User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/004

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Basketball positions
Thanks for the notification. I'll decline the 'speedy' option, though I'm not too bothered either way. Alai 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Tom McRae - interest of yours? Hopefully going to see him next month! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 10:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Commons too and where I saw it!)


 * Cool. I have not listened to any of his music, I was just looking through some free photos to see which ones Wikipedia might have a use for. â CharlotteWebb 13:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - good stuff tho (depending on your taste!). Take care -- Herby  talk thyme 13:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Julie
You may be interested in this discussion [] Abtract 09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LaCrosse vs. Lacrosse
Why did you revert my change to the LaCrosse page? People looking for LaCrosse (with the capital C) are almost certainly not looking for the sport, they're more than likely looking for the car or a town with that name. Redirecting to the disambig page makes much more sense. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 01:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to a disambiguation page would only make sense if the sport is moved to Lacrosse (sport). We're dealing with two nearly identical ways to write of the same French phrase with the same literal meaning. Why should titles like "Thestick" and "The Stick" point to different articles? You might have noticed that "Sandiego" redirects to San Diego, California to match the target of San Diego. It does not redirect to Carmen Sandiego, even though the latter name is the only case where "San Diego" is properly spelled as one word. Both forms, in literal Spanish, refer to James, son of Zebedee, and in figurative English, refer to a large city in the lower-left corner of the United States. â CharlotteWebb 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...I disagree. Lacrosse is not a French phrase, it's an English word (that derives from French). My point is that if someone manually enters "LaCrosse" (with the capital C) on a search page, they are not looking for the sport (and even if they are, the first link on the disambig page is the sport). The LaCrosse page had only one link - a link to the town of LaCrosse, Wisconsin. I have fixed the link, so now the redirection page has no links, so it's probably a non-issue. I will add a survey to the Talk:Lacrosse page asking what people think, and we can then act accordingly. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 12:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is your wikiname a reference to the book Charlotte's Web?
I was guessing that this is why you're known as CharlotteWebb. Mewtwowimmer 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing yours has something to do with PokÃ©mon. Nice to meet you. â CharlotteWebb 06:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Golfer infobox
You left a note on Morgan Pressel's page saying that the infobox is not standard, however, note that out of the 3 GA class golf articles, all three use my infobox. It is clearer and has a better format that the official golfer infobox. It provides more information and is better organized. I originally tried to create a discussion on the official infobox's talk page, however, no one responded, and so far my infobox has received praise. Please respond on my talk page with any concerns. I'd be happy to address them. Thank you. Supertigerman 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll start editing the template but it will take some time to perfect it. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you do not tag articles with my infobox with the substandard infobox notice. Supertigerman 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Golfer infopage discussion
If you wish to discuss things with me, please use my talk page, not the talk page of Supertigerman. Thanks. Crunch 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to criticize my actions and imply that I'm acting in bad faith, please use my talk page, not the talk page of Supertigerman. Thanks. â CharlotteWebb 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image question on wrp103's RFA
The line was inspired by Image:Qxz-ad16.gif, a humorous advertisement soliciting admin candidates, which asks for candidates that can recite the deletion policy from memory and spot a non-free image at 50 paces. I modified it for comedic value. I did not examine his image uploads or history with images before casting my !vote, nor, that I can recall, have I had any interaction with him in the past. It was purely a humorous throwaway line. ;) --BigDT 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is no doubt obvious to you that I'm not much of an image person. I have great appreciation for images when I come across them in articles, but I seem to be biologically incapable of thinking about getting an image for the articles.  I guess that is one of the many areas that I could try to improve.  I had a friend once, who had a brilliant foreign researcher who had decided to work on improving their English so that they could deliver better paper.  My friend told them he could build on his strengths or build on his weaknesses.  I could try to do better with images, but I'm guessing there are other ways in which I could be more useful. ;^)


