User talk:Mackensen/Archive20

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

your message
Hey right on.. I appreciate that. I'll undo.. Cheers! - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you fixed. My bad...just shows TL/DR applies to everyone :/ Thanks!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Accuracy-1911
Template:Accuracy-1911 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A few notes about Commons
Hey, I came across some of your recent edits on Commons. The Wellesley Farms move looks good. However I have a few comments:


 * I undid your recats on the two pictures of Rail Diesel Cars. RDCs are self-propelled, but they're multiple units, not locomotives. I'll give them their own category.


 * I saw you made a category for Uphams Corner, which currently only contains one image. That's not a big deal; I plan to take pictures there next month. However, my standard is that three images of the same station get a category; anything less and they just stay in the line category.

Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair; I suppose I prefer over-categorization to a random collection of station images. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, absolutely, more categorization is usually better. Until about six months ago there was barely any categorization in the system, and only a dozen stations had categories. It took about 600 edits - mostly recats plus 30 new categories - to organize it. I'm actually going to have to go to 1 and 2-image categories for the Metro-North and NJT systems because they are so complex. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Metra Electric Stations
I know you're following naming conventions, but I named many of those stations **** (Metra Electric) to distinguish them from other stations with identical street numbers. Just thought you ought to know. DanTD (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured, but since those stations have different names (107th Street vs 107th Street-Beverly Hills) the dabnote at the stop was sufficient. I don't think it's necessary to go further unless it's the exact same name (e.g. Western Avenue). Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I see it though, since they're both Metra Stations and both are 107th Street, the further disambiguated they are from each other, the better. Frankly, it wouldn't be such a bad idea if Metra renames a lot of these stations themselves, such as Lake Forest West (Metra) and Lake Forest East (Metra) for example. DanTD (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo undeletions
Certainly have no objection to undeletion if the permission is established. I would, however, highly recommend sending a link to the images and to the website to WP:OTRS so they can verify the permission and add a ticket number to the description. That way if the website goes dead in the future, the evidence of the license is preserved. Thanks for the heads-up and hopefully this is resolved without too much trouble. With respect - Kelly  hi! 19:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Admittedly it's pretty disheartening to spend hours dealing with stuff like this. Given all the really bad "fair-use" problems already lurking on en.wp, I'm really baffled as to why you targeted eight (and only these eight) low-quality images which are pretty obviously under a free license. I'm able to replace most of them via Flickr but it's the principle of the thing. Besides which, it's almost impossible to get an administrator (I know, I am one) to admit getting a deletion wrong so we'll have go pull teeth at DRV, which is never fun. This is why speedy-tagging ought (but isn't) undertaken with more care than your typical xFD nomination. Oh well. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Courcelles 20:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Re; Chesapeake (Amtrak)
I honestly wish I could've done more, which is why I tagged it for experts. If you have any extra info you can throw into the article, by all means throw it in. DanTD (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing
While I'm at it, I have to congratulate you on something; Getting an image for Quantico (Amtrak station). I tried to get one in April, but the US Marines wouldn't let me use the road going towards the station. I was beginning to think I was going to have to wait another two years before I go on Amtrak's Auto Train and try to sneak a picture of the station from there. DanTD (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Delaware & Hudson 16.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Delaware & Hudson 16.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ATSF 10 in Kansas.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ATSF 10 in Kansas.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OP-15046.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:OP-15046.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OP-2596.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:OP-2596.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OP-13629.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:OP-13629.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OP-14453.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:OP-14453.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

HeadleyDown has returned to NeuroLinguisticProgramming
Now under the usernames Snowded and Lam Kin Keung

Note the typical behavior we've seen before at Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.106.37 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox college rivalry
FYI, commentary starting at Template talk:Infobox college rivalry.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox college rivalry
Template:Infobox college rivalry has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox college sports rivalry. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A question about the licensing of self images
Hello Mackensen.

I wonder if I could ask you for a bit of advice and guidance on the copyright status of "self images" on userpages. Another admin has recently twice deleted a long standing userpage self image of mine snapped for me by a friend using my camera and under my direction and control (as I could obviously not take the picture of myself) as I was getting ready to work on the TV broadcast of Game 6 of the 2010 NHL Stanley Cup final in Philadelphia in June, 2010. When I asked the admin why he had deleted it (no explanation had been provided), he gave as the reason "the party who pushed the button on the camera owns the copyright to the work, not the owner of the camera." and as I did not take the photo myself (an impossibility) I "therefore have no legal right to publish this file under a free license."

This seemed to me to be an extraordinarily narrow interpretation of WP policy on copyright in the light that there are litereally hundreds of such images on WP taken under virtually identical circumstances which are accepted as "free" images with the subject of the photos listed as the copyright holder. I gave as a specific example File:Ben Schumin at Iwo Jima Memorial.jpg as well as several hundred other similarly licensed "self" images posted in the "Wikipedia:Facebook Directory" and asked what was different about my self image that made it "non-free" when it was made in exactly the same way hundreds of others licensed as "free". Despite several requests the admin has refused to answer this question, refused to restore my self image, and implied that he would block me from editing if I reuploaded it myself. This image had never been "nominated for deletion", only questioned as because I had failed to remove a watermark that I had added to it for another non-web purpose, and when this was pointed out to me I removed the watermark. The image file resided in my camera's memory card, has always been in my custody and control, and has never been used on any other website or published in print.

It has always been my understanding the Admins are not meant to behave as the "Masters" of the other members of the WP community, or as you once observed in another FFD discussion, "Bureaucracy isn't a stick with which to beat editors." I wonder if you would take a look at the discussions in which I tried to get this admin to answer my question located here, here and here and give me your thoughts on how to deal with this conundrum. I feel that my self image is being discriminated against as being the only one deleted of hundreds of similar images which have not been challenged at all. Many thanks! Centpacrr (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am also curious to know the answer to this question. I'm not necessarily taking sides, but I don't understand the rationale for deletion, and Fastily's comments on the matter have not cleared up my confusion. If there's some special licensing requirement for a friend taking a picture of a wikipedia user, then it needs to be a consistent rule and it needs to be properly explained to us ignoranimusses. <:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, a few observations. WP:PUF is a deletion discussion; I've listed files there myself. It's sort of a proposed deletion mechanism for files. There's nothing improper about the process used, and I'm afraid that your full-throated attack on Fastily over process concerns was counterproductive.

