User talk:CactusWriter/Archive 2010

__NOINDEX__

article regarding Larissa Shasko (speedily deleted as Larissa shasko)
Hey there... cool that you deleted the Larissa shasko (small s), I was trying to create an article for her with proper capitalization "Larissa Shasko" and couldn't get past the auto-reference to 2008 election candidates...

As per the copyright infringement... I had used larissa's own website, and could easily attain her permission (we are close friends and colleagues)... The only reason I left the copied and pasted short bio was because I didn't want to edit the small s article while the large s wasn't allowing me...

so how can I start on a large s, Larissa Shasko article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treesforourchildren (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Treesforourchildren. I am sorry that we had to delete the article, but Wikipedia doesn't allow the addition of any copyright infringing text -- even briefly. But I have now deleted the redirect to the 2008 election candidates page, which will free you to create the Larissa Shasko title.
 * I suggest you use the Article wizard 2.0 which is a step-by-step process for creating the new article. It will be helpful in determining whether or not Larissa Shasko will meet the WP notability guidelines.
 * And because this is a close friend of yours, I also want to suggest that you first read the Wikipedia policy page about conflict of interest, which explains the need to write from an entirely neutral point-of-view. This is especially difficult for people writing about themselves, friends, family or colleagues. If you have further questions, please ask. Good luck. — Cactus Writer |   needles  11:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks CactusWriter... the reason I had initially copied the bio was to paraphrase what others had said about her... but I have no doubt she meets notability requirements, both with her role as leader of the green party of saskatchewan and her trailblazing founding of fairvote saskatchewan and a sincere attempt to create a left-wing coalition during the last election. To ensure neutrality, I will use as many primary and secondary sources as I can find... thanks for your help, I'll read the article wizard too ;) I (heart) open-source! Treesforourchildren (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Treesforourchildren

CactusWriter...
...are you in? (there's a reason I'm asking in this way) Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, never mind. It was to do with page protection and outing, etc. I think I've dealt with it, more or less, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Spongefrog. Sorry that I wasn't around. Looks like you did everything right on your own. And Tiptoey and WP can be grateful for your efforts. Have a good new year. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The The Third Man Welles arguer is back...
Hello, Cactus Writer. I was a brand-new editor back last summer when an individual, perhaps using several accounts, persisted in vandalizing the The Third Man article, contending that Orson Welles had written and directed the film. Eventually he went away. 'Cept now he's back. He's been copy-and-pasting his arguments from July back into the article in the same spots. He's as tenacious as I am, and one more round of pasting-and-undoing will put us into edit war status. I'm confident in my edit skills, but not so much in my battle skills. Any chance you could help out on this? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ack! Okay, no problem. There's no need for you to risk an edit war status -- so no more reverts. I'll watchlist the article and step in if problems persist. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel like a kid on the playground, running for Teacher. Thanks again — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yeah, I know that feeling. Wikipedia's new slogan: welcome to your 2nd childhood. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm impressed. He seems totally humbled. One off-stage whisper of your name and he folds up right on the spot. You're a regular Wyatt Earp of the Wiki.
 * I left a suggested paragraph — refreshingly brief! — on the talk page that might plug in and put this to bed. Thanks again! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. But something tells me this will never be entirely asleep... — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Image resize
I don't think that the resolution would stay that high anyway if one of the dimensions is reduced to 300px. Usually the image is rendered in the infobox at 200px anyway, so it usually doesn't need to be much bigger than that. I've been running across a lot of images that are above 300px, but I've usually been tagging only 350 and above. I believe that there is some page somewhere that talks about resolution as well, but again, it shouldn't be an issue with the reduced size. Let me know if you need further clarification. Thanks for taking the time to resize them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

why??
why did you delete united atists??? its my dads team i hate you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feargondeoin (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but casual amateur "Astro league" teams and players are not notable. You might want to read about our WikiProject Football -- especially WikiProject Football/Notability. When Dad starts to make his living as a professional footballer than Wikipedia will include his team. — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Baseball cards
If you can delete them that'd be fantastic. I added them before I knew all the ins and outs of the system here. Alex (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response. And no problem -- I understand that these were uploaded back when you were just learning the ropes. This kind of fair use error is fairly common. There is a big learning curve on all the rules and regs. I have marked the above for deletion. But it would be very helpful if you could review the other files that you have uploaded during the years and check them for proper use. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave Sharp
Thanks for your polite posting on my web page.

Please check the comments page where the subject Himself clearly states He has no issue with text being used from His web site and in fact encourages the use. Whilst I appreciate the policies in place, surely common sense should prevail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorsem (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Trevorsem, because of the anonymity of internet accounts, it is unfortunately impossible for us to accept permission from any registered account simply on their word alone. This is because anyone can state that they are anyone else. Therefore, Wikipedia must use specific procedures to allow any use of copyrighted materials. The simplest method is for the website owner to replace the copyright notices on their own website with a CC-BY-SA free sharing license. Permission also can be granted by Donating copyrighted materials through our OTRS office so that the website owner's identity can be confirmed. These methods are outlined in the message on your talk page. This not only protects the legal standing of Wikipedia, but just as importantly, they protect the hard work of the original authors of the text which is to be copied. I'm certain you can understand the common sense in that. If you have further questions, please ask. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A question
Hi, I'm working at spanish version of Masada, and saw this edition you did long ago. Do you have any reference that could hold that assertion? Because I'm not sure we were talking about only one person. I really need one solid reference to prove that fact. Thanks and regards, Kordas (sínome!) 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's from a long time ago. I can't remember how I ended up on that page -- but is was probably through my work at Requested articles/Biographies. I am definitely out of my depth with this subject matter, but I think that you are correct: Eleazar ben Simon and Eleazar ben Yair -- although both Jewish revolutionary leaders at the same period -- are definitely two different people. Eleazar ben Yair was the leader of the Sicarii at Masada. I am redirecting the ben Yair page to Sicarii. Thanks for helping to correct my mistake. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your fast answer. I'm going to investigate this a little deeper, but I'm afraid the information is really poor at this point. There are few sources (e.g. Josephus) we could handle to fill this lack. Thank you so much again, Kordas (sínome!) 00:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Great work on the Lise Nørgaard article!
You are a worthy addition to the land pickled herring and atrocious weather. Favonian (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tak, men det var så lidt. Og denne uge er jeg faktisk lang væk fra det koldt og mørkt. Jeg hygger på en dejlig strand in syd Californien -- men jeg savner en god sildemad og Tuborg. Skål! — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Very speedy delete
Please see here Respond on my talk page if you would like to contact me. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The page has been now redirected to The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis. (I myself kind of wonder whatever happened to ol' Dobie Gillis from back in the days of B&W TV?) — Cactus Writer |   needles  22:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Roberson
Why was the Sarah Roberson page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyitsSarahKate (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Sarah Roberson did not meet the strict notability criteria for a biography of a living person. As stated in the article: as an actress, she has had no roles and as a model she has yet to receive any significant notice. Requirements for a biography are that an individual has significant coverage in press and media. As it was, the article was written solely to promote a possible career for this young person. As such it was speedily deleted. If and when she receives significant attention for her work, than an article about her would be welcome. Regards. — Cactus Writer |   needles  23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Article Incubator/Grant Bell

 * replied. — Cactus Writer |   needles  04:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the welcome! --Cucumberkvp (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've left a couple of other tips for you on your page concerning editing. Let me know if there is any help you need. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness Violating Arbitration Again
Hello Cactus… Supreme Deliciousness is acting up again. On 30 December 2009, you filed this AN/I report against SD for meat puppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#User:Supreme_Deliciousness_ban_violation. SD was soliciting User:Nableezy to edit Asmahan on his behalf as a way around his ban from the Asmahan arbitration case. SD was found to have violated his ban and was blocked very briefly. SD is now doing it again on Omar Sharif. Again, he is posting the references for Nableezy on the Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omar_Sharif#Omar_Sharifs_lebanese_background and Nableezy is doing the editing using SD references: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Sharif&action=historysubmit&diff=341729948&oldid=341725654, again as a way around his ban. SD is prohibited from influencing the nationality or ethnicity of a biography on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Supreme_Deliciousness_topic_banned. Not only is Omar Sharif a biography, it was also part of the Asmahan case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Statement_by_Arab_Cowboy and again, SD is using a meat puppet to do his editing in violation of his ban. I ask you to please take action again, this time to block him indefinitely, since he has been violating his ban so many times. Thank you. Nefer Tweety (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let me take a look. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nefer Tweety, I don't see this as the same blatant case since I do not find any direct request from SD to Nableezy to make edits. Nableezy is not under any editing restriction that I am aware of, and is certainly permitted to edit any article of their own volition. However, I am going to ask for a clarification on something before making a response. I will let you know once I hear back about that. In the meantime, I see That SD has opened a case at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to which you may wish to respond. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I requested clarification of SD's topic ban -- which was a one year ban from making edits concerning ethnicity. I wanted to make certain that it did not include article talk pages. As you can see from Wizardman's response below, the edits at Talk:Omar Sharif are not specifically in violation. However, if SD continues to create battles over ethnicity and nationality, and stirring up fires at various WP venues, than an amendment to their topic will need to be imposed. At the moment, I am going to let this ride in hope that you and Nableezy can find common ground, and any provocation by SD can be ignored. I will try to keep a general eye out for how things are proceeding. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer |   needles  03:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cactus, thank you for looking into this. However, this is incorrect. SD is not permitted to edit the Talk pages of biographies to influence their ethnicity or nationality. This privilege was voted down here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Proposed_decision#Supreme_Deliciousness_topic_banned. The privilege of editing the Talk pages was taken away from SD and therefore his edits on the Talk page of Omar Sharif were a violation. Moreover, it is clear that Nableezy was using SD's specific sources to edit the article for SD, as per SD's original request on Asmahan. SD did not have to repeat the request Nableezy; Nableezy is complying anyway. It is clear that SD and Nableezy have learned from the meat puppetry lesson of December 2009 when they got caught, and they are now doing it in a more subtle way. -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The opposition to the first proposed topic ban does not mean that things allowed under that proposal (such as editing talk pages) are now not allowed -- it only meant the wording of that entire proposal was decided as incorrect. Once a proposal is rejected, the specific wording becomes meaningless. The only topic ban proposal which has true relevance is the one that was finally accepted -- and it did not mention talk pages. If talk pages need to be added into a topic ban, than a request should be made at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Notice that this is different than Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. For approval of amendment, however, it must be clear that an editor's talk page edits are disruptive to other editors. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CactusWriter, I think it the initial block of SD was a mistake, but I can understand why it was made. What he did was clumsy; he should have just said I will present sources on the talk page, please read them and see if changes to the article are needed, but instead he specifically asked for somebody to make edits he wanted. But in this case I he did nothing wrong, in fact he did exactly what he was supposed to do. He posted sources on a talk page that showed the information in the article that Nefer Tweety was removing is accurate. I think that under remedy 6 of the case that Omar Sharif be placed under article probation and that Nefer Tweety receives a formal notice of the restrictions per remedy 7. Nefer Tweety's sole contributions to the article over the past month have been removing the word "Lebanese", usually while saying that there is "no source" despite several being cited. nableezy  - 20:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

