User talk:Daniel Case/Archive 6/7/2007-8/20/2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Mackenzie_with_the_winner_of_the_car.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mackenzie_with_the_winner_of_the_car.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is either no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use, or else the rationale given is not valid. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mackenzie_mad_about_her_gift.jpg
I have tagged Image:Mackenzie_mad_about_her_gift.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. MER-C 11:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt
Could you peer review Karmichael Hunt It would be much appreciated.

Article:Karmichael Hunt Peer review:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks very much. SpecialWindler 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Vsh Bot (t • c) 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PIP Images(WTF?)
I thought the shields for the Palisades Interstate Parkway were safe to use now? What gives? DanTD 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wintour
I've reinstated the A-class status, congratulations! You might however want to look at the comments by John Carter, those could really improve the article. Er rab ee 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, considering her relationship to fashion, I can see some of the links to clothing items/page remaining, as the precise meanings may be more relevant in this context than in others. I wish I knew of a clearer guideline for what does and doesn't merit links, though. John Carter 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up
Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lauren Weisberger.jpg
I am deleting the image. There was more than a week to get it released under a free license, which IMO should have been enough. If you do get it released, let me know, I will undelete it. --soum talk 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know working with images can be a huge pain in the ass. But we have to follow the policies. Anyways, all the best with the image. --soum talk 07:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007
The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Allure cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Allure cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bride Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out
I've nominated Bride Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Bride Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Bride Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Bride Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. G 1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 09:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderbra to be on main page June 28
There you go. Thanks for the help. Mattnad 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1981 Irish hunger strike
Changes are made. Can you let me know what the "couuple of places I might want to see citations were this being nominated for FA" are please? There's a couple of places I've left a sentence or two uncited rather than use the same footnotes after multiple sentences, so it's possible that's what you're referring to. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  04:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your review, which I ran into by accident; I have nothing to do with the article. It is, quite literally, the first intelligent GA review I've ever seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Feel free to just post them on the open peer review if you want. And don't worry about the choice of names, it raised a smile. One Night In Hackney  303  09:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA nomination
 Chaser would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Chaser to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.


 * The future of the wiki waits for no one. :-) I'm glad you accepted.--Chaser - T 04:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NY 52
I was thinking about a possible WP:GA nom and future WP:FA candidate for NY 52. But the lead needs some work, and writing isn't my strong point, but I could use your help. We'll start from the lead and work our way down to the History which needs the most amount of attention. But the lead has been a big problem for me because there's a strict way of writing route articles without using them as the subject. --  J A  10 Talk • Contribs 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just dont want to see what happened to Pennsylvania Route 145 happen to NY 52 during it's WP:FAC. But, I think the lead is fine for now. I'll find a ton of sources for route deacription like maps for example. After that, we can get started on the history, which may be a bit hard to find references to. --  J A  10  Talk • Contribs 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the article on my watchlist and decided to look at Polaron's edit, and then made a few of my own. I can definitely do some more, hopefully including figuring out if it follows any old turnpikes.

About the original research, the main problem is the "parkway feel" wording, and the extra importance given that characteristic by making it a separate section rather than part of a route description. --NE2 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is one source that shows NY 52 on both roads. --NE2 03:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are arrows pointing to both. --NE2 04:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of anything that indicates which roads are maintained by the state and which by the county? --NE2 03:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with the junction table, although I'm not surprised that it was changed. Yes, the standard for NY routes is still the junction table template until further notice. --T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The templates are inflexible, not allowing for special cases like the bridge on the county line. --NE2 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And who says bridges are supposed to be included in junction lists?! ( [ →] zel zany  - fish) 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who says they're not? Don't answer that, since I'm sure you've made up your mind. Please consider that you may be wrong. --NE2 21:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, according to consensus, bridges are not supposed to be in junction lists. Please consider that you may be wrong. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even more, an RFC will be filed if you attempt to revert the junction list again. ( [ →] zel zany  - fish) 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For god sake, when will you for once agree with someone. NE2 has always disagreed with other editors on everything. --  J A  10  Talk • Contribs 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I didn't mean to remove the "left" on the Walden High Bridge. --NE2 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NY Waterway logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:NY Waterway logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Warren_Moon_playing_football.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Warren_Moon_playing_football.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects
Please see Redirect; thank you. --NE2 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the purpose of redirects. They don't harm the reader, and they help the editor. --NE2 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's this RFC that's been filed on me? --NE2 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. --NE2 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting Photos to Wiki Articles: plus-size model
Daniel, noting your comment on need to add photos to the plus-size model article, however attempts to do so using magazine images found online results in constant deletion. Can you help me navigate the Wiki copyright tag system? AntiVanity 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply Daniel, much appreciated. As a photographer I thought it rather bold to contribute my own photos of models but now I can see it is perhaps necessary - if the article is to look as pretty as the subject matter *ahem*. AntiVanity 07:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

More help needed
If you have been following along at WP:FLC you know we need help creating stubs for the List to make it a more useful list and help it achieve WP:FLC status. Since I reminded people of this 7 stubs have been created. We need about 40 more to be safe although we may have a successful candidacy with the article as it stands.

Some of you may also be following the success of WP:CHICOTW at WikiProject Chicago/COTW/Good Articles. For the last 4 weeks no one has been very active. Thus, I am fearful that Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Crown Fountain, & Art Institute of Chicago Building will all fail at WP:GAC when their turns come up. Also, Magnificent Mile did not experience the collaborative spirit. Our reputation as a successful collaboration is at stake. In addition to making stubs for the FLC we need your contribution to our collaborations. I am sorry to pull you away from whatever other wikipleasures you may be experiencing, but we need your help. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Back Closure article
I saw you tried to help out with my article about Back closures. Any help I can get on that is appreciated. I was able to compose this article with only a minimal amount of available information, mostly from college textbooks. You mentioned it would look better with a picture, and I wish I could provide one, perhaps of a dress with a back zipper.

I was inspired to write this article because of my son's rare condition. It causes him to uncontrollably take off his clothes. Therefore, I find it necessary to dress him in jumpsuits with back zippers to prevent this from happening. Had I been taking care of a girl with this problem, this would be easy. But for a boy now 12 years old, it's a different matter. Jumpygirl 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Response: I'm sorry but I do not own a digital camera. That is why I have no picture for this article. I have plenty of clothes with back closures that would otherwise make excellent photo examples. It's too bad I can't use them. I do not have permission to use the pictures of such clothes in online catalogs either; these would otherwise look perfect too. I just learned about Wikipedia this year. I've been searching online for websites that I can use for references in this article. They are hard to find. Websites make the best references, because a link can be provided straight to them. For a printed book, it is much harder to fill in the information needed.

