User talk:J~enwiki/Archives/2008/September

talk:Sarah Palin
I tried to dealt with it correctly, but I didn't knew everything and still learning. I didn't like to see it argument and making mess. So I try to post to WP:ANI. Thanks.--FuturePilt (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert?
Why did you revert my legitimate warning? You are not supposed to do that. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your justification is incorrect. Please refrain from such behavior in the future.  Thank you.  Testmasterflex (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting the BS "warning". Kelly  hi! 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Ec, response to User:Testmasterflex): Just posted to your talk page. Feel free to respond there.  But don't call other editors vandals.  It's important to assume good faith on Wikipedia, and my removing your template retaliation was not vandalism.    user:j    (aka justen)   03:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Young Trigg
Hi, I am wikinews:user:anonymous101 and I am writing an article on Wikinews entitled News agencies suggest that campaign operative for Republican Party edited article on vice presidential nominee regarding the edits made by User:Young Trigg. In the article I mentioned that you gave Young Trigg a warning over a possible conflict of interest. If you have time, would you mind saying, in a reply to this message, what made you think there was a possible conflict of interest so I can quote it in the article. Thanks, Anonymous101 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I have just added info about Young Trigg volunteering for mcCain. Thanks for the tip. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blanking of Young Trigg's Page
I'm not sure, but I believe that IP address was Young Trigg him/herself. I think they edited earlier using it and claiming to be them. I believe that's why they blanked it... but I agree, they should log in with the actual account before blanking it. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanco photo
Hi. Re: Image:Kathleen Blanco.jpg -- great to have another good photo, thanks for uploading it. Are you the same person as Flickr user Prince Roy? If so, could you please note that fact on the image page? If not, the image at present has incorrect licensing information that needs to be cleaned up. (The Flickr image is free licenced and can be used by Wikimedia, but proper observation of authorship attribution and license needs to be observed. The Flickr image is licensed under Creative Commons 2.0, not 3.0 as stated on the Wikipedia image page, and you have stated that you are the photographer/original author.) Thank you for your prompt attention to this. If I can be of assistance, do ask. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks for taking care of this so promptly. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
 * Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
 * Your contributions are also welcome at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny   ✉  21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad fair use of Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg is an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the non-free content criteria and the uploader has been given 48 hours' notification (for images uploaded after 2006-07-13) or seven days' notification (for images uploaded before that date). (CSD I7). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.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. 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Gtstricky Talk or C 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC) -- Gtstricky Talk or C 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how many places this needs to be discussed but there seems to be a more active discussion at Non-free_content_review. Cheers  Gtstricky Talk or C 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think we might have one too many forums for discussing this.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah Palin Time 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Suntag (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Pilot AfD
Due to the seeming confusion over the AfD caused by the two different articles, and the merging of the two into one, I have withdrawn the original AfD and nominated the single article for AfD at Articles for deletion/Pilot (Fringe). As someone who commented on the original, I wanted to alert you to the new AfD so you can revisit and state your position on this single article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Enlightenment
"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

- WP:BLP

Contrary to your contention, it is standard practice that newspapers retain editorial control over everything published under their name, including blogs. Hope this helps. :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Booth
Hello J. I'd welcome your attention to the BLP problems with this article. The editor who was originally cited for edit warring there, User:Dead-or-Red, had his block lifted but then went on to perform additional reverts, so he got blocked again by a different admin. See User talk:Dead-or-Red, where you could join the latest unblock discussion if you wish. This article struggles to reach neutrality, but BLP shouldn't be an all-purpose tool for removing political criticism. In my view, the political criticism needs to be properly sourced and not expressed with a slanted vocabulary. From the discussion on Dead-or-Red's User talk, I don't think he gets the concept of consensus. He feels that the rightness of his views justifies any number of reverts. Getting all the editors to participate on the article Talk to agree on new language for the article would be an excellent move. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have decided to take your advice and not edit the article (bar one minor edit). Though it is still a pov mess. The only reason I started editing the article in the first place was to help it reach wiki standards, I knew (and still know) little about the women. I do not feel it ever reach a npov standing, though I would like further advice on how best to get other wiki editors to look at the article to help clean it up as much as possible. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Rob Enderle
I was just viewing recent changes, no other involvement in the article. The removal of such a large amount of text appeared to be vandalism. The edit summary could have linked to the talk section or to the blp noticeboard discussion. Of course reversion is ok as I'm not involved, I just sought to rv what looked to an onlooker like blanking. It would be nice if someone could 'grow' the article again with WP:RS. I didn't think the content was that nasty, but I'm sure other, more positive sources exist, to create a balanced article. Sticky Parkin 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dead-or-Red
The editor in question actually reverted 6 times, and did the first 4 logged out to disguise his reverts, then dissembled about doing so. I'm tempted to block for even longer, but in any event am certainly not going to reduce the block. As for the BLP issues, I haven't looked at them closely, but the sources in question appeared to be reliable, and 3 respected editors did not consider there to be BLP issues. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)