 * Having said that, it just occurred to me that since I volunteer as a tour guide at the Caleb Pusey house, I either already have or could easily get a digital image for the Caleb Pusey house and upload it to Wikipedia. (See, I can be trained! ;^)


 * Excellent questions, BTW wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Number of images is not a big issue, it could have been zero or a thousand and been alright, but it was actually just one, so I studied it closely, and everything I saw raised more questions than it answered. â CharlotteWebb 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I respect your decision to oppose me, and please don't take this question as argumentative in any way ... I'm still trying to learn. In what way did the fair use description not fit?  I thought what it said was that if the image was from a publicly available press kit for an artist that is still performing, it is considered fair use.  Did I read that wrong?


 * What do I need to do in order to use that picture? Should it be removed? wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty simple really, we can't use that image. If a free image (one licensed as GFDL, creative commons, public domain, etc.) could be easily produced and would serve the same purpose as a non-free one (in this case, to show the reader what Cheryl looks like), then the copyright image could not reasonably comply with Non-free content criteria. Also, you said you know Cheryl personally. which should make it even easier to obtain or create a free photo of her, so we don't really have any excuse for using a non-free one. â CharlotteWebb 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't think those pictures were copyrighted, but are made available for inclusion in promotional material. Her manager has given me a number of hi-res photos, and I also created some web sized images.  All can be downloaded for free without any restrictions (that I know of).  As I've said before, I don't know a lot about this stuff, but I am not familiar with any limitations to their use.  Is there something I'm not aware of?  I would appreciate it if you could visit my site  and let me know what needs to be done to use one of those pictures.  I can ask her manager again and keep bugging him until I get an answer, if that helps.  If that happens, in what form do we need proof that permission is granted?  BTW - Where I got the idea about a publicity photo was from the picture of my other favorite singer/songwriter - Bruce Cockburn.  I like learning things, so this has given me a good excuse to dig deeper into this issue.  Thanks! wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 07:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find out who owns the rights to that photo or any other photo, and persuade the copyright holder to release it under a free license, we can use use the photo. The copyright holder can confirm the release by contacting [mailto:permissions@wikimedia.org permissions@wikimedia.org]. Likewise if you take a photo of Cheryl yourself, you, as the copyright holder, can choose to release it under any free license you like. â CharlotteWebb 12:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image use by Wrp 103
So maybe I'm not clear on this. You linked to the guideline, Non-free content which refers editors to the essay, Publicity photos which suggest basically that he should have added Withpermission (since he clearly had it) and then replaced it with a free image when one became available. I realize the goal is to encourage more truly free images be uploaded, but there seems to be a range of opinions about the guideline/policy (both are mixed on the same page) for which you are nailing him. You are well within your rights to criticize him on this--and frankly I'd like to see better sourcing in the Cheryl Wheeler article. I've just seen him around long enough to feel that he'd use the mop correctly within the sphere of knowledge he has gained over several years. Regards, -MrFizyx 14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to beat you over the head with this. I was also interested in improving my own understanding of image policy.  For example, does this photo that I uploaded some time ago fall under "fair use" for wikipedia? -MrFizyx 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question
I've replied to your optional question on my RfA. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Current
Could you have SmackBot "date/fix" this maintenance tag? See Template talk:Current. Obviously this will be different than other dated tags as it would be removed after a few months of no significant changes, though I'm not sure whether that part could be automated. I mean, an event can still be very current, and even ongoing, without getting much attention from us (systemic bias â the rate of editing is not always a good indicator). â CharlotteWebb 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, provided it's ok if everything gets bunged into gets bunged into April to start. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 17:03 20 April 2007 (GMT).

No excuse
Please understand that you pointed out a particular instance which, in your strong reaction to it, left me wondering when I'll end up accused of a personal attack for reverting vandalism. I believe that you are currently "in situation" and have more background knowledge of such things as image copyright issues, etc. than some poor average user. Now JoeUser sees an anon IP delete something from an article they're interested in, with no explanation given. What reaction are they going to have? Grrr, *@#& vandals!