By the way, my son has Diaz-Fedder syndrome, a rare condition that is like autism. One problem he has is he is sensitive to having clothes on his body. When there are any on him, he does anything he can to take them off, like a drowning person panicking to come to the surface for air. The only way to keep him dressed is to put clothes on him he cannot take off himself. For a boy, these are hard to find. I had some back-zipping jumpsuits custom made that look boy-like. For extra security, I put a safety pin underneath the zipper pull tab, blocking the zipper from being pulled down. It sounds strange, but he is smart; he talks like a normal person and does well in special ed. Jumpygirl 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Some recognition
No, of course I don't mind, thank you. :) I'm keeping a close watch on the film article, as well; still twittering over the recent casting announcements!  Take care, María ( críticame ) 12:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, someone reverted your comment to the film's article. I've found that some of the Film WikiProject folks are way too protective of the talk page.  According to Variety and other sources, however, Gosling will play Jack Salmon, something I was somewhat skeptical of, as well.  I thought he would have made a great Mr. Harvey, but who knows; I haven't seen anything about how the script is going to look.  Details should start coming out once they begin filming, though.  María ( críticame ) 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:French Elle cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:French Elle cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Landmarks
I'd be happy to get the landmarks you request. I have some more work to do on my body parts project and need to do some more editing and uploading there, but that should be finished this weekend. --David Shankbone 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Open Source Media logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Open Source Media logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 07:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Who's_a_Rat_screenshot.jpg
I have tagged Image:Who's_a_Rat_screenshot.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Sun Newspapers logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Sun Newspapers logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

American films
Please please!!! help fill in List of American films. Even if it is just a few details it all helps -any contribution you can make will be more than appreciated!! That's a great article by the way congrats!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA
Damn, your RFA wasn't closed the minute it was scheduled to. We must need like 100 more 'crats. Belated happy 4th!--Chaser - T 06:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA result
I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:
 * Administrators' reading list
 * Administrators' how-to guide
 * Administrators' Noticeboard
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 11:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congrats on the RfA! Tyrenius 13:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Daniel! Great job responding to the opposition comments.--Chaser - T 13:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats, mate. All the best,  An as  talk? 18:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, although the only way I really supported you was by not voting oppose :-) I didn't think my concern was enough to warrant opposition since it was minor and can be easily resolved once realized, but in the same time I would've voted support if for some reason your RfA failed and you got nominated again.  I also brought up this discussion based off of some observations I've made from you guys recently.  Feel free to comment, and mind the cabal reference please.  Best regards, Tuxide 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it. It was all you, Daniel.--Chaser - T 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen you at DYK and AfD and I meant to support your RfA! I got too distracted somewhere in the past week, but I'm very glad to see that it passed.  Best of luck! --JayHenry 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rosetta Stone screenshot.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Rosetta Stone screenshot.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Rosetta Stone screenshot.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: '''replaced with more FUC-compliant .PNG; thus is now orphaned fair-use image. Requesting deletion as original uploader under g7 and other relevant criteria''' To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Rosetta Stone screenshot.jpg, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Image:Rosetta Stone screenshot.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Stewshop.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Stewshop.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Curlygnat
I hadn't seen that up until now. I'll assume good faith regarding his edits, however, everything I had seen up to then was Copy and pasted from the website in question. Wildthing61476 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Vsh Bot (t • c) 04:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Block
Thanks for adding the blocked template for me to the IP 218.221.116.226. I wasn't fast enough.  Jody B talk 13:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Communities along route six
I think that is a fantastic idea, I'd love to assist in any way I can. Thanks! Mrprada911 16:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD closing
Hi Daniel, when you close AfD's, could you put your response (i.e. the result was...) above the header? I've corrected them for you. Sr13 20:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we all make common small errors like that, myself included! Sr13 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Block for vandalism or violation of 3RR
How soon can we get User:208.104.45.20 blocked for vandalism at North Central American English? Dogru144 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cory_Maye.jpg
I have tagged Image:Cory_Maye.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cory_Maye.jpg
Hi, Thank you for uploading Image:Cory_Maye.jpg,however it would be much appreciated if you could expand or clarify the sourcing information you have provided in the image summary.ShakespeareFan00 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

re your message
Okay, that just takes so long sometimes, I thought it could be reported as vandalism. IPSOS (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Belated congratulations on your RfA
I would have gladly supported you, but I was in California for a couple of weeks and wasn't online much. Sorry I missed it, and I hope you're enjoying the new tools. Kafziel Talk 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Sure am ... in fact, when your message came in, I had just made my first 3RR block (on one of those hotly-contested Middle East-related articles) and was afraid someone was contesting it. Then I indefintitely blocked a vandal-only IP ... fortunately that was pretty clear-cut. Daniel Case 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting removal of a block
Hi Daniel, I'm sorry to ask you to remove your first 3RR block, but I've protected the article in question and am trying to resolve the situation on the talk page. The block was clearly valid, but I just suggested an RFC to try to resolve this problem. What do you think?--Chaser - T 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Tiamut has accepted responsibility here, and I think his observation that he needed something like that to get him offline and calmed down is well-taken. Perhaps I should wait a few hours more? Daniel Case 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but we block for preventative rather than punitive reasons. With the page protected, there's no preventative reason to block the user. Also, I noticed that the other major participant in the edit-war also violated 3RR and has a much longer history of blocks for same. If they become incivil on the talk page, another block may be necessary.


