User talk:BigHaz/Archive 11

An important unblock
Could you please unblock the IP address 202.76.162.34? I need that address. I use it at school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc iindyysgvxc (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Is there a reason you can't log into the account you've contacted me with? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to use that IP address at school. It's my school address, so there! Jc iindyysgvxc 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't quite answer my question. As far as I can tell, the block on that IP at the moment would allow you to log in using your account and continue to edit Wikipedia. The only thing you can't do at the moment is edit without logging in. Is there a reason why you can't log in from school? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can, but I don't want to. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's not a good reason to unblock the IP. It takes about 10 seconds to log in with an account, so it really isn't a major disability to you to do so. The IP in question has been blocked since it was being used repeatedly for vandalism, and unblocking it risks precisely the same thing happening again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why am I even supposed to log in? I can do things that only accounts can do - and I don't really wanna do those things. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This page sums it up better than I can. Among other things, you're able to start new articles and generally join the community if you log in. I note, for example, that you can't be an administrator unless you're logged in. Also, if you're logged in then you won't suffer any "collateral damage" when your school's IP is blocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We might as well just shorten the block, then. 124.180.16.217 08:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Again, there's nothing to stop you registering an account, logging in and editing. Laziness is not a reason to lift or shorten a block. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the year 12's at my school leave early. I need that block to be lifted before they leave. If they leave before the block runs out, something bad will happen to me. And now I hardly have anywhere to edit Wikipedia, because a few weeks ago, my computer broke down. 124.176.191.127 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that. Firstly, "something bad will happen to me" isn't a reason to lift a ban. What precisely will happen to you if the block isn't lifted before the 12s leave? More importantly, the fact that your computer broke down doesn't matter at all. See the thing at the top right corner of the screen which says "Log in"? Click on that and you'll be able to log in from whichever computer you happen to be at. The only circumstances under which you won't be able to edit is if you aren't logged in. Given that it takes about 2 seconds to log in, I don't see why we're having such a major issue about this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All right! But it's your fault - and the fault of every other administrator on Wikipedia - if that bullet that was shot into my head and will kill me in five months does so! Besides, it's my birthday in ten days, and you shouldn't be mean to someone on their birthday! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.132.145 (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * For the umpteenth time, why can you (or anyone else at your school) not take the two seconds required to create an account or log in with one you already have? I do it every time I come to this site and it's not an inconvenience at all. If you expect me to believe that one of the year 12s at your school shot you in a way that will kill you in five months, I don't in the slightest. I also have no intention of "being mean to someone on their birthday", but likewise neither does the fact that it's your birthday entitle you to take illegal drugs, commit murder, rob someone or break the speed limit. In much the same way, the fact that it's allegedly your birthday on a given date doesn't mean that an IP will be unblocked when that block was done entirely in a manner supported by policy. If you can come up with a single reason grounded in policy for the block to be lifted, I'll consider it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Images
I see you removed two images from my entry on Robb White. One was an author photo, taken from an out-of-print book jacket, and the other was an out-of-print book cover. I thought once a book was out of print it was OK to use? How do I go about getting proper credit so these can be restored to my entry? from user JosephWSmithIII
 * The information you're in need of is at WP:COPYRIGHT. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Norfuk language
Hi BigHaz, I note that you've previously done some editing on the article mentioned above. I've recently done some work adding references and cleaning up this article, I was wondering if you might have a look at it and shoot me some feedback?

Thanks

MichelleG 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on a Eurovision article
Please see Talk:Shir_Habatlanim Thanks --Dweller 13:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response is there now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, mine too! :-) -- Thanks, Deborahjay 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Guyot
Hi BigHaz, you deleted the only image from this article on April 5, Image:Guyot.jpg, with the edit summary "no copyright tag". Can you please look at the image and tell me what it was, or even better email it to me, so that I can try to find or create a free replacement?

There really has to be a better way to operate than this. I was the last editor of that page on March 26, at which time one of my several edits included "Make image bigger", so obviously I thought it was a useful image (although I can't possibly remember what it was, now 2 weeks and 1500 edits later). It is very counterproductive to the goal of building an encyclopedia to just delete an image without providing any way for others to find a free replacement. Was it a drawing or diagram? Since a guyot is an underwater feature, it couldn't have been a photo, right?.

