User talk:Anetode/archive 10

Thanks
For fixing the page. EricAlderman 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted discussion?
Did you accidentally remove the Media Publisher dicussion from today's Deletion review log when you added List of famous men who wear briefs?

My User Page
Alright, I want to know exactly why my user page was deleted by you? What gives you the right to go around deleting other users pages? So what if it was a gallery of images (as you called it); I'm entitled to have whatever I want on my page and so is everyone else. I want a response within 24 hours or I will hack onto your PC. You have been warned. -JJN195, 5:12 PM, 8/05/07

Image:Ladyday.jpg
Image:Ladyday.jpg appears to have been uploaded by you and tagged with PD-LOC (though you may not have tagged it that way). That image license tag is deprecated now because the fact that the image came from the Library of Congress does not actually imply that it is public domain. I've tagged the image with nld, could you please take a look and provide the correct license, if possible? Thanks! --Yamla 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:84.43.29.130
After posting on AN/I I realised I should have probably posted on AIV, but thanks for sorting it out anyway. Darrenhusted 02:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

geraldckane: feedback request
Please see the following page in relation to our discussion regarding my survey. user:geraldckane/feedbackrequest I'd appreciate your feedback before I continue my work. --geraldckane 16:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

George Carlin mugshot
I was kind of surprised to see you defending the use of this image so vigorously. Perhaps it's because of the free speech issues that Carlin's case represents, but perhaps if I take a different approach that might make this clearer as to why this should be an open-and-shut case of improper usage. Start with Non-free content #7. Magazine covers are routinely deleted daily because they only accompany text like, "Joe Bloggs appeared on the cover of TIME magazine." Valid uses of magazine covers are like Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG in Demi Moore, Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png in photo editing, or the movie poster and magazine cover in Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. So replace "magazine cover" in the text of this example of unacceptable use with "mugshot" -- why should this be any different? In response to your detailed DRV post, the NFCC do not explicitly require sourced discussion of an image because it's already covered in No original research. NFCC #8 is intended to set the bar high so that we don't use non-free media unless it's required to make a point. You may call Abu's (and my) interpretation of policy "myopic" but it has strong consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content where such policy is being written. As far as I'm concerned, this is the first step on a slippery slope. Given this ruling, now there's precedent for other editors to add random non-free mug shots of people who have been arrested for whatever reason (I just recently deleted Bill Gates' young mug shot, for example). I know you think that Carlin's arrest is more significant than Gates', but that is a judgment call. It's better for the encyclopedia (IMHO) to have a more objective line in the sand: Is the image itself being commented on, and does that commentary reflect published opinion? That's the point Abu and I have been trying to make, and I suppose it took me too long to actually make it clear (at least I hope my reasoning is clear to you). (As a side note, let's just keep the discussion here on this page if you so choose to respond. Thanks.)  howcheng  {chat} 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying and expanding on your reasoning. One point I brought up in the course of the DRV was the copyright status. I think that using a mugshot to illustrate an arrest has a wholly different basis than using, say, a news agency photograph of the person being arrested. While the latter is a commercial work with tangible commercial value, the former is the public record of an event. If the arrest is for mundane reasons, as was the case with Bill Gates' traffic violation, the mugshot contributes nothing to the article. If the arrest is notable, was widely discussed and had a profound influence (not only on Carlin, in this case), then I think it deserves to be documented to the best of our ability. I don't think that this is a judgment call or a matter of original research being used to establish notability, as the Carlin's arrest has been discussed in many sources (including Intellectual Freedom: a reference handbook by John Harer, The Politics of Law Enforcement: Conflict and Power in Urban Communities by Alan Edward Bent, The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789-1993, I am awaiting the delivery of the latter to expand the article). Using a public record to accompany a critical discussion of a First Amendment case does not violate NFCC#8. It is, in my opinion, required to make a point.
 * I want to assure you, however, that it was not my intent to provide a first step to a slippery slope. The reason I vigorously defended (perhaps rudely at times, I'm sorry about that) use of this image was not because I think the NFCC don't have a reasonable basis or should be circumvented. I believe that the fair use claim of each image should be well justified. Nevertheless, I don't agree with Abu's careless manner in dismissing the editorial value of Carlin's mugshot ("Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free mugshot of an actor"). I think that if he had closely examined the context for usage and the history of events relating to Carlin's arrest, he would have strong reason not to use terms like unnnecessary or non-notable. It is sad when image patrollers use preconceptions in judging images categorically, and I have learned the consequences of this fallacy after having some very enlightening conversations with uploaders regarding prior image deletions. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Replaceable fair use Image:Djbabswalgreen.gif
I'd like to thank you for the notice on Image:Djbabswalgreen.gif. I felt that it was alright to post it for a more experienced user happened to always use this and got away with it, but I guess this proves why you shouldnt always follow in every situation. I actually was hoping for a notice on this just because i felt that it was going to be against policy. Once again, thank you. --Apologies2all 12:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jagzthebest
Please explain on this user's talk page why you indef-blocked his account. He has requested to be unblocked, but he is unable to explain why his request is justified when you provided no justification at all. Rklawton 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JagzthebestX
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HelpingHand99 72.68.1.110 03:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:HelpingHand99. This one still needs to be blocked. 71.251.46.88 23:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Rationales
You will note the collapased message list format, throttling that back to 20 per uploader per day should be reasonable, and allowing an extended grace period would also be a good recomendation. I would also STRONGLY suggest that the templates be extended to allow for an additonal grace period.. say 1 month on initial notification, and only move to the 7 Day pre-nuke phase after that..

