User talk:PAustin4thApril1980/Archive 4

Hayden Panettiere
I notice you edited the Hayden Panettiere picture I posted due to insuffiecient pesonal information. That was an overview on my mark. I have reuploaded the picture, with addition contact information for you.

Chaubaby aka Gareth Jordan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaubaby (talk • contribs) 10:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this has been changed back for no reason. The picture I posted is a more up to date photograph, and it is clear, AND I have included all camera details. Can you please get back to me, because I would love to know what I am doing wrong here. Chaubaby (talk • contribs)

Piping links for nationality
Hi, I notice that you have been piping nationality links to the "X people" articles, eg. Scottish. Having worked on thousands of biog articles, primarily European and North American (but also a fair few Antipodean), I can say without hesitation that the overwhelming consensus is to pipe thus: If this is doubted in any way, perhaps we could consult the good folks at WikiProject Biography? (Apart from anything else, those "X people" articles are utterly, utterly appalling rubbish in my experience: full of POV, edit warring, AFD's and many other such delights: probably because they tend to focus on pseudo-ethnicity theories, rather than civil society, which is the strength of the country articles.) --Mais oui! 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Scottish
 * French
 * American
 * Mexican
 * Swedish

Doctor Who spoofs
No problem. I wouldn't have hesitated to put the full word if it's what had been said :-) &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

William Hartnell
My edit to this article was, I must say, not done by me (ie the person who created the account). My password (now changed) was the same as several other of my passwords, and I must apologise. Please acknowledge you got this message.--Keycard (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Myciconia
I noticed you blocked User:Myciconia for 100 days for "POV pushing, article degredation, [and being a] suspected sockpuppet." This struck me as odd, since I just renamed User:Colle to User:Myciconia yesterday. (The account has been around since January 21, and has nearly 1000 edits, making it unlikely to be a sockpuppet.) Could you fill me in on the situation? Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  ) 10:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My user page
Yes, I tried the same thing you tried! Doesn't work, does it! Damiancorrigan 10:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Keating.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Keating.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 02:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained revert of Cuban legislative election, 2003
PMA, you recently deleted out material in Cuban legislative election, 2003 without explanation. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, would you explain your reasoning, and would you join a discussion of this editorial issue in the Talk:Cuban legislative election, 2003 page? BruceHallman 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello; it seems that you have inadvertantly stumbled into a simmering article dispute. I would very strongly discourage using your admin rollback during this content argument; I'm having enough trouble getting the parties to behave passably well without having to put out a forest fire on WP:AN/I over 'rouge admin abuse'. If you'd like to participate in a discussion on the talk page, cool heads are welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bot notices
Be careful when quickly removing them, they may just get posted back again for a while, if removed. Just a forewarning. In the future, I'll think of some way to have it not re-add it again at all, no matter what the time. (BTW - the repetion bugs was fixed a day ago, so it should never double post). Voice -of- All Talk 07:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of East Germany:
You recently protected this page but did not put in a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, article talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Please be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 03:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of German Democratic Republic:
You recently protected this page but did not put in a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, article talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Please be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 07:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Solidusspriggan and Kozlovesred blocks
