User talk:Papa November/Archive 7

Meeten's Mill, West Chiltington
Can you delete this redirect so that I can move the Rock Mill, West Chiltington article to its correct title. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Musical artist
I liked your explanation. The clear thinking about the differences between politicians' and musicians was what I was looking for. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - Edit War Today?
I know you have much better things to do, but I noticed that one user that was 3RR blocked from Sarah Palin on Oct 27 reverted some edits on that page at least three times on the page today. Please ignore this if you've already had an eye on this. Hey I wish I could just go around reverting other people whenever I want too. I just prefer to see everyone working with the same playbook. Thanks in advance. --  --#1--    --    --#2--    --    --#3--   --   Thanks again, and sorry to trouble you. This can't be too easy for you, I'm afraid. Additionally, excuse me if this entry is in any way out of line. I'm rather inexperienced as an editor in Wikipedia. VictorC (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Victor, thanks for your message and sorry for the slow reply. You should take a look at the policy page about the three revert rule.  The letter of the law states that a user may be blocked if they revert a page more than three times in a 24 hour period.  In this case, the user didn't appear to revert more than 3 times in the last 24 hours, so I won't block him right now.  If you spot someone doing this in future, then you'll get the quickest response if you report it at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.  Note that although three reverts per article, per day is the hard limit, users shouldn't do it repeatedly.  You might want to look into dispute resolution with the user if he doesn't seem to be changing his behaviour.  Papa November (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

request for third opinion
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at, please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i.
is a sock of M.V.E.i. Now I am certain of that. Colchicum (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * . Colchicum (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he's back (diff) that quickly. --Born2flie (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work guys. I've blocked him indef and tagged as suspect.  I don't think this needs another checkuser just yet.  Hopefully if we (the community) can keep him off talk pages, he'll get the message that he's been banned! Papa November (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * . Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Papa November (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Leo
About general comments on the Leonardo talk page, a lot of contributions like the one that you deleted are made by kids. You can afford to be kind. I never mind giving them a response or answer to a question, regardless of how inane it is. Amandajm (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had just written a lengthy explanation on the talk page and lost the blinking lot! I'll write it again! Amandajm (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! Oh dear, I hope it didn't take too long! Have you tried pressing the "back" button in your browser?  It might have been cached there. Papa November (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RHbear.svg)
Thanks for uploading Image:RHbear.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re
Classy responce on Amanda's talk, Papa. Its imporant to remember that disputs are a just fact of life and can't be avoided, and that there are real people behind these accounts (and I'm not taking sides at all). Ceoil (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to your message
Papa November, I apologise for using offensive words in expressing the fact that I'm rather fed up with the Leonardo business. And as I have said, I have been dealing with a troll (on Simple English Wiki where I also contribute) whose repeated questioning about very obvious things has left my patience quite exhausted. You re-emergence at the Leonardo page exactly coincided with the apparent disappearance of this other editor. I presume, by your response, that you are genuine, and not simply trying to push my patience.

I am really surprised that you have come back again to make changes to this article, when I had previously reverted a good many of your changes because they were inappropriate and introduced inaccuracies. You come back to a subject that you obviously have no expertise in, and introduce still more inaccuracies! Why?

With regards to "peacock language" and so on:

Basically, I am frustrated that you seem unable to grasp the fact that Leonardo's status as an artist in the collective consciousness is unique. If you read the article carefully you will find that he isn't being described (personally) in superlative terms. It is being said that he was/is regarded in superlative terms. You must have read the article through a number of times, and failed to grasp that this is a fact. Please get up Vasari's lives, which is online, and discover for yourself how he was regarded in the 1500s.

There are certain people who occupy an "iconic" status. If you look at the 20th century you find several such people who epitomise some human quality (or characteristic): Einstein, Hitler. Einstein's name is synonymous for genius. (Bright kids get called Einstein, right?) Hitler's name is synonymous with the bully, the meglomaniac and the evil leader. ("My boss was a little Hitler" etc) And Ghandi is revered (yes, that word again) so much that even his "flip flop" has passed into common parlance.

