User talk:Meegs/Archive 5

Someday, Somehow AfD
Hi Meegs, I got your message about Someday, Somehow. I'll add a standard AfD tag. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ wp:space ) 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivility of User:ILike2BeAnonymous
From his talk page I can see that you have dealt with him on this topic before. In the Haditha killings article talk page he made the following comment to another user which I think is clearly uncivil and in the spirit of Wikipedia:


 * You post a link to the National Review&mdash;and then have the nerve to go by the moniker of "Neutral arbiter"? What kind of bullshit is that?
 * Wait&mdash;I can answer that; just the garden-variety so-called "NPOV" bullshit, aka Randian objectivist bullshit (Jimbo Wales' bullshit POV, that is).
 * In any case, you'd be well-advised to read a real news report about the "incident", like this one. Oh, and have a nice day. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for this kind of language on a talk page of an article. I've already posted the incident on AN/I.--Jersey Devil 07:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. It looks like Woohookitty has covered this well. ×Meegs 03:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Conan (comics)
Meegs, thanks for the polite heads-up! Reding 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexsautographs' card images
I noticed you've added deletion tags to a lot of sports card images uploaded by User:Alexsautographs. I don't see these images listed at Images and media for deletion, though. Am I just missing them there, or should I add them? —Bkell (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The unsuitability of these images is quite clear from WP:FU, and was discussed and agreed upon on the uploader's talk page shortly after their upload. I just recently discovered that no one had gotten around to systematically deleting them (though they have been going one-at-a-time).  There were at least three independent processes I could have started them on: tagging them no license/Missing_rationale for seven days for speedy deletion (CSD I4 / I6), listing on WP:PUI for 14 days, and WP:IFD.  I chose the first in part to make-use of orphanbot's help in remove the 60+ images from articles (which simultaneously alerts each article's community that the image is in danger).  If you'd prefer to take them through IFD instead, that's ok too. ×Meegs 22:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, those are "no license" tags. For some reason I thought they were "listed for deletion" tags. Never mind then. —Bkell (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

good catch
I'm sure that's what I meant. Probably worth restating your support for this plan.--Mike Selinker 06:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OS
Hi Meegs! OS is the shortened version of 'Ordnance Survey' which I have now worked out, from readng the tiny print on the map, is effectively Crown Copyright. So I still don't know if it can be retained on site as there are many other crown copyright images on Wikipedia. The image covers only 20% section of the map and does not show all the pertinent information related to markers or symbols used etc. Plus it dates from 1972, well before the 1984 boundary Commision changes, etc. I have no objection to it being deleted after the discussion has ended, as I noted in the initial upload info. Richard Harvey 09:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, OS appears to be on the list Template_talk:CrownCopyright. WP policy won't let us keep a restrictively-copyrighted image under fair use less it is used in an article. Make the best of it for the next week or so! Cheers. ×Meegs 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for unlinking the solitary year at Michael Kiske. You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 19:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, but I'll stick with doing it by hand. I don't unlink dates too often anymore, with all of the feathers it can ruffle. Best regards. ×Meegs 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I understand. One day, we will wonder what all the fuss was about. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You too. ×Meegs 20:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please delete
Hi Meegs!, Could you please delete an image I have accidentally uploaded twice ie: Image:20060605222847!Brockholes, Huddersfield Rail Station.jpg