CactusWriter, I have made one single post at the Omar Sharif talkpage since the case ended which I am allowed to do, a very civilized post bringing sources to the talkpage, while Nefer Tweety has reverted Sharifs background at least 5 times since the case ended misrepresenting the sources in the edit summary, not making one single post at the talkpage while edit warring with numerous editors, and you are here saying that I am the one that "continues to create battles over ethnicity and nationality, and stirring up fires at various WP venues" and that "and any provocation by SD can be ignored" What is this? I am allowed to make posts at talkpages about any topic, and I am doing this in a civilized way, am I not? Was it not civilized? Have I not been polite? So what is the problem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my view that any editor who is featured regularly at Arbcom, AE, ANI and similar pages is creating battles and stirring the embers. Among the thousands of editors on Wikipedia, the vast majority never make a single appearance on enforcement pages -- and I am including the many working who have worked for years on WP in extremely controversial areas of politics, religion and BLPs. Any editor who is consistently and regularly the subject of complaints and enforcements needs to self-examine their actions to figure out why they have such a difficult time collaborating with other editors. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What did I do wrong at the Sharif talkpage? What principles or remedy's of the case did I violate? How was I uncivil? How was I disrespectful to anyone? How did I stir up a battle with anyone? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * SD, edits such as this one that you made today, and your trying to rush along discussions -- whether on article talk pages or in AE/ANI discussions -- does not sit well with the vast majority of editors. Instead of pushing a specific nationalistic point of view at articles, you might be better served by slowing down and collaborating with others. In general, its easier to create and expand than it is to restrict or remove.  -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: clarification
If talk pages was not written in the remedy, then I would say that it's not a violation. If you feel topic banning the talk pages as well is necessary then you can request an amendment. That's how I read the remedy. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * btw, your talk page background looks quite familiar ;) Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 23:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sundar V. Nadkarni
It was not my intention to delete S. V. Nadkarni just like that - several readers are also responsible for that. At the same time, I had also marked one of my articles B. A. Uralegaddi to be deleted as I thought it is not worth keeping on wiki. He may be notable somewhere else. Yes, Nikil Dutt, D. S. Nadkarni were my mistakes. S. V. Nadkarni was not understood by many. The others are marked correctly – votes are coming in. Thanks. In summary, this notable stuff on wiki stinks. I have been seeing a lot bias in that process. I’m some what close to what David Eppstein’s speaks though it differs sometimes from others. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines will always be a point of contention. The criteria which we each demand has a range as widely divergent as the diversity of editors here -- it ranges from those who require international recognition to those who only require verifiability of existence. Some consensus has been established through numerous previous discussions. For example, in the case of the articles which have drawn your interest, Notability (academics) has some guidelines developed through consensus opinion. If you think the notability criteria "stinks", than it is a good idea to propose changes there. In the long run, though, there will always be differences of opinion here -- and some debates which you win and some debates which you lose. C'est la vie. We shrug it off, accept our disagreements, and move on. Acceptance of this is healthy (Reasonability Rule) while the opposite will only lead to frustration (WP:POINT). Good luck with your editing and cheers. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been on wiki since February 23, 2008 or little earlier than that. My first page was on this date and thereafter I wrote almost 150 articles mainly in Bio and others. It is not that I never tried to sell my ideas on notability; eventually I decided not to argue on this anymore with anyone. All my pages are intact so far. They were written with different usernames because I want to hide myself on these. I’m not writing to earn wiki medals – I want to write about those who I met in my life and what I studied and observed. I do enjoy editing silently as and when I get free time from my work place. Definitely I learnt a lot in the process and sometimes it was tense arguing on subject matters such as notability. Yes, I made mistakes in the process of deleting Nikil Dutt, Sundar V. Nadkarni, Dayanand S. Nadkarni, Harish Gaonkar and M. M. Kalburgi and I enjoyed the criticisms by wiki admin. It is not that I did not like these people – they got slipped away in the process. But at the end, the results were good – they were much improved especially Harish Gaonkar’s page. My philosophy is that all pages except the one about celebrities should pass through the AFD process (7 days) before  they are accepted. I noticed that consensus enjoy voting. Hope I’ll continue this work but with more cautions.


 * One day down the road before that day, I would try to list all my usernames and my articles (with consesus) on wiki. Cheers - --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background info. I appreciate the explanation -- and apologize if I you were treated unfairly, or as a new or uninformed editor. I am glad that you took the barrage of comments in stride (I am certain they were meant to be contructive) and emerged in good humor. If you need any help, please feel free to ask. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dodo Maheri
Nice work! --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the kind notice. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Real Ultimate Power
An editor has nominated an article which you worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Real Ultimate Power. Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome at Articles for deletion/Real Ultimate Power (second nomination). --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed OR language and did some wikifying back in June 2008. I have no particular interest in it but if I have time I will take a look. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Cactus Writer, thanks for helping on the Drents Museum, I'm glad your dedicated to helping us!-- Cucumberkvp 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cucumberkvp (talk • contribs)
 * You're welcome. It was my pleasure. If you have any questions about editing, please feel free to ask. — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness Ammendment
I have filed the ammendment request as you have previously suggested. I HOPE that you will support it this time. Thanks! Nefer Tweety (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy
Hey, I gather you might have some insight to offer at User talk:Arab Cowboy (specifically the sections "Email" and "Some Sane Admin, Please Unblock"). AC is asking for your input specifically, for what it's worth. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to myself: I had replied at Arab Cowboy's talk page on February 28. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For your information
I have now talked with the arb drafter of the Asmahan arbitration case. He has told me that I am allowed to ask a neutral person to take a look at points I have posted at the talkpage. I am planning on asking either Nableezy again, or some other person. I am giving you this information in advance so that no future misunderstanding will happen. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the heads up. For your own benefit, you may wish a neutral party who is completed removed from any of the previous discussions -- a longstanding editor from the Actor Bio Project or General Biography Project might be a good choice. Good luck. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

National Star Soccer League
How long should a page completely devoid of information be allowed to exist? An hour? A day? A month? Kinda negates the purpose of db-a3. Perhaps you could move it to a user subpage instead. 98.248.41.128 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would generally wait for more than a day to see if information is forthcoming. Especially in the case of a benign topic such as this. It doesn't actually necessitate speedy deletion. PRODding it would be more apropos. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

hagoole (Haggle Search)
Dear CactusWriter could you please elaberate why you deleted the hagoole page in new (lame) user terms. In my opinion it was far from advertising as I was describing what hagoole search is, does and how it differentiates.

The hagoole tool is a NOTABLE and unique new engine as it deals with issues affecting people in the current financial crisis attempting to take on monopolistic competition where they differentiate on everything other than price. This is an important topic of interest to many around the world part of a new trend as the consumer is increasingly empowered in a highly competitive global competition. Was it too long? Would you be kind enough to help locate an example of what would be acceptable? I would very much appreciate your time and any input that your experience would suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 2:12, 5 March 2010


 * The article was deleted for being promotional and for failing to provide significant reason for the subject to be notable. For you to establish the notability of Hagoole, you must provide substantial discussion about from independent reliable sources. In other words, the article lacks references. You may wish to try using the Article wizard -- it will lead you through the process of creating a relevant article. If you wish, I can also move the article from deletion to the Wikipedia article incubator where you can work on the article with input from other editors. Let me know if that is something in which you would be interested. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding I will try again later by using the wizard as per your suggestion.
 * If I have a second attempt at this it will not be considered as spam as I don't want to waste other peoples time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you wish, I can also move the article from deletion to the Wikipedia article incubator where you can work on the article with input from other editors. Let me know if that is something in which you would be interested.
 * YES please help me with this by moving the article!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 5 March 2010


 * Done. The article can now be found at Article Incubator/Hagoole. By the way, I see that your username is the same as the article. This creates a minor problem. First, I would suggest that change your username since our Username policy prohibits usernames which promote a product or company. If you are closely connected with the organization, you should also read conflict-of-interest guidelines so that you can avoid the problems inherent with that. Good luck. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep I am slowly getting up to speed with some technical rules that wikipedia has. CactusWriter I appreciate your input despite the fact that I got deleted :( Hopefully the incubator on its own will help solve any conflict of interest through other users who believe in what I am attempting to do by contributing to the wikipedia page entry. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

An Image
Hi, thanks for your earlier amendments to the images I uploaded. Helped me understand Wikipedia much better. I uploaded this image thumb, which I was given a couple of months ago by a follower of Shahi, so I have the original copy of the photo. I've uploaded it to share it on Shahi's article, but another editor User:Off2riorob, who I'm sure means best for the article, doesn't understand my point. I just need some advise. How should I fix the information regarding the image so that it may be used in the article and may stay up? I wasn't sure of the rights to place on the image. So I put up 'Public Domain', whatever your thoughts upon the matter, please let me know. -- Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nasiryounus. I appreciate your effort to comply with WP copyright procedures. You should familiarize yourself with Donating copyrighted materials -- especially section 3 on "donating your photographs". The best place to upload photographs which you own is at Wikipedia commons. If there are any questions regarding permission to use the photo there, this can be resolved by contacting OTRS by e-mail and granting permission. (There is an example form letter on the OTRS page which can be sent). The basic procedure is:
 * For images, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at WP:CONSENT:
 * (1) From an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-commons@wikimedia.org permissions-commons@wikimedia.org];
 * (2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place OTRS pending on the image page.
 * Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.
 * I know that this can be a bit of a hassle -- and can seem like a time and effort -- but copyright issues must be taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any further problems. Good luck. — Cactus Writer |   needles  00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your help and will definitely look into it. Thanks ever so much x -- Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Trou du cul
Tu te crois malin de supprimer ça? Abdekarim Izaiaoui (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...et toi aussi. Happy trails. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 02:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In return. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Georgia Gould
I have nominated Georgia Gould, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Georgia Gould. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CMG (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation page is no longer necessary. Deleted and moved Georgia Gould (cyclist). — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Removal of AfD tag on Flutter
I see and I apologize. So once you place that AfD tag on the article, there's no turning back. ;-)  Thanks for letting me know. —  Mike   Allen   01:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not exactly. I wouldn't say there's "no turning back". Speedy keeps and speedy deletes -- or withdrawals before any other delete votes -- can be closed quickly. Otherwise, allowing the discussion to continue won't ever hurt the article. So no problem. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we'll see what others have to say about it. It may be determined to be kept, instead of incubated. —  Mike   Allen   02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Brillion High School
Unless the editor changed it after I moved the article, how was it a test page? C T J F 8 <font color="#6600cc">3 chat 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When a new user creates an article that will not qualify for inclusion as submitted -- rather than delete it as A1, A3, A7 or another of the "more bitey" CSD criteria -- we can sometimes assume good faith and delete as a G2 test page that simply failed. It's a judgment call -- made in favor of the creator. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean it looked to me as a stub, how as I've seen on AfDs, schools usually pass the WP:GNG. <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="#ff0000">C <font color="#ff6600">T <font color="#ffff00">J <font color="#009900">F <font color="#0000ff">8 <font color="#6600cc">3  chat 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let me finish rewriting the copyvio article I'm working on and I'll then take another look. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is actually no inherent notability criteria for secondary or primary schools. But the creation of these articles usually depends only on simple reliable independent sourcing. In the case of Brillion, I went ahead and created a page on the school based on a reference in Technology Teacher magazine. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks, and thanks for clearing up what I thought. <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="#ff0000">C <font color="#ff6600">T <font color="#ffff00">J <font color="#009900">F <font color="#0000ff">8 <font color="#6600cc">3  chat 06:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

David Mottram deletion
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mottram

I hereby affirm that I, David Mottram am  the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the webpage that my Wikipedia article details (http://www.mottram.com/index.html).

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0".