Other iconic people are: King Solomon, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Ghengis Khan, Charlemagne, King Arthur, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Mozart, Robin Hood, Joan of Arc, Casanova, Napoleon and Saint Francis of Assisi. These people are not simply famous for the events of their life or for what they actually acheived. In each case, they have legendary status which can only be expressed in extreme terms. Superlatives are needed to describe the way these people are regarded. One doesn't presume that every person knows all about every one of these people. But one does presume that every reasonably well-educated person knows what their main claim-to-fame was. Likewise, Leonardo.

I am also frustrated by the fact that the changes that you have made have consistently showed a lack of in-depth knowledge or research into the subject. Changing the statement that Leonardo was a scientist, painter, botanist, architect etc etc to "Leonardo worked as etc" was really the last straw! I had already asked you not to try to simplify things by that sort of editting at the time when you tried to write out the identities of the two famous equestrian statues. Any reader who really desired knowledge about Leonardo's horse needed to know about those two horses. Not just the fact that two had been made, but precisely who made them, in order to understand the context in which Leonardo was working. I have had the feeling that I have needed to watch this article every day, in order to make sure that you were not removing information that you simply didn't comprehend was valuable.

I also want to make it clear that I am not simply being possessive. Another editor recently expressed concerns about the wording of two passages, one (quite rightly) from a point of grammar, the other from a matter of fact. This person tracked down the source, decided it wasn't strong enough and deleted the bit. The changes were both improvements. Likewise, the intro that you recently changed, had been last editted, fairly extensively by PiCo, who is a professional writer. I reverted your changes back to my earlier one, incorporating one of your simplifications. But then, on thinking about it, I got out of bed, restarted the computer, and, after looking at a few other articles about the great and famous, put it back to PiCo's reordering.

I realise that this must read in a terribly negative way, if what you are doing is sincerely trying to improve the article. But I need to point out to you that you are fiddling with something that has been collaborated upon by several people with considerable expertise in the field. I don't generally write monographs about individual paintings or buildings. The articles that I have written on wikipedia, (almost single-handed) are Romanesque architecture, Gothic architecture, Renaissance architecture (in collaboration); Italian Renaissance painting; Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England etc. I am one of the few people on wiki who has both the extensive knowledge of art and architectural history and the inclination to write the major generic articles. I reorganised and extended the Leonardo article because it was far from adequate, but is extremely important and needs to be good. Once the articles that I have written have been tweaked by a few knowledgeable people, they are maintained, and remain extremely stable. Leonardo has been very stable, (apart from vandalism), until you started on it. It is at present (unless someone has changed it since I last looked) one of the best Leonardo articles that I have found on line (given that its length is constrained).

Dealing with this Leonardo business is getting in the way of anything else useful that I could be contributing. I'm frankly sick of it. I don't want to see the article either "watered down" as another editor said, by someone who fails to recognise Leonardo's "unique status"; or made inaccurate by reordering/changing the words. People are not generally as rude to each other as I was to you, unless they have been pushed beyond the limit of their patience and tolerance.


 * Amandajm (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate the apology. Perhaps we'll get along better if we understand what each other is trying to achieve, so I will try to explain clearly what I do around here...


 * One of my long-term activities on Wikipedia is improving the images and the style of the text in vital articles (articles that are considered a top priority and should be made featured as soon as possible). Leonardo is listed as a vital article, and that is why I am here.


 * As you said, the article has been stable for a long time. I make no comment about the factual content, but my work on many other articles across a wide range of subjects leads me to believe that style problems are keeping the article from becoming featured.  No one is actively working to promote it to featured status.  The fact that new and unregistered editors are prevented from working on the article might go some way to explaining why no one is touching it.  "Stalled" or "stagnant" might be a better word than "stable"!


