User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive4

'''This is an archive. Do not edit it.'''

Ed Orgeron
Hey Chick Bowen,

Please take the time to read AUTiger's history regarding Orgeron. His only work on said topic is to post negative information regarding his personal life- even to the effect he is posting information that was resolved in civil mediation and is in no fashion part of his 'criminal' record, past or present. Yet, a drunken bar fight encompasses half the article on a football coach that has four national championships, two national recruiter of the year awards, and is directly responsible for multiple high NFL draft picks (which is another fact that AU keeps deleting with his reverts). I can understand the documentation of such event in passing, but the idea of using half the article on an isolated incident in order to paint the character in a very negative light denotes an agenda, or a very childish disposition.

This is little surprise since AU is, by his own admission, a fan of a school in competition with Orgeron and Ole Miss. This, no doubt, has led to his biased and unwarranted perspective. I have no doubt he is a very good and respectable user of Wikipedia on most matters, but he lacks the clarity and objectivity in this regard. His mendacious 'version' of Orgeron will not last mind you- there are over 600 people that are members of the OM Rivals message board that are furious with such unbalanced reporting and have pledged to continually edit it. I believe you've had multiple parties revert it already, so it's merely the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks for listening, and for your immediate attention to this matter. Please just take an objective view and push for a balanced, neutral, article about a football coach. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.8.61.48 (talk &bull; contribs).

Re: Monobook.js
Yes, please delete it. (I've moved skins.)  haz  (user talk) e 19:24, 8 March 2006
 * You got beaten to it by JoJan, I'm afraid. ;-)  haz  (user talk) e 19:26, 8 March 2006

Kelly Clarkson page
Hey again. I was wondering if you peak in to the Kelly Clarkson talk page and settle an issue brought forth by Eternal_Equinox. His argument is that under no circumstances can two pictures from the same event (in this case the Grammys) be used on a single page. But it's my understanding that if the event is relevant in that specific subjects life, then fair use does apply. My reasoning: Kelly was the first American Idol to perform at the Grammys, and the first and only American Idol to win a Grammy (she won two the same night). It's also important since her win was considered by many as a huge upset against more seasoned talents like Gwen Stefani, Mariah Carey and Sir Paul McCartney. In any event, it's a big moment in her career and that's why I argued fair use applies for the use of two pictures as an exception.

Also, if having more then two images from the same event or program is an issue, why doesn't it apply to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Belong_Together) which screengrabs two clips from the same video? Thanks! HeyNow10029 03:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:CJGB/User:142.32.208.238
CJGB e-mailed me to request an unblock on 142.32.208.238, claiming to be collateral damage. Since the IP is triply blocked by you, User:Curps, and User:Hall Monitor, I wrote back stating that I'm uncomfortable lifting the block, but I promised to relay his/her request to you. Please review. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

congrats
Well done, Chick, on your latest FA! Tony 10:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Playboy covers
Hello, I noticed that you removed all of the pics of covers of Playboy magazine from the lists of people appearing in that magazine. I asked on the Fair Use talk page why this would be done and it was suggested that I just leave you a note asking what your reasoning was for this. The tag for the fair use of a magazine cover states that it is "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". That is what the images were for so I'm at a loss as to why you deleted them. Could you let me know the reason because I'm really very curious having spent quite a bit of time uploading some of those images. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response.
 * The talk page that I asked about this on was Wikipedia talk:Fair use. The section with my question is currently the third from the bottom, I believe.
 * You raised another question in my head though, do you mean to say that the list of information is also copyrighted by Playboy? Or was it simply because of the covers themselves that brought up the "70% of the material is copyrighted" comment?  Dismas|(talk) 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

im sorry sir
sorry, can you tell me exactly what ive done wrong? ill not repeat again, sorry. tnx anwyay. more power &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dayjx (talk &bull; contribs).

Thank you
Thank you very much chick bowen &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dayjx (talk &bull; contribs).