 * In my limited experience with 3RR blocks, I've found this happens commonly. Someone reports the other participant for 3RR, but both have violated it. It's often difficult for me to decide what to do in those circumstances, as protection prevents other editors from working on the article, while a block stops the edit-warriors from editing other articles. I usually block both parties, considering the block from the whole site an unfortunate consequence of edit-warring on a single article. Nobody likes being blocked, but them's the breaks. In this case I protected because the recent history is almost all edit-warring.--Chaser - T 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. That's why I didn't want to venture over there, because it's usually a question of who can get the other party to make the fourth revert and then run over to tell (or if not, get the right version protected). But was checking it out because I'd removed an AIV report on the grounds that it was better off at 3RR (or even AN/I since it involved some suspected sockpuppetry (it has now been duly reported as such)). I'll be going offline soon, and that will be the last thing I do beforehand. Or so I'm saying to myself now. :-) Daniel Case 18:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Daniel.--Chaser - T 19:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reported
Daniel Case, I have reported Grandia01's abusive behavior to ANI, as you suggested. However, no one has done anything about it - this is exactly why I tried AIV. WP:SSP is even more useless; reports there are, in my experience, very often completely ignored.Proabivouac 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

NRHP images for Manhattan
Hi, just saw your comment on DavidShankBone about photos for NRHP sites in Manhattan. Over the past week or two, I've taken pictures of around half of the NRHP sites in Manhattan and am posting them, one by one. dm 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've been adding about 2 a day including the ones you had asked davidshankbone about, focusing on the NL's where possible. check it out (Manhattan) dm 05:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mice In Fiction
Hi, I was just wondering why you closed it as a keep. It seems to me that the whole page, sans two lines in the intro are just trivia and WP:FIVE says that WP isnt a trivia collection. The lone (valid) reference is a movie review article, which I wouldnt categorize as "Significant coverage" as mentioned in WP:NOTE. Thanks Corpx 07:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that
I appreciate it and will do my best to participate constructively in the RfC there. See you around. T i a m a t  13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics
Closed as no concensus? Really? Most of the support was WP:ILIKEIT, as far as I could tell. I suppose there's some bit of reasoning I missed-- might I suggest you elaborate a bit when you close XfD's that aren't obvious snowballings? I'm not contesting, just wondering. :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Will (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Box Office Mojo screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Box Office Mojo screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Twain Statue
I added fair use rationale :) WhisperToMe 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. Hi Daniel, I hate questioning your admin discretion like this; please don't take it personally. Bulldog123 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Same here. Don't take this overturn !vote of mine personally.  I didn't feel about the closure strongly enough to DRV it myself, but I couldn't in good conscience say I didn't disagree with your decision.  For what it's worth, I don't feel this is a reflection on you-- two intelligent people are perfectly allowed to look at the same data and reach different conclusions.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea now I especially feel bad given your wonderfully detailed closure at Articles for deletion/List of famous people trained in mathematics. Bulldog123 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A very unusual (unique?) situation
G'day Daniel, howzitgoing? I just noticed that you (properly) deleted List of Vietnamese companies and followed the AfD link back to an improperly listed AfD from 2004 - is that right? Holy cow Batman that's a long time for an incomplete nom. Thing is, this list is also under a slightly more current AfD here at Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies which is trending towards keep at this time (full disclosure, after some stunning keep arguments from me). In fact, List of Vietnamese companies has just popped up as a red link in the middle of the AfD, which is not yet closed. I have no idea what the best solution would be, but would suggest, a bug report for User:DumbBOT, perhaps restore the list until the other AfD closes and then go and have a beer and scratch your head - this is a strange one :) Cheers, Paxse 04:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, List of Vietnamese companies was nominated on 1 April 2004, while the article itself didn't exist yet... I think that the article was deleted then, and does not show as deleted revisions because at that time deleted articles weren't saved. Probably Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Vietnamese_companies isn't closed because the deletion process didn't include an explicit closure at that time. Then, it has been recreated and recently renominated for deletion, but linking to the old nom (which is indeed not correctly linked, by the current process). Tizio 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer to the original question, yes, it is a bug. I'd probably not fix it, given the unlikeliness of this scenario. Tizio 17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining the 2004/2007 mix-up, I think I almost understand :) Now, what to do about the article (probably) being AfD'd twice simultaneously with two conflicting results? The other AfD has just closed as keep after a good discussion - but this list has been deleted. Cheers, Paxse 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The old AfD the bot has (incorrectly) "completed" is about the old version of the article, which is now lost so we cannot compare it with the current version. Personally, I'd undelete the list and possibly re-nominate it. It is significantly different to the others because of a total lack of links, plus the deletion rationale in the old nom still applies to the current version. Tizio 11:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Weird NJ cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Weird NJ cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing admins on DRV
Yes, XfD closing admins are welcome to participate fully at deletion review. We want your explanation and opinion, thus we ask those opening a review to notify the closing admin. In addition, we give the originally acting admin (XfD closer or speedy deleter) the privilege of overturning themselves and ending the review. (Because their self-overturn changes the situation enough that a new conversation needs to be held in the proper forum.) GRBerry 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007
The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Moodna Creek and Congratulations
Hi Daniel, congratulations on making admin! I don't generally watch RfAs or I would have supported your candidacy.

I looked at Moodna Creek and like it. Very nice pictures (and no, I still haven't made it to the source of White Deer Hole Creek or Larrys Creek for pictures yet. Do you want to include the USGS GNIS page on the creek as a source?

I also ran the semi-automated peer review script on it. Here are the suggestions from it:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Block of User:68.103.249.21
Hi Daniel. I was about to block this user, but you beat me too it :). However, I see you blocked the IP address indefinitely.  My understanding is that IP addresses (unlike user accounts) should almost never be blocked indefinitely - see Blocking IP addresses - being that the IP address may subsequently be assigned to someone else.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Impaled Northern Moonforest (2nd nomination)
Per my comment here, could you do a history merge of Impaled Northern Moonforest into Seth Putnam? (All that really needs to be merged is the history prior to May 11 2006, but I don't know if it's possible to do a partial history merge.) (And thanks for your excellent close of the AFD.) Pan Dan 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:K69
has returned as an anon IP to continue to insert the copyvio external link into the South Park article. Corvus cornix 04:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Corvus cornix 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Video Killed the Radio Star single cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Video Killed the Radio Star single cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/John_Plecnik
While I realize it had nothing to do with the deletion... Thank you for not supporting the attacks on my character. I've never received comments like that and I hope reading those hasn't given you a bad impression of myself. Chris M. 05:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Locator map
Hi Daniel, since the picture in Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge was 300 px wide, I set the NY locator map to 300 px wide too (nice photo, by the way)(as always). If this was not the width you wanted, please change it. I am glad to see Geobox Protected Area is up and running - there are 120 Pennsylvnania State Parks that need to be updated now. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of famous people trained in mathematics
>>The result was delete. This is a tough call, but after thinking it over all day I just can't see how this list would work. It could focus on people with advanced mathematics training who chose other careers, but frankly so many people receive graduate degrees in things that have nothing to do with how they achieved notability that I don't see what makes mathematics special in that respect. Advanced mathematics study doesn't commit one to a career in the field (not like, say, seminary would). A list of people with advanced math degrees who do things other than math (like Art Garfunkel) would have to have a title more intricately worded than this, and such wording would probably more easily expose the triviality of the subject (while the current title is, as the keep votes admit, overly broad). I can see where the keep voters are coming from, but ultimately while this is interesting, it would belong better in a wiki focused on math, not the general Wikipedia. <<