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

David Mottram - copyright-holder, director, owner of mottram.com 3/24/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmottram (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Davidmottram. There are a number of issues here:
 * The procedure for allowing use of the copyrighted text on your website is outlined atDonating copyrighted materials. The information you have written above should be e-mailed directly to the WP:OTRS office from an address associated with your website to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org]. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable. Alternatively, you can place a CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright notice directly onto the website pages.
 * I note that, even if the copyright release is granted, the information as written at that webpage will not be permitted in Wikipedia. The language will be considered Advertising and does not qualify as an independent reliable source. Information about you will need to come from independent reliable sources. For example, newspapers, magazines, professional journals, etc. Those kinds of references will also be necessary for the article to pass notability guidelines.
 * And lastly, we strongly discourage individuals from writing articles about themselves because it difficult to maintain a WP:neutral point of view and can be considered self-promotion. Please read the policy on Conflict of interest. If you wish to proceed, you might try using the Article wizard which will direct you to the appropriate policies as you write an article. Please let me know if you have further questions. Regards. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Second War of Scottish Independence
Hi. :) Good to see you at CP! Just to let you know, in case you didn't see it, I'm working on this one in temp space. I'm not done, but you're welcome to move it into article space. I'm distracted by some copyright issues in a cluster of Indian articles, brought to my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, since it's in user article space, I'm guessing you did see. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ack! I was just removing the "inuse" tag when your message appeared. I replaced it. The article is moved -- so have at it at your leisure. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, good thing I spoke then. It ends a bit abruptly. :D My main reason was to try to save you from writing a stub yourself, since I've been working on it. I hadn't intended to bog down on that article today, but I didn't really understand the conflict well enough to produce a stub. While learning about it, I figured I might as well write about it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the temp you had started was plenty good enough. More than I would have written. I was happy to see it so I could move it and be on my merry way. Definitely a lot of background to read through -- kind of fascinating stuff that can keep us flipping from book to book, and then the next thing you know, the sun is down and people are hungry for dinner. Good luck with it. Have fun. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent speedy deletion of Joe Arpaio controversy
You recently speedy deleted, while leaving no notice on my talk page, even though I was the page creator. I was wondering if you would please move the contents to a user page of mine; namely User:Outback the koala/Joe Arpaio controversy. From there I will work on it, expand the content, and reference/source the content until it is ready to be reintroduced. It's good content that we could really use. If not, please contact me on my talk page. Thank You, Outback the Koala (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Outback the Koala. I did not tag the Joe Arpaio controversy page for speedy deletion, but the editor who did should have notified you and I am sorry that they failed to do so. The page was tagged as a WP:G10 (attack page) -- which I declined to delete as such. I did delete the page per WP:A10 criteria (A recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). As you are aware, the page duplicated all the text of the Joe Arpaio article with only a few minor additions. I will restore the article temporarily to your userspace as Outback the koala/Joe Arpaio controversy so that you can work to create a case for a unique article. However, I see that there is currently discussion on the Arpaio talk page about this content and a page should not be created which might appear to be an attempt to circumvent any consensus there. Please note that content forking which creates a POV fork is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies -- especially in regard to biographies of living people. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank You. I am aware and understand. For your knowledge, I am not circumnavigating anything on the related talk. Although, I do believe a good amount of this content is unrelated or distantly related to the blp subject. Therefore I will likely change the name so that it will not be focused on this one individual, but on the dept. in question as a whole. Please feel free to contact me with any other concerns. Outback the Koala (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a better plan -- although a proper article on the department will need to include an entire factual history as a base, with both positives and criticism. Good luck with it. — Cactus Writer |   needles  07:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do what I can, but I won't make any promises. It's definitely a very contested topic... Outback the koala (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent speedy deletion of Spectronic_ts2200_phone.jpg
Why did you delete image Spectronic_ts2200_phone.jpg? As I said in the image comment I am the author of this image. It is correct that the image is also in use on the Spectronic website, which might be confusing. However, it is still my image and I have the rights to it (which is an agreement between me and spectronic). I choose to make the image, in this specific resolution, avaliable under the creative commons licence (which was also said in the image comment) and I would prefer not to have it deleted. Could you please restore it. Regards, Cmas one (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cmas one. I am sure you can understand that because editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, we cannot simply accept any editor's statement that they own and release the copyright to images or text which appear elsewhere on the internet. This protects the authorship of other websites. However, we do have specific procedures for donating your copyrighted materials. Please see Donating copyrighted materials, specifically the section on Granting us permission to copy material already online. The easiest method would be to add the CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright release to the bottom of pages on the Spectronic website. Otherwise the procedure is as follows:


 * You should send an email, ideally using the language from the template at WP:CONSENT:
 * (1) From an address associated with the original publication (Spectronic website) to [mailto:permissions-commons@wikimedia.org permissions-commons@wikimedia.org];
 * (2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place OTRS pending on the image page.
 * Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.


 * Until the Wikipedia OTRS office receives official permission, I cannot restore a copyrighted image. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  23:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is now taken care of, the guys from Spectronic should have sent an email by now. However, since I clearly stated in the previous image comment that I was the author of the image, I can not see any good reason for why you should bypass the good manners of having a delete discussion, by marking the image for speedy deletion. Obviously the issue could have been solved by having a very simple discussion, without the image being removed. Regards, Cmas one (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I am not the editor who marked the image for speedy deletion, I'm sorry that we didn't discuss the proper procedure for uploading Spectronic's photos. And I'm glad to hear that Spectronic will be granting permission for the use. By the way, as you found from the procedure above, the forum for uploading donated images is Wikimedia Commons. (Which is a separate website from Wikipedia). So this applies for your upload of the File:Spectronic NMT phone.jpg photo as well -- which should also be moved there and tagged OTRS pending while awaiting approval -- as you did with the File:Spectronic ts2200 248x290.jpg photo. Please let me know if you need further help with that. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy CactusWriter's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My day? Cool! And I didn't even notice it on the kitchen calendar. Thanks, Rlevse. I appreciate it. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits
I appreciate the feedback via your edits to my postings and I am comparing them and learning from them. I am trying to start out slowly, and you are one of the first who has edited my contributions and not just deleted them as part of mass edits. If you see me getting out of line with POV or bias, reach out to me and I will try to expand out my topics and not have a singular focus.Overdriver (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Overdriver. You're welcome! And I'm glad I could help. My initial edit was to eliminate the copyright infringement problem -- sources can be paraphrased, but not copied directly. (The essay at Close paraphrasing has some tips.) While I was doing that, I also removed some unneeded POV phrasing -- the guideline at WP:PEACOCK discusses this. (I debated even removing the Pulitzer Prize mention, because that might lend bias outside of the subject. I left it in, but if someone wanted to remove it, I would have no objection.) I'm sorry that you've found it a bit rough starting out on Wikipedia -- but jumping straight into a volatile article is definitely trial by fire. There is a big learning curve to Wikipedia, so it can be a good idea to start with non-controversial subjects while you learn your way around. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Attackish Page William E. Riker
"was a cult-leader who founded Holy City, California, and was an unsuccessful candidate for Governor of California"

"Riker grew up working as a palm reader and mind reader, but faced trouble for bigamy. Riker fled to Canada and soon founded his religious sect "The Perfect Christian Divine Way" which emphasized White Supremacy, Racial segregation, separation of people by gender, and abstinence from alcohol."

"Riker was arrested in 1942 for sedition due to his pro-Nazi views[citation needed]. He was freed due to the efforts of attorney Melvin Belli but Riker soon sued Belli for defaming him by referring to him as a "crackpot" during the trial"

How is this not an Attack page, Its only source the Apologetics Index (by no means a Reliable) which made claims like the middle on above? Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Weaponbb7. A page that holds "negative" information about an individual does not qualify for WP:G10 speedy deletion if the person is notable for that information. A quick google revealed that there is plenty of RS sources on Riker, including this list from the San Joaquin Valley Library System. You will notice from the headlines on that list that all the information in that stub appears to be correct. Rather than simply mark article for deletion, it is best to first make a diligent search for references. If no references are found, than deletion may be in order. Otherwise, editing and improving the article is preferred. Regards. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, When a page only hold negative information with no sources for the Negative Information i am inclined to call it a attack page, i see your logic though. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply: what do you mean?
We just had a RSN discussion on it Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Issue is two fold, A : Copy right violations of orginal sources thus illiegal to link too B: not a RS to begin with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 April 2010
 * Please respond on your talk page so the discussion can remain together. Thanks. I've replied there. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ESUHSD
I just need to let you know that someone's name has been put on East Side Union High School District and I'm trying to permanently remove the history of it, which is why I posted the article for deletion. I have created East Side Union High School District (San Jose, California) to clean up the mess made. I suggest that you delete the orginal article and then rename the new one to East Side Union High School District, because I know the person and I'm trying to protect him. If you have any questions are comments about this, you can post it on my talk-page when you have the time. Thank you! Hotel5550 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, than specific points in the history of the original page can be deleted. Can you please provide a diff where the original problem was created? However, deleting the original and recreating another as your own work is a violation of the copyright of the original creator. I can work with you if provide me with additional information. Thanks. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  02:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!!! In that case, I apologize for this whole thing; you may delete the article I created. It all started when the section Controversies/Criticism was written into the article. I would like all of that deleted, if possible. And thank you for your understanding. I'm very greatful. Hotel5550 (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently, reading that section, I do not see anyone specifically named. Am I missing something there? I will say that the entire section does not appear to be referenced which is problematic in itself -- but that is another problem different from the one you are saying. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like that (all history with his name) deleted. Hotel5550 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me check through the history. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! My friend will be very happy to hear this! I thank you for your support and regards in this problem. Oh yes, the section can be removed (optional), since it doesn't have references. Hotel5550 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've cleaned out the history and restored the article to the version just prior to the addition of names. The unsourced information could be removed as a violation of WP:BLP policy. Plus you seemed to be the only registered ediotr who had been working on the article. The controversy section is still unreferenced and you should certainly do something to clean that up. Good luck with it. In the future, if you have any further problems, please feel free to ask me -- or another administrator -- for help. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, once again. I am greatful. Yes, I do agree on removing the section, since it has no references. My friend thanks you for helping me fix this situation. Happy editing! Also, the information about the employees, I wanted to keep. I find that information very important. Hotel5550 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Listing the superintendent and board of trustees members would be fine -- that is, they may be considered publicly notable figures. However, a list of employees would not be proper for an encyclopedia article -- that would be an invasion of the privacy of non-notable and non-public individuals. So the tables of warehouse workers and accountants and such should not be re-added. — Cactus Writer |   needles  03:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

can you take a look at this?
As you know I asked the drafter of the arbitration case Wizardman if I could present points of corrections for a neutral editor and he said that I could, after this another arb also said that  that we should discuss sources, arguments and let other experienced contributors help. Well I presented the corrections at the talkpage and got a neutral editor to take a look, look at nr 4 in corrections: I presented my suggestion and linked to the source in the book and Nishidani came with a suggestion following the source and added it to the article,

On 2 September 2009, AC said on the talkpage: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.", 7 months after ACs comment at the talkpage, NT shows up and without participating at the talkpage, ads "stopped in" according to what AC had said 7 months before. Nefer Tweety has done this without saying anything at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about and typed "corrections" in the edit summary.

NT has now over several pages declared that his only intent is to revert anything not accepted by AC and he says "disgusted by SD's ways that they are staying away for the time being." "SD has harassed all other opinion to the point where they are no longer contributing. " "SD's continued pushing of a Syrian agenda" "I will revert any statements that have not received consensus with all parties prior to the arbitration" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I looked at the edit by NT and find that there was nothing wrong with the extremely minor correction of "relocated" changed to "stopped in". The change actually better reflects the source which you provided. Seriously, you want to quibble over that? I will place a brief comment on the article talk page. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not ask you to take a look at that in the aspect as an editor, but as an admin, your job as an admin, when someone disrupts collaboration at a article on probation, when someone openly says that his only intent is to revert anything not accepted by AC and then carries out edits according to what another banned editor has said, and those other comments above was what I wanted you to take a look at.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That issue was already addressed here and did not require more than NW's warning. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Asmahan
Cactus, you say misplaced anger? Have you seen SD's mountain of complaints against a very simple edit that I made on Asmahan? When are you going to take action against this very deliberate harassment and intimidation of all editors opposing his opinion? How much can editors bear of this unacceptable behavior? NW is clearly biased and I formally ask that he does not interfere with this case. What was wrong with my edit on Asmahan? The only person who deserves a warning or even a block is SD who wrote a wall of complaints to silence me. For there to be new consensus, all other editors should be reinvited to participate. I am not making threats, I am telling everyone that I have no time for endless sticky arguments which are the trademark of SD, I will edit the article and I am privileged to do so. It had been proven before that Asmahan's family "stopped" in Haifa and not "relocated" to it. So why is SD bringing back his fallacies especially that there are no sources supporting them? -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration. I do. And, as stated on the talk page, your last edit seemed okay with me. The warning from NW was only for the "perceived threat" of disruption in the comment to Peter Cohen. IMO, that article is not worth a whole lot of discussion. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding, but why is NW giving warnings so easily to my opinion and does nothing to stop SD's abuse? Why does one side get a block of a mere 12 hours for puppetry while the other receives 6 months for the same on the same case while they both claim a misunderstanding?  This is very clear bias!  Do you not agree?  Why has no one done anything to rectify that? -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember that blocks and bans are entirely different. The only blocks in regard to the arbitration case were one side for 12hrs for violation of a ban, the other side was blocked for 72hrs for violation of a ban. Lengths and terms of both sanctions can be influenced by the user's past block log history as well as the perceived severity of the violation. However, there are no absolute formulas. — Cactus Writer |   needles  23:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Request details about deletion of page: Scotland in the Late Middle Ages
Hi,

I have discovered that a page called Scotland in the Late Middle Ages was deleted by yourself on grounds of copyright violation. It's not a page I knew much about, and I have no record of having been involved in editing it, though I did visit it at least once. Can you please explain what the nature of the copyright violation was, and why, in your judgement, it justified deletion of the whole page.