Also I have a query relating to it:-

On the 22nd of April I originally uploaded the image as Image:Brockholes, Huddersfield Rail Station.jpg and placed it on my watchlist. On the 5th of June it was overwritten with a different image by another user. It did not register on my watchlist that my image had been edited, and having checked the users contributions it does not show there that he has edited the image on that date. I went to re-upload my original image, as the other user had replaced it with a picture of the former station masters house which is now private and therefore not part of the rail station, thereby ending up creating the duplicate. So how come the other user was able to override my image without it showing on my watchlist or his contributions? Also could you delete the other users image as it is of a private home and may fall foul of the privacy laws on photography. Richard Harvey 16:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard. Six things:
 * I deleted the duplicate image.
 * Regarding your technical question: basically, you have to think of an image and its description page as two separate entities. You can add an image description page to your watchlist, but not an image itself. What is really strange, though, is that when a new image is uploaded on top of another one, as happened here, the new image's summary is discarded in favor of the old one; therefore, since no change occurs to the image description page, watchlists are not triggered. This is among the least intuitive aspects of Wikipedia, I know. To reviewing uploads, all you need to do is look in the logs. A user's log is linked at the very top of their contributions page.  Here's yours, for example.
 * While its generally not a good idea to overwrite an image with another one, in this case, I have no doubt that User:Dave59 thought his image was close enough, but slightly superior to yours. As watchlists are ineffective here, it would be a good idea to let him know that you have concerns and have restored the image to your original photograph.
 * You say that Dave59's image may violate privacy laws? That seems strange to me, but you certainly may be right. In either case, I can not unilaterally delete the image for that reason.  If you'd like to pursue this, you should list the image on Images for deletion where the action can be discussed by the community. Let me know if you need any help with this.
 * In the future, you might consider uploading your own photographs to the Wikimedia Commons. They do not allow restrictively-copyrighted images, but the benefit is that images uploaded there are useably by all of our sister projects, as well as on English Wikipedia.  For example, I uploaded the image Image:McCoy Stadium Pan.jpg to the Commons, and now it is simultaneously viewable here on English Wikipedia, as well as  on German Wikipedia, and all of the others.
 * Thank you for all of the photographs you've been contributing recently. They're tremendous additions.
 * ×Meegs 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Meegs, Thanks for that, I've left a message on User:Dave59's page Here. Thanks for the comment on my photo's it's much appreciated. Yours of the baseball ground is superb, it looks like a Twister is heading to touch base from the sky above. Richard Harvey 09:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to be back
It's good to be able to spend more time here, especially on WP:AFC. Thanks for the warm welcome back. :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use/Cynicalme
Thanks for the double heads up re the above. My word, now I am aware it seems there are prob tens of thousands of articles that breach fair use copyright! What is the best course of action to your mind? Is it serious enough that I should act when happening upon each one or could the interpretation of the law be read in more than one way? Regardless thank you for letting me know. Re Cynicalme, yes you def have a point. I have made our position clear (yet fairly I believe) on his talk page - I "gulp" (is "doubt" the word I'm best to use here?) we will have probs now, but will keep a close eye (let me know of course if you see more use in this manner). I thank you again, - Glen Stoll e ry 13:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (continued at User talk:Stollery) ×Meegs 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Baseball card images
Meegs, I was the admin who ended up deleted a bunch of those images from User:Alexsautographs. I've noticed that User:BurmaShaver has been doing the same and have already told him to stop. Is there any other links you can add? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've left a message at User talk:BurmaShaver ×Meegs 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Baseball card images

HI: I just received your message. Perhaps you have not seen User:Ricky81682's later responses to me. They are quoted below:

''Sorry, I read your response at User talk:No Guru, and I was way too harsh with you. I do think that policy is clear now at WP:FU#Counterexamples, point 6. I'm going to hold off and wait for a response from you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)''

''I agree with your point, but it does look like (from the counterexamples link I give) that policy has cleared up. However, I'm going to look further into things and see if we can get an explicit statement, policy-wise. Now, all I did was put notices on the last three images you uploaded and I'll stop. If you want, you can revert it back to the fairuse tag or just let things go. I don't want it to seem like I'm singling you out, so if unless it's clear, I'll just let it go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)''

Also, at the top of the page which contains WP:FU#Counterexamples, it states clearly that it is a guideline of Wikipedia, not a policy. Doesn't that mean that this guideline (or opinion) has not been totally accepted or agreed upon? It seems that not all administrators can agree on this gray area, and therefore should not be taking such drastic action as deleting the images in question.