 * I know that you disagree with me about the style problems, and I doubt either of us will persuade the other, so let's not trawl through the specific issues again. I must emphasise once last time, in case you are still in any doubt though: I do not want to change the factual content, or meaning of the text - I merely want to address style issues and encourage people to push the article to FA status.


 * Rather than slapping maintenance tags all over the article, I tried to fix it myself a few times as the editing guidelines suggest. However, as you keep reminding me, some of my changes inadvertently affected the meaning of the article.  This was not intentional, and I'm sorry that you have been so upset about it.


 * ...so, I'm left with a dilemma: the article is vitally important to the project and needs to be promoted to featured status ASAP. No one else is working on it and my attempts to address style issues are upsetting a major contributor.  I've tried the following:


 * Editing the article myself, but you usually revert to the original version without retaining style fixes, citing inadvertent changes in meaning
 * Leaving suggestions on the article talk page, but you usually dismiss these immediately and hardly anyone else replies
 * Adding maintenance tags, but you remove these before anyone has had a chance to see them and make comments
 * Listing the article for peer review, but only one person commented before it was archived
 * Finally, I've resorted to a request for comment to inject some other opinions - I hope this helps to restart the stalled editing process.


 * From now on, I won't change the text myself because there's too great a chance of inadvertent changes in meaning. Instead, I'll focus my efforts on sparking some life into the editing/reviewing of the article with the hope of it eventually improving to featured status. Papa November (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I find your description of the article as "stalled" or "stagnant" rather offensive. The major articles that I have written get re-read and tweaked frequently. Every change or talk page suggestion is considered and the content revised if appropriate. I have already made that point to you, when mentioning changes made at a recent editors suggestion. The part about Leonardo as a vegetarion is a recent addition because other editors thought it was important. So is the information that Leonardo's mother may have come from the Middle East. The list of paintings has now gone because it has taken the form of a box. The box itself went through various stages of improvement. These sorts of changes indicate that the article is upgraded frequently and certainly isn't stagnant. If anyone finds fault with the content, it's looked into immediately, hence a recent removal of a statement for which there wasn't sufficient evidence. The article is "stable" in the sense that it doesn't generally get fought over or chopped about. It is stable because there has been a concensus reached and the major contributors are satisfied to maintain it, only making changes as new material comes to light.


 * The Leonardo article is a target for vandals. One of the ongoing problems is not simply that it gets vandalised. A problem is that every man, child and his dog knows something about Leonardo and wants to add it, even if it is something as simple as "The Virgin of the Rocks is my favourite painting". If the article is not' protected, then it will quickly lapse into a mish mash of Dan Brown type nonsense, with sentences added in all sorts of places that they don't belong.


 * As for the things that you refer to as "style": Guidelines are guidelines. There is a place on wikipedia for words like "renowned", "revered" and "unique". They do not apply very often. However, when 11 writers tell you that Leonardo is incredibly famous, then the right verb to describe how he was regarded is "renown". This is not about POV or PR. This is an accurate use of the word.
 * The 11 writers are not saying things like "Ghirlandaio is most famous for a fresco cycle at Santa Maria Novella" or "Perugino is best known as the painter of many altarpieces with sweet-faced madonnas." What they all say, literally, is "Leonardo is one of the most astounding people/artists who has ever lived". That type of expression of admiration demands the use of words like "renowned" in the introduction.


 * The introduction (stylewise) does not require masses of citation, as long as the information is supported, with ciation, by the text. In this case, every one of the statements about Leonardo's fame was appropriately supported in the text. The eleven quotes were cited as eveidence for his fame in the first paragraph. That was enough evidence to support the fact that he was famous. Using the same evidence to support the individual word "renowned" and the individual word "revered" is just plain ridiculous. But it is now done. One statement of his extreme fame really ought to cover the others, in the introduction at any rate. Go back and have a look at how daft it is to have a distracting reference after the word "renowned" as if the word itself contained some vital fact that needed to be track to its source. That type of referencing is utterly superfluous because it breaks the flow of the sense and gives back absolutely nothing to the reader.