Hi Chick,

I posted the One Lap article because the material in the Cannonball article didn't address One Lap other than to say that it's Cannonball's successor. The Cannonball article didn't One Lap's discuss format, where it runs or why it exists. And so I posted an edited version of my work from the One Lap site to add to the body of motorsports history (so to speak).

I understand completely your need to avoid copyright infringement issues. However, to summarily delete an article without so much as a discussion is, well, rude. When I saw the message that my article seemed to be in violation of your policies, I responded as best I could. I thought I was playing by your rules but I wonder if I was the only one.

This was my first submission and, unfortunately, am leaving with a very bad first impression of Wikipedia's editorship.

Sincerely

Mcr103 02:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One Lap
Like I said regarding proof of ownership: the article I posted is based heavily on work I had originally posted on onelapofamerica.com I'm the admin and tech contact for onelapofamerica.com which can be verified by doing a "whois". The "whois" will give you an email address for me and if you email me there I will respond. If that's not good enough, you can call Brock Yates at 585 495-6200 (it's ok, that's his business line).

Does everybody have to go through this when they make a posting based on prior work?

Mcr103 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately yes, because there are many, many, many people who try to use other people's copyrighted work without permission. If there weren't any burglars then we wouldn't need locks on our doors.


 * Chick Bowen, I completely support your actions here&mdash;but you might have left me a note to say what you'd done! I came back and saw that the article had been recreated so I immediately speedied it as recreation of deleted content. It's a good thing I checked further, otherwise it might have just been zapped again. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Emile Nelligan
Wanted to let you know that I got your message about the image at Emile Nelligan. If it were worth fussing over, I'd defend my actions: I don't think that the image's juridical status can be affected by who uploaded it, and I suspect that as a "drawing," it was created by simple color reduction of a PD photograph. I'm not a party to any controversy about the original uploader of the image I wanted saved. On the other hand, the same image exists at the National Archives of Canada. This is a poet whose career was sadly over before 1900, and the Canadians apparently don't have a clue who the photographer was either, if that makes a difference. I am confident that this image is PD in the USA, at the very least. I will clean up and upload a version of the same image to Commons, and give the Canadian archive as the source from which it was cropped, and that should take care of it. If you have further concerns, please let me know. Smerdis of Tlön 06:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Translating
Hello, I translated the particular message left by User:Aucaman that you asked me. I must say it was very offensive. Also in the future if there is anything else, I would gladly translate. --( Aytakin ) | Talk 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What gives ! Why did you delete my article ? Grrrr......

Why did you delete my article ? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bantamcc (talk &bull; contribs).

RE: Personal attacks
Your translation comes from a person who's involved with me in a dispute, so you should be a little more careful before throwing accusations. I posted that statement on that user's talk page after he posted a personal attack without any reason. (I don't have a history with this anon, but from the information he provides he must be one of the users I'm already involved with.) Here's a translation of what it says:


 *  ==Long live Iran== 


 * Long live Iran, the land of Persians. Cyrus the Great would be shaking in his tomb if he hears that the Jew that he freed from the chain has been doing such faulty things. But know well you mercenary that Cyrus the Great is resting in peace because his descendants are protecting his legacy. Long live Iran.

I ignored his personal attack, but he kept updating here and here just to get my attention. Obviously he wanted me to comment on his statement, so this is what I said:


 * Long live Iran! Now go after your business. Dead-worshipper. You illiterate mental. And your Cyrus the Great was nothing more than an illiterate murderer. At least he had a good excuse. But you...??? And the mercenary is your dad.

I did personally attack the user, but it was only after he kept intimidating me. The user obviously wanted me to comment on his behavior or else he wouldn't post such a thing on my talk page. The language is also free of any "ethnically motivated" attacks. Only the "You illiterate mental" part is a personal attack. The rest of it is me commenting on his behavior and putting things in a historical persepective. (Cyrus was indeed illiterate--they would have Elamites read and write things for them--and he's believed to have murdered thousands. How else could you have an empire?)