The topic is of interest, and I am thinking of maybe reconstructing the topic, though it seems rather daunting in light of complete disappearance of all previous information, (things like what linked to it, etc)..... Was it really the case nothing at all (text/ structure/ headings/ images) could have been retained, especially when the title is such a general one? Any explanations would be appreciated.

I am not that experienced a page maker, more an occaisional editer, so advice about how to go about legitimately reviving such a deleted article would be appreciated as well. (Does no history even exist?) If there was any feature or genuine wiki aspect of it that was at all salvagable, that would be a help. Thanks. Jimp jougler (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to page Jib Arms
Hey,

I am new to wikipedia. Thanks for cleaning up the photos I posted for both the jib arm and camera dolly articles. I struggle with that HTML stuff and I knew things did not look great, but did not know how to fix it.

I did not realize I was breaking the rules putting links to Porta-Jib. Sorry. I saw links to other commercial sites. The most obvious of those is Jimmy Jib, which is not a generic type of Jib arm, but a trademarked product. I think it only fair that if I cannot put in a link to Porta-Jib, then Jimmy Jib's link has got to go too. Merging the articles sounds like a good idea, since having an article about a particular company's product is not allowed.

My husband, Mark Schweickart is the expert in Jib Arms and other camera support equipment and has been working in the industry for over 30 years. He has a new blog, but he doesn't contribute much to it, he is too busy working for Porta-Jib. Before he worked there, he was the manager at Burns and Sawyer.

He wrote an article about the difference between front and rear operated jibs at his blog. The article is long and very detailed. I condensed the information for the wikipedia article I amended. I tried to make sense of what the previous contributor had said as well.

You can read the entire article about the difference between front and rear operated jibs here.

http://porta-jib.blogspot.com/2009/12/front-vs-rear-operated-jibs.html

I cited the blog in the article. Isn't that what I am supposed to do?

I am a little annoyed that you have excised all the information I added. Now the article is inaccurate and mostly discusses rear-operated jib arms. Porta Jib is not the only maker of front operated jibs, so this is not unique to our product.

Front operated jib arms allow the camera operator to control the camera directly. Nowadays, independent filmmakers are using the new DSLR cameras and using the actual display on the back of the camera instead of a separate monitor.

Would you please restore the information I supplied? This was the text of the article as I had left it:

Thanks, Madmadmadeleine (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Madmadmadeleine. While I appreciate your efforts to improve the article (and it does need improvement), the text was removed because it was a copyright violation -- being copied directly from an external source without licensed permission. Please see Talk:Jib (camera) where I had left an explanation about this.


 * The use of your husband's blog as a reference is problematic since it is the official blog of a product site. Regardless that he may be an expert, linking to text on that website will be considered an advertising link and be removed. (By the way, I imagine that the merger of the Jimmy Jib article is being proposed so that any useful information can be included in the main jib article, and then the Jimmy Jib article will be deleted as unnecessary advertising. That is open for discussion on either article talk page and your input on that issue is welcome there.)


 * Efforts to expand the article are also welcome -- but using original language and independent reliable sources (such as books or journals). For example, this reference: Blain Brown, Cinematography: theory and practice : imagemaking for cinematographers, Focal Press, (2002), pg 71-73 ... would be appropriate. I hope I've answered your questions. If you need further help, please let me know. — Cactus Writer |   needles  03:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page
Hi. I made a mistake and saved a Jacqueline Hernández page I was creating. She is the COO of Telemundo. Please help me recreate her page without the issues of being restricted. Thanks --Unirico41 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Jack Rico


 * Hi, Unirico41. The page was deleted because was unambiguous copyright infringement -- having been copied directly from http://nglc.biz/bios/. If you wish to create a page on the individual, it needs to be written in original language. The Article wizard can guide you through the step-by-step process of creating. And it is helpful for informing you of the other requirements for writing a Wikipedia article. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My upcoming vacation
Hi. :) I'm going to be away from Wikipedia from May 13th until May 27th. If you have time, can you pitch in a bit at WP:CP? I'd hate to come back to a two week backlog. :/ (You're not the only person I'm asking; I'm hoping to keep it from overwhelming anybody. :)) My preparation and family obligations have already got me a bit behind, but I'm going to try to get it current through Wednesday, anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear god, Woman, you are way too conscientious. Sure, I'll look in and add some Drano when necessary. I'm in So Cal right now -- another deadline looms (I'm procrastinating as usual) -- and I need to make three trips and drop a manuscript off before I leave on the 26th. You know, I think it wouldn't hurt if you occasionally just took off and let Wikipedia witness the disaster of your absence. Then maybe those idiots crying, "We'z gots us too many admins!" and "T'ain't no backlogs!" would get it through their skulls that we're short about about a dozen admins at Copyvios. Happy trails and don't worry about the ranch. We will get by. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bah, out of all the promotions of the past 2 years, how many work on text copyvios? If the ratio remains constant, we'll have to promote a LOT of new admins to get a dozen more working on text :) MLauba (Talk) 15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, there is much truth to what you say. :/ And images are just as bad. I could take them on a guided tour of WP:CCI and WP:NFCR by themselves and demonstrate that we need more. And thanks, CactusWriter. I'm looking forward to my vacation and planning to try not to fret about things whilst gone. This is always a challenge for me. :) Whatever you have time for will be appreciated! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're both right -- and yet optimism gets us out of bed each morning. Three cheers for us happy fools! And, MRG, the true secret to being a happy mudskipper is just lovin' the mud. Shhh, don't tell anybody. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a question
Hey Cactus Writer, I was wondering if I could nominate a friend of mine as an administrator, and I am still confused about how to do it. I've been on the page that you request for adminship, but I'm still confused about it. I know you're on vacation, but I guess you can get back to me when you get back. Thanks, -- Cucumberkvp (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cucumberkvp. It is okay for anyone to nominate anyone else for adminship using the procedure at Requests for adminship/Nominate -- but, I warn you, that the RFA will probably be unsuccessful (and very stressful) if both the nominee and nominator do not have considerable experience with Wikipedia. Please carefully read Guide to requests for adminship. An RFA can be harsh and you do not want to subject a friend to the process unless it is certain that they will pass. Current standards suggest a RFA candidate have a minimum of 6-12 months continual high activity, more than 4000 non-automated edits, and experience at CSD, AFD, UAA, RPP, SSI and elsewhere. If that isn't the case, than they should not be nominated. (By the way, I agree that the RFA nominating procedure is confusing -- almost purposely so -- in fact, if it isn't done right, some editors will use that as a reason to oppose a candidate.)


 * I think you're doing fine with your editing and hope you will keep that going. Let me know if you have further questions. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you :)-- Cucumberkvp (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi. We have never met before, I'm an administrator on it.wikipedia. I'd need an opinion about a possible copyright violation. Maybe I should have to follow the WP:CP page, but I'd rather make it quick. As you can see in this thread there is an amount of text identical to the official website. I removed it, as I learned about your policies, but the user reverted without explaination. I can't tell from our discussion if he's underrating the problem or just denying it. Anyway the disputed text shouldn't be leaved on the article; maybe other his contributes must be verified. Thanks for your help. -- Gliu 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, Gliu. Let me take a look. — Cactus Writer |   needles  23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You were correct in your removal. I have again removed the text and left a clarification on the user's talk page. I don't think the user was under-rating the problem. It seems he just didn't want to have a discussion on copyright issues. I will look through his contribution history to see if this has been on ongoing problem. Thanks for raising the issue. Cheers — Cactus Writer |   needles  00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your rapid answer and for your help. Bye, -- Gliu 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
I am pretty sure I responded as I generally act when I receive a credible message regarding copyright issues by removing the contested data on 9 May 2010. I assumed the user who pointed out copyright issues was happy with my text removal edit to the SIG GL 5040 article, but started doubting his own expertise regarding this matter. To my dismay I can not find traces of my text removal edit on 2 May 2010 in the article history. Is Wikipedia totally error proof in keeping track of edits or am I getting paranoid?--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, the confusing tenor of your conversation with Gliu now makes sense. As far as the mysterious disappearance of that May 2 edit -- what happens to me sometimes is that I push the "show preview" (which is always my first move anyway) and, after seeing the page in the correct form, I just move on, forgetting to press "Save page". Could that be possible for you? It is either that or I will have to reveal the major conspiracy which removed several May 2 edits and moved them to Area 51 where they are being probed. We never thought anyone would notice. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For some help at the Battle of Dornock. Here, have a cookie: <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Acather96 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Acather96 (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And thanks! — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Award
Feel free to move/and format to your userpage. Thanks, once again, Acather96 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, you are welcome. I've moved the cookies to my userpage and eaten the barnstar. (Tastes like chicken.) Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  05:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ding
Voceditenore (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your quick efforts in getting the Charles P. Cecil article created. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, MrDolomite. I only removed the listing from requested bios. User:Mike Searson was the editor who created the article. Your note of thanks should be on his talk page -- I'm certain he would appreciate it. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks, I criss-crossed my hists. But thanks for your part too. :) &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

...
Hi, I'm generally from Wikia where I'm an admin on most. So if I can help, leave a message on my talk page. Trikster87 (Talk), 17:31, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my memory has lapsed, but I don't remember your user name. Have we interacted before?Perhaps before you registered? — Cactus Writer |   needles  04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Yolanda Soares
You may have missed this one. In light of your original talk page comments, any thoughts on the AFD would be welcome. Fæ (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, Fae. There is a loooooooong history behind this hoax stuff. I've left a reply at the AFD. I tried to be brief, so if you would like any further info, please let me know. — Cactus Writer |   needles  04:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * I was just coming to thank you for the same thing. Or the same sort of thing. :D I am back and profoundly exhausted, yet ever so grateful for the help you've given me. You rock. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Piotr! I really appreciated your work on the quick rewrite of Parten's stages of play -- made the whole CP issue very easy.
 * And, Moonriddengirl, I'm glad I could help in that very very very small way -- but I did feel bad that I wasn't around enough to keep the CP page from backing up. Sorry about that. I've also been in transit the past two weeks and still have limited internet access. Always glad to see your bright shiny words here. I hope your time away was fantastic. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Userpage Info
Hello Cactus Writer, Thanks for letting me know about the userpage stuff. I'll delete the some of the info. Thanks, -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy of The Waters (talk • contribs)
 * No problem at all. Glad to help. — Cactus Writer |   needles  06:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoot!
And whoot! That pretty much says it all. :) Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, Ms. MRG. I'm goofing off on a rainy day here -- and figured you deserved a break. — Cactus Writer |   needles  12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Sockpuppet investigations/Lib3rtarian
You're quite right: I misread the timestamps. I saw anon edits from his ISP and wrongly concluded he was socking anonymously, as he had done after being blocked at Italian WP. Thanks for catching my error. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, Rrburke. The timestamp stuff throws all of us off sometimes. But I'll keep your note about the past socking in mind in case there are future issues with this editor. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Soho Center
This is in reference to your speedy deletion of the Soho Center page -

Dear CactusWriter,

Thanks for the reply. The copyright issue is easy to solve - but I am a bit confused on the COI. The writeup on the Soho Center is a factual summary of a long-standing non-profit. It is essentially the same sort of writeup as currently exists on Wikipedia for (for example) a non-profit like "Reading is Fundemental" (RIF) and that was obviously written by one or more of its seniors. If you could give me a better sense of why the RIF example on Wiki is any different than the proposed Soho Center page, I would be better able to figure out how to get this information bout the Soho Center into Wikipedia. Thanks in advance!