Thanks for your time. BurmaShaver 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied at User talk:BurmaShaver. ×Meegs 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Improvement seen?
Hey Meegs, just wondered if you'd noticed any improvement in CynicalMe's VP usage at all? I haven't had a chance to look but he sounded sincere in his reply. Thanks again, - Gl e n 08:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * hmmn... looks ok. I'll look again in a few days, or maybe a week. ×Meegs 12:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OS - revisited
Meegs Hi, regarding the OS image I uploaded for the talk page Image:P6090104_Black_Hill_Holme_Moss.JPG. It does not seem to be required after all, could you please delete it as per original info? Richard Harvey 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. All the best ×Meegs 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Heads Up
Meegs Hi, Just a quick heads up. I've advised User_talk:Yorkshire_Phoenix_%28194.203.110.127%29 to contact you for advice, as an admin. He's a new user and seems to have a problem with a user 84.9.194.111 contributions list here, who is following him around and vandalising his edits (possible edit war), and his user page. See here for an example. In the course of looking at the vandals edits I noted the article on Rage_Software which I think could probably do with deleting as it seems more appropriate to the tabloid press backpages than wikipedia, though thats only my opinion. Thanks Richard Harvey 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard. This is not the first conflict I've seen over England's historic counties.  I've left a message for both Yorkshire Phoenix and the IP address to stop edit warring and start communicating on the article's talk page.  Further  dispute resolution mechanisms are available to them, but only after your have thoroughly discussed the issues themselves.


 * As for Rage Software, the article certainly has problems, especially the "closure controversy" section — and is appropriately tagged unreferenced — but the company itself may be marginally notable enough for an article.  It'll be worth another look once the editing settles down.  Articles for the deletion is the place to bring this if you'd like to pursue its deletion.  All the best ×Meegs 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so that you know, 84.9.xxx.xxx and 87.75.xxx.xxx (the IPs appearing in the "county" edit wars, such as at Birkenhead) are the favourite IP ranges of the permanently-banned (by Jimbo Wales himself) User:Irate, who has a history of troublemaking and personal attacks, and has often been involved in these edit wars. --RFBailey 09:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from, User:Irate is using his dynamic IP address to circumvent his ban and is targetting user pages and associated templates and categories for vandalism and personal attacks. He is never prepared to post anything constructive on a discussion page. How should we proceed? Yorkshire Phoenix 10:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you coordinate your efforts and discuss the issues with other editors at a central location, perhaps WikiProject UK geography or WikiProject UK subdivisions. Category talk:Advocates of traditional British counties, frequented only by those that share your position, is not an appropriate place for such discussion. I am not familiar with the issues, and have only looked into this conflict superficially, but I can tell you that any conflict over category inclusion is bad, as the edits are very hard to keep track of.  I don't know, but perhaps it is possible to reduce that aspect of this conflict by renaming the cats for the traditional counties.


 * Also, it is not obvious to me that the recent county-related edits from these various IP addresses are ; the addresses do fall within Irate's ranges, but the article subjects seem quite different.  In either case, there is not much that I can do.  I do agree that this editor is a problem, however, if for no other reason than their apparent unwillingness to participate in discussions.   I suggest that you create a report at Long term abuse, detailing their unwillingness to discuss controversial edits, the IP addresses they edit from, and any evidence connecting them to Irate.


 * Sorry I can't be of more help, and for the slow response, but I'm not able to spend much time on WP these days. Regards ×Meegs 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the informed advice that User:Aquilina just added to your talk page, and the guidelines at Naming conventions (places) all but supersede what I've written above. ×Meegs 21:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of the issue at the moment. Fundamentally though, yes, edits such as the one you highlight are unacceptable, but there seems little we can do about them, since they count as "content disputes" and there is no good mechanism for content arbritration. Morwen - Talk 11:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't blame you. One thing: I haven't dug through the discussions enough to understand the origin of the addendum. It seems unnecessary, and actually, together with its nota bene, and may be misinterpreted as weakening the case against prominent use of Middlesex and Yorkshire. ×Meegs 11:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Hilda's College
Hi Meegs,

