User talk:Dtobias/Archive 4

(Archives for 06 Apr 2008 - 31 Mar 2010)

Self-awareness
No, I also like throwing in references to Orwell's 1984, Scientology's Suppressive Persons, and various relevant Twilight Zone episodes, when they seem apt

Nice to see that you've properly classified your peculiar obsession, then. Self-awareness is always the first step to enlightenment, after all. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So when are you going to acquire some yourself? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message
Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to NotTheWikipediaWeekly and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dotpt.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dotpt.png. 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. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence §  t / e  17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.

Also, since you know people at Wikipedia Review, perhaps you could assist me with something. I am very interested in getting some of them to take the AGF Challenge, particularly Wikipedia's most strident critics. Since many are site banned, and I do not want to be accused of "proxy editing", I have made arrangements where they can email me their answers anonymously and I will post them under a pseudonym for them. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did already, in the multiple choice sections. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok good. I havent followed exactly who answered what. Do you think we could get some of our strong external critics, even our banned critics at WR and other places, to attempt it? Or at least some of the exercises ?--Filll (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Claque
Noun

1. A group of people hired to attend a performance and to either applaud or boo

2. A group of people who pre-arrange among themselves to express strong support for an idea, so as to give the false impression of a wider consensus.

3. A group of fawning admirers

See here --MitziCooper (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just learned a new word. Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

snookered?
Presumably you get the reference :) ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Dotpt.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotpt.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ED sources
I've created a subpage at (User:Urban Rose/ED sources). If you can help me gather sources, I may propose a recreation of the article Encyclopedia Dramatica. It has been deleted on the grounds of not enough reliable sources, so if you can help me gather some I would appreciate it.-- Urban  Rose  02:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Afnic.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Afnic.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

AN thread
I've started a thread concerning User:JzG's recent incivility toward you and myself as well as blatantly admitting to closing an ED deletion review because of personal distaste of the website. You may want to participate. See here.-- Urban  Rose  21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dnclogo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dnclogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Socatel.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Socatel.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your WP:RFAR/C68-FM-SV/Evidence, could you add some diffs to the section. e.g., which arbcom case are you referring to by the name "Attack Sites" ? I could probably guess, but it would be better if you added a link to the case you are referring to. The evidence needs to be written so that someone who is unfamiliar with the dispute can verify that the evidence is accurate -- that will promote uninvolved parties getting involved in the Workshop phase. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And which Register article are you referring to? C'mon, dont make me pull each link out of you one by one; your evidence section needs to be fleshed out so that the reader doesnt need to guess what you are referring to. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, so it looks like I am going to have to ask for each and every link that is needed to improve your evidence section,so here are a bunch of requests. You say that the Piperdown block/ban was reexamined; where was it reexamined?  Where was the decision to keep Swalwell, Alberta and please find a few diffs that demonstrate the JzG attempted to remove mention of that place; could you link to the case involving Mantanmoreland; when you say '"trolls" are hardly the only ones who have seen problems', do you have a comment from the arbs in mind?  Every link that you provide makes your evidence more complete. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've added a few more... (Boy, it can be a pain to find stuff from WP:AN... thousands upon thousands of revisions, and hundreds of archives... like finding a needle in a haystack!) *Dan T.* (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It looks good now. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I have added your name to the list of parties on the JzG dispute. Hopefully you will be able to shed light on these matters and participate in the resolution on this dispute which has carried on for much too long, in my opinion. Jehochman Talk 10:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Afnic.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Afnic.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BERMUDA NIC.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BERMUDA NIC.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Big blue disk 3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Big blue disk 3.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Tiffany
Hi Dtobias, thanks for the pointing out an error in the template. I don't know if you watch the template or not, but I'll tell you that I've left a response to your comment on the talk page. Best wishes. Acalamari 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
To retract your personal attack here.--MONGO 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Posted at AN/I --MONGO 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly don't get in piss fights. It works out better for everybody. Refactor them, take a break from WP, and come back later to respond without the commentary. It's coming from both sides. If you're taking a side, it's better for your side to not be engaging in it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Image:Switch_logo.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Switch_logo.gif, 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. MacCrack (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dan
I think it was you that posted the review of MONGOs evidence - you basically said what I was going to wewhen I found the time. However because it turned into threaded conversation, it might be better to post your analyses above the comment section and maybe in a different colour. Viridae Talk 13:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the response and link. Informative. Zenasprime (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough I'm getting told precicely the opposite by Swatjester on my own talk page.  Zenasprime (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to check out my userspace, this topic has because quite the point of contention. Zenasprime (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Between you and me
You are right, we're not particularly fans of each other. I think you have a good heart, but your activities did reach horse-stick interaction levels quite some time ago. Sceptre (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, although DanT doesn't always speak in gentle or politically correct dicourse, his message has never been wrong in the big picture of things. Never.  In fact, his message has been eerily prescient throughout his participation in this experiment. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I know Dan has good intentions, but the way he goes about it (sometimes uncivil, sometimes too long after the issue is effectively done with) needs a bit of improvement. Sceptre (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue". Barry Goldwater . Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Karl Hess has actually been credited with coming up with that line, as speechwriter for Goldwater (he later became the editor of the Libertarian Party News), but according to his bio, he actually says he got the quote from somebody else in the first place. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect, since I lean toward libertarian politics myself. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Meta
Hi, saw your message at that other place. Hand on heart, when I logged onto that page I did not see your comment there, I was editing directly below Shalom, and I had no edit conflicts. Beats me how that happened; no matter my thinking of the value of your words, I would not deliberately overwrite you or anyone else. Are we good? Risker (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * KInda thought that might have been the case. Viridae Talk 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure... no hard feelings. Maybe you accidentally did your edit from an earlier revision in the history instead of the current one? *Dan T.* (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be, I thought I'd renewed the page but I could be wrong. It was late and I was caffeine deficient. Risker (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting arbcom
Honestly, if I knew of a better solution than arbcom for dealing with user conduct issues, I would start the Xfd discussion myself.