He kept posting personal attacks on my page (here and here - I'm not going to translate them, but they're far worse than anything I've said to him), but I decided to ignore them. I also took off my personal attack rather quickly after I realized I was wrong to respond to him in the first place.

Overall, he posted some racially-insensitive personal attacks on my talk page and not just once. He obviously wanted me to respond to them, so I gave him an honest opinion of what I thought about his behavior and thinking. And unlike what this User:Zmmz claims, I don't have any history of personally attacking other users. You can go ahead and read some the other statements I've made and use your judgment. AucamanTalk 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, User talk:Aucaman comments that were initially reported did in fact contain some ethnically motivated profanity, although I realize he has failed to admit to that. You can view other specific personal attacks by User talk:Aucaman here, which is an Rfc page. Thank you for looking into this. I realize that the other user was rightly blocked. To be fair, is User talk:Aucaman being blocked as well?Zmmz 03:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

deletion
Please undelete this, I didn't see the CSD notice so it went without dispute. The guy isn't as famous as DaVinci but is certainly notable; his work is exhibited in several places and he gives a number of talks.--  Alfakim  --  talk   03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: my talk page:
 * I didn't realise it was a copyvio (i didnt write the article but i knew it was made). Can you paste the undeleted text onto my User:Alfakim/Sandbox please, or just undelete it and alert me, then I'll alter the copyvio'd text.--  Alfakim  --  talk   03:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

About time someone took action ....!
About time someone took action against these Snopes plaigarisms! Albino Deer indeed! It's almost as bad as dogs turning around clockwise to lie down in N-hemisphere and ccwise South of the equator. But what do they do in Quito? See http://www.answerbag.com/c_view.php/2337#q_45573 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.137.97.243 (talk &bull; contribs).

Albino deer take 2...
Chick,

Look Snopes.com just checks validity AFTER someone has posted a story. Ya most of the time a lot of stories are bogus and snopes will give it a false rating. They just haven't contacted me yet about validity that's all.

The least you could do is leave it on my user page. I checked my user page and it seems locked. There's someone else called Enzo Aquarius who also claims it's nonsense. I 'dunno what gives you guys the right to arbitrarily claim a story is bogus ! Sheesshhh !


 * -( &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bantamcc (talk • contribs).

Userboxes

 * It is not me who needs reminding about civility and I did not personally attacked anyone, my friend. I was accused of uploading copyrighted images. Well, I did not upload the LibDem logo, I simply linked to the already uploaded file, as present in the article. As far as Wikipedia goes, logos can benefit from Fair Use as long as it does not imply that Wikipedia is endorsed by the company or organisation depicted by such logo. This is clearly not the case. The insertion of the logos does not imply recognition or endorsement by Wikipedia or viceversa. It is common sense. Asterion 21:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2
Sorry about that problem and thanks for staying on top of it. The bot was running in unattended mode (it was QA'd for a while before I did it) and I guess the bug in the db that Curps has pointed out caused it go go haywire. On the bright side, some more people got to press the "big red button" that Jimbo likes so deeply :) -- Tawker 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, that has to be a block record :), though I'm just glad that people aren't blaming the bots overall functionality but a bug in the MW software, I almost had a heart attack when someone gave me the link on AN (after QA'ing the bot for a few weeks). It sure came a long way, originally the point of the bot was to auto revert Squidward but then we managed to find other common vandal patterns and auto revert them too, I'm hoping this will overall decrease the vandalism in WP because if the vandals know that anything big they try will be auto reverted by a bot within 10 seconds, it might cause them to lose faith and stop. At least I've gotten a pretty good list of vandal patterns / timeframes, the breakdown of how people vandalize is rather interesting -- Tawker 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zmmz
I can support that. I'll go ahead and undo the block. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, we can wait until Zmmz accepts the offer - then feel free to undo it if you get there first. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Zmmz
I have to say the fact that he's been blocked 2 times before and still violated 3RR in less than an hour is not good sign. I'm not sure what kind of message you're sending him by unblocking him. For one thing I'm not likely to make any edits to Persian people anyway. A better offer, in my opinion, would have been asking him to adhere to the 1RR rule or perhaps reducing his block time to 24 hours. But your decision has to be respected. I'm sure you had a reason for unblocking him. I'll let you know if he violates the offer, but I doubt that it's going to happen. It's 48 hours from when he was blocked or from when he was unblocked? AucamanTalk 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your use of Administrator powers
Please note that I have responded to your allegations and misinformation against me at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please also note that banning someone "while we work this out" as you did to me here doesn't appear to be a legitimate reason. Please provide me with a reference to the Wikipedia authority that allows such action. Thank you.