The file was singled out not because the image folks hate you (that part comes later), but because the presence of a watermark, coupled with incomplete source information, are red flags. Nothing about this is unreasonable. Now, the problem is that you've got a really antagonistic relationship with the image folks, and I hope you won't take offense when I say that I agree that your understanding of copyright is incomplete. That's nothing to be ashamed of; copyright law is this country is an utter nightmare. It does mean, however, that they're unlikely to accept your explanations about the source of an image. Strictly speaking Fastily is correct; an image at the instance of creation belongs to the creator. The reason SchuminWeb's image was ignored is because no one tweaked--there's no watermark or anything else. And I have seen some of his images get challenged on Commons.

I've uploaded several pictures where a friend pulled the trigger (I'm not fool enough to point them out but they can be found). In each case the friend understood why I was having the picture taken, and verbally assigned the rights to me. I've never bothered having him email WP:OTRS or some such to confirm this transfer, but if it came to that I could. I think in a situation like this such rigmarole really ought to be unnecessary; assuming that's you in the image (and I have no reason to assume otherwise) you really should have been given the benefit of the doubt. That you weren't is understandable, if unfortunate, given your past history.

So, process. You have asked Fastily to reverse himself. He has declined. It's his right to do so. You have two options. You can challenge the deletion at WP:DRV, or you can have your friend send you an email stating explicitly that he releases the image under some free license. I know a couple image guys who have OTRS access and are pretty stand-up administrators (I think one's even running for Arbcom). I would be more than happy to help you with either process, but I think DRV would be a mistake. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking at this and at least giving me some kind of an explanation. I must say, however, that I find the rationale of selective application of this tortured subjective philosophy of how to apply copyright policy puzzling at best and, with respect, contrary to the underlying purpose of the concept of copyright protection altogether which appears to have been applied here for strictly punitive reasons. I have spent enough time on this issue and will not pursue it further. I have instead decided to take down my user page altogether to avoid further aggravation to myself and others.


 * The reason I registered with WP five years ago was to share with the community what I have learned in my 66 years on earth, especially in the areas of professional ice hockey (in which I have worked for over 40 years) and railroad history (which I am also a principal in a 10,000+ page, twelve year old website), two subjects about which I have also written and/or edited seven published books. I also joined in order to be able to provide access to images of the many historic items in my extensive private collections (especially relating to railroads, aviation, postal history, and historic original documents) which would not be otherwise available to the public. I did not join, however, to "win" barnstars, or to earn service awards and other forms of Wikipedia "merit badges". (I left all that all behind in my Cub Scout days well more than half a century ago.) And I most certainly did not join to end up in periodic bouts of wikilawyering in order to make my contributions to the project. I am afraid that this unfortunate aspect of Wikipedia is one of the reasons that the project has lost many good editors and contributors over time, and I may well be one of them. I have found that a small but significant portion of editors on the project have used it to establish personal fiefdoms or power bases that are in the long run inimicable to the project's stated objectives.


 * While the idea behind Wikipedia is a great concept, like many similar "volunteer" organizations, it eventually devolves into cliques, power bases, and bureaucratic pissing contests featuring Don Quixote-like turf battles that harm its objectives. I really don't have any interest in having to play any more of those games and negotiate the minefields that result from them in order to make my contributions. That being the case, I think will instead significantly decrease what I will now choose to offer to the community from my collections and experience and will leave the field to those who are more interested in process than substance to fight these out among themselves.


 * I thus wish you all well and will now move on to other things. Centpacrr (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Direct answer to Baseball Bugs. The rule is consistent and not special (images are owned by the creator), but not enforced very often. The presence of the watermark was the kicker. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I recall, he said that he uploaded it without the watermark the second time, and they still zapped it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. If this "rule" is traditionally and deliberately "not enforced very often" then is means that it is not really a "rule" at all, but by being applied only selectively and arbitrarily seems to constitute more of a punitive tool used as a pretext to delete files otherwise generally accepted and treated by the community as if free. The previous presence "of the watermark" (which was explained and removed) also seems to have been used as an arbitrary reason to delete the image. The mark's assumed purpose is based purely on speculation, not evidence. In the absence of any actual proof that my self image is "non-free" and was taken from another website or printed publication (there is no such proof as neither is the case), then the "fundamental principle" of the project mandates the community to assume good faith which was also clearly not done in this case. As I noted above, I am not going to pursue this further as this experience has pretty much soured me on WP after five years of what I think have been productive contributions to the project. To that end, I have removed the content of my userpage altogether and will drastically cut back on (if not cease altogether) making any further contributions to the project. Centpacrr (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That's your right, of course, and I've learned the hard way over the years that convincing someone not to quit isn't worth the pain and frustration. You're taking a policy matter personally, which is always a mistake. There's a few things going on here. First of all, the project's view on copyright has changed substantially since you started here. This derives in large part from the realization that the inclusion of "fair use" material isn't very compatible with the creation of a free-content encyclopedia and also from the increasing professionalization of certain aspects of the project.

Copyright is complicated; I work at a university and I can tell you many professors have no idea how it works, and their livelihood depends on it! An image that is watermarked with a Stanley Cup logo isn't at first glance a free image, and just removing the watermark isn't very reassuring. Your assertions about the image weren't taken at face value not because there's a vendetta against you, but because in the past you've made wild assertions about images and copyright coupled with personal attacks on other editors. I think we first encountered each other during the Pioneer Zephyr discussions; I only carried the day by disassociating myself from the statements you were making.

Again, enforcement isn't so much selective as incomplete. It's a big project with a limited number of users and people deal with things as they come to them. Furthermore, if someone went through all the WP:FACEBOOK images they'd no doubt be accused of going on a deletion spree!

Ultimately this is all beside the point. The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free-content encyclopedia. User images, watermarked or no, have very little to do with this. I consider copyright enforcement a necessary evil, but I think it's possible to do business with the administrators involved if you come to it with (a) a positive attitude and (b) at least a grounding in US copyright law and Wikipedia's interpretation of it (which is very strict).