Another alternative strategy is to have image related messages on a sub page?

Any other thoughts? Sfan00 IMG 12:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Amyphoto deletion discussion
Per the image discussion, at which point is it necessary to remove the deletion tag. I'm willing to write her parents, or ask James Renner to ask her parents - if it is "free use", but that isn't the point of free use. There are plenty of justifications that the image is in the public domain. Asking the parents to release the picture into GFDL isn't appropriate, as she might (theoretically) wind up on an article about teenagers (or whatever). The parents shouldn't have to give up their rights to GFDL just to satisfy VO, who is being overly critical about the image copyrights. What do you propose should be done here? Can the deletion tag be removed?

For the record, VO had 2 open ANIs on him last week for having targeted JR, and a few other people. I think you can still see them up there. Thanks, BlueSapphires 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I totally agree that it has been satisfied.  I'll pop Mr. Renner an email (found it on his blog) and ask him to confirm the copyright holder (probably the parents).  That really shouldn't be necessary. But whatever.  'Some people' seem to be focused on racking up the number of GFDLs licences, and GFDL isn't appropriate for a murdered little girl - nor should the parents be forced to remit ownership of her image to Wp for that.  She could wind up on an article about 'whatever' and that's not ok.  How can this be closed?  Will you please watch out for the outcome?BlueSapphires 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Does Wikipedia make money off of the images?  Are they going for being another Corbis?  I didn't know that GFDL accrual was such a big deal.  It explains much - any why certain people are being a certain way. BlueSapphires 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

William Doe
I see that the article on Prof William Doe has been removed and I wondered if you could tell me why. He is a former Professor of Medicine at ANU, University of Sydney and Dean of Medicine at the University of Birmingham and would as such seem notable. I would appreciate your advice as I would like to see this article returned.Tallum 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

record labels
Hi, You're probably best off deleting the link to the label altogether, rather than just removing the brackets from around the label's name. Lugnuts 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:FELIXARD images
I had a chance to look at the OTRS email; his permissions claim was rejected by OTRS staff, yet he still uploaded the images. I have taken the liberty to delete the images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anetode. Thanks for the welcome. I'm really just feeling my way around as yet. Thanks for the links. I was beginning to ask myself if there was a Wiki style guide and other such things. Kazzandra 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive help!
Howdy, if you're not too busy or this is a too trivial a matter I do apologise in advance. I have requested that a bot archive my talk page. And this has been done, but, I do not know where my talk page has been archived to... the bot indicates a red link (empty)! This is most perplexing... Could you help me in figuring out what I should do? Thankyou in advance. Scar ian Talk  10:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks anetode! I just decided to do it manually from now on. Took me a while to figure that out though, hehe. Oh btw, is it possible to archive smiles and barnstars etc. on a seperate page? Or is that not allowed? Scar ian  Talk  11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Anetode! I seperated all my things into different categories, it looks much neater but not very exciting. But anyways, cheers again, friend! Scar ian  Talk  02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bsw2645
Nice move on that Bsw2645 fella, didn't know u was an admin. Ryan4314 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy Update
Hi anetode, I just wanted to make a point. I think I have.