Gosh, it's nice that you thought about this "all day" before you dropped the cinderblock on this article's head. How agonizing a decision it must have been. I wish you folks would show that much concern for intellectual purity when it comes to a description of an episode of Scooby-Doo. While Wikipedia is the encylcopedia that anyone can edit, it is rightly criticized as being childish because it turns over the deletion process to a rather intolerant group of people... who, by and large, love Scooby more than they like boring ol' stuff about math majors. Face it, you counted the number of votes in the treehouse. Why can't grownup articles be on here too? Can't spell wiKIpeDia without K-I-D. Mandsford 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

AIV,
Hi there, just a quick question re, your note on WP:AIV, why should the JJonathan sockpuppet pass by AN/I first? Cheers Khu kri 07:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anon spammer back at it...
Hey, I'm only contacting you directly, as you'd blocked this user before. has gone around leaving 8-10 identical messages to a host of users today, it looks like, in an attempt to gather support against 2 users that the anon seems to have a problem with... I'm not really involved with the situation, other than I reverted the spam once, while I was watching RC.... Anyhow, if you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at it. --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN issue about radio station promotions director
Hello Daniel. See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. You are one of the people who tried to undo the COI edits, for instance here. Do you have an idea for a final warning that could be put on this editor's talk page, or do you have any other suggestions for how to proceed? Thanks, EdJohnston 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad your intervention seems to have sorted things out! There may be no template that can be as effective as a well-written email. EdJohnston 03:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Tops Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tops Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: letters
Any account that adds spoilers to that page are sleeper accounts for the sole purpose of vandalism until proven otherwise. Will (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the page is semi-protected. Hence the sleeper account thing - the autoconfirm wait is 4 days, and it's obviously bad-faith. Additionally, the account I reported had been left idle for four months - it could've been compromised, but even if it isn't, the spoiler could land Wikipedia in very hot water (as Scholastic and Bloomsbury already sent notices to Gaia and GameFAQs, which have 1% of the traffic the Wiki has). Will (talk)

Congratulations...
...on being vandalized more than 50 times! Welcome to the club! :) Kafziel Talk 06:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 22:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Kush
Hello, I would like you to reconsider the deletion of this article. I believe I have found a reliable source showing that this album does exist. It is from XXL (magazine): MrBlondNYC 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks a lot. MrBlondNYC 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuses, Excuses
Dear Mr. "Daniel Case",
 * I would like to speak to you about your recent block of me. About two days ago, I was blocked for so-called "vandalism" of the article Dylan and Cole Sprouse. The information I put in the article was true, and was researched before being inserted. At first glance, this information seemed as if it was derogatory and untrue. Yet this information was substantiated. To make sure this was known, I talked with every user that reverted the information. We came to an agreement, and said if I could find a source it would be alright to reinsert the info. So, using my best judgment, I reinserted the information and looked for a source.
 * Then, it happened. Trying to insert the source of the information, I learned I was blocked for a simple sentence. Worse yet, the block was assigned by someone who wasn't even involved in the "Dylan and Cole Sprouse" weight discussion. This medieval and uncalled for punishment was COMPLETELY UNEEDED, and violated the Wikipedia guideline of assuming good faith. In the reason for the block, it was said I "abused editing privileges", also known as vandalism. This reason is completely and utterly ignorant of discussions other editors and I had. Administrators are NOT meant to block wildly and frivolously, it is a special privilege.
 * I really shouldn't bother with people like you, but I hope you realize the damage you have done. You violated WikiFaith, and furthermore hindered the progress of an article. You are probably going to argue back with some invalid argument, and that's fine by me, but the block you gave me was WRONG. Blatant abuse of blocking powers should not be tolerated. I hope this brings to light some abuse and you change your ways. BLOCKING PEOPLE AND DELETING ARTICLES IS DOESN'T IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA AS MUCH AS EDITING AND WORKING TOGETHER DOES. I hope you come to your senses. I hope you realize what you caused. And even though it is a minor occurrence, I hope you realize the damage you are doing to Wikipedia.
 * Sincerely Yours,
 * 69.115.9.165 19:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry I got so mad. Your reasons for blocking me were right, and maybe it was partially my fault for getting so bent out of shape. Thanks for all that you said. Hopefully I will make an account so I can start to improve Wikipedia. I too, look forward to working with you. I really respect users like you, and who knows? Maybe someday I can get as many barnstars as you!
 * All the best, 69.115.9.165 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving nyc nrhp/nhl entries
I think we should leave the address entries, with redirects to what the wiki project nrhp wants. My reasoning is based on entries like "bank of new york" or "mcgraw hill" or "tiffany's" building which have each been at two different locations. The addresses are unlikely to move again, but the names have shown they might. dm 00:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One other point it that the buildings like 463 West Street have had multiple incarnations, and it's possible the new use is more notable than the first. dm 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Saw your reply, thought you might be referring to this on the NRHP talk page dm 05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: warning on my talk page
I noticed that you gave me a vandalism warning on my talk page. I did not vandalize anything; I merely gave my opinion on a request for arbitration which I feel is nothing more than a witch hunt. I admit that my comment was not as civil as it could have been, but it was not vandalism in any way, shape, or form. 141.151.19.61 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion: Christian Wrestling Federation
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for the CWF to be deleted from Wikipedia. There were other links to other sources but they seemed to be continually removed. There are also references to the CWF on other Wikipedia pages. Can you clarify for me? Jdblundell 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He spammed me, too. I made some more comments at []. Bearian 01:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter Morrell RFC
I figured I counted automatically, but... that said, Peter's apologised, and we've been working productively together ever since. I don't think we really need it any more. Go ahead and archive it. Adam Cuerden talk 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AIV
Um, yes, I know User:Fisher man 123456 wasn't warned, but he's the fourth new sock associated with that RFCU today, deleting part of the RFCU. No point in warning in this case, but I agree that I should have given you some context to work with - see Isotope23's comment here.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Stewshop.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stewshop.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Terminator AFD
Hi, regarding Articles for deletion/Terminator in pop culture there was a second article included in the nomination. Thanks. Otto4711 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of List of songs about cocaine
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of songs about cocaine, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of songs about cocaine is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of songs about cocaine, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of List of songs about marijuana
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of songs about marijuana, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of songs about marijuana is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of songs about marijuana, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile
<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Image:The_Apprentice_cover.jpg
I have tagged Image:The_Apprentice_cover.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Abby Abadi
Please undelete Abby Abadi, deleted "per Articles for deletion/Abby Abadi." The article was not deleted through AFD, but through CSD, and the version that got speedied had just one sentence of prose. If you look at the logs, you'll see that the article got tagged by the first commenter in AFD, then deleted an hour and a half after the AFD started before anyone else opined, so there really was nothing like a full AFD discussion. (It was deleted while I was typing up my keep!) I got the article userfied, and the new version is past the A7 stage. If someone still wants the article deleted, there should be a new AFD. -- Groggy Dice T | C 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD's
Hi again! Just one thing- I've noticed that you've closed some nominations a couple days early. I know there's the urge to close a debate early if consensus seems to be obvious, but try not to jump the gun unless it's snowing :) Sr13 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right on the point that discussion does nearly halt after a day or two. But it wouldn't hurt to hold up the discussion until the minimum five days. People might improve it a lot or people may find sources to prove that the subject is notable. I don't want comments like these to come your way either.