- Ted Wilkes 15:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded at WP:AN/I. Chick Bowen 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You did not respond' to my request that you, as a Administrator, provide me with a reference to the Wikipedia authority that allows you to ban me "while we work this out". Please reply. - Ted Wilkes 16:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message on User talk:Ted Wilkes said:
 * It seems clear to me that administrator discretion in handling allegations is implied by your arbcom ruling. If you'd like clarification of that, I suggest you take it up with arbcom.  If you wanted to appeal your block while it was ongoing, you could have placed unblock on your talk page or e-mailed me.  Since you didn't, I had no way to know you'd left me a message here.  Again, if you require clarification of any of this, I urge you to request it from arbcom.  Thank you.  Chick Bowen 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not up to me to ask the Arbitration Committee to explain your actions. And it is certainly not the responsibility of the Arbitration Committee to defend your actions. You banned me and you are responsible for that action and no one can read your mind. Please state the precise Policy for Administrators that you used to issue your ban. - Ted Wilkes 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message on User talk:Ted Wilkes said: Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ted_Wilkes"
 * I have explained my actions. If you're not satisfied with my explanation, you may file an RFC or request clarification from arbcom. Chick Bowen 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you have not "explained" your actions. For the third time, please state the precise Policy for Administrators that you used to issue your ban. Once you do, then I can concur or disagree. This should be a simple answer and I thank you for your immediate response to the question being asked. - Ted Wilkes 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Parsi revert war (and debate)
The edit wars at Persian people et al has spilled over to Parsi. I've opened a discussion on the talk page there (Talk:Parsi) in the hope that at least the spillover can be damned, but perhaps (hopefully) the parties will come to some general consensus that will benefit other articles as well. -- Fullstop 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright violations
Image:Malfatti O Homem Amarelo.jpg Considering that a copyright violation notice was published at Wikimedia Commons for the photo you inserted there and then on your Talk page, don't you think you should remove it from there as well as from the article Anita Malfatti? This image is very obviously a copyright violation, and not in the Public Domain as you claimed.

In addition, you uploaded the image Image:Malfatti Ritmo (torso).jpg to the article on Anita Malfatti which is another obvious copyright violation. Please correct this. Thank you.

- Ted Wilkes 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but in fact your calling the image(s) Public Domain is false. I suggest you read the Scope of Licensing section and sub: For a picture of artwork at Commons:Licensing. Please remove both images as they are direct copyright infringment. With all due respect, you have no qualifications to deal with copyright matters and have made reckless statements and taken unwarranted actions on the issue. It would be best if you left this field of editing to those who are qualified. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Favo(u)r
Yes, ok, I'll take a look. I'm sorry you're leaving, but it looks like you got a book accepted (of such things can I only dream, as a PhD student) so that's great! It's true that it does seem that the passage of time as an editor here diminishes the fun-factor. A wikibreak, I know for a fact, can be quite rejuvenating. I hope you feel the pull back after a while when you have more time. Have fun. -Splash talk 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz
You asked me to keep you updated on the behavior of User:Zmmz. Lately he has been vandalizing my talk page and personal user page about issues that have nothing to do with him. See evidence here and here.

He has also been following my contributions and removing all of them indiscriminantly without much explanation. Some examples were recorded here. Most of my edits have been fully discussed in the talk pages and were implemented upon consensus. User:Zmmz has not even been participating in the talks.

