User talk:Nard the Bard

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Do not move to Commons
Template:Do not move to Commons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. → Aza Toth 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:53_daenarys.jpg
I'm actually surprised that it still remains. I remember uploading it years ago. We never could get Amok to agree to the type of permission needed to keep it. I remember the email conversations explicitly. It all hinged around the Wikipedia regulations. He gave permission but some of the details regarding what entailed a free license were not to his liking, the result being that his artwork would be unusable to the site. I don not think that it can be saved.

As for the original email correspondences, I may or may not have them any longer. It's either on my old Yahoo Mail or Hotmail account, both of which has since been overrun by something on the order of 10,000 spam emails each and would be nearly impossible to sift through at this point. I'm not even certain that the Hotmail account still even exists. And it would likely be a pointless search since the permission that he granted was insufficient to the license that I loaded it under. Unak78 (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

== nard, change it back immediately or we will block you have nikon, lamillie and the others prove that they have the films, we want your name and address, we can prove all rights worldwide, if you dont we will withdraw the copyrights of all our 843 photographies and graphics and texts to wikipedia and sue you professor dr. uwe kils, photographenmeister, president of FOTO KILS foundation http://www.uhse-elite-university.com/fotokilsfoundation.html user kils ==

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

CYNIC photo
An email containing details of the permission for this file (2012_photo_of_Paul_Masvidal_&_Sean_Reinert_of_CYNIC.jpg) has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS by the appropriate party. Thanks for your assistance. A Sniper (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fresnel Photo
Hi, I received a notice that the Fresnel photo is maybe deleted. I do not fully understand why. I asked this from the Ausra media department, explicitly asking for permission. They are happy if it is used.

Lkruijsw (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Clark Gable and Myrna Loy.jpg
See:. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Since you haven't replied, I will be removing the tag on this image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:FoP-USonly
Template:FoP-USonly has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 9carney (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

RedirectBypasser: Redirect bypass issues
The following issues were encountered while bypassing redirects: Please bypass the redirects in these pages manually. Thanks. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:Coffee/Archives/2008/January: page is protected
 * User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 16: page is protected
 * User talk:Jmlk17/Archive5: page is protected
 * User talk:Nard the Bard/Archive 3: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * User talk:Ned Scott/archive9: bot exclusion (bots or nobots) applies
 * User talk:Riana/Archive 24: page is protected
 * User talk:Seicer/Archive 3: page is protected
 * User talk:Somnabot/archive3: bot exclusion (bots or nobots) applies
 * User talk:Somnabot/archive4: bot exclusion (bots or nobots) applies
 * User talk:Trey/archive A: bot exclusion (bots or nobots) applies
 * User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 1: bot exclusion (bots or nobots) applies
 * User talk:Wknight94/Archive 10: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * User:BetacommandBot/VP filter: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * User:Nardman: page is protected
 * User:Rich Farmbrough/temp45: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * User:Worm That Turned/Botzone: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ned Scott: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive154: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive98: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive255: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive274: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 11: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive47: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2009/January: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aeon1006: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/indlaw.com: cannot find redirects; they are probably template-generated or oddly formatted
 * With the exception of the above, the replacement seems to be complete and I've turned off the task. Sorry for the problems that led to multiple posts to your talk page. Anomie⚔ 03:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama
Now, I'm a massive fan of assuming good faith and all that, but I just wanted to share a picture with you. The Angel of the North is a statue erected in the 1990s in the North East of England. Now, as a piece of artwork, it is within copyright, but, in the United Kingdom, there is a freedom of panorama. Now, as I'm sure you're aware, this freedom does not exist in the United States. I think you can see where I am going with this. Just in case you can't, I'll ask you this- seeing as you seem to be under the impression that, for Wikipedia's purposes, only the American law on freedom of panorama matters, and under the American law this would not be valid, I ask you this- do you want this image to be deleted? If not, can I ask you to explain to me how your position is not utterly inconsistent? J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about the spite dripping from every word there; I discovered the situation late last night, and got really rather more angry about it than it warranted. I do, however, at this time, oppose your actions. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia and Commons have different policies. I'm not responsible for that. If you feel so strongly that this file should have non-free tagging, you can create a local image description page, and add the tags. And, you're right, that would make it ineligible for featured picture status. If you do so, please remove it from my talk page as well. -Nard ( Hablemonos ) ( Let's talk ) 13:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability Awards
Hello! Happened to come across the essay Notability (awards) and was wondering why it is dead. Could you revive that discussion somehow? Or is it already covered somewhere else? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rob De Luca Live 2011 nominated for deletion
Hi there, I knew there would be trouble. Can you please help me in this uncomfortable situation: I found the free picture and added it to Wiki commons back then. I liked that picture and I'd still love to see it here but:It's from 2008 and does not reflect his appearance onstage properly as it is today. Rob De Luca wants this image down in any case, even if it's impossible to post the new one. They new picture was posted before, it was deleted. Now Rob De Luca himself asked me to re-post the new one or AT LEAST remove the old one.