Two week blocks for these two users sounds reasonable. If your blocks are double-questioned by another administrator, here's some advice for defending the block: Make it clear that you're following Wikipedia blocking policy on disruption per Disruption. Make clear that they're not getting blocked because of their political orientation per se, but that their ideology is only relevant insofar as it seems to be the motive for their disruptive behavior. 172 | Talk 03:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If Kozlovesred has made or makes a legal threat, immediately block him indefinitely per WP:NLT. I expect that you will get sufficient backing from the community, as I did when I lobbied for the indefinite ban of the nutter User:Sgrayban for his threats against Adam Carr. 172 | Talk 06:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So far I've only seen Kozlovesred make the threat to "report" to "senior administrators," which constitutes continued disruption (perhaps justifying an extension of the block), but not a legal threat. 172 | Talk 06:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a good idea to forward or post the emails? Initially, Scott sent Adam a 'legal threat' by email. Then Adam posted it on the Cuba talk page. Then I lobbied successfully to get Scott blocked indefinitely. So, the Sgrayban case demonstrated that WP:NLT applies not just to the Wikipedia namespace but also to Wikipedia email. 172 | Talk 06:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want, you can go ahead and forward them to my account, and I'll review them to see if I can make a case for an indefinite block based on the emails. 172 | Talk 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email. You can hit reply. 172 | Talk 06:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you're having any trouble forwarding the messages. 172 | Talk 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I should log off now; it's almost 3 AM in the Eastern U.S. I'll check my email tomorrow morning. 172 | Talk 06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey there. Kozlovesred sent an email to OTRS asking for the block to be reviewed.  It looks like there was quite a bit of disruption in this case, but I was wondering if you could give me a quick run down of what happen so I can properly respond to him.  Thanks Shell babelfish 12:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have that program installed, and I don't think I have the hard disk space for it. 172 | Talk 04:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Article protection
Just a quick reminder. When enabling article protection, please remember to edit the protected article to include the relevant templates to inform less experienced editors as to why editing on that particular article has been disabled. Useful templates for this purpose are   and   . Cheers. -- Longhair 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Kozlovesred
I've pulled the block. As an involved admin you should not have carried it out. while Kozlovesred's behavior was less than optimum it had not quite reached the point where admins have the power to block for it.Geni 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Get away with things? I doubt that. There are two of you at least. You could file an RFC if his behavior doesn't improve sharpish. Then of course there is WP:RFAR for removal if it comes to that.Geni 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Geni's unblock. Geni's action reminds me of the (unhelpful) attempt by another administrator to unblock Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle, which drove SlimVirgin off Wikipedia. I recommend getting another admin to look into the matter. As Adam told me, Rebecca "is a tough-minded and helpful admin if things get sticky." My experiences with her have been the same. Other administrators who are serious about protecting legitimate content editors and showing disruptive users the door include Snowspinner, SlimVirgin (if she returns), Mackensen, Willmcw, among others. 172 | Talk 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I also don't have too much confidence in the admin who unblocked Kozlovesred. From my experiences, this user has forgotten the goals of the project, and has no understanding of Ignore all rules, no understanding that product comes before process on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 00:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, admins involved in issues should try going to another admin first to avoid the appearance that they are biased in their blocking. I don't see the gross disruption claimed against Kozlovesred and my polite request for an explanation was completely ignored above. Had Geni not unblocked, I would have been doing so myself. Shell babelfish 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He can disagree all he wants up and down the talk page, so long as he keeps the ranting confined there. I'm sure the RfC will sort things out.  In the future though, no matter how much these blocks are justified, its still a good idea to let someone else do it, or post a note over at AN/I so someone can't claim you were being biased and get unblocked because of it.  Silly technicality sometimes, but it exists none-the-less. Shell babelfish 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to intervention by 172, I have commented further on your actions at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I strongly urge you to lift the other two blocks to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest. If Communism-related editors need to be blocked, just slap together a list of diffs, post it on WP:AN/I, and I'll be first in line to do it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for lifting the blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Margana
Margana has appealed her block. I don't see the vandalism you speak of in your block summary, and while she edit wars, I don't see any recent 3RR violation. If it's a block for gaming the rule or similar, I think it should be much shorter than 100 hours. I would like to hear your full thoughts on this.