George Beker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigbjgb (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Soho Center site deletion
I am not sure my earlier message got to you. I am trying again with an apology in case this is a repeat.

Dear CactusWriter,

Thanks for the reply. The copyright issue is easy to solve - but I am a bit confused on the COI. The writeup on the Soho Center is a factual summary of a long-standing non-profit. It is essentially the same sort of writeup as currently exists on Wikipedia for (for example) a non-profit like "Reading is Fundemental" (RIF) and that was obviously written by one or more of its seniors. If you could give me a better sense of why the RIF example on Wiki is any different than the proposed Soho Center page, I would be better able to figure out how to get this information bout the Soho Center into Wikipedia. Thanks in advance!

George Beker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigbjgb (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikigbjgb. Sorry but I am not always immediately available. -- It is good if you can solve the copyright infringement using the suggested methods. As far as the COI issue, we strongly discourage anyone from writing about themselves or groups with which they are associated. However, although it is discouraged, there is no rule against COI writing as long as an editor is cautious to maintain neutrality. A neutral point-of-view is a founding principle of Wikipedia. And it is difficult to maintain neutrality when writing about ourselves, sometimes subconsciously including language which is promotional or hype. For example, in the Soho Center article which you submitted, wording like "innovative", "high-quality" and "much-needed resources" is considered unnecessary puffery and would need to be removed. I would suggest you not use the RIF article as an example since it is currently tagged as being promotional and spam. Perhaps GA articles about non-profits orgs like Red Tail Project or Parents Television Council will provide better examples. Hope this clarifies some things for you. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki page: Neenyo
Why was my wiki article deleted without any responses in the talk section? I believe that is unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonhewit (talk • contribs) 03:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jacksonhewit. The Neenyo article was deleted (for the 7th time in one and a half years) by our WP:G4 criteria -- Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. It has been discussed twice before. And I did not find it to be substantially different from the last incarnation discussed at Articles for deletion/Neenyo (2nd nomination). You are welcome to ask for other opinions at Deletion review. Alternatively, I can place your version at Article Incubator. There is no guarantee that an incubated article will move to the Wikipedia mainspace -- but it does allow 30 days for you and other interested editors to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia notability and reliable sourcing standards. Let me know if this is something you would like to try. — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What I found disheartening was that issue stated on the past deletion was that it failed to meet the wiki:notability guidelines. However this being a musicians bio, it did meet points 1,2,3,5,7 of the WP:MUSICBIO specific notability.  I've looked into the incubator as suggested, and I'll take you up on that offer.  Thank you --Jacksonhewit (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The recreated article can now be found at Article Incubator/Neenyo. Note that WP:MUSICBIO applies to musicians (not a producer) -- and as a musician, this individual appears to fail on the qualifying points. The best guidelines to follow are WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. In general, these mean that if an individual has received substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources (entire articles about the individual in magazines, newspapers, etc.), than they will pass notability guidelines. Multiple instances of that kind of coverage is still lacking in the Neenyo article and will need to be added for the article to meet notability guidelines. Good luck with the editing. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. — Cactus Writer |   needles  07:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia definition of a 'musician' is one in the role of creating music, which both follows the wiki definiion of a 'record proucer'. Is there a reason why even though most of wiki's record producer pages list them as musicians, it wouldn't be considered under the definition. On the other hand 'DJ' is listed under wp:musicbio but does fit the definition of a musician under wiki's articles. Under wp:musicbio the articles refs point 2 of chart position on the worlds largest chart (http://www.billboard.com/charts?tag=allcharts#/album/jadakiss/the-last-kiss/1197853) and point 3 record certified gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadakiss_discography). --Jacksonhewit (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The important thing is that, regardless of how you want to categorize this individual, it is necessary to show significant coverage from reliable independent sources. And that has not yet been shown. The Last Kiss (album) you point to only establishes the notability of Jadakiss. I have read all of the infobox reviews and references for that album -- and, unfortunately, was not able to find any mention of Neenyo, let alone any significant coverage of him. This was not unexpected given that he is only one of dozens of people listed somewhere on the album credits. Any role he played in production seems to have been very minor. I admit that I have no expertise in the rap/hip hop genre, so you may wish to ask for other opinions (perhaps from editors at WikiProject Musicians). —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted images
Hi CactusWriter! I've noticed that the last 2 times you deleted an image you never removed usage of the image. If you don't mind, if you could do this in the future it would be appreciated. Thanks, <b style="color:#222222">FinalRapture</b> - <b style="color:#222222;">†</b> <b style="color:#222222;">☪</b> 18:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the reminder. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of [[File:ProminentKammas.jpg]]
Hi there! It is unfortunate that you deleted the image when I'm the sole copyright holder by virtue of my authoring the image. Can you please reverse the deletion or can I provide any additional information to firmly establish my exclusive copyright over the image. Hoping for a positive response from your end. Thanks -- Altruism T a l k - Contribs. 18:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Altrusim. The image you submitted was a compilation of dozens of copyrighted images. (For example, it included this image from this article, from here (Fahrer sction),  and  from the BBC, etc.). Your only contribution was placing the images together, but simply grouping the pictures together in a collage does not transfer any copyright to you. This is called a derivative work without any substantial originality -- and the original copyright owners of each of those images still retain their copyright. Therefore, the [[File:ProminentKammas.jpg]] which you created was a clear violation and was speedy deleted. If you need further explanation, please feel free to ask me. Alternatively, you can ask for another opinion at Deletion review. Regards. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  08:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Manuel Agrella
An article that you have been involved in editing, Manuel Agrella, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but my only involvement with this article was to address a copyright violation report. I determined it was reverse copyright infringement and thus a non-violation. But I did mention on the talk page the lack of sources and tagged the article for that BLP issue. I don't have an idea about the individual's notability. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for clarifying the issue vis-a-vis copyvio and user subpages. Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Happy to help.  Cactus Writer  (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dylan LeBlanc
Hello, I was wondering why the Dylan Le Blanc page was deleted and whether I can get the content to rectify it? Best, Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edhodge89 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ed. I am unable to find any record of a Dylan Le Blanc or Dylan LeBlanc article -- or anything similar to that name in my deletion logs. I also notice that you haven't created any articles under the Edhodge89 account. What was the exact name of the article? Or what account were you using when you created it? —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine they mean Dylan le branc. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Baptism of Christ (Verrocchio)
The OTRS on that page is likely useless, as the website from which permission was received has a history of copyright violations itself. See a conversation at User talk:VernoWhitney/Archive 2. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks for the link, VW. I'll read through it. I was uncertain what the problem there was. —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Unfortunately I won't be rewriting it -- we will just need to move forward with deleting the text. We should also make certain those OTRS tags are removed as well. —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the OTRS tags later today. I know the text can just be removed, but I keep hoping that someone will rewrite - I just know that I can't. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already removed the tag and left a note. Hope is good -- unfortunately, reality of our time constraints takes precedence. It was a good thought, though. —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir Andrew Murray
Hi - I see that you've been involved in the deletion of this article for copyright reasons. I have contributed to it in the past and I missed the opportunity to resolve the issue which led to its deletion. Is there any way that I can access the article, address the issue and restore it? Cheers. Jaygtee (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article began as a copyright violation, so anything mixed in later became a derivative work copyright violation too. You are welcome to recreate the article though. I imagine they would give you the list of references. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jaygtee. VernoWhitney is correct -- the bulk of the article was built from a copyrighted work and any revision of it inevitably becomes an unauthorized derivative work. Unfortunately, this means I had to delete the entire article. I am sorry that this has removed all the good work by you and many others, but it will need to be rewritten from scratch with original language to comply with our copyright policy. What I have done is replace it with a stub article containing some of the basic facts. I also included the list of references to assist editors in expanding the article. It would be fantastic if you can jump in and rebuild it. Good luck and let me know if you need anything else. —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, CactusWriter, on why you had to delete the article. I'll have a look at the stub and see where I can take it. Jaygtee (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

copyvio on Nu Sigma Beta
So I have a question about this article I tagged as copyvio last night. It's (apparently) copied from Wikipedia, but only licensed under GFDL, so as it stands it's still a copyvio as I understand as it is using the wrong license. However, should the history be imported to fix it or should the article just be re-deleted under A7 (or whatever criteria was used on this version of the article previously)? VernoWhitney (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I've just asked User:Graeme Bartlett since he declined the speedy. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, a convoluted one here. Sorry I wasn't around earlier -- I've replied on your talk page discussion. —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Cactus Writer, Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Thanks, --User:水の男の子 '''User_Talk:水の男の子 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for WikiProject_Films/Resources. In light of this could you please notify User talk:Jimbo Wales and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard about this? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the question about IMDb was already clarified in that discussion. I think it's overkill to stir it up again. But the next time there is a questionable use of IMDb, pointing to the Film Resource page should do the trick. — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gyan Publishing and circular refs
I'm reinventing the wheel you discovered: WP:RSN.  Will Beback   talk    12:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Those pseudo sources are back again. I knew I should have started WP:List of Circular References way back then. Just never got around to it (and I had some disagreement from other editors at that time). What do you think, Will? Would this be a good idea? — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another pseudo-source I see used often are some books called something like the "Webster Book of quotations on Politics" (but that's not it), which are issued on a variety of topics. They cite their source as Wikipedia, but they abbreviate it "WP" and many editors don't catch that. I think there's merit in a central list. It wouldn't fluctuate much - books aren't going to be re-issued to address the problem, though some websites might fix it. The only gray area I see are those sources which cite Wikipedia, where it's possible to exclude the WP-sourced content and still use the other parts. I suppose that a search of the RSN archives and of pages that link to WP:CIRCULAR would find most instances that have been discussed. This problem is only going to get worse as Wikipedia continues to grow and as publishers grow more desperate for profit in a dwindling market.    Will Beback    talk    23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The problem will only get worse and, over time, it becomes more difficult to parse the article histories to determine if/when the article was copied. And rather than search through the growing mountain of archives, it would be nice to be able to quickly direct an editor to a previous discussion -- especially in cases like ISHA and Gyan which will obviously pop up again. I think what would work is a page with a table format which lists the title, the publisher, a link to the RSN archived discussion, and a Notes column which discuss those 'gray areas" -- whether the entire source is copied or particular chapters/sections. I'll try to work something up over the weekend and then ask for your input. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan.   Will Beback    talk    12:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sociological Space
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sociological Space, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  elektrik SHOOS  02:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy on this, but seconded the PROD. I'll leave the same opinion on the AFD. Thanks for the note. — Cactus Writer (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Since you added the "Unreliable sources" section to WP:FILMRES, I'm letting you know that there is a discussion about it here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Erik. I've replied on the talk page. Hope this perennial discussion will one day be resolved. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Approval on pending changes

 * Replied. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Re: Masters V
It certainly is - which is why the article was previously deleted, as it did not assert such a thing. A version that covered the Grammy award part would be vastly less likely to be speedily deleted. - Vianello (Talk) 00:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What the... Okay. You didn't misread anything. Somehow, I managed to miss that completely. Even on a second readthrough, no less. And it's only two sentences long. I wish I could even guess at what misfired in my brain to lead to that. You're completely right, and though the article is painfully scant, it's definitely not A7 material because of that. I'll restore it right now. Good catch, and sorry for my obstinacy over my own stupid mis-observation. My best guess would be that I started setting up the deletion after the CSD went up and before the addition, but I looked at it again after you brought it up. It's possible I looked at the original revision instead, but I don't think I did. Oh well, all's well that ends well! - Vianello (Talk) 07:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1-120 Field Artillery "Red Fox" Battalion - Deleted
This page was deleted and I was wondering why and what needs to be done to have it be restored.

Also I forgot my user name and password. The user name was something like "RedFox 1-120th FA" or something. It should be in the discussion page of the page mentioned above. I can't remember what e-mail I used for it either. If you could take a peak at the deleted pages discussion section and remind me what the user name was that would be spectacular.

If you could I would appreciate your help with getting our page up to standards. I know we had a copyright violation but I was under the impression that we got it resolved. So unless there is a new problem I don't understand why it was deleted.