If you add a picture to your CV, usually you don't own the copyright, the photographer who took the pic owns it. Nevertheless you have the right to use it in your CV and even post it on the internet. You wouldn't be happy if someone told you to use another picture instead. And you would use different pictures for different prospective employers, e.g. a pic showing your six-pack abs for a film casting a a photograph showing you in suit and tie for a job in a bank. You might even apply for both jobs at the same time.

Wikipedia articles for performing artists (actors, bands, musicians...) function as when performing artists apply for a gig and if the prospective employer is not satisfied with the public image the picture on Wikipedia represents, they might not get booked/employed. Wikipedia is neutral and reliable about facts, so I think they have the right to choose their picture that does not bring any disadvantage for their career as any other human being has with their CV. It's all cool about Wikipedia policies about free and copyrighted content, but I think neither concert promoters, nor average fans know and understand them.

I have informed him that this does not meet all Wikipedia criteria and it's likely to be deleted, I have suggested a couple of newer free pictures to him, none meets his expectations he want this picture up, so I've decided to try it this way and open a discussion about it. Because I think he's right. He can have the whole article deleted as a living person, but he does not have the right to choose the picture? Somehow doesn't match, right?

I think Wiki policies need to be changed that publicity pictures of performing artists, and existing bands may replace a free picture if the artist or their management insist on it. The wrong picture can be resulting in not being booked, which is (I'm sure abuot that) NOT the intention of Wikipedia. I think there should be a category "replaceable with a free picture category only if approved by ..." with a link to the responsible contact.

I respect absolutely agree with the principles of Wikipedia, it is a treasure for mankind to be able to look up things and it's a good thing to have everything for free. I do not get paid by the records company or anyone else to do this. I have removed commercial links from other articles. A One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is neutrality. I don't think replacing the new picture with the old one is neutral. He has really long hair on it, now it's much shorter. So bands looking for a (touring) bassist might not choose him because he does not match their image (either instantly for the long hair, or later for the short hair) So this is clearly a disadvantage for his career.

I'd suggest the following: Until the possible policy change is discussed let the new (copyrighted) pic up and in the article. Please start the discussion in the right place or find someone who does this and set all tags in order to give the picture time until the end of the discussion. I don't know how to do it and I really don't have the time to learn it know.

If you feel you need this "unbelievable" story to be confirmed or for more details contact Lovember Records. www.lovemberrecords.com

You can also suggest alternate free pictures there or discuss other ways to get an appropriate picture up with management or the man himself. I'm totally in between two chairs and want to get out of this discussion as soon as possible. I'm sure you understand I will not disclose neither my my real name nor my e-mail address here. If you want to discuss via e-mail, also contact Lovember Records, they will give you my email address as well.

If the old picture keeps popping up I won't have any other choice than get the photographer withdraw his permission and have the pic deleted from Wiki commons. I don't want to to that, it's a good picture and might be nice to illustrate either Rob De Luca's or the UFO band article at some stage, but it is not applicable as a picture to introduce the subject of the article any more due to the reasons mentioned above.

