOTeen again
Well the original nominator clearly doesn't like my compromise solution.... Articles for deletion/Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants PageantUpdater 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gal Gadot
Hi, Sorry it took me so long to respond, but your message got lost among others. Do you still need help with it, and if so, what specifically?  Tewfik Talk 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship
I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [] (Felsommerfeld 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this.  For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Both of you should know that I will not get involved here. Please stop posting to multiple admin pages. If you have a need go to WP:AN or WP:ANI as appropriate. Do not WP:CANVAS or forum shop. If you continue this behavior on my page or that of other admins you may both be blocked. --After Midnight 0001 01:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A deleted image.
OK, you probably have nothing to do with it but you were the person that deleted an image and I noticed an undelete option that is restricted to administrators so I wnated to know is there any option I could get the image for my personal use, some cache or whatever. Simply, like if I would had saved it to my computer before deletion. 354d 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It says that it came from . Is it still available for you to get from that location? --After Midnight 0001 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! just what I needed 354d 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody told me.png image deletion
Hi there,

This image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Somebody_told_me.png

is up for review. I am really not familiar with copyrights or fair use. Although I did upload the image, I had actually just re-edited another version of that image that was already uploaded, just removing some JPG compression artifacts. You may want to contact that user (Tnman). As far as I recall, however, that original image did not have any source information or fair use rationale. -Tejastheory 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch this page...
Amy Polumbo is a current event on the news w/the NJ Beauty Pageant Scandal. Beauty pageants aren't my forte. However, since the subject is a living person and is a current topic of the news, thought you should look after the article.  Mi r a n da   01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Fair use rationale for Image:Das testament.jpg
Is this better?--Entoaggie09 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That should easily pass the I6 test. You should be fine unless someone disputes the rationale, but then you would get another warning before it was deleted. --After Midnight 0001 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Around the horn
You said: "no need to tag it, just remove it per WP:BLP". I probably should've done that, but I was confused as the what the hell he was talking about. Seems now that he's talking about a person in the show and not a user on Wikipedia. Thanks for removing.++ aviper2k7 ++ 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I hope I didn't put you off.  By the way he was talking about Tony Reali. --After Midnight 0001 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing my RfA
Thank you for closing my RfA and notifying me; I really appreciate the notification. Thanks for your time!  Neranei  T / C  16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I do hope to see you there again in the future. --After Midnight 0001 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope I will be back, but for now, I will be working on improving my editing. Happy editing!  Neranei  T / C  22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

 * The template I applied was perfectly appropriate under Wikipedia policy at the time I applied it. Can you not figure out how to write a fair use rationale for a the use of a college seal to appear on an article about the college by yourself? What makes you think pasting giant warnings on my talk page is a better use of your time? Are you paying me to improve Wikipedia on your behalf? You see a problem, fix it yourself. --Dystopos 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentmore_Towers image
Would you please exlain this edit to me. Why has this picture been speedy deleted and by whom? How can an image of a house illustrating an article on that house not be fair use? Giano 13:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted the image because it was tagged with by Durin.  The image may indeed be fair use, but there was no rationale posted.  If you would like for me to restore the image so you will have another week to post one please let me know. --After Midnight 0001 13:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it is already restored. Don't people ever read what is written or where images link before placing these tags, or are the admins concerned on commission. Giano 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but at the same time, there was no rationale posted there at all. At any rate, I'm glad it is sorted out. --After Midnight 0001 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson
Would you mind helping with the Gretchen Carlson article? I regret that User:TanningLamp has removed the section on controversies three times, while I have put it back twice. I do not wish to violate the 3RR rule. I also would be open to any compromise, but TanningLamp appears to simply wish the entire section gone. TanningLamp is a new user and has already been involved in some edit wars, has been banned for insulting other editors and may be pushing an agenda, though perhaps just needs a bit of guidance. Thanks Arjunasbow 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like you have each reverted the other, but edit summaries do not count as a true discussion. Please try initiating one on the talk page of the article to build consensus among the editors of the page.  Once there is a consensus, the path should be clear. --After Midnight 0001 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Daniel
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Daniel. --  j    talk   04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