 * Technically, most of your closures would conform with consensus, but there's no rush to close them. Besides, there's always that possibility that someone might object at deletion review and use the early closure against you, extending the process. Anyway, just my two cents... Sr13 04:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad we saw each other's viewpoints on the matter. Sr13 05:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tuotu
Why delete the page tuotu? The software is very popular in China. What is nn product?Fairness528ele 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Search the Chinese name in the search engine, there are many articles about the softwares. Search the English name or the English version there are many articles. What do u think?Fairness528ele 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many English pages in the search engine about tuotu(Rabbit for its English version). After the page created, there are another user edit the article and do not ask for speedy deletion. From the article the software is gaining popular in China and Malaysia. Some of the articles are:

Xunlei vs Tuotu

Netscape.com

News - Software Headlines

Are they enough to undelete the page?Fairness528ele 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it better to have a deletion debate but not speedy deletion and deletion review?Fairness528ele 11:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please restore [[Image:Wikia.png]]
Can you please restore that deleted image? I want to create an article using that image. Thank you. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 00:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Edmund, can u help to explain to Daniel the software tuotu are notable, he doesn't know Chinese when there are many many pages about tuotu and many downloads of the software.Fairness528ele 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you have nothing to do with that image. I asked you to restore, because through the logs, I've found you the most recently active admin available. If you were the one who have deleted the image, then I'd enter the subpage of this talk page then, I saw the template on top of this page! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User: ClayMort
Please look at the correlation between 65.31.98.166, supposed user ClayMort, and the IP 72.133.205.139 on Talk:List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 2 episodes. All exhibit the same behavior. Based on this history, IP 72.133.205.139 should have been blocked. Draw your own conclusions. -- <font color="#087180">Elaich  <font color="#7C1034">talk 05:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

University of St Andrews Students' Association
Thanks for your contribution to the AfD that you closed. The reasoning you gave was eloquant, proportional and full of reason. Even though the decision was against the grain of what I'd hoped for, I see your reasoning, and what must have been a hard decision in a pretty much "hardly no concensus" debate. I like your idea of a separate split for all student organisations - many of which are affiliated to the Students' Association anyway. I think that such an article could serve as a good daughter, there is more than enough in the Students' Association article for it to not be stubby. Thank you again, you've been most diplomatic in what was a thorny debate with heated discussion and questionable faith. M0RHI | Talk to me 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, thank you once more for your contribution to this discussion; unlike your previous correspondent, however, I cannot agree with the decision you made in this case, and I gather that the correct procedure in such instances is to raise the matter on the admin's talk page in the first instance.

My main concern throughout this has been that none of the 'delete' contributers seem to be aware of what a students' association actually is, as those contributers from the USA will have seen no comparible institutions at home. The role these organisations play, combined with their quasi-official status in relation to the life of the university, the scope and extent of their activities and their status as statutorily-defined bodies (particularly in the case of the Scottish Ancients, but arguably in all cases in the country given the Education Act (1994)) renders them inherently notable as institutions; if these facts are not noted adequately on the page(s) relating to students' unions and associations as a whole, it's hardly the responsibiluty of the St Andrews article to correct these notions. Most of the arguments made in favour of non-notability on the page were misinformed; no students' union is a local chapter of a national organisation (and affiliation to the NUS is in this case irrelevant, even though St Andrews' lack of affiliation serves to increase its individual notability), and neither is any students' union a department of the parent university. I'm not by any means the only one who feels like this; User:Timrollpickering, an admin who has extensive experience with student organisations both within and outwith the context of Wikipedia, stated exactly the same on the AfD page.

As far as the policy requirements for notability are concerned, it is my view firstly that this is irrelevant given the inherent notability of students' associations, secondly that these lines of argument are technical, bureaucratic and at base in violation of the spirit of WP:IAR, and thirdly that they are false in substance: neither you nor anyone else even attempted to address the new section I added on the activities of the Association, the coverage whose sources were, contrary to your summation, both non-trivial and independent. Aside from a shortlived attempted revert by one of the pro-delete posters whose intent was evidently to hijack the enterprise, nobody even challenged this section or its sourcing, or gave an indication that it wasn't enough to meet the false burden of proof other editors had sought to impose. Having been asked to produce sources to avoid a delete, done so, gone unchallenged and then still seen the article I'd been trying to improve deleted for what I already regard as spurious reasons, how am I supposed to make me feel?

In your summary you also made certain claims about what material would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Now, I never made any contribution to the section on heraldry, but who is to say that the heraldry of an ancient university's students association is unencyclopedic? Given St Andrews hosted the last international heraldry conference, it would be hard to argue that it's information not of relevance to the community the article principally concerns. In my view this represents another aspect of Wikipedia's systemic bias, in this case towards neophillia. Similarly the information (which had already been cut down significantly) about the structure of the organisation; surely an article designed to give information about an organisation focussed upon governance might like to make passing reference to how it is governed itself? You also stated that appropriate content would involve its mandate, history and the so-called Saint controversy (which basically involved a newspaper that had repeatedly failed in its editorial oversight duties once again failing to live up to the standards requested of it in order to remain in the Association building, and being asked to leave for a short time in order to impress on the editors their duty to do their jobs properly), but said nothing about talking about what the Association actually does, which I thought was a bit odd.