As you've announced that you're leaving Wikipedia, I will lift the block in 12 hours if you haven't replied by then. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Falcely licenced images
Please remember: Users who upload content (Image:Gough.whitlam.jpg etc.) with false license declarations ... may be blocked. feydey 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bob.hawke.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bob.hawke.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikipediatrix
Re the block of this user, they have request to be unblocked. I assume this is part of a longer term problem, but there don't appear to have been recent warnings nor at a brief glance much for detail behind the block. Any chance you can respond to the unblock and expand on the reasoning? --pgk( talk ) 15:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I see she thinks we're "buddies". What a way to get introduced.

Let me just say that I fully support your block. I'm all for improving the sourcing here, but it cannot and will not be done by throwing civility, consensus and good faith to the winds.

If you are RFC'ed over this and need support, let me know. I have found some real gems in her edit history. Daniel Case 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am also beginning to notice that the most recent slew of articles she nominated had plenty of evidence of her incivility on their talk pages ... convenient, no? I hope she realizes admins can still see them. Daniel Case 15:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

She should not have the power to delete articles. Doczilla 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for information Re: Wikipediatrix
Hi. Can you briefly summarize what edits caused you to block this user, and show where they were warned that their behavior might lead to an extended block? Your block message is a bit vague for a multiple-day block. Thanks. Nandesuka 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix unblocked
I have unblocked Wikipediatrix. I've done this because she was not, in my opinion, given adequate warning for the block, and because you gave no guidance on what specific behaviors were problematic. Given that, a nearly week-long block was excessive. If you have problems with this editor in the future, I encourage you to seek the opinions of other admins on the administrator's noticeboard. Or, leave a note on my talk page, and I'll be glad to intervene. Nandesuka 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RedLon
Hi PMA! Yeah, it is very odd. I know Transdiffusion asked several former RL people, and Geoffrey Lugg of ABC-Thames, but no-one seems to know why they chose "Rediffusion, London" and not "Rediffusion London". I suspect it will forever be a mystery! ➨  ЯEDVERS  14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Greece (unexplained use of admin rollback)
In the future, avoid blindly stepping into content disputes and reverting while blithely ignorant of the discussion that preceeded.

Also, learn to use summaries. From what I gather from you talk page, you seem to have chronic problems with explaining your edits, reverts and protections. Porfyrios 11:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I unbanned Porfyrios for the reasons given on his talk page. This is not condoning his behaviour. If he continues to disrupt the page, please alert me at the soonest possible convienience and I will block him. - FrancisTyers · 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Simpsons
The statement says that the show has lost popularity as shown in the ratings. The simple fact is, if the show had been able to keep its popularity and fans, they wouldn't have been swayed away by cable channels, it doesn't matter if there's more competition, the viewers have gone somewhere else, and they lost popularity and ratings. It doesn't matter exactly where the audience is going, the statement is that they've left. In additon, you said more "networks", which as well as incorrect, would be the only channels likely to take away millions of viewers from a show, not cable. As well as this poor choice of wording, you used "their" instead of "there". The statement as it was was NPOV and based solely on sited information. Your addition was a POV attempt to justify a negative statement, and based on uncited information, nearly completely unrelated in how it explains a ratings fall, as well as poorly written. For all these reasons, I removed it. -- Viewdrix 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Userpage
This is the first time I've seen a userpage protected (fully), but anyways; I had come here to resubstitute userbox code. The userbox was moved back to. I would substitute it myself, but your page is protected. As soon as all substitutions are made, the redirect will probably be deleted (at that user's request, see WP:GUS talk page). Cheers! -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Psephos
I am quite frankly shocked by this comment. I would expect that as an admin you knew better than to bring in your own irrelevant and inflammatory POV to the dispute, as well as assigning one to your opponent in a manner so agressive as to almost amount to a personal attack. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Moneypenny
Hi, why did you remove "the classic" from Moneypenny caption? Lois rules. Machocarioca 07:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC) machocarioca

What means POV? Machocarioca 08:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Margana
I hope this RFC doesn't cause Margana to be unblocked early; frankly I was enjoying the peace and quiet. Thanks for the heads up; I'll be sure to comment. Snottygobble 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never filed an RFC before either; and more importantly, I don't think it would be in anyone's best interests for me to be seen to be bringing the case, considering some would consider me to be not an innocent party. I will certainly comment in due course, but sorry, I'm not prepared to help file at the moment. Snottygobble 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Image deleted
On 1 September 2006, you deleted Image:Denim-miniskirt.jpg for alleged "copyright violation". This picture was identified as sourced at and licenced under Create Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.0. How was there any copyright violation? Rwxrwxrwx 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The image has been restored. If you have a problem with it again, please discuss the matter first. Rwxrwxrwx 14:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin
Why don't you just s-protect it? BhaiSaab talk 17:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image of Ariel Sharon on History of the Middle East
Hello. I noticed you [ reverted] my removal of an image of Ariel Sharon from the "contempory history" section of the History of the Middle East article. I removed it because it was not being used in a way compliant with our fair use policy, specifically point 8, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)". Since Sharon was not being particularly discussed within that section (his name appears only twice - once in the image's caption), the image is not being used in a way that contributes significantly to the section. Thus I have removed the image. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Han Solo
I can put the article near the top of my to-do list. I'm on an unofficial wikibreak at the moment (just making minor edits, nothing major). Dmoon1 14:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding anacronyms and piping
Sir, regarding your contributions to the John Howard page. Is there a precedent to use the brackets after a linked term as below and in the article?
 * Treasurer (finance minister)