I do not have the time to keep up with IrishGuy.

Its just not fair that he delets everyones articles then shuts them out.

I was acting as the vioce of all the people he has deleted.

From this point on the discusions will be more civil.

Feel free to unprotect the articles at anytime.

Feel free to pass this on to IrishGuy as I do not have a way to communicate with him

Articles for deletion/Sam Thomas
Although articles which have been deleted through a XfD process are eligible for speedy deletion, this article was not because the most recent version was a different article than the one deleted in 2005, they just happen to have the same name, not an uncommon occurance with common names. Dsmdgold 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, articles like this use to make it to VfD all the time. When AfD became clogged with them, what is now CSD A7, "no claim to notability made", was created. In this case, this seems to have been hoax, so I see no need to restore it. Dsmdgold 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Template the regulars
I ask you to reconsider your comments at the deletion review of this essay, in light of my later comments. i had made an edit (this one) I considered quite significant to the essay, after it was previously deleted and restored, and the recent deletion also deletes that edit. DES (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct that at he time of the deletion, the majority of the content was by Giggy. Specifically, out of 1062 words (6,120 characters), I had contributed 439 words (2527 characters) -- as counted by MS word. I don't agree that this is "the vast majority". But even if it were, WP:CSD says "...provided the page's only substantial content was added by that author." I take that to mean that essentially 100% of the content must be by a single author. I don't think that the page as it was when deleted fits this criterion, although it probably did when I earlier restored it. DES (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Hello,

I'm sorry to do this, but as I said, an editor who disagreed with me clearly said that any other poll would be shut down sooner.

Do you have any advice on how I can handle this?

Thanks, Horlo 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

From what I gleaned from the request for a third opinion, it was an option for a dispute between two editors.

I also looked at other requests, such as request for mediation or request for arbitration, but it seems that for those steps to proceed, a clear "trail" must be shown - how other attempts have been made, but have failed. That's why I was trying to start another poll.

What is the procedure for a request for a third opinion?

Thanks, Horlo 04:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Acorahrama
Er, question, why did you delete the talk page of user:Acorahrama? The account is a vandal only account.Balloonman 04:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
Please see. He was blocked before for harrasment. I post a note on WP:ANI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Anonimu.27s_harrasment.2C_edit_wars_again.2C_sockpuppetry about him. He was blocked in the last 2 weeks for one week for harrasment. Now, he edit wars again. Severe block this time please. --BOT2008BOT 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that the above account was blocked as a single purpose account. Do you know which is the main account of this spa?--Jersey Devil 23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Two Articles Of The Same Thing - A Question
Does Texascop and Jesse Gonzalez have notability? I know zilch about poker so I don't know. Regardless, there seems to be a definite issue of coi... -WarthogDemon 01:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well thanks. :) I know basic poker but not like poker you play at events. (Heck, I'm not an expert on cards, period. Took me 3 games of Hearts to learn that keeping Heart cards was a BAD thing...) -WarthogDemon 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking frenzy on alexithymia page
Thanks for locking the alexithymia page, I am a novice at Wikipedia editing and don't know how to deal with Zeraeph's blanking frenzies, which he has a habit of doing when he doesn't get his way. I deleted one of his (utterly) unreferenced sentences, which seemed to elicit the blanking frenzy. I have proposed on the talk page there that he correct the unreferenced sentence, and it didn't happen, so I deleted it. In fact I knew full well that the unreferenced sentence could not be substantiated. Anyways, I don't know where this goes from here, but thanks anyway for intervening and saving some of the page. Soulgany101 03:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page! ... disco spinster   talk  12:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lluís Maria Xirinacs
Refering Removing instance of image Lluis Maria Xirinacs Homenatge 16-8-2007.jpg that has been speedily deleted, the image has not been deleted. It was another instance of the same image. Image is still here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lluis_Maria_Xirinacs_Homenatge_16-8-2007.jpg Even so it is possible that I confused references. Hope this is not a reason to comment the image. May you plase revert?.--Paco &#9993; 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The problem may have come, due to some links in the en:WP have been changed from/to en:WP/commons, the first time I thought I was uploading it to commons, when I now think I really uploaded it to the en:WP (or elsewere). The case being while I could see the image in the ca:WP, but not in the en:WP. I really do not understand exactly what happened! And of course it was not my intention to cause any problems. I have uploaded hundreds of files to Commons and this had never happened)--Paco &#9993; 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Feel free to help me as you did whenever you like. This is not my main interwiki and it's easy not to be up to date with all nuts and bolts!--Paco &#9993; 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stacker (game)
Could you semi-protect this article for a few hours? Heavy IP and SPA vandalism. Thanks.  Acroterion  (talk)  04:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Rappelz
Can something be done at Rappelz? A person keeps posting nn fansites... -WarthogDemon 04:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Er . . . my bad. I hadn't noticed he hadn't been warned before. D: I saw another admin revert his edits so I assumed he had been. Sorry for my goof there. ^_^; Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 05:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Waterworldwater.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Waterworldwater.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Caspermoviescreen.jpg
I have tagged Image:Caspermoviescreen.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Conceivingadacgiscreen.jpg
I have tagged Image:Conceivingadacgiscreen.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Immortelscreen.jpg
I have tagged Image:Immortelscreen.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:DougHerzog.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DougHerzog.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lcc2.jpg question
I accept its deletion, but how exactly did it fail to fulfill NFCC- how else could the controversy over their wearing their offical leotards be illustrated? Urso 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I understand anyone could potentially take a pic of the girls, but how could a free image relating to the controversy be created, since all there is to document it are the actual photos/videos Urso 12:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is, do we really need to "illustrate the controversy"? --Abu badali (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