I just wanted to check that my opinion on the St. Hilda's College disambig is correct - it shouldn't redirect to St. Hilda's because that brings up links to things that aren't St. Hilda's College. User:WikiCats is arguing at Talk:St. Hilda's College that it should be a redirect. Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda 12:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, cool user page. I've seen the discussion, but I'm fairly indifferent. I'll suppose I'll chime-in anyway... ×Meegs 13:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pruning the slurs
Hi, I am seeking your advice as a mod. A user, by tag Esprit15d has done some huge (and not necessarily warranted) pruning in the List of ethnic slurs ... I'm strongly tempted to roll back everything, but feel I'd better check out with somebody who knows wikipedian policies better than I do. I notice that, at some time during the last 10 days, the article was placed under partial protection, but since said user is already well established (even if a relative noob by some standards), that would not apply to his changes. So, was that removal of "non English" slur terms warranted? What is to be done? Yours truly --Svartalf 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Svartalf. The first thing you should do is join the discussion at Talk:List of ethnic slurs, where two editors have listed a number of reasons that they should be removed. Certainly extensive inclusion of all foreign language slurs is impractical, as they outnumber the English ones by a large margin.  Perhaps you could argue that extremely common slurs for other languages do have a place, provided they are accompanied with citations to verify their meaning and prevalence.   By the way, the page's semi-protection seems to be for frequent miscellaneous vandalism, and is not relevant to this issue. Regards ×Meegs 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooops... thanks for the comment. I did feel that his pruning was rather drastic and heavy handed, not to mention subjective. Plus, this guy seems overly edit happy, favoring quantity over quality, which I admit has a gift for irritating me. I've seen too many perfectly good articles made poorer by edits that were not well enough thought out and enough editors made careless by the simple power they get from the wiki principle to look favorably on somebody tackling what IS a major editing of a big article without a minimum of consensus on the matter. Yours truly --Svartalf 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tradition
Oops! Point taken, but I think you understood my intention? (No reply required). 82.30.72.134 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Historic counties of England
Hi Meegs, If you are like myself, I'm sure you get ready to scream everytime you see the Traditional Counties link!

Please don't fret, I'm very much against the whole advocation of this system!... I'm writing to yourself as I noticed you take an interest in this field.

I've made what I feel is a very valid point on the Historic counties of England talk page, about the actual use of the term "Traditional" in the title, and have proposed a change to a more academic and neutral "Historic" counties of England.

It'd be great if we could borrow you for a short time to read the proposals and discussion on this talk page, and in turn have your input and feedback!

Thank you very much for your time, efforts and contributions thus far, I have noticed them and they are truly excellent! Please keep up the good work! Jhamez84 21:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jhamez. I've just recently learned of the details of this conflict, but am not qualified or eager to participate in a discussion about terminology.  My only concern for the time being is ensuring that the trad/historic counties are not misrepresented or used so that they may be confused with active subdivisions. Best of luck. ×Meegs 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again Meegs,
 * It's sad that you are unable to participate in this discussion, as I believe it could go someway in cooling some of the tensions surrounding the topic.
 * With regards to misrepresentation of the counties, I'm rather glad you mention you are currently ensuring that users do not do this.
 * I'm (well everybody is really), having problems with User:Lancsalot. He seems to be compromising the spirit of things, and unilaterally trying to change the consensus on this topic, and editting articles against the formulation in the naming conventions, for example here, and here.
 * I've left some messages at his talk page about this, but he merely reverts them (as seen here, and then continues altering articles.
 * I don't want to message him again, as I fear he will target me. Could you advise him to be a little more careful and respectful? Hope you can help, thanks again for your time, Jhamez84 10:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

University of Sagar‎
Thanks - I missed the infobox! Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk   04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please delete image
Meegs Hi! Could you please delete Image:Rivington Res Aerial.gif ? I uploaded it today in error, it is too big a file size, taking too long to upload to the article. I have replaced it with another, smaller one. Richard Harvey 10:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Zap! By the way, for derivative images like this one, please try to provide as much information about the original images' sources (in this case, which satellite service you used and their copyright status).  Remember, you can only release the image to the public domain if the base images are also PD.  Even if this is the case, explicitly stating it will ease everyone's mind for years to come. ×Meegs 21:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm! Things do get more complicated, don't they? However as I understand it anything produced by a US Govt Dept is PD, unless it is retained under the umbrella of national security. So therefore anything passed on to the UK Govt, or commercial companies, from them would also be PD.  Is that correct? Richard Harvey 22:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, works produced by US federal employees as part of their duties and most publications of the US government are PD. If these images originally come from NASA or the United States Geological Survey (USGS), then they are PD. If this is the case, please do still make a note of it on the image description pages.  Unless you know for sure, though, do not assume that the US government is the source; there are other governments and private companies that produce satellite imagery (the article about Terraserver.com mentions a few), and many producers of aerial photography. ×Meegs 12:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUE
Yay, someone is using this besides me, "if you build it, they will come" I guess :). Please take a look at this project page and see if I missed anything obvious if you have a min. Thanks! —  xaosflux  Talk  05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