 * With regards to my supposed OR statements, they were made to you specifically, in the context of the talk page. They were not used as evidence in the article. I was merely attempting to make you personally aware that Leonardo's fame could not possibly be a matter of question. Citation, particularly in the intro, is really only necessary if the matter is questionable. Leo's fame could hardly be a matter that a person would seriously question. Questioning all this sort of stuff and labelling it as "peacock terms" seems to me to be extraordinarily pedantic and unpleasant, if in fact there is no doubt that that the person really is "famous" and "renowned". I must ask you whether you are now about to go over to the Jesus page and force the editors there to find citation for the fact that Jesus is "revered". It would be almost as ridiculous, but if you are prepared to push the "guidelines" as watertight rules, then you would no doubt be justified in doing it.


 * The point that I am trying to make to you is that if I had written "Perugino is a supreme painter of the Italian Renaissance, renowned for his beautiful pictures of Madonnas and revered as the great teacher of Raphael" then you would have good reason to slap the peacock tag on every second word. But Leonardo is Leonardo. The only artist who approaches his fame is his younger contemporary Michelangelo. However, Michelangelo is famous as a painter and sculptor, not as a universal genius. The facts and the fame have little to do with each other.


 * In fact, Michelangelo achieved far more than Leonardo in terms of real work. He was also the supreme architect of his age (no question about this) and one of the greatest poets of Italy. But Michelangelo was a surly and reclusive man, while Leonardo could charm the birds down from the trees, figuratively speaking. So while Leonardo became a "Legend in His Own Time", Michelangelo simply became the world's greatest sculptor, and after Leonardo's death, its greatest painter, and ultimately, its greatest architect. And despite the fact that he was reclusive, we know a great deal more about how he actually felt about things than we probaly will ever know about Leonardo. But the fascination that people feel with Leonardo just goes on and on. (just keep in mind that this is your page, and don't request evidence of Michelangelo's greatness.)


 * With regards to the numerous citations of the word "iconic" the point that I am making is that this is "common knowledge". That people across the world both perceive and refer to that drawing as having "iconic" status. In this particualr case, the word is entirely appropropriate and hardly needs citation. It would probably be more sensible to link the word to the appropriate wikipedia icon article.


 * Getting back to an earlier point, inviting improvements to an article of this type can have fairly disastrous results when people who don't know the subject very well decide to have a go at it. You have said that no one else is working on it. Let me assure you that it is never neglected.

Amandajm (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When it was put up for FA last year, it was withdrawn for lack of time. (My fault, I unwisely put up several articles at the same time). However, a number of useful comments were made and several experienced editors dealt with all sorts of different problems. This is why all but the most recent references have been properly formatted, the spelling and grammar have been completely reviewed, and a person with excellent editorial skills was asked to review it. (These were aside from the editors that wrote the thing). One of the things that I did was source and cite bits that remained from the earlier article but were very much lacking in references. (The earlier article was overwhelmingly about Leonardo's speculated sexual activities with nothing whatever about his paintings.) We had a very good team of knowledgable people working on it. While I was the major contributor, I certainly didn't have it all my own way; I took a lot of advice and responded to requests for particular matters to be covered, for example, the section that sets Leonardo in the context of his contemporaries. However, someone further removed from the subject may well wonder why there is a section about all sorts of other people. The reason is that students studying Leonardo tend to see him in isolation and not as the product of his times. It is because of the input of others, and in part because I am able to respond to the requests for more or specific information that the article is, in fact, one of the best of the longer articles on wikipedia, regardless of whether it meets some enforced rule of referencing every descriptive term or not. The reason why it is a "stable" article is because it is a very good article. Not because, as you are implying, one of the editors blocks improvements. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you, even for an instant, that you might be going overboard with the way you are applying a set of guidelines.


 * OK Amanda, I never intended to dwell on this article for so long and I'm afraid I'm not enjoying my time contributing to it any more. I've said and heard all I want to about the style issues, so I'll finish off promoting the RfC that I started and then stay away from the topic indefinitely.