I know that you have concerns. Let's see if we can work together to address them, okay. Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have preferred it if at least ArbCom could have considered its remedy in response to a specific case brought before it that actually did relate to BLP-related user conduct in more than a glancing, peripheral way, and which involved evidence being presented regarding this issue. Instead, it was added, seemingly "on the sly", to a case about a completely different matter that few were paying any attention to, so any notices regarding it might as well have been in the "display department" in the cabinet in the basement marked "Beware of Dog", as seen in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see that opinion since the case had been open for so long. Sometimes, I think that it is true in cases that open and close fast. But this case has been in voting for a month. What do you think we can do to make sure that the Community knows about our rulings. We use workshop pages, discussion pages, open voting pages. Signpost covers the cases. What more do you suggest? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep cases focused on the subject matter they were started with, avoiding major hairpin turns that lead to remedies that seem to be coming out of left field, for instance. If a case begins that is titled "BLP Enforcement", then people interested in that subject are likely to follow it and present relevant evidence for it; if it's titled "Footnote quotes" (or whatever that one was), it's more likely to be missed except by the wonks who actively follow footnote syntax disputes (who might not even be interested in the BLP issue). *Dan T.* (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dottel.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dottel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

NotTheWikipediaWeekly
It may not be the Wikipedia Weekly, and it may not even be weekly - but it's scheduled for less than 24 hours time! - all the info is at the wiki page, and be sure to hang in all the usual places for help and guidance in hooking up the conference call! - feel free to ask me any questions, otherwise I look forward to chatting tomorrow morning (my time!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Badsites
I was going to write you a message about your comment on WR. But like a lot of WR habitues, you seem to divide the world into those who agree with you and those against you, with the latter frothing partisans of whatever view you don't hold, so there probably isn't any point. I'm not of the view that winning the hearts and minds of the WR crew is a worthwhile task anyway. I doubt it will ever dawn on you guys that the abuses you complain about would be considered a feature by the people you dislike, not a bug. So you are probably doomed to be right for the rest of Wikipedia's life or as long as you care about it. Regards. Grace Note (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're rather hypocritical when it comes to critics of Wikipedia. You've suggested that anybody who participates in, or links to, WR should be banned, but then you wrote a blog essay that scathingly attacks Wikipedia and Jimbo, and which has been discussed in a mostly favorable way by those WR people you hate.  So is it just critics other than you who deserve the banhammer? *Dan T.* (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think when you read, you pick out the words that suit and ignore the ones that don't. Try again: 'I've "attacked" a few people here who thoroughly deserved it in my view, but I've never defamed anyone or made the sort of vicious remark that defaces Wikipedia Review.' I wrote nothing defamatory about Jimbo, although I can see why you'd think being called a 'Randian' isn't good for your reputation. Also, my blog's raison d'etre is not to harass and upset (mostly Jewish) editors of Wikipedia. If it was, you might have a point. Also, again, you've mischaracterised on your attack site what I said to you: I didn't describe you as a 'WR partisan'. Have another look: what I wrote is right there, a couple of inches above this message. I said you were an 'habitue' who considered those who disagree with you to be partisans of whatever view you don't hold. Do you see? I am suggesting that you could disagree with Wikipedia or with a particular view even without being a partisan of something else, but you seem incapable of understanding nuance, and must have it black and white. I am capable of it though, and I am critical of both Wikipedia and your place. Weird huh?Grace Note (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is this "WR crew" you're referring to? Participants in WR include a cross-section of Wikipedia participants and others, including admins of various privilege levels (checkusers, oversighters, "regular" admins, etc), heavily involved editors, peripherally involved editors, and former participants who left either by choice or by ban.  