Thank you,

CDT Motacek 1-120th FA Bn - Defacto S6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.60.99 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, CDT Motacek. I have rechecked the history on the article and here is what happened. As you know, it was created on May 24 2010 by User talk:RedFox1-120 and flagged as a copyright violation of this globalsecurity.org webpage on May 26. There then followed a discussion on the talk page about the possibility of obtaining permission from Globalsecurity to use their website's text. On June 11, a Wikipedia administrator informed you that  an e-mail from Globalsecurity.org must be sent directly to the Wikimedia Foundation where is would be processed by the WP:OTRS office. In other words, a letter from Globalsecurity to you does not meet our legal requirements. By June 19, the OTRS office had not received any e-mail and the article was deleted. I left a message at User talk:Redfox1-120FA explaining the deletion and what could be done to rectify it. (You may wish to read that message now.)
 * The bottomline is this: The original article can still be restored from our history archive -- if an e-mail from Globalsecurity.org is sent to Wikipedia granting us permission to use the webpage. (A sample release letter and the procedure for submitting it can be found at Declaration of consent for all enquiries.) Otherwise the article will need to be rewritten using only original language. I hope this helps clarify things for you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt response. I thought I left this in the discussion section but I don't think that website holds a legitimate copyright to that text.  As you can see at the bottom of the page at the globalsecurity.org webpage it was last modified in 2006.  I have a unit history book here with the same text that was published in 2005.  We actually didn't know this site had this information posted to their site until this whole debacle.  We had one of our soldiers (RedFox1-120) create the page based on our unit’s history book.  He typed it up word for word out of the book.  The history that is in there is actually from a document that my commander had saved on his hard drive that has been continually modified throughout the years as the unit has been activated.  Bottom line is that website has a default copyright in the footer on their site but for that data they do not legitimately hold that copyright.  Now I don't think anyone at our unit cares that it's on there but we would like to be able to use the same information without hassle.  When I e-mailed global security as you saw they didn't care that we posted the information on Wikipedia but I guess the issue here is that Wikipedia needs global security to e-mail them with some sort of statement saying we can use it.  These guys were kind of tough to get a hold of and I'm not really sure what to do next.  To me it seems ridiculous to tell these guys to e-mail you the statement because they didn't hold it legitimately in the first place.  What do you think we should do to resolve it?  RedFox1-120FA  (Still can't remember the password) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Cleanshooter (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 August 2010
 * I'm sorry but Wikipedia cannot resolve a copyright dispute between outside parties. If globalsecurity.org has infringed on your book's copyright, than you'll need to resolve that directly with them. That website's own copyright statement is quite clear. (Note that a modification date on their webpage may only indicate that there was a word change or spelling correction -- but the entire page could have been created earlier. I see in the history archive that the website's pages go back as early as February 2 2001. Unfortunately, the website has blocked access to determine the origin date of any specific page.) However... there may be one other possibility: is your unit's book an official publication of the United States Army? If so, than the text is public domain and can be reprinted by anyone. What is the actual publication information for the book (ISBN, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number, date, author, etc.)? — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just got an e-mail from John Pike today he said he would send out an e-mail to Wikipedia with the form filled out so hopefully once your copyright team gets that e-mail the page can be restored. Are you the only one who can restore the data or can the copyright team do that?  I hope to see it back in action soon!  Cleanshooter (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We have received the email, so if you (CactusWriter) will restore the article I'll add the appropriate OTRS tag for it. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, VW. Article has been restored. Cleanshooter, thanks for taking the time to go through our copyright procedures. Good luck with your further editing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article: Eve La Salle Caram - Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh -- I only created the empty temp page. That's actually a copyright violation that was moved from the temp page without being properly rewritten. I'm going to G12 speedy delete it. (besides, a search finds no RS references other than the copied source page). — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

deletion of article "Chepakovich valuation model"
Hello!

I do appreciate you vigilant approach to copyright protection. However, I am the author and holder of the copyright to the material about the Chepakovich valuation model published at http://www.istockresearch.com/valuation/ and in the Wikipedia article "Chepakovich valuation model". I've just granted permission (on "Talk:Chepakovich valuation model" and in an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org) to Wikimedia Foundation re-use of this material under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL.

I would greatly appreciate if the article is restored.

Best regards,

Alexander Chepakovich, CFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Investor123 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 September 2010
 * Hello, Alexander. Thanks for following the procedure for granting permission to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Chepakovich valuation model article will be restored as soon as the e-mail is processed and cleared by our WP:OTRS personnel. There is often a heavy volume of e-mails, and it may take a few days before it is processed -- so please be patient. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have usable OTRS permission now, which I can add if you would kindly restore the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and done. (One of these days I'll get myself over to OTRS). — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring it. (One of these days I'll get myself over to RFA). ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops... you know, it completely slipped my mind that you had never been there. We're going to have to correct that soon. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and public domain for upcoming edits.
Please discuss seriously about Village_pump_(policy). Rishikeshan (talk)
 * Replied at the above discussion about why public domain is incompatible for Wikipedia. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Galaune & co
I already referenced and expanded Gedvilas and Sakalauskas. So they are ok. As for Acukas, I can only tell he is a real person. His notability is somewhat marginal. I will need more time to investigate. Renata (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Help Please!!!!!
Hi CactusWriter, I need some help on my userpage. I put an image on it to make my page look cool, but it was too big, and it is in the way of letting me edit my page. Could you possibly get rid of that image? Thanks, --User:Platyfishkeeper '''User_Talk:水の男の子 15:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It was fixed. thanks anyway! -- User:Platyfishkeeper User_Talk:水の男の子 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I wasn't here. I've been traveling on business this week. Glad the problem was fixed. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Thanks for the help at CP today. :D Lately, I've felt perpetually pressed for time. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, of course. Anytime. I added one to yesterday's CP list -- than realized it would be crappy to add one and not fix a couple. Maybe we should start the "add one, fix one" courtesy program.


 * Hope you find time for a break. Sometimes there is nothing more productive than a lovely afternoon nap. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Add one, fix one! I like that idea. :D I'm actually being forced to take a break this weekend. I'm off to a conference, which I'd really rather not attend, but at least it will be a change of pace and some new restaurants. :) Can you help babysit WP:CP? I'm here to work on it today, but won't be able to touch it again until probably Monday. (Unless I get back much earlier than expected on Sunday. Keep your fingers crossed for me. :D) If you're not available, no worries; I am going to ask User:Mkativerata as well. And if neither of you are available, oh, well. It's only a couple of days. It won't be that big a backlog. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I'll be around. Have a good time -- and do not get back early. Enjoy! — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! It's such a relief to know when I have to leave for a few days, CP is in good hands. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

deleting a page heading
I created a page then later deleted it. However, the heading remains. How do I delete that as well? Thanks. CRJAC (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, CRJAC. I assume you are talking about the James A. Cramer article. Blanking all the text from an article won't remove the actual page -- pages can only be deleted by administrators. To indicate that you would like a page which you created deleted, you can add the template:db-author to the top of the page and an administrator will delete it for you. I have deleted the article. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A question about an image...
200px|thumb|Left|This is the picture which I would like to enhance. Hello, sorry to bother you but my mentor is on a long wikibreak so I'd just like to ask you if I can enhance a picture that I would like to put a little more contrast to it so the picture doesn't look so old. I just need to find out 100% that it is legal, Thanks, -- User:Platyfishkeeper User_Talk:Platyfishkeeper 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Platyfishkeeper. I would suggest that you do not do any work on that particular image. I notice that permission to use it is unverified -- and it is currently marked for deletion at Wikipedia Commons. But for future reference -- images uploaded to Wikipedia (except those labeled as WP:Fair use such as those listed here) can all be legally altered. But before doing so, it is a good idea to inquire about it with the original uploader or on the talk page of the article where the image is displayed -- just as matter of proper etiquette. Cheers. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks again :-)-- User:Platyfishkeeper User_Talk:Platyfishkeeper 17:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Milton (Outer Hebrides)
Hi Cactuswriter, Thanks for looking over the page I created. I added a source, because in your message you asked for one. I am just a beginner at Wikipedia, so if I made a mistake please let me know. Thanks,G24845 —Preceding unsigned comment added by G24845 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you added a source to Mount Orizaba. It is the Milton (Outer Hebrides) article. which still requires a source. I did not find that island listed in any gazetteer for Scotland. Can you supply a reliable source? — Cactus Writer (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that Milton is not an island, but rather is noted as a famous farm site. I have added 2 references to the entry. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Silber Jr.
Hello, I started the page Arthur Silber, Jr and it was deleted before I had a chance to continue. Arthur is my client. I am his manager. He has written the book "Sammy Davis, Jr. Me and My Shadow" which is a biography about his 25+ year friendship with the legendary artist Sammy Davis Jr. I am sorry for not being proficient at creating a wiki page but I am a novice so it will take me a few days to complete. How can I create Arthur's page without fear of it being deleted again? Thank you for your help. Tammyagnt (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tammyagnt. There are a couple of issues here. First, the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest (COI) strongly discourages any editor from writing about themselves or their associates. As this person's agent, you have a definite COI which will make it difficult for you to write from a neutral point-of-view -- a foundation of encyclopedic articles.  Second, if you are writing an article to promote your client's book -- than don't. Advertisements masquerading as articles will be deleted as WP:ARTSPAM. I suggest you first familiarize yourself with those policies. If you wish to continue, than the Article wizard helps new users create an article -- as well as helps them determine whether or not their article will be meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Good luck with your editing. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sciences of Qur'an
I tried to make a new article titled Sciences of Qur'an and I faced the folowing problems: 1- I couldnt put any photos, I couldnt understand a thing from all these instructions u put there and after it seems that I found it I couldnt place it on the right edge as the way it goes in Wikipedia. 2- I coundnt put my article in portals 3- I was working on my article, building it step by step. so yes I took from one reference but I intended to take from other sources, arabic ones but I didnt know where to put them coz I thought it wont help in an English article.