Anyway, I wish you all the best. By my count I have changed the way I participate here at least three times in response to various stimuli, both within and without the project. I hope that you can come to some kind of accommodation. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If I'm hearing you right, the answer to the question of why Schumin gets to keep his picture and Centpacrr doesn't, comes down to the fact that a previous version of Centpacrr's upload contained a Stanley Cup logo? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The decision I have reached to phase out of volunteering my time to contribute to the project is not based on this one incident alone, but on a pattern that I have seen develop over the last couple of years among a few anonymous admins and editors who slavishly emphasize "process" over "substance" and "punish" those who stand up for themselves (especially when the admin is overturned or his position is not supported by the community) on the inclusion of legitimate content added in good faith by myself and others. That being the case, I will phase out my activity on WP as the registered user "Centpacrr" over the next few days and only contribute in the future (if at all) quietly and anonymously. It is not that I think that WP is not a worthwhile endeavor, and I am proud of the many contributions I have made in the open and having fully personally identified myself, my background, and my interests. But parts of the project's culture and environment have become so toxically bureaucratic that it is no longer worth the aggravation to continue contributing as a openly identifiable registered user. Centpacrr (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent) Bugs, that's the way I see it. Also, no one has formally challenged SchuminWeb's image. I think it would be pointy and disruptive to do so. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... And that is a perfect example of why I am moving on: Why would it be "pointy and disruptive" to challenge the SchuminWeb image when by Fastily's standards he would have "no legal right" to use it on WP while it is perfectly fine to challenge and zap mine? That's overtly disparate treatment and the application -- or actually misapplication -- of "process over substance". Centpacrr (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

One final question

 * Would it also be "pointy and disruptive" to question the copyright status of the image File:Ben Schumin meets Jimbo Wales, 06-13-2011.jpg which User:SchuminWeb lists himself as the source ("Own work") and gives as the justification "(my camera, taken for me, so close enough)"? For other examples of what appear to be similar possible image file copyright "violations" by this user see here, here, here, here, and here.
 * This is a serious question and I would truly appreciate an answer as this is the admin who has been wikistalking and/or "eldering" me for months about copyright issues of image files both of mine and others about which I have commented in FFD and PUF discussions. And again this is exactly the kind of administrative abuse, hypocrisy, and overtly disparate treatment that has soured me on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, per, e.g. this interpretation of "...the party who pushed the button on the camera owns the copyright to the work, not the owner of the camera." (which is an argument I have seen several times before), if someone takes a picture for you, even with your camera, you are not the copyright holder, and are therefore neither the owner of the image nor able to release it as your own work. SchuminWeb clearly had someone take these for him, and therefore is not the copyright holder and cannot release them to the Commons as his own work. This is strange indeed... Doc   talk  07:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. (I would still appreciate Mackensen to respond to this question as well.) Centpacrr (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * SchuminWeb may need a nudge as well - you can do the honors of informing him since you brought him up, but I don't believe you are required to ;> I would like to know: 1) if he/and most admins agree with the interpretation of "camera owner vs. picture-taker" provided by the fellow admin above, and 2) if so, could he explain how the images that you've noted (aside from this one, which seems fine and this one, which is likely a desktop camera) are truly his copyrights to release in the first place. Ain't policy interpretation fun?  Doc   talk  08:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My real point here is that SchuminWeb and Fastily can't have it both ways. The reason that copyright exists is to protect the creative, intellectual, and commercial rights to one's works. When someone hands his or her camera to another and asks that person (whom he or she may not even know) to point the camera at its owner, push the button, and give it back, I believe it is a gross misinterpretation of copyright law that the "creative, intellectual, and commercial rights" remain with the person who did the ministerial act of "pushing the button" while the camera and medium (film, flash card, etc) on which the image is stored is owned by and in the exclusive control of the person whose likeness appears in the photograph and under whose direction and control it was made.


 * If SchuminWeb believes that this is the case (as do I and apparently so does the vast majority of the WP community), then he has no cause or right to claim that my image should be treated any differently. I don't believe that either his images or mine violate either the letter or spirit of the copyright law as to who really owns the rights -- the owner of the camera used to take pictures of that person, but he can't have it both ways. These images must all be treated by the same rules. Centpacrr (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are definitely preaching to the choir here. If I held a camera in front of myself and snapped a picture, it's my copyright, right? But if I gave it to a friend standing two feet away to snap while I held up some beers or something... it's now their copyright, and therefore I can't call it my own work? Bizarre, but I'm sure quite true. It's often a murky, murky pond this copyright thing. I'm as eager to hear the answers to these confusing issues as you are. Good luck - I'll be watching ;> Doc   talk  08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The primary issue is equality and thus image files created under these conditions must all be treated as either "free" or as "non-free". Selectively applying a standard of "...the party who pushed the button on the camera owns the copyright to the work, not the owner of the camera" to a single image making it "non-free" while deliberately, knowingly, and overtly accepting all the others produced exactly the same way (i.e. as belonging to the camera owners for whom they were taken) and thus "free" is contrary to WP policy and guidelines. The same criteria must be applied equally to all image files. If my image is not acceptable then neither are any of these. On the other hand if the SchuminWeb and other similar images are acceptable, then so is mine. They may not, however, be the subject of overtly disparate treatment. Centpacrr (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One question: Regarding the guy who snapped the shutter, is he a wikipedia user also? If not, perhaps you could ask him to create an account for this express purpose. Then he could upload the original photo, with metadata intact and presumably with no watermark, and release it as a free photo. Then you (or anyone else) could link to it. If they're going to jerk you around with "process" games, maybe playing their own game is the only way to win. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm quite sure he is not, Bugs, and he also does not now (nor has he ever) possessed the file. Even if he did, however, I think that is basically irrelevant as it is not really my main point of contention. The issue and principle here is applying the "rules" uniformly and fairly as opposed to selectively and punitively. Why should an admin's image file (or other similar file on WP) be treated differently than anybody else's? If this particular copyright rule applies to my image, than under WP policy it must be applied equally to all others. That being the case, how could asking that question in a PUF or FFD listing possibly be considered to be "pointy and disruptive" behavior?