For the most part, what I'm trying to say is you are, at this moment, very involved in something you are reacting strongly to. Step back and think of it from the viewpoint of an uninvolved (or at least no prior involvement) user. Shenme 09:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot mistake rv rv'd?
The photo at Nozomi Tsuji was given 7 days on the 20th, then deleted by an anonymous bot on the 21st, ignoring the April 27th deadline and the fair use rationale given just hours before. This was properly reverted, then you reverted the revert. -dtfinch 09:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The anonymous user who removed the image from the article was not a bot and not a vandal. The administrator who deleted it was not a bot or a vandal either. Accusations like that may be considered personal attacks. Images which are tagged for speedy deletion should be removed from articles at that time (see Criteria for speedy deletion). "Illustrates what this musician looks like" is generally not a valid fair use rationale, unless the subject is deceased, terminally ill, reclusive, or otherwise highly unlikely to make public appearances (see Non-free content criteria). â CharlotteWebb 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Using edit summaries
Regarding yor recent edits to Wyclef Jean

An edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". Providing an edit summary, even if the edit is minor, makes Wikipedia work better by quickly explaining to other users what your change was about. Cloudz679 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Mel Etitis.
 * As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Talk page guidelines. Thank you. â CharlotteWebb 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Block
What the heck was that?! O_O Thanks for reverting it though.Silver seren 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. â CharlotteWebb 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Based on how fast you reverted, my guess is you are on RC Patrol. Good job, and thank you for helping Wikipedia stay vandalism free. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. â CharlotteWebb 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me for the same. Keep up the good work! Drc79 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. â CharlotteWebb 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
That's what I get for feeding the troll an nice little morsel.--Isotope23 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. â CharlotteWebb 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Surf the wave
I dunno if you've looked at the RFA tracker thing lately, but the crowds seem much friendlier these days. They gave me an easy ride for sure. Not tempted, even a little? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome to write something up. I'll look over it. â CharlotteWebb 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
CharlotteWebb, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 08:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. â CharlotteWebb 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging ("norationale")
Thanks for helping keep the image namespace clean and in compliance with copyright regulations. I noticed that you tagged Image:That 70s Show Cast.jpg with the "norationale" tag, and I wanted to make sure that you were aware that tag only applies to images which were uploaded after 4 May, 2006. It's not really a big deal but it would save us deleters a bit of work if you'd double-check that when you're tagging. Thanks! (ESkog)(Talk) 15:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This arbitrary deletion process rule ignores the fact that all use of non-free images need to be accompanied by a fair use rationale, not just "all new ones". See Non-free content criteria #10:
 * For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained at Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.
 * Also, the last section, "Noncompliance":
 * Images that were uploaded before July 13, 2006 may not be immediately deleted. The editor should be alerted as to the problem with the image and will be given seven days to comply with this policy. The image will then be deleted without further warning if corrective action has not been taken.
 * In fact, the unloader has had 18 days to comply with this policy. If the threat of deletion did not encourage him to supply a fair use rationale, I don't think anything will. â CharlotteWebb 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use with no rationale is marked for death in any case. If the uploader's been notified, the image is likely doomed. You know, you've failed to provide a rationale yourself - David Gerard 16:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re; no rationale
On paper you're right, except you forgot one thing. The images in this category are tagged as being used under a fair use claim, but currently lack fair use rationales. This is one criterion for speedy deletion iff (emphasis theirs) it was uploaded after (emphasis theirs) May 4 2006. That's what was following, basically. If it's that big a problem I'll try and add a rationale to that image or just delete it then.-- Wizardman 16:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: 70s show
While I realize boilerplate fair use templates do not in and of themselves qualify for a valid fair use rationale, I believed in this case that the use of the TV screen shot template provided accurate enough fair use justification. However, if you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to delete the image (as I see has been done, and I will not dispute). Sorry for any confusion. ^ demon [omg plz] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuns
Hi CharlotteWebb, I reviewed the page on fair use concerning publicity photos, and found this:
 * Most photos that are found on the Internet are not publicity photos. Publicity photos found on the Internet typically have the following characteristics:


 * They are found in a section of a web site called "media kit", "press kit", "press", or something similar
 * The images are available in high-resolution TIFF versions (upload a low-resolution JPEG version to Wikipedia though)
 * There is text on the site asking that the photographer be credited and/or there is licence text permitting reproduction for certain purposes (usually using them to sell products is prohibited).