 * I know we have had our disagreements on the article style, but I hope you have at least found my work on List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci, the image description pages and the reference style updates helpful. As this article is considered vital to the project, I wish you the best in getting it featured.  I'll keep watching the page for vandalism etc, and if you need any administrative or technical assistance with the article, then you can give me a shout any time.  Papa November (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Papa November, for your offer of technical assistance, etc. Yes, I think that the creation of the separate list of paintings was defintitely a very good move. It is very good to be able to see all the images together, access the enlargements on commons and navigate the monographs, without having to search around. It also gives a succinct picture of the status of each pic. I feel inclined to look a little further into the details of exactly which Leonardo scholars agree about which particular paintings. The Ginevra/Woman with the Ermine question is particularly interesting. All the best1 Amandajm (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hubble Ultra Deep Field Delisting
Hi, an image you uploaded, Image:Hubble ultra deep field.jpg is being considered in a delist and replace nom on the English Wikipedia. Please express your opinion here.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Magsaveslives username
Hi Papa November,

I'm happy to change my username, makes no odds to me!

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsaveslives (talk • contribs) 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead
Some guy behind anonymous IP reverted the whole chunk I cut from this superfluous section that we discussed. Back me up, or not. But I think it's for the best and I did it in GF. I rereverted but I think it needs serious discussion before we enter into a revert war. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Roza-Shanina profile.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roza-Shanina profile.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Papa November (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Vostok1.jpg
Hi! Your recent edit (adding a template) at Image:Vostok1.jpg has placed that image in the category indicating its source is unknown. That's obviously incorrect; there can be only one source for this image. (That source may not be indicated in the wikipedia metadata for the image, but that doesn't make it unknown.) Please self-revert your edit. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 04:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Fchristi.jpg

 * Could you please take a look at File:Fchristi.jpg, in particular my recent edits since your proposal for deletion based on supposedly unclear copyright status? No intermediate source is listed because there was none.  (And intermediate sources, AFIK in such cases are completely irrelevent to copyright status anyway.) This is a case of directly from original to Wikipedia. I can mention the name of the musician who was given the photo by Frank Christian if you think it is somehow relevent. As it's a pre-1923 US work, AFAICT such minutia has zero relevency to copyright. Thank you for your feedback, and I appreciate that you wish to be vigilant about copyright.  Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry about that. For some reason, the 1917 date didn't register with me!  I'll take it over to Commons as PD-1923 tomorrow.  Thanks for being patient with me! Papa November (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. Sorry if my message was a bit more curt in tone than it should have been -- I was in a bit of a mood last night. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * version on Commons "Category:Diagrams by type"?? "Date:2003-03-19"?? Your user name is on this. Do you think this is in adiquate shape? My user name is on this as well and I am embarassed. Are you planing to finish what you started in trasfering this image? I sure hope you are, and promptly. Thanks. -- Suddenly in a poor mood again, Infrogmation (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot puts maintenance tags on transfers for this very reason, and users (including myself) come along in good time to clean the page up. In the meantime, although the Commons page is imperfect, it's GFDL compliant and the en:w page meets WP:CSD.  Papa November (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to this, the 2003-03-19 date is marked as the original upload date. The original date of publication is stated immediately afterwards. Papa November (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad categories have been removed on Commons as requested, and I have deleted the image again under CSD#I8. Papa November (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Alt-rock WikiProject
Hey, I just noticed that you list yourself as a member of the WikiProject, but you never added your name to the project member list. If you wish to do so, you can list yourself here. The main benefit of doing this is that you receive a monthly newsletter detailing the project's achievements. Conversly, if you don't want to receive the newsletter, you can always list your name here. Also, check out the project talk page, where we're always up to something (it's an especially helpful place for requesting feedback on articles you've working on). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for December 2008
SoxBot II (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hope the year brings success and happiness.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead FAR
nominated Radiohead for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Resonant capacitor
I have nominated this article for deletion. Can you help me out and review it, I don't think the average admin is going to understand the issues here. Thanks.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  13:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Don't Worry, Be Happy
My apologies; an ANI thread mentioned hoaxes/trawling and linked to your contribs; I assumed your edits were the disease rather than the cure. Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Death hoaxes
I saw your block of, as I was the one that gave him the vandal template. Is there a more appropriate/quicker venue those sorts of things should be taken to in the future, given the increased attention this has received? Tarc (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just mention it at WP:ANI - someone will normally deal with this sort of thing quickly! Papa November (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I didn't think much of the Dave Grohl vandal it til I saw the news article on Kennedy and Byrd afterwards.  Thanks. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Files_for_deletion/2009_January_11
Papa November, I notice in your closure of this that you did not give any reasons as to why the deletion arguments were overridden by those on the keep side. We now have an article (1969: The Velvet Underground Live) with two virtually identical non-free images, A point I raised in the debate but was not addressed by those seeking to keep the image. I think that perhaps you missed the WP:NFCC argument that this can be replaced by a free piece of text. Care to reconsider ? - Peripitus (Talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - you're right. The NFCC#1 point was not addressed by any of the "keep" voters.  I'll amend the closure. Papa November (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this - two photos of the same posterior was a bit excessive - Peripitus (Talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kagoshima flag on Ryukyu Kingdom
Hi. I noticed you removed the Kagoshima flag from the infobox on the Ryukyu Kingdom article, stating "rm non-free image with no fair use rationale for it to appear here". I am hoping you would explain your reasoning, please.