 * I do not see this as a contest about anybody either "winning" or "losing", but it is instead to defend a principle (not unlike that enumerated in U.S. Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1, the "Equal Protection Clause") and helping to assure equal treatment for all members of the WP community including both SchuminWeb and myself. In fact I don't think his images should be deleted any more than should mine have been. But if the "standard" for such self pictures is really what Fastily says it is, then he should not hesitate to delete SchuminWebs' images as "non-free" even though that would be a shame and unfair to him. Centpacrr (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the kind of issue that could be taken to Wales himself. He's the visible face of Wikipedia, and as such should be concerned about that kind of issue as much as (if not more than) "process". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

On re-reading Fastily's talk page I'm concerned enough to open a DRV. It's here:. I think I've stated the issues plainly. Centpacrr, I must emphasize that if you go for somebody's head (not that I'd blame you) it will not turn out well. I would just reiterate that a friend took the picture, that you had the watermark on it because you used it elsewhere, and leave it at that. It's Fastily, not you, who will have to justify his actions. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your help. I have added an explanation of how the picture was made as well as the origin of the watermark to the DRV. By the way you said in the DRV that the image had been uploaded in 2007, but that was an earlier and different image. It was replaced in 2010 by the image in question which was taken on June 9, 2010. I corrected the date (2007-->2010) in your original posting. Centpacrr (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I missed that. Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI see here.Centpacrr (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw it but I'd to see the DRV play itself out for now. It's an interesting discussion all the same; I feel like we went through this a few years back with Betacommand. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had actually never heard of this admin, let alone had any interactions with him, before he deleted my image files without explanation last week. But apparently SchuminWeb communicated with him via an off site email about me on November 28 after I had asked him to explain the disparate treatment between these two image files. (He never did.) As this communication between the two admins was done "off site" obviously I could not respond to defend myself against whatever was said. I presume, however, that it had some significant effect on how Fastily dealt with me afterwards. Centpacrr (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, Centpacrr: that diff is not proof of any off-wiki communication related to any specific incident involving you or any other user, or even anything related to WP. They could have been e-mailing about fantasy football picks between themselves. Doc   talk  09:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This belief is based on the timing of the "email notice" posted on Fastily's talk page which happened immediately after I had posted a response to SchuminWeb's comments in conjunction with the subsequent comments made to me by Fastily about "attacking" SchuminWeb and to unspecified, unsupported references to "given your track record" that that did not appear to be based on anything in either the "on site" discussions or elsewhere in record. (I had never had any interactions with Fastily prior to his deleting my images less than two weeks ago so there is no way he would know anything about my five year edit history.) While my evidence as to the content and purpose of the email is indeed "circumstantial", in context those circumstances which lead me to my conclusion are also strong in my view and thus I believe relevant to be considered. Centpacrr (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand why you arrived at that conclusion, but it's neither here nor there in regards to actual evidence. Remember: I'm trying to help you here! Abandon this particular part of the argument is what I would do, as it is fruitless. There is no reasonable way to ascertain the motive, content, timing, etc. of that e-mail (if there actually was one, of course). Doc   talk  11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given Fastily's implications (with no evidence) that Centpacrr is an impostor, I don't trust Fastily to be telling the truth about anything at this point. Unless I've overlooked something (and someone can let me know if I have), Centpacrr's real identity is plainly obvious, yet he doesn't have an article about himself in wikipedia, but only what he's got on his own user page. If his real purpose was self-promotion, he would have written such an article and would have been bounced long ago. He and I have clashed in the past, but it was strictly over facts and content. The vibe I get is that he's proud to be associated with Philly sports, and I don't see where there's any rule against that. Meanwhile, I don't specifically recall having any clashes with Fastily, but his stonewalling and double-standard and accusations of bad-faith in this situation, are very troubling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Central Michigan Chippewas football roster
Template:Central Michigan Chippewas football roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mountaineer (train)
Hello! Your submission of Mountaineer (train) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  03:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Fumblerooski, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page The Daily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

New category
I just created a new category; Category:Passenger trains of the Illinois Central Railroad. So if you're interested in making any more articles on IC passenger trains*which appears to be the case), you can always add this one, rather than the main ICRR category. DanTD (talk)

DYK for Mountaineer (train)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Land O'Corn
Merry Christmas Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Transit Expressway Revenue Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Transit Expressway Revenue Line
Hello! Your submission of Transit Expressway Revenue Line at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Transit Expressway Revenue Line
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Turboliner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Milton Nunez (boxer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Colombian


 * Sammy Gutiérrez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Colombian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MBTA Brandeis Waltham.jpg
I attempted to given some semblance of white balance to File:MBTA Brandeis Waltham.jpg. I know the lights are yellow, but that seemed unrealistic. It's just a test; feel free to make your own better version or revert if you wish. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. It's not that great of an image, but I decided that on the balance of things it was better than nothing. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice
You participated in the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, which occured following the closure of Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24. Be advised that I have opened Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited MBTA Commuter Rail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MARC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rayment
Given your comment back on 31 January 2006 in Template talk:Rayment you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. -- PBS (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. When you recently edited Michigan City (Amtrak station), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Shore Line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No Image Trains plaque
The File:Project Trains no image.png is facing the threat of a deletion, again. DanTD (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln, Nebraska Amtrak station
You couldn't have timed your request better; I'm planning to be in Lincoln with my camera this weekend. Ammodramus (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thanks! I hope an opportunity presents itself. Word of warning--it's apparently a little difficult to approach at the moment. This article describes how to actually reach the station at the moment. Thanks again, Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With apologies for the delay, photos are up at Commons:Category:Lincoln, Nebraska Amtrak station. You were right about the difficulty of approaching; I had to get three of the four shots from the O Street overpass, and one while clinging halfway up a lamppost in the Haymarket in order to shoot over the top of an 8-foot fence.  I'll stick one photo in the infobox for Lincoln, Nebraska (Amtrak station); feel free to replace it if you think one of the others works better for the article.  Ammodramus (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks so much! I really do appreciate it. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to oblige; and thanks for the barnstar. Ammodramus (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. When you recently edited Twilight Limited, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffalo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Amtrak stations in California; Saved from Deletion
I have removed the prod tag from Amtrak stations in California, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. Article has been renamed as List of Amtrak stations in California, and added to a template that officially saves it from the orphanage If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks! . DanTD (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me; I may revisit this in a year or two. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you know what I'd like to see though? I'd like to see the list reformatted into a chart, which would also include former railroads that operated the stations. I'm working on that for a proposed List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations right now. DanTD (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hoyt Hall
Mackensen - you added a hatnote to Berkeley Student Cooperative noting that the Hoyt Hall at U of Miami is at a different place. If you think it's notable enough, make Hoyt Hall redirect to the one in Ohio, and put a hatnote there redirecting people to the Berkeley Student Coop instead - the reason that Hoyt Hall redirects to the Berkeley Student Ccop is that there used to be articles for each house in the system, which have (mostly) been merged into one, with redirects. Argyriou (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mackensen/Schlieffen Plan
I noticed that you have written a Wikipedia page on the debates over the Schlieffen Plan(User:Mackensen/Schlieffen Plan), and I was wondering if we should add some of the material in your article to the article on the Schlieffen Plan. Even though I have some interest in the topic of World War I, I am definitely not an expert on the Schlieffen plan or military history in general. That is why I would like to know your opinion regarding the idea of adding material from your article to Schlieffen Plan.