wikiporn enjoyers
"The result of the debate was result" ?? Too much after midnight reading? Johnbod 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've corrected that. Fortunately that one was obvious enough that there shouldn't be any issues.  Hey, it took 3 days for anyone to notice I did it wrong! --After Midnight 0001 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks:-)
Thanks for correcting the category F14 and F16 into military history as per User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007. I had created the earlier catergories since I had got the impression that categories could be created anywhere we wanted;-)-- PremKudva Talk  12:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. That seemed like the bast place to put them, rather than having you "by yourself".  Over time, if something else makes sense, it can always be changed.  If you want, feel free to use Category:Wikipedians interested in aviation as well or instead of the one for military history. --After Midnight 0001 12:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AWB
Oops - I have been previewing rather well, but I must have misread some. Ive noticed the diff engine highlights some lines with no difference, i'll watch more carefully in future. Sorry! Also, I thought reorganising the stub tag orders etc was significant, its still a minorish edit, but its useful and worthwhile. If i misunderstood that part of the manual, please forgive me, and i'll stop doing that now. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is unusual, is there any way to selectively turn off that behaviour? The general fixes etc are very useful, but I don't want to be doing something that a bot reverts several days later. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on user's talk page where thread began. --After Midnight 0001 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Abbott Cup
I am not the uploader, but I would be capable of adding fariuse rationale to "image Abbott cup.jpg", could you please undelete it so I can add fairuse rationale and it can go back on its appropriate article. DMighton 15:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Here is it. I'm bumped out the deletion date a week to give you time to post the rationale.  Please remember to remove the tag when you are done. --After Midnight 0001 15:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. DMighton 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD
I see it's too late. Oh well. Honestly, I think it's a good point that there's not much reason to collect the category. I did like it existing, so I could see how many users were using the template. :) But that's not a very good reason in the end.  Mango juice talk 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, counting transclusions doesn't get those who subst the template, and I imagine there are a good number. But really, the days when it was exciting to see how the idea was catching on are past.  What I should work on is finding a way to do the same thing with perfectly hiding commitments.  Mango juice talk 11:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Network
I see that you made two deletions on the Blue Network page of images. I had attempted to fix the rationale on these images, but found it difficult to do so. I had reloaded the images with what I thought was a better fair use rationale, but frankly the person who had been tagging these things was extremely unhelpful, and did not respond to a request for assistance in getting the tags corrected for the images.

The images that had been uploaded (and which you deleted), plus one other image this same person tagged, were all advertisements taken from newspapers. They had been emplaced by the American Broadcasting Company to promote their broadcasts, and as such were clearly promotional materials. Ironically, neither of the two now-deleted images, nor the current tagged image, use logo trademarks. The advertisements were used in the article to illustrate certain points (that is, how ABC promoted its change from the Blue Network to its new name, how it was using the Blue Network name even after the change, and its post-1942 use of facilities at Rockefeller Center), points that could hardly be made by other means, especially given the way Wikipedia emphasizes the need to document facts in articles.

I would note for the record that I happen to be a lawyer, and one with experience in copyright law. In my frank opinion, the use of these excerpts from newspapers clearly falls under the fair-use doctrine.

As such, I don't think the two deletions, and the current tagging, were justified. The manner in which this was done, in particular the ignoring of a request for assistance (plus the added tagging of a third image) has left a very poor taste in my mouth. Hopefully, I can get some better assistance from you. Eric O. Costello 00:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Here is what we can do.... If you can give me a lead on which images were deleted, I can undelete them for a short time to allow you the opportunity to get fair-use image rationales posted onto them.  The key is, I need to know which ones to help me find them and I need your word that you will try your best to post legitimate FU rationales on them.  I think that I know which 2 you need from Blue Network, namely Image:ABCBlue247.jpg and Image:ABCKATE645.jpg, but I have no idea which other image(s) you want.  By the way, it looks like you tried to put a rationale on both of the images that I deleted, but there was noting actually there, but we can cross that bridge later.  Let me know what you want and we'll go from there. --After Midnight 0001 02:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct on both images, the ones that were deleted. The third image is Image:BLUEKATE344.jpg, which is also on the Blue Network page; this one has been tagged for removal, but nothing has happened yet.  I think the problem was I had a hell of a time (and unsuccessful) figuring out how precisely to edit the image so that the rationale could be inserted.  (As you note, evidently my good-faith attempt to fix this didn't work.)  A pointer as to where I can find the best script to plug in and fill out in order to meet standards would also be of great help.  And thank you for responding promptly, I might add.  Eric O. Costello 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you look at Non-free media rationale guideline, which discusses how to use Non-free media rationale which you can just copy add to the image and then fill in the blanks. It also tells you how to just type in free text which will also work. I've restored both images for you now.  I've pushed out the date on both of them to give you a week to resolve them.  When you have you may remove the deletion tag.  You should probably take care of the 3rd image 1st, since it is scheduled for deletion in about 2 days time. --After Midnight 0001 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have followed your advice, and have inserted rationales on all three. Thank you very much for (a) your patience, and (b) your helpfulness on this matter.  Eric O. Costello 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  I am happy to have helped.  --After Midnight 0001 01:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your expert help!
Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) ✅ --After Midnight 0001 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Brought this to WP:DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by pet. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hús ö  nd  00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