as for Ahmed von daffer, he is a German journalist and has an article on deutch wikipedia, all I did is I translate some about him into English. any way I got a great help from wikipedia while I was working on my Ph.d. and when I finished it and as an acknowlgment I thought to contribute to wikipedia as it gives me a lot earlier. but it seems it's harder than I thought. thx anyway Wafaashohdy (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wafaashohdy. I'm sorry that your first attempts to contribute to Wikipedia have been frustrating. I understand that there is definitely a large learning curve here. I'll try to clarify the reasons your articles were removed.
 * Sciences of Qur'an was deleted because it was created almost entirely by copy-pasting text from his source. This is a copyright violation -- it infringes on the legal rights of the author. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and any text determined to be a copyright violation is removed immediately. By the way, an article titled Qur'an and science already exists. Perhaps you can contribute to the editing and expansion of that article.
 * AHMAD VON DENFFER was deleted because it was a biography with no credible assertion of notability. Having a degree or having published a work is not an assertion of notability -- the person must have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That means, other people (in scholarly journals, newspapers, magazine, etc.) must be writing about that person. Please read WP:Notability (academics) or WP:Notability (people) for details on how people are notable enough for an individual biography in Wikipedia. If these reasons are clearly stated and referenced when creating a new article, than it will not qualify for speedy deletion.
 * I would suggest that you use WP:Article Wizard to build an article in user space before submitting it for inclusion. It will provide help in clarifying the guidelines for Wikipedia articles. You could also request help or advice from editors familiar with the topic, such as members of WikiProject Islam. Good luck with your editing. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the history merge. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's a requirement so that we conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. I realize the other edits aren't that substantive, but it's always best to request a history merge rather than a straight-up author's deletion. Good luck. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion
It has come to my attention that you have deleted my article Rahul Pillai. I do not understand why did you delete it, it is not an "attack page". Can you please restore it? thanks, Spapush —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spapush (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons which contain unsourced negative remarks may be subject to deletion as an "attack page". (See criteria for deletion) The article you created blatantly disparages its subject and it will not be restored. Furthermore, any continued introduction of inappropriate pages to Wikipedia and you may be blocked from editing. Please follow the guidelines listed in the "welcome" notice posted on your talk page. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and copyright query
Hello CactusWriter. Thanks for deleting my duplicate image, as I requested on the image page. This was my own photo, which I released to WikiCommons. I have a general question about images, this being my first WP article (Gordion Furniture and Wooden Artifacts). I have used several of my own photographs, to which I hold the copyright, which I cannot release to WC, because they are photos of objects in the Ankara Museum and associated with an excavation run under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania. I could not see any way to tag them other than with the tags "Non-free 2D art" and "Non-free with permission". This throws up the cautionary notices on the image pages, which asks for detailed information regarding compliance with WP's fair-use guidelines. As I am using my own photos, copyrighted by me, and am not using the images according to the fair-use doctrine, I am wondering if there is a different/better way I should be tagging them. Meanwhile, I have provided the requested detailed fair-use rationale as indicated in the tag notices. My copyrighted photos are of course available to be used by others according to the fair-use provisions of the US copyright law and WP guidelines. I cannot as yet make these available as free images, but I may be able to do so in the future, after the final reports on the project have been published (one of which is in press right now). Can you please advise? If you have time, you might look at the image page for one of my images to let me know what you think. I support WP and am trying to comply but am unsure of the correct way to do it. I appreciate your help. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, E.S.V. Leigh. Thanks for making the attempt to comply with Wikipedia's policies on non-free content. It is very much appreciated. Since we are a free encyclopedia, the use of non-free images is strictly limited -- and must be based on whether they are necessary to illustrate something which cannot be conveyed in the text. There must be a compelling need for them. In briefly looking at the article, I would say that while many of  the pictures are nice -- there is no strict necessity for using so much non-free content . The best way for you to contribute the photos, such as the three from this page, is using the procedure outlined   here. Is that a possibility for you?
 * I must admit that the use of non-free images is not my expertise -- in certain instances the rules can be vague. I'm going to request advice from an administrator who is more knowledgeable about image use so we can get a definitive answer. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Images that you created yourself may not be uploaded under fair use. You need to release them under a free license. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope I don't upset anyone by jumping in univited, but why are self-created images any different than those found elsewhere so long as they comply with all of the non-free content criteria? Is this caveat hiding in a talk page archive somewhere? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's at IUP, second sentence. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello CactusWriter and other friends. First of all, CactusWriter, thanks for checking the Penn website link. Unfortunately, those are not free images; they are used by permission from the University of Pennsylvania, and, in the case of my photographs, from me. Second, thanks for considering my images nice! I appreciate this and hasten to add that they are more than subsidiary illustrations of the text and are required in order to communicate the contents of this article. The article contains art historical and archaeological content and cannot be understood without the images. In this instance, the subject is unlike some other art historical ones, say the good one on Jacques-Louis David, for which public-domain images are available. Finally, regarding self-created images, these are not photos I took of friends, buildings, landscapes, etc. The one photo I include that does depict something of this sort I have uploaded to WikipediaCommons. The others are project photos which cannot yet be released into the public domain. Is there some kind of category (and tag) that covers this kind of image? I would think that Wikipedia, while wanting to encourage authors to provide free images, would also not wish to prohibit the use of those that are provided to the site for re-use under fair-use provisions. I think that this would help upgrade the content of the articles. Has this been considered? I have written a number of articles in print encyclopedias, which do typically limit the number of images used, but only because of cost restrictions. I support the Wikipedia endeavor and would like to see it take its place among commercial print/web encyclopedias. Thanks. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * E. S. V. Leigh, I think this is one of those situations in which it is a nice try, but, unfortunately, it does not fit our legal requirements. In my opinion, most of the photos do not meet our criteria for contextual significance -- a reasonable reader will understand the subject with well-written descriptions, making the non-free content unnecessary. Secondly, some of the images are obviously repetitive. For example, [|this] and [|this]. Finally, it has been pointed out that a creator cannot claim fair-use. They must release their work under a free license, but you have stated that you are unable to do so. In any case, rather than remove the images now, I'll request a review of them to see if there are other opinions. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello CactusWriter. I have been pouring over the regulations to try to figure this out. As you probably realize, the information on content, tags, etc. is difficult to understand and sometimes conflicting. I understand the benefits of free use; I also understand the problem of repetition. I was not able to see your references "2" and "3" which you believe are repetitive; from my perspective nothing here is repetitive, but I can of course eliminate some of the images. The problem here relates to writing about art (and archaeology) or anything visual. Yes, a reasonable reader will understand something about the subject with well-written descriptions. However, he/she will have no idea what the author is really talking about without seeing the image. In this case, the photographs are in fact quite different from the reconstruction drawings, which is part of the educational point. I see that few of my colleagues in my areas of expertise have contributed to Wikipedia articles, either as authors or editors; this is manifest from the quality and content of the articles. If you can make the process easier for the experts, you will have a bigger following and a better encyclopedia. As for the images in my article, I am doing this purely as a service; if Wikipedia does not want to use the images, this has no effect on me--only on your readers. I think this is something you and your colleagues might want to think about. I do appreciate your help. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I empathize with you over your frustration. However we continually protect the fundamental concept of an unequivocally free and open encyclopedia -- both as a philosophical and a legal entity. This support for the entire project sometimes comes at the expense of, or weakening of, individual articles. The debate over the issue of expert editors has been ongoing since Wikipedia's inception. (See Expert retention, Expert rebellion, Ignore all credentials and Credentials are irrelevant to name just a few.) Fortunately, even without resolving that issue, Wikipedia has expanded to more than 3 million articles -- several thousand of which are well-reviewed or highly reviewed. And an increasing level of respectability -- even among academics. I hope you will stick around. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi CactusWriter. I believe I get the picture (as it were) and have been wondering about how to correct this problem. I don't see any discussion on my images yet, but I think I will take matters into my own hands, with your help, I hope, and see if I can rectify the situation. I am planning to reduce the number of images (specifically in terms of the drawings, which I cannot release), release a few photos through WikiCommons, and put up the U of P historical photos among the mix. Let me try this out, and you can see what you think. You probably realize that I am not talking about credentials here; many of those with stellar credentials are fully capable of writing nonsense. Meanwhile, are you a fan of the Gordion furniture yet? Thanks and regards, E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I have completed the overhaul and hope you will find it acceptable. I would like to use the historic images, which I believe are not prohibited. I would also like to use the painting of the funeral ceremony. Otherwise, I have deleted all offensive images or replaced them with versions that I have released to Wikipedia Commons. Can you help me remove the warnings? With thanks, E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear CactusWriter, I did not find any discussion on my images but have added my own comments to the discussion page for non-free use (included here FYI below). I hope that I have now satisfied the requirements to your satisfaction. Please let me know if there is anything else I have misunderstood or missed. My comment is as follows.
 * I am the uploader and have made several changes since CactusWriter's comments about the images listed above. I have deleted several images from the article, and I have made versions of most of the others available through Wikimedia Commons; these include all the images listed above except the last five. The remaining images are four historical photos of the 1957 and 1959 excavations of Tumulus MM and W at Gordion, as well as the painting of the reconstruction of the funeral ceremony of the king buried in Tumulus MM, prior to the burial. The former are included by permission of the Gordion Project, University of Pennsylvania Museum, for which I have included the original photo designations and invoice number of the U of P Museum permission. The latter, the painted reconstruction, was published in Archaeology magazine, and I have changed the source to reflect this; I did not realize that this is what was meant by "source." I hope that now I have satisfied all Wikipedia requirements regarding these remaining images. These images in particular are important to illustrate the article and do, in my opinion, satisfy all ten criteria; I should add that all five are used with permission of the copyright holders. Thanks, CactusWriter, for your help. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those changes -- and commenting at the review. At this point, we can wait to see if there are any further comments. I'll be certain to contact you should there be a need to make any changes. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sergio Rendine/Temp
Um, is there any particular reason you restored this? There's an actual rewrite in the appropriate location at Talk:Sergio Rendine/Temp which I'm trying to figure out just what to do with it at the moment, but the one I tagged is unneeded and just sitting there in mainspace. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I suddenly realized there was a discussion going on about the article and backtracked until I could take a look at that. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: The Mansion on O Street
Hi Cactus Writer, You posted a copyright infringement notice on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mansion_on_O_Street I am trying to rectify the situation as quickly as possible and I wanted to let you know I edited this page yesterday to reflect the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Mansion_on_O_Street This copy is permitted to use see: http://www.omansion.com/museum/about/history/ - BOTTOM OF THE PAGE it states: re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0 In addition, I do have permission to use the photos on this page directly from the photographers but I think I have to deal with that separately. If you could let me know if there is anything else I need to do to have the stamp removed I would appreciate it. Thanks! Sortiesimon (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - O Street Museum Foundation
Hi Cactus Writer, I got notification that O Street Museum Foundation was tagged for speedy deletion but it was deleted before I could put a hang on tag on it to discuss. The copy on the deleted page is permitted for usage please see: http://www.omansion.com/museum/about/history/ - BOTTOM OF THE PAGE it states: re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0. I would like to have this page restored if possible. If you could let me know if there is anything else I need to do to have the page restored I would appreciate it. Thanks! Sortiesimon (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, Sortiesimon! I'm not sure how I had missed that earlier -- of course, I was following the terms of use page for the entire website. But you are correct, the text is now licensed as CC-BY-SA, so I have restored the O Street Museum Foundation and removed the template from The Mansion on O Street. I do want to point out to you that although the text is cleared for use, it may still require rewriting to meet our criteria for neutral point-of-view, independent sourcing and non-promotional language. Additionally, I'm not certain if there is enough significant coverage for the two separate topics -- so they may work better merged into a single article. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Cactus Writer, Thank you very much for your speedy reply. As you can tell I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning. I worked a little bit on the first paragraph taking out words that might seem like opinion and adding a few sources to support it. I know you must be busy, but would it be o.k. if I ping you for guidance from time to time? I sure would appreciate it, thank you again! Sincerely, Sortiesimon (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You speak "computer", don't you?
Hi. :) There's a listing at CP with which I'd appreciate the help of somebody fluent (or semi-fluent) in computer: Linear Data Set. It's been marked as a copyvio of, and the tagger helpfully refers to section 1.6.5 (Linear Data Set) and its subsection (Data-In-Virtual) as the point of origin. I have difficulty assessing articles written in computerese, because I am unfamiliar with the jargon, so I can't always tell when a paraphrase is acceptable or not. This does not seem to be direct pasting, although some text is verbatim. Any chance you can take on the ticket? It's at Copyright problems/2010 October 13. If you can handle that one, I'd be grateful. I'll take care of everything else from that day, including SCV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All else is handled from the 13th. If you can take care of that one, you can close out the day. Wouldn't that be fun? :D (By the way, if you don't want to handle that one, let me know; I often ask User:Dcoetzee to help with computer or math related questions, but that gets embarrrassing as he never archives and his talk page is littered with my requests. I look very needy. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, thanks. Why didn't you just address your note "Dear Geek"? :) I'm not fluent in computer -- but can parse it enough to stumble my way through that listing. (The jargon was fairly specific to the source and not general "computerese".) It's unfortunately a delete. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Well, you're the one who lists "computer programmer" amongst his experiences. :D Me, sadly, I'm computer jargon deficient. :/ I'm afraid I have a bit of a mental block when it comes to that stuff. Thanks so much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Signatures
Hi there :) Do you know if it's okay to use a template to significantly decrease the size of your signature? Mine is pretty long and I believe it might bug some editors. -- Addi hockey  10  E-mail this user 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Say I did this : -- Addi hockey  10  E-mail this user
 * It is not allowed. The disallowance of templates in signatures is clarified at WP:SIG. Sorry. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks! Maybe I'll create a shorter username redirect such as User:ADH10 or something. :) -- Addi hockey  10  E-mail this user
 * I find that simpler signatures are best. (I add color to mine because of sight issues.) Good luck. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I've reduced the size of mine slightly, I'll try to make it more "compact". Thanks for the suggestion :) -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 21:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