My reason for asking this question is that last October, a contributor to Wikipedia tried to add to the article on the Schlieffen Plan the opinion of Zuber that the canonical view of the Schlieffen Plan is not accurate. The problem was that he did not know how to edit the article according to the encyclopedic format. Consequently, his comments were removed from the article by another contributor, and after that, an administrator transferred the comments to the talk page and said that they were worthy of the attention of an expert. Another contributor has since stated that his concerns should be addressed. If you go to Talk:Schlieffen Plan, they are under the heading "Comments of 65.78.225.28".

If his concerns are valid, then we can address them by moving material from your article to Schlieffen plan. Please let me know your thoughts on this.JDefauw (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)JDefauw
 * Since I put that page together I've changed professions and fallen out of the loop. I know for example that the Bundesarchiv in Potsdam has brought out a new edition of planning documents (4-5 years ago) that's been very influential in the discussion, but I haven't read that collection nor any papers dealing with the matters since. My page was also framed from Zuber's coverage of the historiography, which would itself constitute undue weight and be open to criticism. The IP (and I suspect the IP is Zuber himself) makes good criticisms and that article still needs an overhaul. I just don't have the time right now to get back up to speed on the subject. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your input. It sounds like it would not be wise for me to make any significant changes or additions to the article unless I gain access to recent articles or books on the discussion about Zuber's theory.  If we are reasonably confident that Zuber's opinion is held by at least a significant minority of scholars (and not an extremely small minority), then someone should at least add a paragraph to the article that summarizes Zuber's opinion.  Hopefully, some time in the future, an expert will help improve this articleJDefauw (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dusanh/Dhrist sockpuppetry
Regarding this, I wanted to let you know that I have opened this sockpuppetry report. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 15:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom
Hi. Any chance you might be considering it again? : ) - jc37 17:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever, but thanks for asking. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. (and you're quite welcome : ) - Happy editing : ) - jc37 22:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This talk page section brought a big smile to my face. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mystified
Somewhat ignorant of coding or otherwise I cannot make head or tail out of the problem stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orderinchaos - it would be great to either have an explanation of how it works, or an excuse to dismantle the format and start again... SatuSuro 14:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC) was wanting to tweak the terminology re the particular railway line, the operators name, the actual stopping places versus the actual historical list of locations on the line, and a few other things - is there a simpler form of template? SatuSuro 22:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me from your message on User talk:Orderinchaos what the problem is. I did assist with rolling out those templates; they use which is pretty widely used on the project. What's the problem? Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * that explains everything - too many ifs inside that one.
 * I'm sorry, so you want to roll out a set of templates for a historical operator? You might find simpler in that case, and you can use it in place of s-line. Using s-rail/s-line does have some initial startup costs with which I'm willing to assist. Mackensen (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * never apologise in this place :) -  there are about 40 branch lines/sections (mostly truncated or closed) of the late WAGR system that I wanted to eventually set up articles and route descriptions..
 * the problem with the australind service (which the original head banging at orderinchaoses talk page was about) - there was the old steam era version of the service, then the diesel version and now the most recent railcar - and the rail line and stopping places have been altered just slightly as a result - i have no idea whether the nuances can be picked up in the s-rail template - if i read it right - as i need 3 levels of operator/stopping place - whether there is a non template manual way that is better to work, not sure...  SatuSuro 03:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, gotcha. Well if it's all the same operator than that's pretty simple. Let me mock something up for you here (keeping in mind I know very little about the service).

Like this? Different termini would require more tweaking, but this example stands alone. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your example - getting close, looks good!! - but problem is there are some stopping places in between who were WAGR stopping places but no longer are (ie technically 3 diff systems - Transwa (predecessors WAGR Steam, WAGR Deisel) so  x place - can be utilised by all 3 wagr steam, wagr diesel, transwa) with variations in between...SatuSuro 05:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving mockup below. I'm going to show two different takes. Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

w0w - thanks for the effort - with these examples I have something to work with - thank you for your effort - I just have to get a handle of a few lists I need to get and work out which way to present the info - and find the time to get the material in - the examples are very useful - appreciate that - cheers SatuSuro 12:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, just let me know. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football
Articles for deletion/Alabama–Texas A&M football rivalry.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Gulou Station
thanks! Azylber (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Mackensen (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD for Highest-grossing films in overseas markets
Hi Mackensen, I noticed that you closed the AFD for Highest-grossing films in overseas markets as delete. I'm disappointed that the discussion didn't get relisted again. Every single delete vote occurred before I pointed out additional sources and clarified what the subject actually was. Many of the people in favor of deleting the topic were saying it should be deleted because the subject was unclear, but actually the subject as covered in the sources is fairly clear, and it was just the poorly chosen name of the article that made the Wikipedia article unclear. In addition some of the delete votes were based on the assumption that the list was made just by subtracting numbers in one list from another, when actually it is a topic discussed in and of itself. Now that the topic has been clarified and more sources have been pointed out, I think it is possible that people would have a different opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. I was hoping you would reconsider and would relist the discussion. Calathan (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the number of participants I don't think a relist would have been appropriate, especially given that two people who previously commented discussed those sources with you and didn't change their position. Relisting really shouldn't be a substitute for a second round of AfD (in my view). That being said, if you were to write an entirely different article with those and other sources it might well survive a deletion discussion. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Baku
Ugh, not again. Thanks for letting me know ... bots are getting too fast for their own good these days! Graham 87 03:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
—Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1976 Independence Bowl
( X! ·  talk )  · @353  · 12:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Webclient101 talk 06:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Heim theory AfD
Hello! It was noted during the discussion that the AfD page was incorrectly named—it was the third nomination—but also that renaming it in the middle of the discussion would be problematic. Now that it’s closed, could you please fix it? Thanks.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I noted that myself when closing. For completeness, I'll also move the older discussion to the proper ordinal once I've cleaned up the redirects and links. Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I moved 2nd to 3rd, re-pointed all the links, and then moved second to 2nd. Everything appears to be set now. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Karin Magnussen
I am the person who created the Karin Magnussen page, which I crossposted to 'paolosilv.wordpress.com." I can certainly delete it from there, and let you have the page. Sorry for the inconvenience, and have a happy new years!Valleyspring (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the relevant material from my wordpress.comValleyspring (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks.
 * Thanks; I've restored. Mackensen (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(Happy New Year) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2013. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2013 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Talk:Great books redirect -- result is circular
Mackensen: Thanks for the change, but now we get a circular redirect on the talk page. Can you fix please?--S. Rich (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I botched that. Better? Mackensen (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Much! Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Aerial Black
Do you know why certain templates are displaying an odd font? Please see WP:VPT. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied at TWP and Village Pump. I can't reproduce. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Denial of a problem is the first step towards redemption
Removing my posts will not stop the problem that UK Railways faces.