This is now an extra waste of everyone's time, and it could have been prevented by trying to ask or notify recent editors of the page prior to image deletion. Sure, I understand copyright and know that such images may need to be deleted, but there has to be a better way to improve Wikipedia than silent deletions like this. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From memory (looking at it doesn't actually allow me to see the file, since it was deleted from the server) it was a diagram of a guyot. In terms of the notification of image deletion, the original uploader is notified when they upload an image without a copyright tag and given a number of days to add one, working on the assumption that s/he is best placed to know where it came from in the first place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that is very disappointing, so it's just gone from the server, great. There is one obvious flaw in notifying only the original uploader of the problem: if they didn't know well enough to add proper copyright info initially, then they are more than likely to be ill-suited to the task of finding the copyright info or creating a replacement image.  Someone else (like me, in this particular case) could have quickly taken appropriate action to avoid the permanent loss of information which has now occurred.
 * One of the best things about Wikipedia is that you can edit articles without fear of damaging them, since changes can always be reverted, but in this case the loss and damage is permanent. I think that fact alone calls for a much more thorough investigation and notification prior to any such image deletion, which it appears that you (and probably other admins, too) do not attempt to do.  I know that the image backlog is so great (2000+ right now) that there appears to be no time for such investigation.  But while it's fine to quickly delete the backlog of offensive, useless, and non-encyclopedic images which are uploaded by many, the needless loss of a good image from a scientific article is unacceptable.  It should be avoided, even at the cost of leaving an image on the backlog much longer.  Please take steps in the future to prevent a recurrence of this issue.  Thanks.
 * I guess I'll put it on my Wiki-agenda to look for a free diagram of a guyot at some point in the future. A quick Google image search right now found no promising candidates.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your irritation, but the point remains that there are policies to be followed here - and given the legal ramifications, I'd argue that copyright is one of the more important ones. Yes, the user who uploaded the image may not be well-up on the way copyright works, but the notification that the tag is needed comes with a series of links which explain copyright tagging and the other nuts-and-bolts of image uploading and use as well, so it's not as if they're suddenly being thrown into the deep end with no hope of recovery. Additionally, there's always a lag (even when there's no backlog) of a number of days in between the image being tagged as needing copyright data and the image being deleted, so while it's a Speedy Deletion criterion, it's not one which comes into effect 30 seconds after the page is tagged. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Melodifestivalen
Hi, Melodifestivalen is going through a peer-review here at the mo. Some comment from another ESC article editor would come in handy! Thanks. Chwech 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your question at DYK
college football teams actually do not have much leeway on scheduling opponents. Most of the season is committed to the conference schedule, where the smae opponents are played over-and-over.

Most teams also have traditional non-conference opponents that they routinely schedule (USC vs Notre Dame) or (Texas vs Rice).

Then the top teams usually want to add games they know they can win. There are only about 12 or so games in the season, so by the time all these previously mentioned games are scheduled, there is usually room for little else.

As explained in the article and now on AfD, this meeting was significan for several reasons:
 * 1) It is unual for two teams to have such long histories and to have never played each other. This was the second most games ever played by two college football teams prior to them facing each other.
 * 2) Also, it was a rarity for two top-5 teams to meet so early in the season. As the photo to the right of the DYK entry shows, it was rare enough to cause spontaneous celebrations in the streets of Austin, a 1,000 miles away from the game.
 * 3) There are numerous citations in the article for it being one of the top games of the year, and
 * 4) Each of the teams were predicted prior to the season to have a got shot at the national championship. In fact, one of the two teams did go on to win the national championship. They probably could not have done it without winning this game in question.  Best, Johntex\talk 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Bold text

sorry
my apologies, what can I say vandals annoy me. Will refrain from name calling in future. WikiTownsvillian 11:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they annoy pretty much every established user. Just remember that the best and most effective response is to revert the page and drop them a warning template where possible, since name-calling is frequently the response they want in the first place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I see your point, by the way thanks for blocking the user so quickly, I've never seen that happen so quickly, my experience is that vandals are given 'final' warnings that they will be blocked many many times before they are even temporarily blocked. WikiTownsvillian 11:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He's only blocked for 24 hours, which is the maximum allowable for simple vandalism. In terms of the speed, he was unlucky to have picked an article on my watchlist and a time when I was cruising around looking for something productive to do (although the Federal Opposition Leader of a large country should probably be being watched by more than just one admin in an ideal world). We're also lucky in this case that he did nothing but vandalise that article, since it's always just that little bit harder to justify blocking someone who's added some nonsense as well as done some productive editing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, tell me, is there an admin forum of some kind where I can flag issues of vandalism which can be dealt with in the same manner, rather than a whole lot of us lightweights jumping up and down giving them hollow warnings. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There most definitely is. It's right here in fact. It's usually pretty well-followed by a dedicated collection of admins, and most of us look in every now and then just to make sure there's nothing really heavy going on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added it to my links and will use it in future :) WikiTownsvillian 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message...
Regarding your message - thank you. I will get back to you soon with more but I'm a bit busy for the next few hours. It is a problem, and there may be more to it - i think. Speak to you soon again, kind regards Merbabu 08:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. I've got a hellish week and a bit planned (hence the Wikibreak notice up top), but if there's something that needs to be dealt with I should at least be able to start the ball rolling administratively. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aja'ib al-makhluqat entry
Hi, so here am I. As you can see, I have Wiki links in my entry. Why the entry looks as "coming from nowhere" is because I copy-pasted it from my article.
 * It doesn't so much anymore (since there are now links to other articles). The reason why I said it originally did was that it was a large chunk of text with no links to anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you BigHaz, for the edit work; I appreciate that and hope the article will be accepted with your help. Best regards, Necademic

Paper
Ping. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That was quick. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Strikeout
Oh, I apologize. I have seen instances before with users striking anonymous opinions out because of WP:ILIKEIT. Feel free to fully revert my changes. hbdragon88 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Already done. In retrospect, I could probably have been a bit clearer in what I was doing (since it was a really messy situation), but that was all being done "on the fly", so I can hardly blame anyone who was confused. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)