O Street Museum Page Nomination for deletion?
Hi CactusWriter! I am researching and working on updating both of my articles and I saw I have a new note from Jan 1922 (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC). So I went to talk with them about how I am working on what you have recommended and it seems this user has been permanently blocked? I'm not sure what to do but I would really appreciate the opportunity to act on the guidance you have given me before anyone deletes the page. Can you help me? Thanks! Sortiesimon (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Afd nomination of your article was created improperly by a vandal sock account. The account has been blocked and the AFD has been deleted. I went ahead and removed the notice from your talk page. Good luck. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Phew! Thanks! Sortiesimon (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

SSI case
Yea, probably yet another sock. I just went through and rolled back changes by Wwef2010. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * CU has confirmed them all to the same account. All were blocked including two new unused ones created yesterday and today. I expect the article pages will have a slight respite now -- at least for little while. — Cactus Writer (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder if User:LasVegasHenderson is an account in waiting. Don't think so but... Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! Already? That one has been on hold for a year. I assumed more will show up eventually, but I don't think it will be hard to spot. And I'm less likely to give any benefit of doubt like this last group. Will wait and see. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User Parasect
Ok, I'll be happy to ask him to contact you. Thanks, -- Cucumberkvp (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cucumberkvp. Let him know that he is welcome to contact me through my Wikipedia e-mail. As well, he is free to open a conversation on his user talk page if he wishes to request an unblock. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Review Request For The Mansion on O Street
Hi CactusWriter! I have been working very hard researching and re-writing The Mansion on O Street page and I was wondering if you could take a look at it for me. I did a ton of research, added some additional information under the history, and cited sources from third party publications. In addition, I tried to rewrite much of the article from a neutral point of view. I have some additional sections I would like to add but I wanted to work on getting the tags along the top removed first before I add too much new information for review. Thank you very much for you guidance, I really appreciate it! Sortiesimon (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sortiesimon. No problem -- I'll be happy to take a look at the article. If I see any problem areas, than I'll respond on article's talk page. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Deleting Portal/images/Gastropods ?
Hello, I see you were the editor who tagged this page with speedy delete. I should explain that in reality I was attempting to create a subpage so that the portal icon for Portal:Gastropods could be automatically linked, in order to be able to display the icon in templates where it appears. I was trying to follow the directions, but I erred in what I did. The title of the page should have been "Template:Portal/Images/Gastropods" instead. I will go ahead and create that one. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Invertzoo. I did not tag the page for speedy deletion -- it was another editor who tagged it under WP:A3 criteria because it only contained markup for an image. However, I did concur and deleted it. I'm glad to see it didn't cause you any problems. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding Rex Fine Foods
Hi Cactus Writer, Had a few questions for you regarding a page I had recently created for my "in-laws" company Rex Fine Foods, based out of New Orleans, Louisiana.... I have never created an entire page and maybe I just need some direction on how to correct whatever was wrong with the first page. If you could just let me know I would greatly appericate it. I have the authority from the owners Gene and Jenni Ratliff to create this page and use stuff from our online homepage at WWW.Rexfoods.com.... Please let me know what I need to do to correct this. Sorry and Thanks for your time My email is Aleshia1733@sbcgloabl.net Aleshia Ratliff04:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleshia1733 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, Aleshia1733. I'm sorry that your first attempt at writing an article needed to be removed -- I know it can be frustrating when first learning all the Wikipedia rules -- but there were a number of issues.
 * First, the procedure for allowing use of copyrighted text from a website is outlined at Donating copyrighted materials. An e-mail should be sent directly to the WP:OTRS office from an address associated with the Rexfoods website to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org]. Wikipedia personnel will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable. Alternatively, you can place a CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright notice directly onto the website pages.
 * Secondly, please note that even if the website's text is cleared for use, it will still require rewriting to meet our criteria for neutral point-of-view, independent sourcing and non-promotional language. Information generally requires independent sourcing (e.g., from newspapers, magazines, books or journals).
 * And lastly, we strongly discourage individuals from creating articles about family or associates because of the inherent conflict of interest. If you wish to proceed, you might try using the Article wizard which will direct you to the appropriate policies as you write an article. Please let me know if you have further questions. Regards. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FileDisk deletion
Hey friend, if you want to delete an article you better make sure that there is inof around explaining why (along with the votes) as I can find SFA information on this (former) article. Please explain _and_ point me to said information and article history or I will undelete it. (I will be back.) 202.139.23.75 (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The FileDisk page was tagged for speedy deletion six weeks ago because it was created as a word-for-word plagiarism of this source. Copying text into Wikipedia without specified permission is a copyright violation and requires immediate removal. An explanation about our guidelines was provided to the article's creator at User talk:BigMaverick prior to deletion. You may wish to review that information now. Let me know if you have further questions. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgetown, Guyana
Hey, CactusWriter. I came across this one watching recent changes. I reverted this edit, not realizing it was a copyvio (even with the huge hint). In looking at the article (to assure myself I hadn't made it worse), I saw the History section. Doing some poking around I found this, this and this. I can't tell if WP's content is copied from one of these or if they copied WP's content. The formatting and wall-of-text layout doesn't bode well for me, though. If you could take a look and offer an opinion, I'd appreciate the help. If you feel led to take action that wouldn't hurt my feelings either :) See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  06:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good eyes, Tide rolls! Your instincts are correct. The 2nd and 3rd websites are both Wikipedia mirrors, but the first was created a couple of years before these two edits added the copyvio text. (The changes from "Pln." to "Plantation" confirm it was copied.) I've tagged it for CP clean-up. The editor hasn't been around for awhile but I notified them anyway. If there is no revision in the next 7 days, I'll revert that section to the pre-June 2 2006 version. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
You have deleted my page and i dont understand why. please restore it... thanks, Drewvols80. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewvols80 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The page you created about an individual did not meet Wikipedia criteria -- there was no credible assertion of notability. It was also a violation of biographies of living people policy. Any further additions of inappropriate text such as you made as Sports marketing will result in you being blocked. i would appreciate it if you would please review WP:5P before making further contributions. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Asking for assistance
Itsbydesign (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. This conflict began because I removed material that was not sourced. I don't understand why any editor would have an ego when it comes to articles. Wikipedia is create to be a collaborative effort. If you wanna be "top dog" start your own wiki or blog. I try my best not to get heated with editors but I am not perfect and sometimes I slipped. When it comes to this editor, I am watching his actions and I have gathered evidence when the time comes. I am trying hard to to enter lame edit wars. Itsbydesign (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Whitney Houston/sources
Thank you for the information. I was aware of the guideline. However, I have tried on many internet providers and the links just don't work. They are clearly fake. The box office score if available on Billboard.Biz only, but the links don't take you there. That's why I reverted. Thanks for keeping an eye, though. Jayy008 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, I was very hasty in my word usage in the comment. I'm just very distanced from GOODFAITH at the moment as when I've been insulted constantly by another user, nothing was done. So now I feel I can get away with it too, although, I wouldn't insult. Thanks for all your help, I hope you don't mind but I pointed to your comment also saying the links were bad, just to show I'm not making it up. Jayy008 (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Undelete?
Hi CactusWriter, the article Ayya Tathaaloka was deleted over a year ago (00:02, 12 September 2009). At the time, it only appeared to be a copyright violation because Dhammawiki.com copied the original Wikipedia article (Sept 2006) w/o citing Wikipedia. They now cite Wikipedia as the original (see: http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Ayya_Tathaaloka). So, the deletion you completed in 2009 should be reverted. Would you be willing to do that/recommend that? It would be best to have the edit history, rather than re-creating the article. Dekyi (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Deeb. Yes, you're correct. The history of the Dhamma wiki article shows it was created in October 2008 using the same language as the WP article originally created in July 2006. (I failed to notice that previous A7 speedy deletion on the article -- so the history appeared only to go back to your September 2009 recreation). It should not have been deleted as a copyvio, so I will restore the article with the entire history. Sorry about the mess up.
 * A word of concern though: I do note the article currently fails our BLP policy. A BLP must have good reliable sources independent of the subject or it can be prodded for deletion. So I will add a BLP tag to it. Additionally, this person may not even pass our notability guidelines. But you will have a few days to back it up with independent sources. If not, it will be subject to PRODding or an AFD discussion. Good luck with it. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting this. Refs done. BLP tag removed. Dekyi (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

TB
-- Gnowor TC 20:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Miguel "Mike" Fernandez Article Deleted
Hello, I had just finished publishing and saving the article for Miguel "Mike" Fernandez and noticed it had been deleted due to copyright issues. The article information was provided by Mr.Fernandez' assistant to me in an email for publication on Wikipedia. I had not realized this was exactly the same text on their website listed under his information under the team page. Please let me know what needs to be done in order to bring the page back on Wikipedia. Thank you Compsys1 (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Compsys. You may either rewrite the article using original language or you may follow the procedures as outlined on the message you received on your talk page. In particular, you may wish to read Donating copyrighted materials. The donation procedure requires an e-mail to the Wikipedia WP:OTRS from the source website, granting us permission to use the text under an open CC-BY-SA license. Let me know if you require further help. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cape Blanco (horse)
You deleted this just as I was about to decline the CSD nom. At my RFA I got a lot of flack for nominating articles that consisted of nothing but an infobox as empty/no context. I don't happen to think that is a sensible policy, but it is in fact policy, as noted at WP:CSD:"Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Beeblebrox. Thanks for pointing that sentence out -- I missed it. I had also made a slight spelling error during my usual quick google search prior to any deletion -- so I missed the proper refs. Article is now restored and I've added the missing lede with a ref. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a rather obscure exception that hardly anyone is familiar with, but after getting beat up about it at RFA you can believe I remember it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And now me, too. Well done :) — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Maritime Football League for deletion
The article Maritime Football League is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Maritime Football League (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Paul McDonald (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My only edits to the article were the removal of the copyvio text and declining the G12 speedy notice. I have no comment concerning the general notability of the subject. But thanks for the notice. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced by speedy delete
Hi CactusWriter - you just deleted a new article I was creating on Paul Hilder, who I've just discovered appears to have been a founder of a few notable organisations I've been following in parallel -- openDemocracy.net (which has its own article which cites him as a founder and has published many articles by Wikipedia personages), Avaaz.org (which has its own article and claims over 6 million members) and 38 Degrees -- he also gave a TED talk recently and there are plenty of references to him. So having taken a look at the criteria I think it meets the notability criteria but obv this is my first article so am open to discussion!Slothrop2010 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Slothrop2010. There are many founders of small organizations who are on their own are not notable. This is nothing personal about the individual. Although it is understood that Other stuff exists -- I note that only the primary founder of openDemocracy.net has a bio on Wikipedia because of the independent referencing which covers him. Additionally, although you credit Hilder as a founder of 38 degrees, I saw that he is not mentioned on the 38 degrees official website. As written, the article did not make a credible assertion of notability. In general, for any biography, it should meet the criteria as outlined at WP:GNG -- especially: significant coverage about the individual in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Brief mentions in online blogs or associated websites are not sufficient. If you wish, I can userfy the page at Article Incubator which will allow you time to improve it enough to meet the guidelines for our biography of a living person guidelines. Let me know. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks CactusWriter - yes please do userfy it then and I may come back to it! Fairly sure there is something notable worth capturing here. Is there a time window for the userfy improvement? Slothrop2010 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article can now be edited at Article Incubator/Paul Hilder. There is no specific time limit for an article to be improved in incubation -- the guideline suggests a reasonable amount of time must be given and that is decided on a case-by-case basis. But in my experience, between 1 and 2 months is usually allowed before an article needs to have been improved. If you have further questions, please ask. Good luck. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Tangled (2010 film)
If Rapunzel is an important character and the main protagonist, then how come Flynn Rider defeated the main villian, Gothel? Is he supposed to be the main hero? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDavies94 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, EDavies94. There is no "if" in the tale of Rapunzel -- Rapunzel is the main character and protagonist. This is a story in which the core arc is the relationship/conflict between Rapunzel and Mother Gothel (the antagonist). Flynn is certainly an important character as the story's male lead, narrator and the catalyst for change. It is fine if he is described as the deuteragonist. IMO, it isn't necessary to define each of the characters by classic dramatic personae in the Wikipedia article -- but it is an error to suggest Flynn is the main character. — Cactus Writer (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)