Given that the photo appeared as part of an ACNS press release, with instructions on how to credit it, does this not constitute fair use? I can't find any fairer use images of individuals in Anglican orders, but I can keep looking. Thanks! fishhead64 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since re-examining the page in question, I see that it has been altered from its original, and the fair use rationale no longer applies. I'll remove the file. My apologies. fishhead64 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Amor de cosmos 2.jpg
Hey, thanks for hunting down the source information for Image:Amor de cosmos 2.jpg! I appreciate it. âRemember the dot (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't very difficult . â CharlotteWebb 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pixel again
Hello, CharlotteWebb! I noticed your great job on blocking the user Pixel indefinitely for violating Wikipedia's rules, some time ago. Unfortunately, at that time, he was also vandalizing the Minesweeper article, insisting on putting images of a specific software, instead of generic images. Besides, the long discussion that went there about images is already settled, in favor of the generic ones. Well, it seems this guy is attacking again, and he seems to be using the sockpuppets 87.65.196.28 and 87.64.23.191. I suspect this, because of the bad english he has been showing since he first appeared, and because of the interest in making edits on articles with similar subjects to his edits in the past. I would like to ask you if you could please add those IPs to the list of his suspected sockpuppets and possibly ban them also. I know this user shows too much endurance in making repetitive edits to keep his own edits in articles, which, in the case of his obsession about showing images of a particular software in the Minesweeper article, si pretty bad. Thank you a lot in advance! RodrigoCamargo 14:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that screenshots of free minesweeper software should always be preferred. Please remove any non-free ones from the article, nominate them for deletion, and tag the sockpuppets accordingly. â CharlotteWebb 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas â Las Vegas (disambiguation)
Guess what - it got kicked to another venue... My fault for not seeing it was best done as a request move if the first place I guess. Anyway, you may wish to express an opinion (again) at Talk:Las Vegas (disambiguation). WjBscribe 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD is calling your name. â CharlotteWebb 10:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:$1
One of your subpages is in a Category:$1 that is now nominated for deletion. Even more awkwardly, the category was created by the addition of the cfd template. This looks like it is an unintentional accident with the code and not a deliberate attempt to create a category. Could you please comment at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 3 or possibly rewrite the code? Dr. Submillimeter 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "$1" is a placeholder to be replaced by an actual category name when the script runs. I did not know it was possible to "categorize" a monobook.js. There is no indication of this when viewing the js page, so I am puzzled about what extreme lengths somebody must have gone to in finding this error in order to confront me about it. Let me be clear: I did not create the category, I do not know why it was created, and I had little reason to think I might be accidentally populating it , and I have no interest in keeping it. â CharlotteWebb 10:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarfiy my position: I realize that you did not create the category page itself. Also, I suspect the category was found by someone viewing an alphabetical list of categories; you probably are not being stalked.  Anyway, the situation has been resolved.  Sorry to cause you distress, and thank you for your time.  Dr. Submillimeter 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the current tags timestamped
I had suggested this too (and at the Pump), but couldn't get any traction on it. I figured I wasn't asking at the right place. The change will certainly make life easier! -- Kendrick7talk 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks very much for your help in reverting the deletions on the Dargur page, but you may want to check before you rv too hastily! Thanks anyhow for your help, and happy editing! Whiskey in the Jar 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how that wasn't an edit conflict. â CharlotteWebb 18:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh
I have seen so many RfAs consisting of "Oppose! He's an evil, inclusionist troll out to wreck Wikipedia's credibility by retaining awful articles!". Equally common is: "Oppose! He's an evil deletionist who's part of an devilish cabalistic plot to leave Wikipedia with no articles at all!!".