I understand Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, but at the same time I would have thought it might generally be a good idea to try to include information editors believe will be of use or interest to the article's likely readership, so long as the encyclopedic intentions of the project as a whole are not compromised by doing so. I don't think a merge does this objective justice at all, and incorporation into a general article about 'student organisations' (how ever we're supposed to define those) does not do justice to the special position of a students' association, as I've talked about already. The only answer that meets the burden of common sense, never mind anything else, is a separate article, and if Wikipedia's policies really do make that impossible, well, I'd have to wonder what the point is of having them.

But I suppose what rankles most is the sheer injustice of it. As I said earlier, the nominator of this article was someone who was hell-bent on hijacking the article, after inserting a rant masquerading as a legitimate criticism section, and after that failed he resorted to policy-speak to try and get the article deleted completely, and succeeded. It's disheartening for legitimate editors like myself, who only want to try to improve the experience for readers of the site, to see this kind of behaviour rewarded, for technical reasons requiring elaborate argumentation and cross-referencing between about five different policies, that I can't argue against because I'd rather spend what time I'm prepared to give to this site contributing to the encyclopedia than boning up for my next bout of wikilawyering.

I suppose my intention in writing this is to ask you to reconsider, though I'm not exactly sure how you would do that or what it would involve. In any case, thank you once more for your time, and best wishes. Lordrosemount 09:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, thank you for your kind response to my rather lengthy comment. I actually agree with the bulk of what you've said; my invocation of WP:IAR was not intended to try to offer it as a trump, but although I hadn't read WP:WIARM before your helpful reference to it, having checked it out now I'd still stand by what I said - the delete arguments were the technical ones, and from my point of view the article's continued existence (and potential future improvement, as, I suppose, goes for all articles) was for the betterment of the site. In any case, thank you for the information; I may well submit it for review when I get the chance. Before hand, though, I'd appreciate your views on the issue of how notable a subject has to be; I honestly think that the revisions I made to the article at the very least established notability on a local level, which was as far as had been requested during the course of the discussion, and I haven't had any response on that yet from anybody. As for notability on a national or international level, well, we did have tangential references, but I don't see why notability should be nationally defined, considering there's all manner of minority subjects represented on Wikipedia whose interest may well be international but are still pretty limited. WP:WAX issues aside, if Manticore started applying his opinions generally and without this apparent nationalist bias, there'd be a massacre! :) So I just thought I'd canvass your opinion on this - I suppose I'm asking whether there's a certain character of evidence for notability that I could use to support undeletion. Best wishes once more, Lordrosemount 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall do that - looks like Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) has more going on. Interestingly, I did read there a debate on whether (in relation to a company) it is necessary to cite sources in order to demonstrate notability, and no consensus was reached - actually the argument seemed to be weighing against the idea. In any case! Yes, it's just a user-name - one with a long story, admittedly, but there is no Lord Rosemount today. Maybe one day... ;) Lordrosemount 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dutch barn
That's a lovely photograph you added to Dutch barn, thanks. :) IvoShandor 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 18:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gen. Winfield Scott House
re: it's a NHL, I knew that, thanks for fixing it. The default on my template is nrhp and I have to manually change it over to nhl when appropriate. If you haven't noticed, I'm trying to close out Manhattan. Just a few stragglers left. dm 23:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cambodian clothes
Oh thanks for tagging it -I didn't knwo I was helping the fashion project too! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ <font size="-4"><font color="Purple">"Expecting you?" <font size="-4"><font color="Grey">Contribs 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for banning 217.141.109.205 MMAfan2007 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorization schemes
Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your comment. I was impressed by all those historic places articles, by the way. I've gotten interested in county categorizing schemes recently, and I've found that subcategories for "Education in" and "Transportation in" have been incredibly useful in cutting down county categories to one page, which I think is ideal. If you're interested, you could check out Fairfield County, Connecticut, which is close to my ideal for easy navigation. I also made changes to the other counties in Connecticut and the Long Island counties, Category:Nassau County, New York and Category:Suffolk County, New York before moving on to Category:Dutchess County, New York and Category:Ulster County, New York. If you're really interested, take a look at the talk pages for Category:Fairfield County, Connecticut and Category:Nassau County, New York for my description of how I made category changes on those pages.

I was more hesitant to touch the historic places because I find categories for them a bit problematic. First, I think articles on the most prominent features of a county should stay in the county article because I think that readers find it easier that way, so I left Orange County Community College in the Orange County article, for instance. Since I don't know which are the most imporant, I thought I should leave that to someone else. (If you're from Orange County, you'd know better than I would what is most prominent -- I also left in New York Military Academy because I think it might be prominent within the county). Second, I'm a bit confused by categories such as Category:Landmarks in New York and how that set of categories may overlap with Category:Visitor attractions in New York. Maybe it's not a problem to simply put everything appropriate in both categories, but "Landmarks" seems a bit like overcategorization to me, at least on the county level, and the word "visitor" in "Visitor attractions" makes me feel guilty about putting in local historical homes that have little interest beyond a town's borders. What I did in Fairfield County was to create Category:Attractions in Fairfield County, Connecticut (which might be further broken down later) and included every little park, historical home, stadium, pro sports team, etc.

My basic idea about county categories is that every article on a subject based in or located in that county should be linked to a locality category if possible (like Category:Kingston, New York) which then links to the county category, and also to a topical county category like "Education in". That way everything is two clicks away from the overall county article and people intrerested in exploring the county can do it in two different ways. As you can see, I can go on forever about this. Anyway, thanks for the compliment. Please tell me when you write that post.Noroton 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * About Rondout Creek in the Kingston category. I wasn't sure about that. My thinking was that Kingston was at the mouth of the river and that might justify it, but I have no problem with it either way. You make a good point about it. Noroton 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Response
Hi Dan,

You make a slew of interesting points, and I disagree with fewer than you might think. Tell me if I'm wrong, but overall, I think we're in general agreement. The problem with developing subcategories is that we have an itch to create a new one when it might not be needed or (anticipating new articles) before it is needed, although keeping a category below 198 articles or so (to keep everything on one page) is a good enough reason to create even a pretty small category. My limit in the past was about six articles to justify a category, but now I think I was probably wrong and I want to see about 10 to create a locality subcat and more for other subcategories. I think I made mistakes in creating the Category:New Fairfield, Connecticut and Category:Redding, Connecticut subcats because I should have waited until the number of articles I could put in reached about 10. (I expect that to happen within about six months, the way things are expanding.)

I think once a county category gets to about 170 articles, it's time to slow down on creating subcategories, although, as I've said before, I think 120 articles in a category is ideal &mdash; if only because it gives you (the editor interested in categories) plenty of time to walk away and do other things for a while.