pre(c/v)ious
If there's one thing I can't resist, it's a good single-letter change puzzle. I've probably written 50 of them over the years.--Mike Selinker 07:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange problem
I picked your name at random out of the list, (in the middle of the middle of M's and saw you were recently active). I'm having a few problems with either one user, or several, or who knows, but in regard to referring to some sort of prejudice or bias on my part; i.e. that I have some sort of agenda. If you wouldn't mind, could you look over my shoulder if you have the time? If not, would you mind asking any admin at your discression to do so please? I'd appreciate it. I've marked this message for watch and would appreciate any replies here. Thanks. Ste4k 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is something specific that you need, let me know, I may be able to help, but I'm a little busy to keep watch on your editing as a whole. At quick glance, though, it looks as though you are involved in a number of conflicts and accusing an awful of people of personally attacks.


 * I will offer you this advice: get rid of the message on your talk page directing people not to contact you there, and do not, as threatened, "delete and ignore" messages of those that do. This is a breach of etiquette and will make others less willing to work with you. It'd also be a good idea add a link to your archives. ×Meegs 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I consider you completely neutral. Before I read your note here, I removed a personal attack on my talk page. Should that have been left alone? Ste4k 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's ok to remove attacks like that that don't contain any substance. That message, though, was provoked by an accusation of personal attacks that you put on their talk page. If you'll take another piece of advice, it is almost always best to just ignore personal attacks made on yourself and stay focused on the issues.  Sometimes others will defend you, sometimes they won't, but in either case, it keeps things escalating. ×Meegs 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone should change the documentation in that regard then. As a rather new person and one that was initially given a 3RR without any idea what it was, I learned that paying attention to policy and guidelines was important (i.e. ignorance is no excuse). In my opinion when people act in ways that are not discussing the article, for example:
 * 00:57, 8 July 2006 Original correction, pointing to the correct version of the book associated with the subject. (disambiguation: two different books, same title, internal article is not associated with the book in this article)


 * 17:25, 09 July 2006 reverts direct quote
 * 00:23, 12 July 2006 reverts to ambiguity
 * 00:26, 12 July 2006 reverts links w/o discussion, prev. removal discussed.
 * 15:50, 12 July 2006 reverts primary source to external link made by at diff makes personal attack in edit summary. (advised at talk page
 * 23:32, 12 July 2006 reverts directly quoted source.
 * 03:44, 13 July 2006 reverts directly quoted source.


 * 02:53, 5 July 2006 Bad faith
 * 02:17, 5 July 2006 Personal Attack
 * 02:14, 8 July 2006 Personal Attack Threat
 * 15:50, 12 July 2006 Personal Attack
 * 16:23, 12 July 2006 Warning
 * 23:37, 12 July 2006 Personal Attack
 * 00:28, 13 July 2006 Warning
 * 03:40, 13 July 2006 Personal Attack
 * 05:50, 13 July 2006 Warning on Personal Attacks, Disruption, and 3RR