Could you tell me what I'm supposed to be doing about all these? I left a message on his talk page asking for explanations, but the message was removed without any response. He has made this way too personal. AucamanTalk 00:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

See you
Hi Chick, I see that you're leaving. I'm sorry about this, but I'm also happy about your book: congratulations! You did a lot of good work on User:Catapult/Images, and I think you deserve a barnstar for this. I will try to finish the list if I find the time (though I know I should have done more). I have put some of the articles you created on my watchlist, and I'm also adding you to Category:Users not currently active, but I hope you will return soon. Enjoy the break, and good luck with your book! Mushroom (Talk) 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dell_XPS_600_Renegade
You said this was a copyright violation, I checked the suggested site and there is little or no correlation between to wiki article and the site. I think your violation was incorect and should be removed. --DragonWR12LB 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Catapult/Images
Sure, I'll take care of it. Sorry to see you go, but congrats on your book! All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned for one month?
Just a question. Administrator Stifle has banned me for one month (!) from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia, and Elvis and Me "for violation of probation by tendentiously adding links and poorly-referenced claims." See. I do not think that this was necessary. I have only discussed some newly discovered sources with other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See. As for the other pages, I only reverted repeated edits by Ted Wilkes. Certainly this is part of a long edit war. His contribution to Elvis and Me includes false information. Original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:
 * She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See, and. I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See, , , , , , etc. For direct quotes from the book, see. On the Memphis Mafia page, Wilkes is frequently deleting two external links to sites related to the Memphis Mafia arguing that these websites are "improper" and personal websites. See, , etc. etc. It seems as if Wilkes does not like the content of these pages. Significantly, the two external links to websites he had inserted are also links to personal websites. Isn't this double standard? See also this comment by administrator Tony Sidaway and Talk:Memphis Mafia. So I don't understand why an administrator has now blocked me for one month from these articles, especially since my opponent in the edit war is also on probation for his contributions (and for harassing me) (see ) and there is much evidence that he is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack, etc., who was constantly gaming the system in the past. See. I am not sure whether User:Count Chocula, who claimed that I violated my probation, is somehow related to Ted Wilkes. Their editing interests are very similar. Onefortyone 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

unblock
Please unblock my IP. issue that i was block for, as been resolve..

deletion
I'm sorry you would choose to ignore my opinion on afd. It doesn't seem to matter though, since there is accountability mechanism for such behavior. For great justice. 23:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I stated an opinion, your point seems to be that I did not expound sufficiently on the reasons for it. For great justice. 00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Roblefko
Relevant sections of the email header are as follows:

Received: from mail.wikimedia.org (unverified [207.142.131.221]) by mail.internode.on.net (SurgeMail 3.2f) with ESMTP id 213770800 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:19:08 +0930 (CST) Received: from zwinger.wikimedia.org (zwinger.wikimedia.org [207.142.131.234]) by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6E8177E45 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:49:02 GMT

It arrived a little under 3 hours ago as of this message Enigmatical 05:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply User_talk:Yskyflyer--E-Bod 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Chick Bowen. No I have been fortunate enough to not have been spammed since. Thankyou for your concerns. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ref converter
I answered your comment here: User talk:Cyde/Ref converter. -- Cyde Weys 04:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