C nile
Hiya,

Was it deliberate that you made this edit instead of tagging as CSR R1 ? I've since tagged as CSD R1, hope this is OK. CHeers, Davidprior 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Spinosaurus Head Image
I noticed recently that you uped the contrast on my spinosaurus drawing, i feel that you've done it a little too much and its lost some of the look i was going for. If you feel it needs to be darker I'll try an darken it tonight myself to somthing i'm happier with. I thank you for uploading another version of the vertebra and the skeletal reconstrcution which is less wonky, but they too seems really dark. This is the problem with computer monitors, as each one give a different look and has different brightness and contrast levels. Is it possible you could lower the contrast on those two images just a bit. thanks Steveoc 86 10:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for that :), im currently trying to darken it as we speek. If only there was a universial monitor calibration tool somewere. Steveoc 86 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia Graphics Lab
Hi there. I have made some attempts for your request here. Do me a favor and check them out when you have time, and leave some comments regarding their style and accuracy. Thank you. vlad§inger tlk  17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Return to Pirate's Isle
Hi Anetode. We got into an edit conflict regarding Return to Pirate's Isle which you speedied while I was removing the speedy tag. I've now restored the page and am sending it to AfD since I feel that Scott Adams (game designer) may be notable enough for a reasonable article. In any case, I think AfD is a better choice than the nuke. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notifying you is the least I can do! It's now on AfD: Articles for deletion/Return to Pirate's Isle. Pascal.Tesson 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rock
I have to say, I'm a little disappointed that it took this long for someone to recognize my name. SUCKERS! Precious Roy 10:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:RobertJohson.png
I am wondering why the image was deleted from an article about a song by Robert Johnson, his most famous song rated in the top 100 musical works of the 20th century by NPR, Hellhound on My Trail, but the image is still allowed in the Blues article and Robert Johnson (musician) article. The rationale for use is the same. Regards, Mattisse 21:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think Wikipedia is hopelessly mindless. You allow the image for a general article on the blues but you will not allow it for the specific song that he wrote that was formative for the blues? I am one step away from giving up on this place. Mattisse 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Malicious code
has recreated his deleted talk page, with the code inserted. He should be blocked. He's probably using user accounts to insert it into other pages, as that IP has not made many edits. I couldn't tell where else it was found, but whoever added it is likely the same or a related user. - Crockspot 01:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm confused
Thanks for dropping the note on my talk page. I had read through WP:IUP and was confused by what it had to say about PNGs being preferable for screenshots, so I asked User:Remember the dot in this brief conversation. With you note, now I'm even more confused. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking image without warning
It was lucky I happened to notice your indiscriminate blanking of the Image:RobertJohson.png, else I never would have known. Mere happenstance that I picked up on it. I urge you to be a little more discriminating in your blanking and at least look into the article before you do it, warning the editor when it is a new article with a single editor. Regards, Mattisse 13:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