Opinions offered on WR often sharply differ and of course vary in insight, validity, and perspective.  The participants there participate for varying and sundry reasons.  So, an attempt to pigeonhole them all into a single group is, I believe, impossible.  Wikipedia is and has been greatly improved because of the existence of WR and the discussions that take place there.  Need any examples? Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And you seem incapable of understanding the concept of a forum where people of diverse opinions express them, and insist on labeling and demonizing the whole group as a unit. And you claim that it's me who can't understand nuances.  Highly laughable. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm Jewish myself (at least by birth; I'm agnostic by belief), and any implication that my goal in participating in a site is to harass Jews specifically is beyond laughable. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dan, that you are Jewish makes your participation in that site worse imo, but naturally I don't suggest that that is your goal. Wikipedia Review is small enough, and the participants connected and familiar enough with each other for you to be considered to be involved in a joint enterprise though. You could easily achieve the same aims at another site, with a different focus. But one suspects that you feel your voice would be lessened were it not attached to the notoriety of WR.
 * Cla68, I'm well aware who contributes to Wikipedia Review. I'm sure you're all nice to your mothers too. I don't need examples of Wikipedia's being improved because of WR, because I don't dispute the value of a critical site. Grace Note (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BADSITES2; it's back and more inane than before... Minkythecat (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello DT!
Just noticed your nice note - which will be deleted but still now part of the historical record for those who know where to look. I don't know if you've been editing any of the libertarian pages. Most are awful, with poor or little sourcing at all. Even libertarianism is a mess and I keep meaning to take a day or two of my life to clean it up, but keep getting sidelined by other issues. Just have to drop those pages to avoid temptation of editing them! (Esp. advocacy groups - or wiki articles - that smear libertarians and peaceniks for fun and profit.) If you need to watch some fun videos-including my music videos-check out http://youtube.com/carolmoore Bye.Carol Moore 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

AfD nomination of Spider House Cafe
An article that you have been involved in editing, Spider House Cafe, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Spider House Cafe. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nv8200p talk 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dotpl.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotpl.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN
For saying this you get BADDOG. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SAUCE
I recall seeing you threaten to write this policy somewhere. I'd like to see it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask, and ye shall receive. Oh, and as for WP:DTTR... pfft! ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sauce-for-goose-and-gander.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Sauce-for-goose-and-gander.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How did you make that, anyway? The Wikipedia above the ingredients seems translucent, well done. Needs to be on Commons you know :) ... ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyking RFA
Dan, I realize you have strong views on a lot of things. Yet it isn't likely to help Everyking's nomination if the RFA gets sidetracked with side discussions. Not that what's happened so far goes too far--but let's retain focus? Some people simply view the matter differently from others, and to some extent that can't be changed. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject_Libertarianism
The good news is there is now WikiProject_Libertarianism. The bad news is in current list of tasks. Carol Moore 02:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