They're both equally common and equally wrongheaded. One of RfA's more frustrating aspects, I suppose. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So naturally you claim to be actually be at an unspecific point in the middle, right? â CharlotteWebb 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to avoid opposing someone's RfA on the grounds of their views on deletion, as I don't think it's relevant. Despite being on the opposite side of almost every deletion debate to badlydrawnjeff, I supported his RfA because I felt I had to trust him to properly differentiate between his private views as an editor as his duty as an admin to judge consensus. AGF, etc. Had he been requesting full adminship I would have supported him for that, as well. I freely admit I'm more deletionist than not but I trust myself to ignore my private feelings on things like television episodes and to obey and carry out the consensus of the community. Admins are more like butlers than masters. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * At the same time you would hopefully not carry out a decision that you feel is not in the project's better interest. â CharlotteWebb 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, if a cabal of ten (say) get together at AfD X to blindly ignore WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc you in turn ignore them as closing admin, because the microconsensus of AfD is irrelevant to the macroconsensus of our policies and guidelines. When it comes to matters that are more a matter of personal taste and editorial judgment - like I, as far as I can see, these TV episodes - you have to pay more respect to the consensus of those who have expressed an opinion at the AfD. It's a great mistake people make in assuming that every dispute eventually boils down to a clear-cut "right or wrong" expression of policy. Admittedly, the great majority do, but not all. Having said that, a number of individual "interpretations" of policy are so whacky you just have to ignore them as well. Moreschi Talk 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
Swiping your "slut" userbox. The picture doesn't work as well for a testosterone-case such as I, but until/unless I want to put in another photo I'll go with it. Thanks...
 * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Charlotte
Yes, I did read the whole thread; and yes, I do understand the context in which you brought me in at the mailing list. After this issue was notified to me by WAS 4.250, I understood the concern, and it has always been my way to solve controversies by avoiding them altogether, which is the reason why I immediately deleted the quotes that could raise a copyright concern. As you know, this matter has been subject to debate, and it remains a controversial topic; yet I prefer not to dwell on it, and if something I do, no matter my intentions, can make a discussion go even more heated, I'd rather stop doing it altogether. It has always been my way of doing things, and this is no exception.

Which is the reason why I would have preferred a private message telling me something along the lines of, "Hey, Sharon, this doesn't look good... mind to remove it?" I wasn't taken aback because I was suggested not to use copyrighted quotes, it's just as possible to use free material as I did, even if not as meaningful to its recipients; I did because being thrown into the public eye when something could have been easily solved in a painless, smooth way, is never nice.