Surely someone can just click on the link to find out what the treasurer does, as with NSW instead of New South Wales? Can you point me to the anacronym specific policy - and even if there is one (I take your word) surely it would be relaxed for infoboxes, which provide fast, digestable information. Happy Editing! Cheers, Jpe|ob 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers - the bracketed explanations are needed for print editions. I still wonder about acronyms in userboxes. Can we have New South Wales in the article and NSW in the infobox? I believe the precedent should not be for all areas, because common sense would have it that infoboxes - in providing fast, concise information - should be an exception. Would the correct forum be a policy discussion at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Piped link? Jpe|ob 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you checked to make sure that people are not piping US state names through like that? Because this is also not the American Wikipedia! I did not realise before your edit that it was even an issue. Especially when the country comes after it. Ans e ll  11:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've finally put forward three policy proposals for piping links in infoboxes on such pages as diverse as Bert Newton and Louis A. Johnson - at the piped links talk page. I'd be delighted if you could consider the three possibilities and perhaps say on the page which proposal you think is best. Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Division of Gwydir:
You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 12:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

2007 federal election, rann/kerin
Actually, it wasn't vandalism. It was pure error on my part. I was the one who added the table, grabbing the one I did in the SA election. I must have happened to miss that bit by accident when changing the necessary bits. Sorry for that and thanks for fixing it :-) Timeshift 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 R o  gerthat  Talk  06:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Vaile
The only place you would have seen a NAT is in the QLD state election where Springborg was the official opposition leader. Notice Flegg didn't make it to the MPL table. Timeshift 01:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

image on brian henderson
Hey PMA. This is weird. The image you just uploaded to Brian Henderson - Image:Hendo.jpg i think it is - looks fine, but when i click on it it is some football player pixellated... perplexing... just letting you know. Jpe|ob 09:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus
Hi. I've no idea why and how u came in comparing the Cuban exiles with the Greek Cypriots, but this is not my point... My point is that some edits (i'm not refering to only yours) can 'put oil in the fire'. Maybe u are fed up with Greeks saying that the post 1974 anatolian turkish colonists in cyprus should return to turkey, but what they are saying, is compatible with the International law, the Geneva treaty, bla bla bla. and since that is an encyclopedic article, i can't see what are u expecting it to say? maybe that they have every right to be there? i have no idea what the solution of the cyprus problem will be (if there'll be any...), but do not be aggressive to those GCs who are saying such things... maybe they come from the northern part of the island and they cannot go back there any more... (i am not Greek Cypriot, but i think i can understand them...). Prior to 1974, it was an illusion that anatolian turks would colonise cyprus, but then, it became reality... u never know what the future will bring... maybe the colonists will leave, who knows? taking into account that u are an admin (and as such u have to take a look in many articles), i bet that u have got involved in many cases dealing with nationalistic POV fanatics, and i know that some of them may had been Greeks. but, when u said the nationalist monstrosity that was the Megali Idea, i expected u to say something similar for the Turkish War of Independence and the turkish invasion on Cyprus, but apparently u didn't... I see that u are from Australia, and i know that there are many Greeks in your country. i would expect u to be more pro-Greek, or even just neutral would be fine... but that edit of yours, out of nothing (!) really surprised me (if not pissed me off...)! Forgive me as well for been cynical and sarcastic, but sometimes i am impulsive in talk pages (id est 'honest'). btw, my comment was 'not a personal attack! and pls, next time do not remove my comments from talk pages as u did here. Regards Hectorian 19:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

keating
I've replied on my talk page. Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Misanthrope00
You blocked this user for "multiple image copyright infringements, violation of policy, reckless exposure of project to liability" without placing any warning on the user's talk page beforehand, or pointing out that their actions were differing from policy. It is usually customary and polite for a user to recieve a warning prior to being blocked (especially for a month).