SV and PL, your post
Kudos and well done, that was class. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On a related topic, thanks for your comment at User talk:Catherineyronwode. Just to say that in my clumsy way I was looking for common ground, while at the same time trying to avoid the situation escalating through dispute resolution. That seems to have backfired. While I'm well inclined towards SV, time constraints prevented me from analysing all the assertions and I fully accept that you've had different experiences or come across different issues. Just hope all us imperfect folk can work together, after a fashion. So, thanks again and echo KC's comment above, that's a good post. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Just for you there is WP:BADWORDS, WP:BADPEOPLE and WP:BADMEMES. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Israel-internet-association.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Israel-internet-association.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Hey hey!!
I bet you have a view here - my own view is that this is getting WAY out of hand and we need double-barreled sanity. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that anybody sees me as a potential source of sanity, given some of the things people have called me... I'll try to check that out when I get a chance. It seems like that's yet another case of Wikipedians' tendency to get in heated fights about the most trivial things, like the various battles on whether to refer to "New York State Road 376" or "State Road 376 (New York)" or "New York State Route 376" or "State Route 376 (New York)" or "Route 376 (New York State)" or whatever. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You and I have disagreed, strongly, in the past and we will again in the future, but I never doubted your intention to make this a no-BS-encyclopedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dotnf.gif
An image you uploaded, Image:Dotnf.gif, is not displaying properly. -- Suntag  ☼  21:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Upu-logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Upu-logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Potter-bus.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Potter-bus.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dotfj.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotfj.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dotnf.gif
Hello Dtobias,

I've received a regarding Image:Dotnf.gif, an image you uploaded in 2006, as it has no fair use rationale. I wanted to add one, but I can't find the source of this image; could you please tell me where it comes from? Alternatively, you may want to add a rationale yourself. Thanks and regards, Korg (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... it's been several years since I uploaded that, and I did it back in an era when there were many fewer hoops to jump through in order to get a fair use image into this site than there are now. I assume my original source was one of the official sites of that domain's registry, but can't find the image now (one of the linked sites on .nf doesn't seem to work, and the other has nothing resembling this logo), so it might not exist online in an official site any more. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your reply. After some search I found this logo, that could potentially substitute the actual logo used in the article. Korg (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for "certify the basis for this dispute"
Hello. Thanks for your help. Would you either "certify the basis for this dispute" and/or "endorse this summary"? in the Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord? --Law Lord (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace on Earth and one-third of the cut for me...


Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.
 * Thanks for the Hanukkah greetings -- that's the first time I ever got that good wish! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)



Happy New Year!
Dear Dtobias,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sbnic.gif)
You've uploaded File:Sbnic.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Veronica 167.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Veronica 167.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
All yours, I'm off to do some proper work which I've been putting off. Ideally most of the introduction should be moved to a proper section, which a short para or two at the top to summarise the whole thing. It is starting to look a bit too humorous to be taken seriously, but that's mostly my fault. Best Peter Damian (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

hot bulb
would you please take a look at the hot bulb engine engine article and discussion. Wdl1961 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

your comment at RfAr
. Unfortunately, I think you are right. It does not take an organized cabal to do this, only editors who habitually trust each other and support each other. There's nothing wrong with that, in itself! The problem is when minority opinion is thereby suppressed. I'm surprised that JzG took this to ArbComm, but he obviously expects to be confirmed. If ArbComm takes a serious look at this, he might be shocked. I know that some arbitrators are very concerned about the problem. But a majority? That I don't know. I was nowhere ready to take any of this to ArbComm, I was simply exploring the issues with step-by-step dispute resolution, not tendentiously arguing with JzG, I'd concluded that he wasn't going to unblock the Rothwell IP, if was finished with asking him, so, next step, probably involving a neutral editor whom he might trust. Maybe an arbitrator, maybe not. No emergency. Rothwell wouldn't expire from the block. Remarkable, actually. Rothwell wasn't currently editing much. The only need I can see to block him was that it had been asserted that if he wasn't being blocked, there was no ban. He'd edited for a week without being blocked, and he wasn't violating any block. He'd edited quite a bit without being blocked. JzG, however, had blocked IP that was almost certainly not Rothwell. Same principle, as you noted: editor says 2 + 2 = 4, must be Rothwell with his POV pushing again. Perhaps I'll file a WP:SSP report on that IP, since JzG has asserted it was Rothwell. Don't know. Is it worth taking up the time of a checkuser?