STAR TV's logos
Hi, just wanna know why the STAR TV Channel logos were deleted. Did it violate any policies? Im not really familiar with wikipedia's polices for image use. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.49.97 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 23 July 2007


 * I'm not really sure of exactly which images you are referring to, but generally, I have been deleting images recently in this category. Any image in here was tagged for deletion as a result of not having a fair use rationale added to it to justify the use of copyrighted images.  If you can tell me which article you are wondering about, I can possibly be more specific.  I don't see any images that were deleted from STAR TV, so I must be looking at the wrong one. --After Midnight 0001 10:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance artice image
Oops - I didn't realize that image was on the speedy delete list - thanks for being up on that --Badger151 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Any chance that a free image might be available to use in its place? --After Midnight 0001 14:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD?
Regarding your edits here, and here, with your edit summary referencing User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007, this page does not appear to exist. Additionaly this User Category was just discussed and was the TARGET of a merge discussion at User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007. Where is the discussion you are referring to? Please reply on my talk. — xaosflux  Talk  04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update, looks like this one went back and forth quite a few times! It seems that the lateset discussion was possible from a COI nominator, but I really don't care enough to go to DRV (apparently AGAIN!) and the !votes were favored delete.  Happy editing, —  xaosflux  Talk  04:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your help!
Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I need a help from you with regards to templates. For more information, please view this page. I feel that it is paramount to achieve consistency with regards to templates. If you know how to correct this, it would be much appreciated. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone else already got to this.... --After Midnight 0001 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category
I just wrote to MSJapan about the same issue, as he also asked about it. I don't meant to be a nuisance over a category, and if everyone feels it should go, I'll fall in line, but I'm curious to know what harm anyone feels it's doing. Or is it duplicated somewhere, or something like that? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 09:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV
I don't get it. I close something based upon precedent, and it gets overturned because I didn't count votes of consensus. You close something based upon consensus and people come out of the woodwork to overturn based upon precedent. We should really get these two groups together. I'm guessing it'll be like matter and anti-matter, and we'll be able to power a small city with the energy produced. --Kbdank71 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just make sure we stand back far enough in case it explodes. BTW, they really come out of the woodwork when someone canvasses 40 people who used to be members of the category.... KABOOM! --After Midnight 0001 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:WFLX.png
An appropriate fair use rationale was added shortly after your warning was placed on my talk page. Thank you for your attention. --  M  (speak/spoken) 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I've removed the tag.  FYI, if you place a good faith rationale on an image page, you can feel free to remove the deletion tag yourself in the future. --After Midnight 0001 21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thanks. To what do I owe the honor? --After Midnight 0001 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image rationales
I see you are busy trying to find any logo that does not meet the requirement. Has there been a crackdown on the policy? It seems like a lot of work to located every single logo that does not have a Non-free image rationale. Strafidlo