My reasoning for leaving it in is as follows: (1) The flag or official symbol of Kagoshima Prefecture is no more copyrighted than any other prefectural flag or symbol, not to mention other state, provincial, and national flags from around the world, which may differ in the legal technicalities but not in concept. (2) There are hundreds if not thousands of Wiki articles which use prefectural symbols, flags, and the like to represent prefectures, states, provinces or nations in infoboxes and other templates.

The string of islands once controlled by the Ryukyu Kingdom are now controlled by Kagoshima and Okinawa Prefectures. To represent this, two links are present at the top of the infobox leading to the articles on those two prefectures, and the flags or symbols of the prefectures are used. This is no different than, for example, the infobox on the Holy Roman Empire, which uses flags to represent the many states which succeeded the Empire in history. If those flags can be used, and evidently the Okinawa Prefecture symbol is okay, since you didn't remove that, why is the Kagoshima Prefecture symbol not okay?

Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware symbols are copyrighted in the US unless
 * they were made before 1923 or
 * they were in the Japanese public domain on 1st Jan 1996.
 * The image description page explicitly says that the image was deleted from Japanese Wikipedia because it is under copyright there, so the second possibility won't work. If it was created before 1923, then we can tag it as PD-US-1923-abroad and it can be used freely. I hope that helps!  Papa November (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so why does this case differ from that of other symbols and flags used in countless contexts across Wikipedia? (I have since replaced the copyrighted symbol with a flag image from WikiCommons which is labeled as public domain on the image description page.) Why is the Kagoshima prefectural symbol a special case? LordAmeth (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't a special case - all files either need to be public domain in the US or their non-free use must be justified for each article. I'm working through old files to bring them in-line with the modern image use policy and I noticed that this image was tagged as non-free and was being used without a fair use rationale.  To bring it in-line with policy, I removed the non-free use violation.  If the image is in the public domain, then of course it can be tagged as such and used freely.  Papa November (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a fellow editor and admin heavily involved in enforcing standards (e.g. WP:MOS) and the like, I thank you very much for your efforts. I submit, however, that I think it would be useful for you to create fair-use rationales, or to contact other users to investigate the rationale where missing, rather than simply deleting things. Wikipedia benefits more from images with appropriate fair-use rationales than from broken image links and articles missing images. LordAmeth (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