 * ... then the documentation suggests that the person be made aware of such things on their Talk Page. Ste4k 18:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That avenue is certainly open to you. I am merely offering a practical alternative. Warnings, as they are on Wikipedia, often come-off as condescending or aggressive; some editors (not you) even relish these effects and use them out as scarlet letters on talk pages. In any case, NPA and AGF reminders are much less effective coming from the target than from a neutral party. This isn't policy, it's just my own advice: ignore the personal jabs, stay focused on the issues, and, in the process, show that you're better than them. ×Meegs 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The advice is understood and appreciated. Thanks. Ste4k 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Eventualism
Hi! I visited your page following our recent discussion, and came across the idea of Eventualism. As someone else said, finally a faction I can join! My whole program with the JEL classification codes is motivated by eventualism, but like the guy in Moliere, I didn't know it until now. Thanks again for your help on the mechanics of CfD JQ 00:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! Let me know if I can ever help you with anything. Wikipedia is still in its infancy. ×Meegs 09:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dalton_P6030011(RLH).JPG
Meegs Hi! Could you please delete the above image which I took and uploaded. I messed up! It is of the wrong place. Many thanks. Richard Harvey 16:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. ×Meegs 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My David Bowie image
Does anyone really care that if i use that image? Dermo69
 * They may, and we have a strict policy against the use of unfree "fair use" images outside of the article space and apart from critical commentary about the work. If you'd like to replace the image, there are currently three free pictures of David on the Wikimedia Commons, here. Images uploaded there can be accessed on Wikipedia just as if they had been uploaded here (e.g. Image:Bowie.jpg). ×Meegs 15:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great rewrite on the AfC instructions.
I apologize for the instruction creep. Can you do the revised Articles for creation/Templates next? Kickaha Ota 22:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my. I just visited that page for the first time since the day it was created. I don't use those templates myself, except for afc cv, but I'll take a closer look a bit later. ×Meegs 22:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AfC edits
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit that says usernames should be credited in the edit summary. But the thing is user accounts shouldn't be making requests as the procedure is for IP users only.

When user accounts do create a request I give the following template:
 * Declined. You are a registered user. The Article for creation process is intended for anonymous users. Since you are a logged-in registered user, you don't need to use this process; you can create articles yourself. If you'd like to create this article, follow the steps and guidelines listed on Help:Starting a new page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!
 * Declined. You are a registered user. The Article for creation process is intended for anonymous users. Since you are a logged-in registered user, you don't need to use this process; you can create articles yourself. If you'd like to create this article, follow the steps and guidelines listed on Help:Starting a new page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

Maybe every user account that requests an article should be informed via their talk page too, but if we create user account created requests the user won't know how to create an article which I feel is a shame.

I've haven't removed it, but would just like your thoughts on this.-- Andeh 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Andeh. I'll reply shortly at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. ×Meegs 22:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your message and you've actually convinced me with it. Sorry for the slow response I've been busy on my RfA and totally forgot about this :( . Andeh 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean actually? ;) Best of luck on your RfA. ×Meegs 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I thought we should reject all registered users, but your message on the talk page changed my mind. Should we delete template or just change it to an article accepted and refer the user on how to create an article?-- Andeh 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten afc reguser as an "accept" template; if we decide it's not necessary at all, that's fine too (but I think we should encourage contributors of good articles to create more, and telling registered users that they can use an easier process probably encourages them). Kickaha Ota 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. For new reviewers that might feel obligated to use the templates, it might be helpful to have (or list) fewer templates, but it does not matter to me. I maintain that ad hoc responses are best in many cases. Andeh, I was just poking fun at your wording — that I actually changed your mind — as if it is a rare occurrence. ×Meegs 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SPam
Meegs Hi! Well spotted for the e-mail address. I have already responded to him and noted is E-m address. so if you want to irretrievably remove the address please do so. I don't thing he realised he could have activated my e-mail address via the link. Mind you it is a Ministry of Defense address so it has some pretty heavy anti-spam controls on it. Richard Harvey 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting rid of the @-sign is good enough to thwart most address-harvesting bots. Phoenix should be safe now. ×Meegs 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi could you take a look at User talk:206.191.69.149 page I've just done a second warning with a short space of time on a vandalism spree, I think the IP needs blocking but I can't do it. Ta. Richard Harvey 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Despite the fact that they did not edit following your warning, I've handed them an extensive block based on their long history of problems. They've been working poor James Marsden all week, spanning two previous blocks.  By the way, as you probably know, WP:AIV is generally the best place to report these things, especially when the vandalism is ongoing.  I'm happy to help, though. Regards ×Meegs 04:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for your help with the copyright symbols and tagging pictures. -Brandon

Question about minor edits
I posted a question on my talk page. --MP123 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)