Meaningfull discussion of the problem and how to tackle it is the way forward. Bhtpbank (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it because there was no meaningful way forward. You continue to insult people. Your entire message was offensive, starting from the assumption that I was somehow a major figure in the project. I'm not. I mostly work on US articles. If you were any kind of regular editor, you might know that. If we're going to have what you call a "meaningful" discussion, it starts with you treating other editors with respect. You are either incapable or unwilling to do that. I personally have no interest in having this discussion with you as my focus is on the United States, and I have no knowledge of BR chairmen. You might consider "tackling" this "problem" by writing a sourced article on Reid. Denigrating the contributions of others because their priorities apparently don't match yours (except that you've not edited on the subject either) is a complete non-starter. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Arb amendment
Many thanks for your comment. Acts like this mean a great deal to me. Rich Farmbrough, 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

CFC – Youth for Christ
You closed this discussion after only 2 days, without a consensus, infact there were more "Keeps" than "Deletes". May I ask why? I generally vote to delete these minor Christian organizations, but in this case the arena seemed quite open until you deleted it. Can I intrigue you to let this discussion run it's full course? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion opened on December 23, so with the relist had run well over a week. AfD isn't a head count and none of the people who favored keep brought forth anything useful other than personal experience. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will grant that, but after the re-list, two keeps were added (good ones with fresh info), and only one delete (a repeat of former deletes) which if anything would seem to lean the "no consensus" toward a keep, and not the other direction, don't you agree? I feel that you have closed this AfD early, after only two days, and gently encourage you to re-open it and let it run it's course. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it was closed early. Strictly speaking, WP:RELIST doesn't require an additional full measure of debate: "[a] relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." More importantly, there had been ample, informative discussion. Two people did indeed argue for keep afterward. One added some Google searches, which were not helpful (to the article) as demonstrated by another commenter. You were the other, and I'm afraid that I found your comment unhelpful because you asserted something not proved (in my view) by the rest of the debate. Notability needs to be asserted based on sources. As an impartial administrator closing a debate, I can't rely on people, however well-intentioned, saying that "[in] my experience, this is a significant organization" or " I can confirm that Couples for Christ and its youth branch Youth for Christ are quite prominent in the Philippines." SwisterTwister, who never actually rendered an opinion, provided links to several advertisements in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which amount to self-published material. BruceHall linked to a Wikia site to support a claim of notability, which we can't allow. As I noted in my close, a new article, written from sources supporting an assertion of notability, would be fine.
 * Thanks for coming here and discussing this with me, but I decline to reverse my close. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flambeau 400, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flambeau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