The key is always making it easy for the reader to find something, and regularity or order should always take a back seat to that primary goal. For that reason I'd always categorize any big institution that a lot of people would know and be interested in into the next category up. Yale University must always be a subcategory of Category:New Haven County, Connecticut, for instance. You might as well put it in Category:Education in New Haven County, just because some reader would expect it there, but intuitively a reader should be able to trust the categorizing and be able to jump to it fast.

I'm undecided about categorizing I-84 in each county. I realized at the time that the route goes through about 10 counties, and it really is just a snippet of Fairfield County (although an important snippet to someone interested in Danbury, our third or fourth biggest city). I guess including it in 10 county categories really is too much, and if I were including it in any I'd restrict it to several counties where it's an especially important artery.

Here's another point about county categories and how categorizing changes once you cross a state line: There are a total of eight counties in the state of Connecticut, and New York has, what, between 80 and 120, I guess. Including a state route in two, three or four counties in Connecticut doesn't clutter the category section of a page (I think there are only three or four routes in the entire state that go through four or more counties in Connecticut). With a Connecticut Turnpike article or an interstate with an article just about that interstate's route in Connecticut it's a no-brainer: It simply isn't a problem to include it in "Transportation in...." categories for three or four counties. In New York it's obviously different. Small and big states will -- and should -- differ in this way. I think when we vary things from state to state like this we lose a bit in the ability of a reader to intuitively navigate through the categories, but I think we gain more in convenience for more readers. That's because I think (could be wrong) that a reader navigating around geographical categories is more likely than not to be from within the same state and so would find it more useful to have more direct links and therefore intuitiveness (that is, knowing how it's generally done or being able to guess how something would be categorized) is less important than having a direct link.

You talk about categorizing by regions in New York state. I've thought about that. The problem is that you've got to have a very, very, very exact idea about regions (although I suppose you could just type in a list of the counties covered by a particular region in that region's category page). I think it all depends on whether you would create more confusion than you would avoid. I don't know the answer to that, and I wonder if it's worth the work involved. I wouldn't want to get into an argument about whether some county should be in the Albany region or the Adirondak region. You might be better off just sticking to the state/county scheme because it's not arguable (and when something crosses two counties, like that Pine-something-or-other school district in both Orange and Ulster [oh, and Sullivan!] counties, you just put it in both [or all three] and be done with it). Having been in too many arguments on Wikipedia, it's really, really nice to be able to avoid them by simply pointing to a map.

More later, dinner calls. Noroton 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm back. You write: also think you might do well to put "Businesses based in ..." and "Visitor attractions in ..." as subcats to an "Economy of ..." category. I think that would make it very, very difficult to find "Visitor attractions" (which I've only labeled "Attractions" so there's no confusion that these are supposed to be tourist attractions and not local places of interest). I don't think anybody would intuitively think that Visitor attractions would be in a "Businesses" category. If readers can't find it, it defeats the purpose. If a reader knows what category something would be in, and if the reader can figure out either the topic or knows what town the thing is in, then my system works with about two quick clicks. Noroton 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chocolate Rain
Try the unambiguated title. Deleted, endoresed, and salted at DRV. Will (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How to do Commons transfers
I'm aware of that. doesn't work when the image on the commons is named differently, and Image:newname.ext will not work when the image is not a bit for bit copy, (in this case a different dimension).--Celtus 09:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Auschwitz and After cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Auschwitz and After cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sapienz
Thanks for letting me know about your report. I left a comment outlining supporting evidence and added a little more. There are a few others that have observed this guy as well. All the best.Darrenss 13:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

InnoCentive
I was wondering why you deleted the InnoCentive article.

I was looking to see if all the "new age" companies that are listed on the cover of "Wikinomics" were covered in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinomics_(book)

On the notability side, this book is ranked #556 by Amazon. Here is it's front cover - which definitely is inspired by us! http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1591841380/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8105493-2875339#reader-link

The organisations/projects featured on the cover are:

Wikipedia Linux MySpace InnoCentive Flickr Second Life YouTube Human Genome Project

All these appear to have Wikipedia pages other than InnoCentive. If there were some people who tried to make it into an ad for that company - that's too bad - but I am interested in this area of open innovation and can keep an eye on it.

WP:AIV case on 82.24.77.64
Hi Daniel. This IP spammer you removed from the queue because he hasn't edited for some time. But his last edit was at 3 o'clock this afternoon! He has already got four warnings on his Talk page, all issued today. EdJohnston 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fashion article
Hi Daniel. You said that 1300-1400 in fashion would be ready for an upgrade to A-class if we found the requested citations - we've removed the last challenged statement as we can't verify it, and we've expanded the article. Can you take a look and reassess, please? Thanks - PKM 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocking IPs
If you didn't know: our IP blocking policy states "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked". -- John Reaves 04:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me, that IP socks are generally blocked for a few months because by then, the IP has either changed hands or the puppeteer has gotten bored. -- John Reaves 01:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Obviously, you protected [IDUNNO)]'s version because you are both NazisCommunistsFreemasonsRight-wing extremistsLiberal wackjobsradical FeministsZionistsScientologistsanti-Zionistsanti-AmericanAmerican—deny it all you want.
 * Sorry, had to do it, because this [] is one of the funniest pages I've ever read. Gtadoc 03:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Assistance
Daniel - thanks for your assistance in the past. I was wondering if you can assist with a current dispute on an article. I am asking several admins to review a list of links for reliably. If you can simply take a moment and comment on those sources which are reliable enough for WP policy. Please see: User talk:Tiggerjay/Resolutions/1 Thanks in advance Tiggerjay 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent IP AIV
Thanks for blocking that IP, but you should know that not a half hour after you blocked that one, an IP almost exactly the same (209.226.38.81) vandalized the same article in the exact same way as all the other three. Are you sure we can't declare these sockpuppets? GlassCobra 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Thanks. GlassCobra 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Incident reported. Would you mind going and adding your two cents? I'd appreciate it. GlassCobra 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Block Notice
My mistake. :S '''An Apple a day keeps <font color="Green">-The Doctor- Away.. 'Or does it!'' (talk)(contribs) 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Innocentive, Wikinomics, et al
Thanks for responding. Makes sense why you did it. Being on the cover of a book might be a lame-ass reason...but I was just pointing out that this is a noteworthy company like YouTube, MySpace, et al. I read the notability guidelines for companies you mentioned, and this one has had extensive media coverage, as a search of Google News revealed (over 770 archived news stories). It should be included alongwith companies like Ninesigma and Yet2, which compete with Innocentive in an emerging area of "open innovation" and "crowdsourcing", which enables companies that are getting unafraid of systematically using innovations from outside their companies. Procter & Gamble especially has been quite noted for doing this. It's a pretty hot new business area. Here are a few news links I found through Google to support that Innocentive is a "notable company" -