Can I please ask that you reconsider the block? michael talk 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand your concern but at the same time I do not want to see Wikipedia loose a potentially useful user. If you unblock, you can always place another one if required, and I would have no objection to that if the user failed to comply with policy. michael talk 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sun editorials
They were sister publications. But that does not indicate that they shared a style. The sun never had (or very rarely had) editorials. And I was born in the 50s. Thus it never had an 'op-ed' page. But was famous for its photo spread central page for instance. Lentisco 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:LorenzoPerosi1898
You blocked LorenzoPerosi1898 for three months, after a content dispute with him on Groucho Marx. Even disregarding the fact that you shouldn't be blocking someone over a content dispute you're personally involved in, there's very little evidence that he's done anything worth blocking him for and three months is (even by my standards) far too long, especially for an editor who has made many good contributions to Wikipedia. I'm removing the block. --ajn (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please look at this alert about your block and respond where/as appropriate. Thanks. -- Hoary 11:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Leon Blum
Have you even seen my edit before reverting it? I have inserted the year when Blum has becomed a member of the SFIO and, keeping to the argument of Adam Carr, I have changed Soviet Union with Soviet Russia. Is there any justification of your move or you just enjoy reverting edits? I demand from you to insert my edit again (Zdravko mk 13:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Better understanding WP:NPOV and WP:V
There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping  here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Le baron
Hey PMA, I noticed that you blocked User:Le baron. Could you please put a block notice on his talk page? I would do it myself but other than the log info, I don't know the details of what's been going on or the nature of Adam's complaint etc. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of YCDTOTV
My edit to You Cant do that on television was legitimate and I even went so far as to explain it on the talk page. Not only did you revert without a reason, but then blanked my talk page entry. If you want to remove it, fine, but discuss why on the talk page, please. -Husnock 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not blank legitimate talk page entries. Removing disupted or unsourced content from articles is fine, but removing talk page discussions, which are not clear vandalism, is generally frowned upon.  Thanks for your understanding. -Husnock 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
Paul, please have a look at the Indigenous Australians talk page and see if you think it proper to block the anon 203.54.174.201 for repeated anon unsigned trolling despite repeated requests to play by the rules. Cheers. Adam 05:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Already taken care of PMA. Adam's anon was a resurfacing of the banned anon user as per Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. -- Longhair\talk 06:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, it's been sorted. Hope you're Ok. Adam 08:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bart Versieck
Is this the only reason you blocked for 72 hours without prior warning??? All I see is that you used the rollback button on a non-vandal edit and then blocked him because he wrongly used "vandalism" in the edit summary? That was not appropriate, OK, but what in WP:BLOCK justifies so harsh action? Or is there something I don't see (although I reviewed his contribs briefly). Duja ► 13:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I second Duja's request. Would you reconsider? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, as you couldn't be reached right now, Duja and I have gone ahead and unblocked. Please come back to us if you disagree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Elsmlie
PMA, I'm rather shocked to see yet another instance of a blatantly inappropriate block of yours in the case of. As I can truly see not the slightest indication of a good reason for blocking, I'm going to unblock without further consultation, but will list on WP:ANI for further review. Also, I must notify you that I'd consider there to be grounds for an admin-abuse RfC, as there has apparently been a pattern of questionable admin actions on your part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I second this assessment. You made no effort to warn Elsmlie before blocking at all. --  Netsnipe  ►  12:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Me three. I can't find any justification for this block. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election questions
Hi there. I was looking at your ArbCom election candidate questions page, and I noticed you haven't replied to any of the questions. I note that your candidate statement said that you would be "away until Monday" for medical treatment. Which Monday was that? (I was particularly interested in your answer to the age question for this table here, but then the issue of whether you would be providing any answers at all sprung to mind). PS. Hope all went well with the treatment. Carcharoth 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reagan Democrats
I understand your concern, but I also have some sympathy with it being deleted because I've seen too many American analogies in my time, includsing at least one pretty silly one elsewhere on Wikipedia (a baseball analogy). I'm not going to take sides on that one, other than to note that this is a content dispute, so I don't see the charge of vandalism as appropriate. Rocksong 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent blocks

 * Acting on the belief that Police one another is a necessary collolary of Defend one another, I have opened an RFC against PMA here. Thatcher131 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
 * 2) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 3) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Andy
I don't recall doing so, and there is no message to that effect on this page. If you can show me where I did so, I will retract that statement. Adam 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was some time ago, and it was in relation to the people who obviously pushing communist POV at the CPA article at that time. I didn't ask you to block Andy, who is not one of that group. So I think you may have been a little over-hasty on that one. I will support you on blocking le baron, who is no more than a troll. Adam 08:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Nightmare 2
Unfortunately, you can't really verify "fan" reaction or association. Critics are one thing, but fans are too large a scale and you cannot accurately measure them, or what they say, and that is why Wikipedia usually doesn't allow any type of "fan" reaction or description. Even if you could find 100 sites that said the same thing, it still wouldn't prove it because of the large scale of fans. I'm sorry, but we have to deal with this on all film pages, and most fans get really disgruntled when you tell them that we can't use their opinion because it can't be authenticated. Bignole 13:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom
On Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