IFD closure
Don't do this. Requiring some measure of verification is reasonable, undoing an adminstrative decision is not. Next time, bring your concern to the closing admin. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'll fell free to undo admin actions whenever they are not done according to the normal process. I'm sure this won't happen again, so you don't have much to worry about. --Abu badali (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Eiza gonzalez
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Eiza gonzalez, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Eiza gonzalez is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Eiza gonzalez, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:EwaSonnet.jpg
It should not be a problem for the image copyright holder to release the image under a free license. But what specifically does he have to do? Is an email to the effect of "I hereby release this image under the GFDL" sufficent? Please advise.ˉbriankaz╦╩ 10:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Addis deleted
Hi John, I spent a lot of time researching and arguing why I feel this page should be protected. And you deleted both the page and my comments without responding to anything I've written. Please give a page more than 5 hours life so that other who have expressed interest may add to its content and prove the notability of this individual.

Regards

--Natevoodoo 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the arguments and comments I added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_6#Paul_Addis

--Natevoodoo 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Original Paul Addis Page
Hi it seems you deleted the original Paul Addis page. Please post it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natevoodoo/Paul_Addis

So that I can edit it for resubmission.

--Natevoodoo 23:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Anetode,

You are both being very helpful. Thanks for seeing that there is some possibility for an article here. It takes a bit more work than I anticipated.

The article you posted for me was what I had written. And I'm glad to get that back. However another user posted the original article and I did not write that. I don't have a copy of that. If you have a copy of that article I would appreciate it too.

Part of my frustration yesterday was people saying that I had not added anything new but I didn't have the original article to confirm if that was true or not.

Regards

--Natevoodoo 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Anetode, Please see my comments on the current deletion cycle. Calton is just being relentless. I have stayed away to avoid the fight he keeps trying to pick with me. At this point he's just being a bully. Ain't there some rule about control freaks? Any help or advice appreciated. --Natevoodoo 01:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Newsvine
The whole Newsvine article is done from a non-neutral POV. It reads exactly like a press release, and contains little that isn't on Newsvine's own pages. Newsvine is a moderated forum, the moderation is biased, and the bias is enforced in such a way as to conceal it, since users who run afoul of it simply disappear without explanation, along with whatever it was that offended the moderators. That, it seems to me, is factual information about Newsvine that people who are interested in the site might want to know. Yes, it was determined through experiment: is Wikipedia restricted to third-hand information? Are primary documents banned?


 * Perhaps you should weed out the rest of the non-neutral content in the Newsvine entry as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tree lion.jpg
What's up with the image? You've deleted from the FPC archive because it was corrupt? It seems to be rendering fine, and FPC discussions are always archived with the images. --Cody.Pope 12:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see. I'll ask him about it.  Thanks for the quick reply, and you can always reply to me here, instead of my talk page, to avoid cross posting.  Cheers! --Cody.Pope 13:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Need Help Keeping An Article Neutral
Hello.

You've helped before with an article I have contributed to and now I'd like to ask for assistance again. I asked one of the other Editors to help, but I think he's offline for a while, hence my plea to you for help.

The article is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_stove

Here's the problem:

After much near-warfare, the user lowracer agreed to stop using the article to promote his website and forum on the subject. I also agreed to refrain from same - in short, we both agreed to keep the article website NEUTRAL.

Unbeknownst to me, he slipped a little hint on how to find his website in one of the last paragraph's some time back. I found it a couple of days ago when editing the article for better grammar, correct some technical info, etc. I revised the sentence in question (you can see the changes in the history tab), and made note of the reason for doing so. He came back and changed it back, claiming that I was trying to protect my business by "whitewashing" the article, when, in reality, all I was doing was trying to work within the guidelines set forth by yourself and others and agreed to by us.

Can you help? This person is very antagonistic and difficult to deal with. He's got a proverbial burr under his saddle against me, and does all he can to cause me harm. He started a website for the publicly stated purpose of shutting mine down, and he just won't relent. This activity has, unfortunately, spilled over into Wikipedia, making itself seen in the continued problems he's caused with the article in question, of which the vast majority of the text was written by me.