<- I agree - if possible, I always try to add/improve FURs rather than remove/delete images. However, non-free images generally can't be used as navigational aids (see WP:NFC) so I wasn't able to do so in this case. The ideal solution is for someone to show that this image was published before 1923 or that it was PD in Japan on 1st Jan 1996. Unfortunately, I can't speak any Japanese so it's very difficult for me to investigate the issue further in this particular case. Papa November (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Indie songs
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Indie songs, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Indie songs has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Indie songs, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cecilia
There's plenty of room in the box beside the painting. Can I suggest that you add part of the Martin Kemp statement re her ID to the box, instead of making it all a footnote? Amandajm (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Amanda, I don't think I'm confident enough with the subject matter to edit the text. I just copied/pasted from the main article when I added the ref!  Feel free to make any changes.  Cheers, Papa November (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Pyrgos.jpg
The image is from the official report of the first Olympic games, p. 62. As it was published back in 1896, it's not copyrighted any more. Gh (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work, thanks! Papa November (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Image checking
I've noticed you're doing some great work checking new image uploads. I'm working at the other end of the timeline, checking through the oldest images on the site. My aims are to filter out obvious non-free use violations, check that the source/license info is OK and if possible to shift them over to Commons. If any of this sounds interesting to you, I'd be glad to have you as a collaborator! Papa November (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Love to help with this. Are you planning on using something like reviewedfairuse to tag images as done/not-done ? Love to help - Peripitus (Talk) 02:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess reviewedfairuse could be helpful for coordinating this. However, a couple of editors have already been through the old non-free images and have been rather overzealous with their reviewedfairuse tagging - I found several images that were blatant WP:NFC violations (non-free image galleries etc) with very poor WP:FURs that had been tagged as reviewed! Papa November (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created a page at User:Papa November/OldImages to coordinate efforts. Feel free to edit at will! Papa November (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to have a run through this weekend and update the pointer just to see how this works. I think, given the number of images here, that this may be a monumental task. Just looking through the first few shows me possible issues - File:Childers big.jpg is probably fair use but there is no source, date nor copyright holder listed. Rather than nominating it for deletion I'll try to find the source. Looks like fun ! - Peripitus (Talk) 01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hephaestos
There's no need to post notices about licensing problems with the pictures he donated to Wikipedia. H. has been gone from the project for close to 4 years now. I don't know how that affects their status, but he doesn't care anymore, so there's no need to leave him messages about them which is why I protected his talk page -- to stop the useless badgering. -- llywrch (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I use twinkle, so the messages get sent automatically. I guess it would be a nice upgrade to the tools if they avoided protected pages. Papa November (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for February 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:GaryDaFatSnail - Stronger Warning Required?
Call me old fashioned but I think that threatening to "CRUSH YOUR SKULL IN" to another user warrants a stronger response - see. Exxolon (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FfD
Hi, I noticed you listed this at FfD, and thought I should tell you about CSD F1. Thanks, &mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I use CSD whenever possible. However, here CSD#F1 did not apply because (a) the image was not simply scaled down, it was also cropped and (b) the larger image was on Commons. Papa November (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. Obviously I can't see the image, I assumed it was a straight downsize. Thanks, &mdash; neuro  (talk)  02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:InsaneClownPosse.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:InsaneClownPosse.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. 06:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for March 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion tags on images
Well could you at least fix them instead of leaving them to get deleted. Hometown Kid (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Walter Hood Fitch
Hi, I'm intrigued by your singling out and hiding of my comments.
 * I am not. I have hidden comments by other users too. Papa November (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you for example feel that "We start with a right-aligned image because starting with a left-aligned image makes the article look like shit. The average person notices when the article layout looks like shit. The average person doesn't notice pretentious wankery like whether or not the subject of an image is looking towards the text. Hesperian 11:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)" goes to improving the article?
 * I only hid posts which did not mention the article. The article was mentioned in this post. Papa November (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