safesubst:
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_Pittsburgh_neighborhood&diff=533430013&oldid=533427786 this is what you want], but I'm sure you already knew that. Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't actually--I figured something like that existed, but if I ever knew what it was I couldn't remember and couldn't find it. I was loath to noinclude the notice since it would preclude discussion (not that there's any real debate but old habits die hard)> Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness
Just FYI Star Trek into Darkness was a fully protected page. Can't say I disagree with you, but I'm not sure how 'rouge' you wanted to be. :)  Prodego  talk  01:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well aware. I'll die on this hill ;). Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It happens if you move a page to a target that exists. You can either move the page and delete the target, or move the page and the talk page, but not both for some reason. Prodego  talk  02:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, weird. Learn something new every day. Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it comes to an RFC (unlikely, but who knows), send me mail per wikipedia e-mail so I can post my analysis. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it comes to that I think I'll throw in the towel and call it a good run ;). By the way, it's always a pleasure working with you. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Same to you: Always a pleasure working with nice people who know what they're doing! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness move
Please explain why you moved this page when there was no consensus to do so, which violates one of the most important policies of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Scjessey, quit being a wikilawyering Vogon. Just because you do not agree with consensus does not mean that there isn't a consensus. Your posts here honestly come off as nothing but a temper tantrum. I don't know whether you need to quit beating the dead horse or pull the stick out of your ass, but you need to drop it either way. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because we looked like idiots and you brought the project into disrepute. If there was actually consensus to incorrectly use the Manual of Style (a guideline) to violate WP:COMMONNAME (a policy), then that consensus was simply wrong and must be ignored. I'm sorry. Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's completely unacceptable and a gross violation of policy. WP:COMMONNAME wasn't even mentioned at MOS:CT until someone added it earlier today. 2 wrongs don't make a right. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, do you know what's unacceptable? Claiming that the manual of style trumps reality. Insisting on a title that no one else, including organizations with style guides, uses. It flies in the face of common sense. That the MOS didn't mention COMMONNAME until recently is because it never occurred to anyone that it needed to be made explicit. Apparently it does because if it doesn't we get outcomes like this and mocked by the world for our arrogance and stupidity. Mackensen (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have utterly failed to understand the debate and you have ignored consensus. You have abused your sysop rights (and I am not the only one saying so). You let a cartoon dictate your actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I understood the debate perfectly. I saw this madness before during the discussion over Straight Outta Lynwood in 2007. If I've abused my sysop rights I'll answer for it at the appropriate time in the appropriate forum. As for your accusation that I let a "cartoon" (I believe the term would be webcomic) dictate my actions, I reject it. I learned of this insanity from xkcd, but independently decided that decisive action was called for because our processes had broken down and utterly failed. If I'd let xkcd dictate my actions I would have moved the article to the ridiculous title it activated. You need to step back and consider the purpose of your participation. The encyclopedia must come first. Mackensen (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You should've let the debate play out. You put the FILM and the "WEBCOMIC" first, not Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The debate, such as it was, had played out for 400,000 words already without managing to realize the obvious. It was clearly broken and failing. This happens. When it happens, it's necessary to act boldly and put things right again. I put the encyclopedia first, not a wrong-headed interpretation of the Manual of Style. My actions have helped the encyclopedia. Yours have brought it into disrepute. Mackensen (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you will now rush off to move the HUNDREDS of other pages that have the same issue. Or was it just this one that bothered you? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This one was obviously wrong. If other obviously wrong articles come to my specific attention I will engage them as appropriate. I am unfamiliar with a requirement to immediately correct all problems before correcting any problems, and I believe what's left of Wikipedia's editing model would disintegrate under such a regime. I'm interested in the topic as an editor, though I don't believe I'd edited the article previously, and as a user of fairly long-standing who believes in the project I'm interested in the project not being mocked for poor decision-making. Quite enough of that as it is. Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well we were using "Star Trek into Darkness" as a sort of "test case" at MOS:CT because it had a high profile and attacted lots of editors. We have hundreds of articles that have similar issues, with some using uppercase prepositions and some using lowercase. It seemed that a consensus was forming for ALL prepositions within the body of a composition title to be lowercase (the same standard used by the Chicago Manual of Style). I am sure you think you are doing the right thing, but you have essentially stamped all over one of the core policies in favor of one of the lesser ones. Anyway, I've said my piece on this now. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heaven knows it would be the height of irresponsibility if I didn't think I was doing the right thing. By the same token, I don't doubt your good faith, but I strongly believe that you've lost perspective and are missing the forest for the trees. Wikipedia should never be the odd man out without a good reason. Adherence to the Manual of Style isn't such a reason. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mackensen did the right thing. Wikipedia is not -- yet -- a place where policy is so sacrosanct that it trumps common sense, or forces us to continue to do stupid things even as the world is laughing at us.  Our process, in this case, had gotten stuck, rather like my sister's dog, who instead of turning around three times before lying down (like a normal dog), would sometimes lose his place and turn around forever, until my sister would shout, "Matisse, lie down!", at which point the dog would obediently lie down and go to sleep.  That's about what Mackensen helped us do here. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't get to personally decide for the rest of us. Your move was completely out of order.-- JOJ Hutton  03:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to, and it's pretty clear I'm not the one in a minority (as even Scjessey has acknowledged). Let me ask you this: how is it that we apparently decide what a feature film is called, when no other source agrees with us? We're an encyclopedia. We reflect reality; we don't create it. My actions were entirely appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there ARE sources that use the lowercase "into". Not many, but a few. They were noted in several of the threads. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The official documentation uses the uppercase I
 * The majority of sources use the uppercase I
 * By your own admission, "few" sources use the lowercase i.
 * WP:AT, which is policy, which trumps guidelines, says to use the common name, which is the uppercase I.
 * The argument for lowercase i is from the MOS, which is a guideline, which does not trump policy.
 * The "compromise" still left the article with the lowercase title in the article name and in the article proper.
 * The "compromise" acknowledged that everyone else spelled it with a capital I
 * Consensus does not have to be unanimous, it is not a binary state of "everyone agrees with you" or "no consensus."
 * A good many people at the talk page acknowledge this in various ways, and they are not "no consensus."
 * Not wanting to fix prior work is not an excuse to keep making the same mistakes.
 * I reject your insistence there was a consensus. You obviously don't understand what consensus actually means. Your comment is needlessly antagonistic and unnecessary, and shows an utter disregard for WP:AGF. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I endorse the concerns with regard to your actions as stated by Scjessey and JOJ. The conversation had gone on for a while and was dying down with most parties accepting "no consensus" until further information came to light. The wound was opened by some media coverage yesterday, which brought a whole load of new editors to the page, mostly inexperienced.  Concerns were raised at the new move discussion at the admin noticeboard and the new discussion was speedily closed due to the prior non consensus.  Another admin move-protected the page, which you blatantly ignored, claiming you were being bold.  This is a complete abuse of your sysop privileges, as the matter was clearly controversial.  Also, it is not in spirit with the WP:BRD cycle, which requires you to be bold, revert, discuss, so a controversial move such as this should instantly be reverted, then discussed.  And as far as "bringing Wikipedia into disrepute" goes, I direct you to WP:NCCAPS, which states: "Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". This is just after the bit that directs you to MOS:CT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rob, I think you are misunderstanding the intended chain of events in BRD and I encourage you to read it again. Nathan  T 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I support Mackensen unreservedly. The article was completely unsatisfactory, the arguments against amounted to little more than obstructive pedantry and it frankly made wikipedia look stupid, as several external sources have now pointed out. Bold action using logic and common sense was needed to resolve this rather than for this to stretch on for more weeks in a swamp of bureaucratic shite and the article is now correct. Will we now see a flood of people to the article complaining that it should be "into"? No, because its just wrong and never should have been. Nsign (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not the titling of the article, but the inappropriate abuse of administrator privileges demonstrated by this editor. WP:ARBCOM here we come.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ye gods. An editor acts to cut through the chaotic quagmire of bickering and bureaucratic pedantry that has swamped an article for weeks and sees no sign of abating, correctly titles it, gives his reasons and yet here we are. Welcome to wikipedia. Nsign (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. The editor abused his admin privileges to do so.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you can let someone else rule on that. Looking at his page I suspect he knows his way around here. The article and the discussion were a disgrace and I suspect many will agree with the actions he took in exceptional circumstances. Nsign (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, intending to take it to WP:ARBCOM if Scjessey hasn't already done so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee, of which I have twice been a member, will reject it because it's not an emergency situation, it's a single edit, and because other steps such as an RfC have not been exhausted. You would be further wasting everyone's time. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I will explore other avenues regarding your actions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, an RfC requires two certifiers, evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute, and (in general) an on-going problem. One edit to a protected page, which is the only alleged abuse (and I would contest that characterization most strongly), doesn't satisfy the third point. You apparently don't believe I'm acting in good faith, but I'll give you advice anyway. The consensus on the talk page overwhelmingly supports my move. Your focus should be there, even if it means disengagement. Mackensen (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My focus has been there - I have been involved in the discussions regarding page titling from the beginning. The fact that some negative media coverage has allowed this move to be steamrollered through against our MOS because a sysop abuses his privileges is what concerns me now.  As far as two certifiers go, I'm sure Scjessey and JOJ above, or the 2-3 editors that have left messages on my talk page will be willing.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear on this, I was not acting as an administrator when I moved the article. You seem unclear on this point. The article was not protected at the time, and no special permission is necessary to execute a move. Certainly not from WP:RM, which doesn't even have policy status. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what you did do! A view of the log  will show that it was move blocked for all non-admin users by 28bytes.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that all protection had been lowered for non-administrators. I apologize for the good faith misunderstanding. I would have advocated for it to be lowered as well prior to making the move. None of this affects the consensus on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you admit that you shouldn't have moved it, and that it was an abuse of priveleges (albeit unintentional) to do so? I'd suggest that you move it back and await the outcome of the RM.  By moving it, you've shifted the focus and thus have influenced the outcome of the argument.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's for the community to judge. Given the overwhelming consensus on the talk page I think any move would be highly disruptive. I disagree that my move has prejudiced the outcome; it's clear from comments that people have weighed the merits of the two titles. If it were closer you might have an argument. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it's a disruptive move? You should have thought about disruptive moves before taking the matter into your own hands and moving it in the first place, considering the history of the discussion, and the amount of recentism on the talk page due to media coverage.  We'd requested a stay at the admin notice board due to the deluge of inexperienced editors requesting moves and not taking into account previous discussions, which you also seemed not to take into account. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The current article is CORRECT, supported by an overwhelming majority and should be left as is - move it back and we open the gates of hell. Let's get on with our lives. Nsign (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, now that there's been a move and extension, productive, discussion, moving it again for dubious process reasons would be disruptive. Consensus can change. Do you think there's consensus on the talk page for a move? I certainly don't. And yes, you're right. Media coverage alerted many of us that Wikipedia's processes had failed on a particular article and that outside attention (fresh sets of eyes, if you will) was required. There's nothing illegitimate about that. You should be making all these arguments on the talk page, not here. I'm not going to change my mind.
 * Also, it would be a courtesy if you would stop editing your comments to include new arguments immediately after saving. It's a hardship to get edit-conflicted on my own talk page. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By asking whether I "think there's consensus on the talk page for a move" demonstrates how the focus of the argument has shifted by your ill-advised move. And these "fresh sets of eyes" that you welcome seem to have blatant disregard and ignorance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  It is now not possible to comment on the requested move, as it's been closed.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been an unseemly, dirty business. Mackensen acted rashly and abused the bit in the process; however, I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to make more of a fuss about this then I made yesterday. I'm not happy about the way this went down, but I'm tired of swimming against the current. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the right call - anyone claiming that this could have been resolved by wading through more weeks of Wiki-bureaucracy is deluding themselves. Until the title was changed the arguments, move requests and bickering would have continued indefinitely - we all know it and that would have been untenable, and made the article/talk page more of an embarrassment than it already was. Nsign (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. The discussion here was helping shape a discussion at MOS:CT. We were trying to resolve the flaw in MOS and make sure we had consistency across the whole of Wikipedia. This abusive action basically shit all over that effort and shit all over WP:CONSENSUS. Your best bet is to STFU and let the fire die down unattended, because at the moment I feel like burning down a few villages. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fascinated that you don't see a problem with holding articles hostage to an arcane discussion involving the MOS, consequences be damned. Dirty business indeed, but not on my part. Anyway, unless there's to be further calling for my head I think this discussion is concluded. I'll repeat what I've said all along: you need to rethink your priorities. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, your best bet is to take a breath and calm down, lad. There's no reason why that discussion at MOS:CT can't continue (although if you want my two cents you'll never get consistency across Wikipedia). The simple fact is that the Trek article was clearly wrong and it is now correct, supported by an overwhelming majority and CommonName, and it should never have taken this long to get here. Nsign (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your advice -- and his -- cuts both ways. He said, "Your best bet is to let the fire die down unattended".  You said, "take a breath and calm down".  So why doesn't everybody put down their sticks and leave the dead horse to rest in peace.  —Steve Summit (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More than happy to. A shame that some people have decided they have to post messages telling other users to "shut the fuck up" as our friend Scjessey did 5 minutes ago on my talk page. Nsign (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, as a closing thought, that I haven't seen this much foul-mouthed bad faith in years. Absolutely incredible. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good call to me, Mackensen. Thanks for being a level head. Nathan  T 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