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2007/id20070215_251519_page_2.htm

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/crowdsourcing_diversity

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2003/tc20031121_1327_tc024.htm

Should I still begin that review discussion? Or is this enough to un-delete the article so I can help clean it up?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I have left a request for administrative action here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki:_Deleting_My_comments_and_Lying_About_It

However, it occurs to me that you are already involved, and may be the most appropriate adminstrator to review the situation. Your last action struck me as unfair, but I will assume good faith.Bsharvy 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Finishing the Manhattan Landmarks
Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, when you posted it, I still had four more to do. Two up in Harlem and two on the Upper East side. Good inspiration to run up and finish them off. dm 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe I've finished them off. Almost missed the Ambrose, but I thought it had already been done for some reason. dm 04:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User 24.251.20.93
... is back to his/her old tricks again. The moment the block ended, they were back putting COI material in the University of Phoenix article, etc., as before. -- Orange Mike 13:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007
The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An important letter
Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
 * <font color="#CC0018">T <font color="#0000C0">M F Let's Go Mets - Stats
 *  master son T - C
 * SonTalk
 * ( [ →]O - RLY?)

Account creation block
Was an indefinite block with account creation blocked really necessary for User:PenskeCorpComm? The user didn't vandalize or spam, they just edited an article about their company, and there was nothing particularly objectionable in those changes despite the conflict of interest.

You could have left a note on the talk page asking this person to change their name, and edit as themselves and not as their company; if you really felt a block was necessary, you could have enabled account creation so they can create a new name without having to go through the username-change process. I think your reaction of a hard block was far out of proportion to the offense.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1300-1400 fashion redux
I have added citations and done a small rewrite to address your OR tags in 1300-1400 in fashion. Please take a look. - PKM 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked User:Johnbod to get the citation you requested when he gets back; I can't find anything suitable. - PKM 03:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

US Government Works
In dealing with another matter, I noticed your July 19 block of CocoaBeachBoy for repeated copyvios. This appears to be based on his creation of Bernard L. Austin and his edits to John B. Sams. However, in both cases, the source of his material was US Government works. US Government works are in the public domain and not subject to copyright. While we prefer to attribute the source, it is not a copyvio to not do so. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was reported to AIV as posting copyvios ... only after offending edit did someone add proper source info . I acted in good faith and I assume the AIV reporter did as well, but I will nonetheless put an apology on his talk page. Daniel Case 00:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

SixString1965
I wanted to thank you very much for blocking the user SixString1965. I hope my description of his offenses was adequate. He claims to have reported me as well, but I don't see any evidence of that anywhere? Thanks again, you've been an indescribable help! Layla12275 06:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe SixString1965 is now editing as User:24.168.81.111. <font color="6A5ACD">Lara <font color="FF1493">♥Love 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know that this character is still arguing with me on his Talk page over nonsense such as how much I "hate" May Pang (I swear I didn't make that up). He should probably be watched heavily when his block is lifted.  Thanks so much, as always.  Layla12275 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also letting you know he's misquoting me by continually vandalizing his own Talk page. If he does it again I'll report him again--I'm just tipping you off.  Layla12275 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Reader cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Reader cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

user:Marsmanhu
Hey thanks for blocking him... he and his socks have been a thorn in my side for a while... one minor thing, though -- the block template on his talk page calls him an IP, which he is not -- it's a user account -- and I have no clue what template to replace it with. But thanks for doing that! Gscshoyru 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this guy now seems to be as much about trolling you ... I've noticed some of his other socks doing the same thing. Sorry about the template ... that's the way it's written. I would use sockblock, but that should be reserved for proven cases. Daniel Case 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Methinks someone should make a better template... which template is the first one? Gscshoyru 04:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know ... if you have the time and the skills, feel free to create a version of sspblock for a registered account.


 * I decided to use sockblock on his page instead, and went back to JJonz and extended the original block to six months. I'm not optimistic that that will stop him. But seeing as I extended the block last time, my patience only goes so far and I indicated the next one is indefinite. Daniel Case 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll go try my hand at it tomorrow or something. Shouldn't be too hard to set up, I think.
 * And I doubt he even checks his original account anymore... or cares that it'll be indefinite, as I think he'll just use others. I wish someone would get to my very stale sock report on him, though, too... Gscshoyru 04:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No Problem
Thanks I appreciate it, as long everyone reads the whole case and views it objectively, I have no problem with it. Carlitos 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Apparently, we are not allowing consent blocks anymore LIST EMPTY
I submitted the following to Húsönd.
 * In response to your reply, I must say that users on this IP have been vandalising articles in the past, and even as recently as this week. It has been necessary to temporarily block this IP before, and considering that the vandalism is still occurring (see history for Wood Oaks Junior High School as well as edit history for this IP), I believe that it is justification to place a permanent soft block on the IP.  Please reconsider.

As an administrator now involved in this matter, I hope you can take a look at the history of the situation and see why this block is necessary. - 208.47.211.5 17:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The U of Chicago anon
Thanks Daniel. After your block, he came back as User:128.135.163.19 and blanked my page two more times then he blanked yours. I don't know what they teach them at UofChicago but looks like he missed ethics class. -- Alexf (t/c) 18:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My page has not been vandalized as many times as yours, but I must be doing something right, as this has started. Well done on the sockpuppetry block. -- Alexf (t/c) 02:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IP 69.156.175.204
You speculated that this IP might be a sock of another blocked IP; Their vandalisms are very similar to 24.110.115.191's contribs, so that may be a possibility. -- Broken Sphere Msg me 03:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

P:USRD selected picture
Hey Daniel, just wanted to let you know that the picture of NY 97 that you nominated at Portal:U.S. Roads in July was chosen as the selected picture for August. Congratulations, and if you have one you'd like to nominate for next month, feel free to do so. Regards, <font color="#CC0018">T <font color="#0000C0">M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy RfC
Hi. Let me caution you that I will not allow the page to turn into some sort of circus, without regard to the most basic notions of civil discourse. El_C 05:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is the sort of expression that DG is ordinarily subjected to, that would work explain many things. El_C 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)