I tried to find some examples for you but couldn't find any on your questions page. So you may want to enter an example or two yourself. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tenth Planet/War Games
If you have an entry about a particular TV episode and you're summarizing a plot in which character A dies, you state that character A dies because that's what happens in that episode. If character A shows up alive and well in a shower a season later, you are free to mention that in a separate section of the page but not in the summary -- the summary refers to just what happened in that particular episode only (although a reference to the subsequent story may be in order). It would be better to just state what happened in these DW episodes as they originally occurred and deal with the retcon/retronym/etc. aspects in the Notes/Trivia section or as in its own subsection. Those issues deserve their space in these articles, but since they were added in after the fact, they don't belong in the summary. If nothing else, these articles must acknowledge that "regenerating" as a concept was retconned (if not shoehorned) into the series during season 11; before that, the Doctor was changing his appearance with the help of the TARDIS or at the behest of Time Lord technology. My point is this: we must get the details right, even if they don't all fit in the summary. Proteus71 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jarviscocker.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jarviscocker.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok  ☠  02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Email
I emailed you. Sarah Ewart 12:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Writing Adem Somyürek in the correct version is not vandalism
The correct Turkish spelling is Adem Somyürek with the letter ü - anglicizing non-English names in the English Wikipedia is not done, except for historical persons. And by the way correcting this detail is absolutely not vandalism. Just because these letters do not exist in the English language is not an excuse; or because the person mentioned above happens to live in an English speaking country and is its citizen. Changing the spelling of English personal names and surnames are not done in the non-English Wikipedia pages. You seem to confuse such kind of contribution with vandalism. It only shows your ignorance as a unilingual speaker. So don't insist. You would also be offended if your name was written differently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saguamundi (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Image tagging for Image:Kebeaz.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kebeaz.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, I wasn't online last night. However, it is generally accepted that people can remove messages and warnings from their own talk pages. This has been discussed several times on AN/I if you want to check the archives. Sarah Ewart 12:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Portttimor.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Portttimor.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Portttimor.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Portttimor.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fulford
Paul, did you already have this article on your watchlist? It seems unlikely. Or are you watching every new edit to Wikipedia? This also seems unlikely. If neither of these is the case, it seems you are monitoring my "My Contributions" page to see what edits I am making. If you are doing this, it amounts to stalking and I must ask you not to. Adam 12:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Adam 12:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
Why you are not an admin any more? Hope to get a reply. --- ALM 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Torchbully.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Torchbully.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Paul.keating.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Paul.keating.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

7LA
A few months ago, you created an article on radio station 7LA in Tasmania. Has that station moved to a new FM frequency yet? If it has, please update the article accordingly. Thanks. --Eastmain 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Samantha_Smith_portrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Samantha_Smith_portrait.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

electoral redistribution
how many are changing? do you know if there are maps of the new boundaries online? --Astrokey 44 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * wow thats quite alot of changes.. I didnt even know they did this (to that extent), I was just making them from the 2004 maps that were at Divisions of the Australian House of Representatives.. funny how the boundaries move but its still the same name for roughly the same location --Astrokey 44 11:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RKO General
The report doesn't say much--at least in the areas I've been able to access. I imagine it's kept in existence simply as a skeletal holding vehicle for the few remaining assets--the name, trademarks, etc.—DCGeist 08:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hendo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hendo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Eve
no problem. it's good that people are looking at articles and trying to improve them. :-) Rossrs 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Emmett7.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Emmett7.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Longhair\talk 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carltonitv1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Carltonitv1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary student unionism refs
Good work providing those references for the voluntary student unionism article - it's good to see the end of that citation notice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El T (talk • contribs) 13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Request to block user
I wish I could help, but I'm not yet an admin. In any case, your best bet is to report the user on Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Grika Ⓣ 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Limestreet.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Limestreet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Tennant-david.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tennant-david.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Defencebeaz.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Defencebeaz.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion/2007 June 23
Hi PMA, a recent edit of yours removed quite a lot of content from the above page - was this intentional? Cheers, Riana (talk)  12:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Parkerlewis.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Parkerlewis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Maia brewton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Maia brewton.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Eccleston_chris.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Eccleston_chris.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Marisask.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Marisask.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)