work title capitalization
With regards to this, how about engaging in the process yourself? (I disagree with applying WP:IAR, by the way, as I don't believe rules for capitalization and common usage capitalization have to contradict each other) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That discussion is insane (I did read it before acting) and of no obvious benefit to the encyclopedia. I've written parts of the MOS and it always left a bad taste in my mouth. I'm happy to let other editors with more energy resolve the question. Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Anyhow, thanks for taking note of the wider issue. Hope you didn't feel pestered (in light of your "No Solicitation" box). Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for a pretty negative response, but my time here is limited and I'd rather write articles and move images to commons (boy, that's sad on re-reading). Also sad is that by engaging in this discussion I believe I've established a "business relationship" with every interested user ;). Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hat tip
I've closed the latest page move as endorsing your page move. IAR is still a functional rule, I see... :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Via Rail rolling stock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombardier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

UAC Turbo Train
Hi. I restored the reference to the Bachmann Industries model turbo train. It isn't an ad, this model train hasn't been produced for some fifty years. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Mackensen; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Rail text color
I see that you created Template:Rail text color, which provides colored links to rail station articles. Why? I mean, I see why the "previous/following" navboxes would use colors to indicate different rail lines, but what's the use of coloring the actual link text in the body of an article? Not only does there not seem (to me) to be a compelling reason to do this, it actually appears to run counter to an item in our Manual of Style (which, granted, was not there when you created the template, but is there now, and does seem to make sense as a general guideline). - dcljr (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it links to lines and not stations and is used primarily for Berlin U-Bahn articles. It appears to have been six years ago and I confess I don't recall the specifics. My vague recollection is that there were inline styles in use in articles so standardizing them within a template made good sense. As you say the MoS was silent on the matter, and for all that the MoS was treated with far less importance at the time. I've had nothing to do with that template, or those series of articles, in years. I've no interest in the outcome one way or the other. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I guess I'll just ask the WikiProject Trains folks what they want to do about it. It looks like the template is used in infoboxes as well as running text; perhaps the second usage is not actually encouraged. - dcljr (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

AfDs
Hello. Since you participated in Articles for deletion/2012 Buffalo State Bengals football team, I would like to inform you that two articles have been renominated. If you are interested, please see Articles for deletion/2008 Buffalo State Bengals football team (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/2007 St. Norbert Green Knights football team (2nd nomination). Best, Edge3 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Just letting you that subsequent AfD nominations are posted at:
 * Articles for deletion/2011 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2011 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2010 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2010 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2009 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2009 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2008 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Edge3 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)