 * Hello. I am actually not focused on logos; I am looking at any non-free images. This includes all sorts of things such as screen shots, posters, logos, album artwork, box covers, and more.  Yes, there has been some increased attention paid to these across the project by a number of editors.  Bots are also involved to a great extent to aid in identification.  For more information, you may want to check out some of the following: WP:AN/FURG, foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy, and Non-free content.  There is probably much more discussion on other pages also. As far as how much work it is, it's really pretty easy.  With popups, twinkle and tabbed browsing you can easily open multiple articles at once, each of which seem to contain numerous images, none of which often have rationales posted.  These can be quickly tagged after glancing to make sure that the tag is appropriate.  Twinkle does the work to notify the uploader and update the article to communicate to people that they can fix the rationales so that the images may be retained. --After Midnight 0001 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not PD! How did it end up as PD?
I don't know if you got this or not but I replaced the PD tag with a logo one and added a rationale. Does that make you happy? --  M  (speak/spoken) 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like you put the PD tag on it in this edit 2 years ago when you fixed a typo. At any rate, yes Non-free logo is correct here. --After Midnight 0001 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Serena Blaquelord2.jpg
Can you undelete this please? As indicated on the article's talk page, the picture of her as she appears today totally does not do her justice as an ex-porn star, and a comparison between the two qualifies as fair use. I have the article watchlisted, but not the image, otherwise I would have caught it before it was deleted. I will write a proper rationale for it. -Nard 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I have restored it and moved the deletion tag out another week to allow you to post a rationale. When you have done so, please remove the tag. --After Midnight 0001 00:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Greenienew.gif
I just started watching the Little Green Footballs page yesterday, but it seems odd that there could not be a fair use rationale written for a major blog's logo. Can I convince you to reinstate the image, if I promise to compose a rationale? --Knulclunk 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I've put a new deletion tag on it which you can remove once the rationale is posted. --After Midnight 0001 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Knulclunk 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep on Word Association
Hi, I noticed your speedy keep on Word Association but the deletion tag is still on the page. Should someone remove it now that the discussion is over? I think it's confusing, as I clicked on it to leave my vote and found the archive instead. Ci ndy Bo talk  06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, sorry. I've cleaned it up now. --After Midnight 0001 12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Juanjov1 still at it
Looks like Juanjov1 immediately started adding fair use images to articles after his block expired:. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've tagged the image for deletion and left another warning. Keep an eye on it and let me know.  Next time I will make the block longer.  If I'm not around, feel free to post to WP:AN/I and reference this discussion.  Next block should be either 2 weeks or 1 month, I think. --After Midnight 0001 16:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

req photo tag
why do you keep removing them. I went though this with Yamla he thought they were for talk pages only after a discussion he came to admit it doesn't say that anywhere. [] I put the link to the page with them. [] no where does it say that the tag should only be on the talk page. No reason tags can't be on both pages. No rule against. Users come to the article see that an image is needed. Until there is a wiki rule stating that the tag is only for talk pages or a rule saying if the tag is on the talk page don't put it on the main page I'd appreciate you not reverting my edits adding the tag. Those articles need images per wiki rules and people just glancing at the article will not see that and may be able to help. Anything like this that can help improve wikipedia can and should be left. Thank you for your time. --Xiahou 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * heck, you took the tag off Kockásfülű nyúl and there is nothing on the talk page? So the fact that some have a similar tag on the talk page doesn't even apply. Why would you remove the tag requesting an image? I see from your contributions you deal alot with images. Thats great. Good but I am lost at why removing a tag made available on the cleanup page requesting images is something you want to remove. Till there is a rule agaist and there is every reason for I am just going to put it back in its deserved place. I am breaking no rules adding a necessary tag. One could say you removing them especially when nothing is on the talk page is. --Xiahou 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want this to become a personal issue at all. Reading my text one could read into and see that. I don't. I felt those articles could be improved by adding that tag in hopes someone would see that and possibly take action. I read the fine print on the tag. The talk page even has a discussion saying it isn't set on if its for article or discussion page only. Never resolved. I am trying to be bold and add the tag. Where needed. Possibly you see the tag color and think its for talk pages only. But then I am confused on the pages you remove it from and there is nothing on the talk page. I await your response. I just want to know where you are coming from on this. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I am back now. I can see that you are editing in good faith.  My experience has been that these tags are depreciated on the articles themselves are are much more commonly found on talk pages.  There has been a move towards putting more of that type of information of the talk pages, but it does appear that it is not settled.  I like that you have started a discussion on the talk page of the template in question, that should resolve the matter.  I would like to suggest that you consider making a post at the village pump directing people to that discussion in the event that you do not get sufficient feedback at the talk page to reach a consensus.  As to the way that I rolled back your edits, I will apologize, I had recently had to do a numbers of reverts of another editor who had performed a large amount of image vandalism and I confused you with that other editor.  I would also like to point out to you, that if the article that you are wanting a photo on has an infobox on it, you might want to use Image:Replace this image1.svg in the infobox.  --After Midnight 0001 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much getting back to me. Please let me know how any kind of policy change comes out. There needs to be an official say on this. If its down to the brown color a simple tag color change would be an obivous thing. I personally think its needed. I don't look at the talk page myself when just browsing a topic. thanks again for getting back to me. I will try out the infobox template thanks for the help. Again, whatever comes of that can you put a message on my talk page and let me know if something comes of it. Thanks.--Xiahou 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and add Template talk:Reqphoto to your watchlist. Then you will be able to see yourself when the consensus is achieved. --After Midnight 0001 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I misread what you wrote and took it to mean you had started a talk. Big OOPS. Anyway thanks for pointing out the infobox tag to add. I fixed any I could with an infobox and will use it for that from now on. Thanks. --Xiahou 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)