Thank you for understanding!

Moonslide (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion about this at WT:BLPN GB fan 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a hiring hall or publicity venue. If he wants a web page of his own, he can set up one for nothing on MySpace or some other popular website that allows the subject to control his public image. And the license has already been granted, irrevocably. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Williams v. Pryor
db-copyvio should be used "in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution". In this case, the entire "Recent challenges" section was not a copyright violation and I had already blanked the suspect areas with {{subst:copyvio}} for further investigation. If there is a complaint via OTRS, in the future it would be greatly appreciated if you could indicate that in both the edit summary and the speedy deletion template (and just to nitpick, the correct link is either 2012080710007952 or 6642248, not 2012080710007952) so that admins are aware that there is more to the situation and where to look. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Secret Service codename
Added the Keyes article to the refs for Hillary in 2008. Says "His opponent in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, kept "Evergreen," her codename from husband Bill Clinton's presidency." I agree that that is needed.Naraht (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban poster.png


A tag has been placed on File:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban poster.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

USS Illinois (SSN-786)
Hi, I noticed with this edit you reverted the page to a previous vandalized version, that ClueBot has reverted, (and was the final disruptive edit before that user was blocked indef), and you left no edit summary. Your unexplained revert popped up on all the watchlists of those watching that page. I don't know about the others, but I was in the process of reverting you when you made your subsequent edit. I know that shortly after you changed that edit again, correcting the content and adding both a ref and summary, but can I suggest that in the future you just do all that with a single manual edit? Thanks - the WOLF  child  17:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Notability (awards)
Wikipedia:Notability (awards), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (awards) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Notability (awards) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Steven Giordano
Hello, just replying to you message on my talk page. The editor originally thought if the MCPON did not have 12 consecutive years of good conduct, he/she would be a "red chevron" MCPON, which is not the case. There has never been a red chevron MCPON in the history of the office. The MCPON is personally appointed by the CNO. Prior to 2019, an enlisted sailor is not entitle to wear gold chevrons unless they have had 12 consecutive years of good conduct. A sailor could loose their gold chevrons and revert back to red chevrons, if their bad conduct warranted such a discipline. In turn, the sailor would have to serve an addition 12 consecutive years of good conduct to earn their gold chevrons again. With that being said, the chances of a MCPON being appointed, who did not have 12 consecutive years of good conduct is unheard of, since the MCPON represents the interest all Navy enlisted forces. The CNO would not appoint a leader with such a cloud of controversy.

In the case of MCPON Steven S. Giordano, he ended up resigning and voluntarily retired in 2018. There has never been a MCPON would has decided to remain in the Navy after leaving office. Even if Giordano had wanted to remain in the Navy he would not be serving as MCPON, and would have reverted back to being a master chief. I'm basing this under the assumption that he would not have been demoted from E-9 paygrade, since the Navy did allow him to retire as a MCPON. No other MCPON had ever faced discipline while in office, so there is no other precedence. Since Giordano retired as a MCPON, and since the Navy has never had a "red chevron" MCPON insignia before, I truly doubt that the Navy would waste the time and taxpayer money to specially make a red chevron MCPON insignia for one, lone, retired individual.

Finally, the policy governing "red chevrons" and "gold chevrons" was amended on June 1, 2019 by the Chief of Naval Personnel. All enlisted sailors now automatically transition from red to gold after hit their 12-year mark, regardless of good or bad conduct. Even so, the possibility of there being a MCPON with less than 12 years of service in the Navy is virtually impossible, as the CNO would usually set a minimum 16-20 years of service, as well as the master chief must have also held a senior leadership position in their E-9 paygrade: command master chief, fleet master chief, or force master chief). I hope this explanation helps clears up your confusion. Neovu79 (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Roman families has been nominated for merging
Category:Ancient Roman families has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)