I bear this person no malice, and I'm not inclined to get into a rock throwing war with him - all I ask is that the article be kept neutral with regard to websites on the subject, links to them, or clear hints as to how to find them using, say Google, to search for them.

We need an authoritative word to stop this from escalating again.

Your help would be most appreciated.

Also - would you be so kind as to reply here, as he watches my talk page.

Thank you!

John E. Chambers 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi John. I don't recall bumping into you before or ever editing the Chambers stove article, and this seems like a complicated complaint to deal with. I can't decipher whether the diff you are referring to is accurate since I'm not familiar with the subject and there is no reference to back up either assertion. If you think that lowracer is misrepresenting any information, find a source to back up your version and/or start a discussion at talk:Chambers stove & tag the article w/ POV. If you think that the problem goes deeper than that, you could try informal (WP:MEDCAB) or formal (WP:MEDCOM) mediation. Otherwise, it is difficult for me to determine the facts of this case, since you did not link to his website or point out any specific egregious behavioral problem on his behalf. I'm glad that you are taking a non-confrontational approach to the problem and wish to avoid ugly conflict, but at this point I can only try to offer involved methods of resolution. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
you where right about the Michael Cera and the Jason Schwartzman pictures, it wasn't on purpose and it certainly won't happen again. thanks for fixing that.Yamanbaiia 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How's it going?
So how is working at Apple? Good company to work for? I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.101.204 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos
On the copyedit/cleanup for Cancer Therapy & Research Center.  Into The Fray  T / C  15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, apparently an article also existed at CTRC, so a histmerge and a half later I'm finally no longer confused ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shimmin
Since you've deleted Shimmin, do you also propose all other University of Leeds accommodation articles for deletion? Barry m 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's currently notable due to the accommodation shortage and historically it was the last remaining female hall at the university of leeds. Also, the article will hopefully be expanded by students arriving next week or past residents. The article could then be removed when Shimmin has been closed permanently, or kept as a record of the accommodation. Barry m 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ustream.TV
I'm not following why you deleted the Ustream.TV. It was not blatant advertising, but was a factual account of the platform. It included a historical account of the Founder's Story as well.

I would like to speak with you further about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcolumbusoh (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin.tv
Please let me know which sentences need to be altered, and I will fix. Pepso2 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:ewa_guitar_crop.jpg
Both permissions-en@wikimedia.org and permissions@wikimedia.org have been forwarded Krisztian Gulyas' email to me granting permission to use this image of Ewa Sonnet.ˉbriankaz╦╩ 14:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Public domain license
Because traffic (in terms of nominations) at 'User categories for discussion' is generally sporadic, discussions are started directly on the main page. So, I have substed the MfD that you started for Category:Public domain license. If you don't object, I can delete the original MfD page per CSD G6. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes ... It is a treacherous, unforgiving path that leads to UCfD, through dark canyons and dense, mosquito-infested jungles. There is no surprise, then, that of those courageous few who undertake the journey, a mere handful return ... and those that do, a shell of their former selves.  Black Falcon (Talk) 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for blocking user:oddquicy. I was just about to report him, when on his page I saw your block. Great work!!! - Hair chr  m  00:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can't believe that account has been vandalizing for almost a year! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Energy Drinks - agressively editting
i am asking for hang on regarding some concerns about a new page... the new page is not deleted and is being corrected for 'source' identification at this time.

however you were the last one to edit a document List of Energy Drinks and it appears not only the link to my page in question was deleted but several likes are now missing - including Red Bull and Monster.but you left Adrenaline Rush, Burn, Crunk.

the entire page List of Energy Drinks changed from all Energy Drinks... to a discussion of coffee and soda.