JzG forgot about a detail: he's involved. But, then again, he consistently doesn't think that's important. And he obviously has supporters, some in high places, who agree.

JzG is really reacting very, very strongly to being questioned. That's all it was. Two editors assert he blocked improperly, he goes to RfAr? If I tried that trick, two editors say I've done something wrong, and I went to RfAr to prove I'm right, not out of any need to protect the project from imminent danger, I'd be toast. Let's see if he gets away with it, it would kind of prove something, wouldn't it? --Abd (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility
This is grossly incivil. If you cannot remain civil when discussing other wikipedians, don't seek out places discuss them.Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the material was summarily deleted.
Here Moulton claims "The rest of the material was summarily deleted." Please clue him in. See http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Wikimedia_Ethics/. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad sites?
Dan, I figure you're an expert on the "bad sites" issue. There's a thread, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence, which deals with whether a site with negative material about a living person violates WP:BLP. If you have any thoughts or information about it that might help.  Will Beback   talk    23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.   Will Beback    talk    01:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My user page
Oh, of course, the guy who likes to cavort with the whack-jobs, loons, spammers, trolls, sociopaths, and other bad actors at Wikipedia Review and then come to Wikipedia to carry water for them -- do you actually do anything else on Wikipedia other than monitor for uses of the terms "attack" and "site" in close proximity so you can jump in and put in a few words about your crusade? -- is coming to give me advice about appropriate behavior. "Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" is the old expression. Hope you have plenty of flea powder. (the preceding unsigned entry posted 13:39, February 26, 2009 by User:Calton.)

February 2009
Leaked albums/songs are not notible under wikipedia guidfelines. They are illegal, and having them mentioned in articles encourages peopel to find them rather than buy the albums. Alankc (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If they're written about in reliable sources (as, in this case, Rolling Stone), don't they possibly become notable news? We write about plenty of stuff that's illegal, like cocaine and murder.  Writing about something doesn't mean we support it.  Anyway, the leaked songs in question were apparently leaked by mistake, by one country's iTunes store, not as an intentional illegal act. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not consider album leaks notible at all as per WP:ALBUM Alankc (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice
New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Administrators' noticeboard.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users
I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Requests for arbitration You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 23:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello "borderline troll"
RE: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3

Thanks for supporting my section, I moved that section to the talk page, along with your endorse, as Abd advised me. Ikip (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Re your contribution to the RfC: please consider refactoring per this comment from Abd, which was in response to another editor. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Backing away from Guy is a good idea. The matter has been brought to a high enough level of attention that if Guy has done wrong, he will be corrected. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Pedestrian malls
I have nominated pedestrian malls for renaming to pedestrian zones. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review thread
Hello, I saw you reading this Wikipedia Review thread, which mentions me as being 46 years old. I want to let you know that Somey is lying about me, and that I can prove who I say I am. I am actually a minor by US law, and I am not 46. Bare in mind that Somey did not start these rumors until I confronted him at his talk page at Uncyclopedia. Under my sockpuppet accounts there as "FurWissen2" and "HappyWanderer", I had access to the Tar Pit and never found anything about him saying I was "Linda", instead he thought (correctly) that I was a minor. I want to know who was at the root of these lies, and I want to prove to them that I am who I say I am. I don't trust you with this information (to prove who I am), as I have never even communicated to you before, not even on the Internet. But I would like to find who spread this rumor. If it's Somey, I'm not obligated to prove anything because he is not telling the truth about me. But I would like to see his evidence, so I can refute it, and so my refutation can be published. Jonas Rand 68.96.209.19 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd perhaps be better off going to somebody who actually cares how old you are! *Dan T.* (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'd like to see his evidence as to who I am. It's not really that anyone cares, except me, but it's rather that I don't want unprovable lies spread around. 68.96.209.19 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of University of Atlanta
An editor has nominated University of Atlanta, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Pw logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Pw logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of DreamHost
I have nominated DreamHost, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/DreamHost. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct AfD page: Articles_for_deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination) Judas278 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI
If you are interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kelly Clarkson
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1. I have delisted the article as it will need a lot of work to bring it to GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Wikivoices
If you're going to say harassment claims are overblown, you would be well-advised to actually look into the issue. You cannot have seen the e-mails Kohs sent me because you have never even talked to me, so how the hell would you know they're overblown? Next time you're going to pooh-pooh harassment, actually look into the claim before arbitrarily dismissing it.