Dear Charlotte, I only said what I did above so you can fully understand why I reacted the way I did, and how I would have reacted through a different channel. But I also appreciate a lot that you've taken the time to explain yourself instead of ignoring me entirely. Your sincere words regarding that you didn't want to hurt my feelings and your apology are much, much appreciated and accepted. I'm sure this but a misunderstanding, and nothing that can't be solved and put behind us just as easily. I hold no ill will nor the slightest grudge to you, and if your Day made you smile (even tho it was copyrighted!) then its purpose was fulfilled, and we can look forward to brighter days. So... no hard feelings, little shiny spider? Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, if you were anybody else, I might have just been bold and removed the lyrics/poems myself, and then stopped worrying about it, knowing nobody would seriously question it. On the other hand, I have some respect for you, and so does everybody else. I realize that's an unfair attitude toward decision-making.
 * But I did not realize I'd be attacked/scrutinized (by others, not you!) no matter what action I took. Not even any action, but for making one simple comment to suggest that "If A and B are or aren't condoned, then probably the same should apply to C", and because I wanted to get a better grasp of applied policy before commenting (I hope I understand the theoretical aspects well enough [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px]]). I felt that would be an appropriate use of the mailing list, though I'm willing to admit I might have been wrong.
 * I did think about sending an e-mail, but decided it would be better if I knew for sure what I what I was talking about first, as I did not want to sound clueless to someone as experienced, popular, and friendly as you, but maybe that is not avoidable unless I completely ignore issues that I know will be difficult to handle well (but I don't really consider that a good option in the long-term).
 * I had been waiting for a someone on the mailing list to clarify the (apparently) ambiguous interpretation of "fair use" for text as compared to images, so I could get a better idea of what I should do next. That hasn't happened yet, and (probably) won't happen now, considering this (pardon my French) Grande Faux Pas d'Enfer.
 * If you can accept my apology, and if can stop mistaking the mailing list for a Dear Abby column, and if your friends can assume a little bit of good faith, maybe this can all be laid to rest! Maybe I should take a break too... Thoughts? Anybody watching my talk page and wanting to comment, feel free to do so. Love you all. â CharlotteWebb 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Charlotte...I kind of view us all as cops here...we all defend Wikipedia as best we can...no doubt, you were simply seeking clarification, so I wanted to apologize if I came across as harsh when I saw the details on Phaedriel's usertalk. I saw this movie where a couple of cops did something that looked real suspicious to another cop. He reported it to his boss and put one of the cops in bad favor with his supervisors. As it turned out, he misunderstood what transpired and it took some time to patch things up. The moral of the story was to come to his peers first before going over their heads. In a nutshell...this entire affair is a whole lotta nothing of course...Phaedriel was innocently posting poetic messages to others...some of which may be copyvios because they weren't attributed...you were seeking clarification but probably should have asked her about it first. For the record, I screw up on Wikipedia almost everyday...someone is yelling at me for calling someone a vandal (and I think they are) and they think it is instead a content dispute. Another editor tells me my delivery stinks and I should watch what I write...it's rather endless! I'm well aware of your contributions on Wikipedia, so in answer to your question, I don't think you should take a break...this is a lot of nothing and again, I apologize for being my usual blunt self. Best wishes.--MONGO 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a happy day. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweetie, please relax, it is clear that your intentions were good. And my friends intentions also were, which makes this but a regrettable misunderstanding that I'm positive we'll just remember as an insignificant matter in no time, if we remember it at all. And stop worrying about it, please. Like dear Mongo says, I've lost count of the times I've messed up monumentally, and woe to me if I'll judge anyone ignoring my own and numerous screw-ups. Especially a great editor and obvious excellent person like you. On behalf of all my friends who voiced themselves at my talk page, I apologize to you for the stress this might have caused, now that everything's cool and clear. And hey, look - AnonEMousey has gifted you a far better (and free!) poem than what I managed to think of! :) Please, don't take a break unless you really, really want to, Charlotte. Let's just go on with our editing and our lives, and since I always try to look at the bright side of things, this is just a good chance to thank you for your kind support to my RfA, which I never got to thank you for, to my endless shame; and to tell you I'll drop by and visit you often, if you allow me, incy wincy :) Take good care! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 22:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections
Thanks for your comments on the TfD, but I think you may have misunderstood what Template:Criticism-section is for. It is for articles which segregate all the criticism of a topic into one section and leave the other sections overly positive.

It is not for articles devoted entirely to criticism (POV forks). I don't know if there's a template for those, but this is not meant to be.