Furthermore the active link "energy drinks" goes back to a document that discusses ALL energy drinks and includes photos of Hype, KMX etc....not just coffee and soda.

i think you should review how aggressively you edit documents i understand my contribution is being reviewed and i am perfectly willing to have it critiqued - but good luck explaining to Red Bull and Monster that they are not considered valuable in the List of Energy Drinks on Wikipedia. Erichnwise 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

rather than Red Flags and deletion, did you ever consider help?
you obviously are a well respected contributor here and i appreciate any guidance you could offer. it all started with my inquiry in this wikipedia site what a certain energy drink's content was. its on the market this month and i wanted to see how it compared in caffeine content.

its a reasonable inquiry and use of this site, i thought.

however, what i discovered is no entries. understandably its new. hence i am struggling to find valid references and sources to even make a valuable new page contribution.

so could you help me and others out with making a valid entry, not a promotion pitch like you are inferring I am attempting to make. this is not about spam. its an energy drink...hence one reasonable individual would search on the energy drink list. its not about marketing...its about a new product on the market that i wanted to know about ... only to discover there was NO discussions available

thank you kindly for your assistance. Erichnwise 03:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you
you wrote: "Wikipedia is not a consumer directory. An article on a product, any product, has to assert its notability. If there is a substantial coverage of this product in several [[WP:RS|reliable sources], there might be a basis for creating an article."

i was attempting to go forward, my good fellow, with a contribution that was worthy of this grand forum. however i have spent the majority of the day attempting to defend my honor to multiple attacks on my interests and work. it would have been nice if you have extended me a gentleman's courtesy - i am certain you could determine that i was new to this network.

your comment above shows that i am searching for answers that i cannot find here, nor do you value my attempts to uncover them and present them here even when i requested the allowance of 'hang on'....in the limited time frame from entry to deletion, i was not able to uncover substantial reliable sources and post them to my entries fast enough because my contributions were tagged and deleted post-haste. verve is brand new.

perhaps on another day, we will fare a little better. Erichnwise 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul {A|a}ddis
Hello Anedote, I came across the article for "Paul addis" (note lowercase), fixed it up some, then later noticed that the caps problem. When trying to fix it, I came across Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Addis, and hence I'm coming to you to chat, as you're the one that deleted it.

While I agree that the Burning Man prank is not notable in and of itself (though googling '"paul addis" burning man' does result in 85900 hits, a testament to how much talk about him there has been), I don't think he's a one-hit wonder, as he has previously had media exposure (articles and interviews) in relation to plays he's written and performed, and I think this tips the balance to notability, but just barely (aka "weak keep"). I wouldn't have created the article, but since it was already there, I think it's better to keep than delete.

Anyway, I just wanted to get your opinion. I don't know what the previous article looked like, or if it even mentioned his most recent play, so I don't know what the AfD was evaluating. The only addition I think should be made is to add his mugshot and clean up the refs.

Feel free to respond here, I think it's easiest to follow a discussion that way (just another page on the watchlist). Thanks, Pro crast in a tor 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD was to delete, it was further upheld in DRV. Given the precedent I have no choice but to delete the new article. If you would like to contest this deletion, I could userfy the deleted content and you could work a bit on the article and send it to WP:DRV or WP:AFD a second time. I don't know if this method will be successful and I doubt that Addis' work is an independently notable subject for an article. If you proceed you may wish to contact, who was responsible for the DRV and expressed an interest in resurrecting the article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems, that was expected, please userfy the deleted article so that I may do another WP:DRV. I found a cached copy of the old article, which appeared to be a single line article with a list of external links.  I think the new article is of good quality, though, of course, the notability may still be in question.  Since the AfD, there have been articles about Addis, and a number of the AfD comments don't seem to apply to the former Paul addis article.  Thanks, Pro crast in a tor 02:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Pro crast in a tor/Paul Addis. Good luck, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Cheers,  Pro crast in a tor 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a courtesy message that the DRV is up. Pro crast in a tor 06:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. It's been nice to witness a substantial improvement to the article prior to DRV nomination. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's not hard to improve over a one-liner. :) From the voting, it's looking likely that I'll be merging it with Burning Man with a redirect from Paul Addis.  I'm just happy it's not unanimous.  Oh well, I'll keep a local copy of the article, and resurrect it if Mr. Addis gets in the news again for a different event, which seems likely with a smart and obviously manic egomaniac artist. Pro crast in a tor 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:ChoSh.jpg
Would you mind reverting your last edit to that image, at least for the time being? The guidelines are quite clear that two, separate rationales would be required, one for each article in which the image appears. To paraphrase the hot dog commercial, "Deletion bot get what deletion bot want!" =)     --Dynaflow   babble  07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)