Audio chats for arbcom
as you can see from the right, I'm out of the gate on this one! hooray :-) - that means it's your cue to somehow approach one (or more!) of the ever growing lists of candidates, and start trying to line something up! - after I uploaded the file to commons, I used the existing wiki voices template to make a page at wikipedia:wikivoices/arb09/jhoch - so you could just change the candidate name to fit with that model - I (think) I then 'transcluded' it onto the candidate statements page (like I did here too) - see here for the finished thing.

It's been my experience that these things take up to (or more than) a week to line up and get done, so I reckon it could be a good idea to line something up whilst you're grappling with any further technical gremlins, or getting to know how it works technically etc. I can do my best to answer any questions you might have, but have found bumbling through with a problem-solving hat on generally gets the job done (have a listen to the file on the right for a model of question / answer / chat which, whilst definitely improvable, sort of works....)

I'm copying this message to both Dan, and Jake, who have signed up to help, though spread the word, and any lurkers should feel free to head over to WP:Wikivoices if they're interested in getting on board. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, if you feel up to it I am more than willing to be interviewed for wikivoices. Send me an email or the like. Best, Unomi (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A belated Thanks! for taking the time to do the interview :) Unomi (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices
Absolutely. I have Skype (as sarcasticidealist), but my girlfriend (who uses Skype for work) has my headset most of the time. If we schedule a time in advance, I can make sure to get it from her. I'm UTC -4, though that seems generally irrelevant to my activity cycle these days. Steve Smith (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK... what times would be good for you? How far advance do we have to schedule this? *Dan T.* (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 Wikivoices
I don't have Skype. Also, my time zone is, I think, 17 hours different from yours. I'm willing to try, but am afraid the logistics may be difficult to overcome. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not answering your email. I have guests over this weekend so I've been kind of busy.  I'll try to suggest a good time soon. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. The only time I'm really free is T, W, Th this week between 7-10 p.m. JST. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which seems to work out to 5-8 a.m. over here (EST)... a little awkward, but maybe I can manage if you send me a phone number to call. *Dan T.* (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I put your user talk page on my watchlist during the BADSITES wars and never removed it. Actually, to 11 p.m. my time is ok, but I don't want to place an undue burden on your schedule, especially if it gets in the way of your dayjob. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Spirit duplicator
I wanted to thank you for your upload of the image of a Ditto machine-duplicated document. It is an excellent example of a document produced in this fashion which was so typical of that era 1970s/1980s. Robert K S (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices
Hi Dan. Thanks for doing the Wikivoices interviews of the arbcom candidates. If I might make a suggestion -- could you focus a bit more on drawing out the views of the candidates, and a bit less on setting forth your own opinions? This would be helpful to those of us trying to evaluate the candidates. In the Cla68 interview I think you took up half or more of the time. Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These interviews are far from neutral. That's fine, but they do not belong on the candidates statement pages. I'm going to remove those links. If the candidates themselves wish to add them they may revert me. However it would be inappropriate for Dtobias to insert his own views on those pages via his Wikivoice interviews.    Will Beback    talk    20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Katrina-and-the-waves.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Katrina-and-the-waves.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Aspects (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dotps.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dotps.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your invited!
Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret account 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Collection of CD longboxes.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

South Florida Wikipedia editors Meetup
I proposed a new meeting day, time and place here under the section "New Suggestion"   Nancy Heise    talk  07:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Dtobias! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jeremy Jordan -

Miami meetup
Are we meeting tomorrow? We need to decide what time and where exactly. Please offer comments at the meetup page here.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greg Lloyd Smith
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Greg Lloyd Smith. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Greg Lloyd Smith (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dotie.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dotie.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion discussion
You participated in a previous discussion on the deletion of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested that a new deletion review has begun at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination). Tb (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dotco.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dotco.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)