I responded to your comment on TfD. â Omegatron 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize this. That's why I suggested that the template might be salvageable if it's re-scoped for use on articles which are non-neutral (as a whole). â CharlotteWebb 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all it's intended for; articles that are presented in a biased or sloppy manner due to the criticism being arbitrarily lumped together in a single section.
 * Can you think of better wording that would help address your concerns? Either in the template itself or the template documentation? â Omegatron 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the current wording? â Omegatron 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Crucifer (disambiguation)
Please see the talk page for deletion rationale. Vectro 04:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have opened an AfD for this issue at Articles for deletion/Crucifer (disambiguation); feel free to comment there. Cheers, Vectro 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jingletown, USA
Saw your comment and responded at Articles for deletion/Jingletown, USA. When I posted the AfD I expected that the community would decide to merge jingletown And the 20+ other neighborhoods into East Oakland, Oakland, California. Take a look at Talk:East Oakland, Oakland, California and let me know if there is anything I could have done different (Other then doing a bold merge on jingletown). Jeepday (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I beleive that we both agreed that the article was not appropriate as a stand alone, is that correct? If not then I misunderstood you. If so then please review Talk:East Oakland, Oakland, California and  tell me at what point I could have merged the article without starting an edit war? I placed a merge tag on the receiving article and waited a polite period of time, then what followed, followed.  Jeepday (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. Obviously, some people think it should be merged, and others want it to remain a separate article. Much to the surprise of both, you nominated it for deletion, which would be fine as long as you think that's what the result should be and you have a good argument. If that's not exactly true, there is a handy checklist here which might give you some better ideas of how to handle the situation. â CharlotteWebb 04:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally beleive it should be deleted (my rationale is clear on the talk page) but do not see good cause to oppose the merge. I "expect" that the AfD community will want to merge it.  I was and have been willing to work toward a merge if it could be done with consensus.  Jeepday (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your turn, Articles for deletion/Jingletown, USA Jeepday (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Question on my RFA
Thank you for your question on my RFA - I left a response, an articulate one I hope. If it is not clear or I did not make any sense (which is entirely possible!), just let me know and I will try to explain myself a little better. --Ozgod 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Yonidebest
I notice your comment on this RfA, which seems to re-iterate my and another's support, but you yourself have not voted. Is it because you are not in favour of the "popularity/conformity contest" which is the RfA, or simply waiting to vote once you've carefully considered all the pros and cons? It seems like few people actually take the time to make an in depth analysis of the actual user, and instead look at edit counts and summaries and then voting on that basis, without asking real questions which will indicate the user's character and intentions. To some, it seems, we the contributors are less important than protocols and systems. Forgetting that no contributors = no content = no encyclopedia, no matter how thorough the policies are. â superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] â 17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of vote on my RfA
I am saddened to see that you withdrew your vote on my RfA. What changed your mind, may I ask? Thanks for your time, and happy Wikying. hmwith talk   20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.
Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done!
It looks like the threat of deletion motivates people to find sources. Looks like someone cares about the article after all! (messedrocker â¢ talk) 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like you a lot more if you had chosen to do so yourself. Please don't blindly assume that nobody will be ignorant enough to delete an article rather than fixing it, or you'll be disappointed more often than not. â CharlotteWebb 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I do not quite understand your comment on my talk page. I am very well known on Wikipedia and I am certainly not a official Duran Duran Wikipedian. I haven't made serious announcements on the DD page, only about what was confirmed by Billboard.com. I apologize but I did not know that my user name would cause confusion. It would be greatly appreciated if you could please elaborate, as I am a little slow =) to what the problem is. If there has been ANY complaints, please do not hesitate to let me know! Regards. ËËDuranDuranâ¦â© 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Airlie
With me there's always a more graceful way to handle something. Usually a technically more proficient way, too. Thanks. KP Botany 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry
I don't want to be an admin at the moment. You're making me feel terrible here. You put so much work into that nom and everything. Let me just tell you it's greatly appreciated and I'm touched at the effort you put in. You know it's kind of funny, because I've been meaning to thank you ever since you put all the dates in the refs during the Jordan FAC. So thanks for both things. Quadzilla99 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is FNORD! btw? You can respond here or on my page whichever. Quadzilla99 01:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. Sorries all around. I did start and get Matthew Cox to GA too and its not a sports article but yeah I spend 90% of my time on sports stuff. I'll let you know if I change my mind. Quadzilla99 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warnings
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made, you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Skeezix1000 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)