butterfly deletion - fresheneesz
Hey, yea actually I redirected butterfly diagram, then realized I wanted to move butterfly (FFT algorithem) there. Thats all. Thanks Fresheneesz 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphenated Hindenburg piano
I bet that line was added by either a native German speaker whose English isn't great, or by someone whose German is passably good but whose English isn't too great either. Compound words in German are very very common, and it's common for adjectives to be part of a compound word. This probably got hyphenated in the translation from "Aluminiumblütherklavier" or something similar. :) --chris.lawson 14:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The dog AfD closure
Interesting reading of policy, but no application to WP:DRV will be forthcoming :) hehe - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I heartily endorse the decision. Of course, it could always have been speedied under WP:SNOW, but let's face it, it was nonsense. Fan1967 02:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * SNOW is not a CSD criterion. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * SNOW is an anything criterion Fan1967 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Need Admin Help ASAP
User talk:67.172.202.164 has been vandalizing Moshe Teitelbaum (a major rabbi who died earlier today) repeatedly and a lot in a very evil way, making fun of the holocaust etc. etc. Urgent blocking action is needed plz. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * More - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Great joke subject, eh? . If this guy were physically here, he'd be in a fucking ambulance right now!! Thanks again. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My martoons
I want to keep my Page On Martoons. please tell me why you tried to delete it (because I'm New). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marley Hannan (talk • contribs).

Proposed Block
i have never made a joke page you fag dont threaten to block me indefinately or i will find out where you live —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17681 (talk • contribs).

Releasing Personal information on Wikipedia
Thanks for taking care of that edit. Could you go through all of 's contributions though and delete them all. They posted the same information you already deleted from WP:AN. D G X  22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

IFD
I apologize I got impatient and moved it to May 1st because I thought it was either inadvertently missed or was ignored. Thank you for deleting it. Misterrick 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Copy: Talk:Soggy biscuit
An anonymous user (presumably the blocked User:MutterErde) inserts a copy of a deleted article from dewiki. Since s/he uses permalinks it may be advisable to delete the affected versions.--gwaihir 10:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the revisions as you suggested. We should keep an eye on this, as it's been reinserted more than once.  The article in question is de:Kekswichsen, which has been protected against recreation there.  Getting around that by posting the same content here should not be permitted.  By the way, what makes you think this is ?  Chick Bowen 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Typical behaviour, AOL-proxy IP address, several places on dewiki, e.g. de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Cascari/Januar.--gwaihir 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Source: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive79"


 * Questions:
 * 1.Is anything wrong with that article? (it´s in fact much (!) better than the en-version).
 * 2.Is it forbidden to put the better German version on the talk site of its en-version?
 * If yes,show me the paragraph, if not shut up. Not amused. MutterErde 195.93.60.132 14:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * see also : User talk:Jimbo Wales:Quiz:How many fakers you can name? 195.93.60.132 14:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey boy, I´ve asked you something. See also here MutterErde 07:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (not amused)

Patent Nonsense
Thanks for the clarification about hoax/patent nonsense distinction. I have a further question, but I don't want to clutter the AfD discussion. I don't mean to belabor the point, but I don't see in the patent nonsense guideline anything indicating that something that is clearly a hoax can be deleted speedily. The closest thing to it seems to be criteria 2: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. However, if the article is clearly a hoax, but well written, it doesn't seem to qualify.

I'm certainly not complaining about these sort of articles being deleted speedily. In some cases, leaving the article be for the full prod duration makes no sense. I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing when I tag an article (still learning the finer points). ScottW 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, that example makes sense, and I'll take a look at WP:SNOW. Thanks for your patience. ScottW 00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect redirection of "Visual RTOS"
Please delete the redirection of "Visual RTOS" to "Real Time Operating System". There is nothing "Visual" or graphical about Real Time Operating Systems so it shows incorrect article. Since my article was classified by you as a product advertisement, I won't create any more of it again. But I do not want an incorrect redirection of that protected trademark (USPTO) either. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pateldi (talk • contribs).

WP:CP
Thanks for noticing :-) I appreciate it. -- light darkness (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just saw your comment:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Fair_use_TIME_magazine_covers


 * That you wanted to start an RfC, I guess that already has been done....:) Travb (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not want an RFC; I was merely advising you how to go about one. I strongly disapprove of your actions here, Travb; we are trying to make Wikipedia more free, and you are trying to make it less free.  Chick Bowen 02:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've fulfilled your request. Sorry to see you go. Regards &mdash; Dan | talk 04:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll echo that. I too am sorry to see you resign your adminship after just a few months on the job. --Durin 14:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)