More "Don't you have something better to do? Also, your attitude isn't going to convince or persuade anyone. I'll leave (and take this article off my watch list) with this quote. You’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In other words, your attitude sucks. OlYellerTalktome 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)"
 * You are quote mining. The article was mentioned in the earlier part of the post Papa November (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

or "How long are you guys going to muck about trying to make the article layout accommodate that left-aligned image without looking like shit? The left-aligned image is the problem. Hesperian 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)"
 * I only hid posts which did not mention the article. The article was mentioned in this post. Papa November (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

or "Left: Rotational. Right: Cygnis insignis, Jenuk1985, OlYeller21, Carl, Prodego, CBM, OrangeDog, Hesperian. Sorry, Rotational, the mob has spoken. I'm going to move it right in accordance with consensus. Kindly note that this is my first such edit, so one can hardly accuse me of edit warring. Hesperian 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)"
 * I only hid posts which did not mention the article. The article was mentioned in this post. Papa November (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

or this piece of patent nonsense "Images should at be commons, unless they enhance the article's text. They are not decorations, encyclopaedic text precedes the image. The images and templates distracted the reader from the text, and provided no additional information; they were uncited, unsightly, and were a barrier to new editors. They did not enhance, explain, or improve the content in any way, nobody has bothered to discuss how this trivial inclusion would. Then move the image to Commons, if it has a compatible license. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)".
 * I only hid posts which did not mention the article. The article was mentioned in this post. Papa November (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It bothers me that your mission to clean up a talk page is obviously slanted. If you're going to exercise your judgement then do try to make it impartial. ciao Rotational (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your concerns above. In future, please only use article talk pages to discuss the article.  If you have issues with another user's conduct, please take it up with them on their user talk page or seek dispute resolution. Papa November (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An excerpt from the Talk page guidelines "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." This doesn't mention posts, it simply says "material". By your reasoning it is OK to say anything at all as long as you mention the article somewhere in the post. Do you really believe that!!?? ciao Rotational (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not OK to be uncivil or to make personal attacks, but talk page guidelines state "Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable". I would have removed the comments you listed above without a second thought if they did not mention the article.  However, they were making an attempt (albeit in an unpleasant tone) to discuss the article.  Conversely, the comments I hid were taking the discussion off-topic.


 * Let me turn this around. How could the comments I hid have generated a fruitful discussion related to improving that specific article? Papa November (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for that matter, how could any of the comments you left in place have led to a better article? The fact is that they haven't - compare the layout of the present article with the way it was before the hackers arrived, and then tell me honestly that you think it's an improvement. Rotational (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume you are comparing 29 March to today. The newer version is most definitely an improvement. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

← Well dodged. I'm not going to participate in the debate about the article layout - it's up to you and the other editors to decide which version is better. I'll reiterate: I left comments in place which discussed the article and I removed those which did not. I'm really not sure what you're trying to achieve but I assume one of the following two courses of action would be appropriate for you: Good heavens!! I thought I was quite clear.
 * 1) If you are unhappy about the layout of the article despite the consensus, bear in mine that consensus can change.  Try to make a polite, persuasive case on the article talk page, stay on topic and don't start attacking other editors.  If you still disagree, try asking for outside opinions. Papa November (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) If you are unhappy about the tone of other users' comments on the article talk page, please discuss it with them on their user talk page.  If you are not happy with the outcome, consider seeking dispute resolution. Papa November (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unhappy about your slanted editing of the talk page.
 * All the discussion, disagreement and reverting has left an article that "looks like shit", as our crude friend Hesperian would put it. Rotational (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first issue, I have already explained that the talk page guidelines state that material may be removed if it has nothing to do with improving the article, but that it is considered controversial to remove comments purely based on incivility. I believe I have followed the guidelines faithfully and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  Your accusation of "slanted editing" therefore appears unfounded.


 * Regarding the second issue, I have already stated that I won't participate in the dispute over article layout. Papa November (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, do take note: I don't think any editor approves of talk page content being removed or prudishly hidden, except possibly those editors who are self-appointed moral guardians and Thomas Bowdlers. ciao Rotational (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Papa November (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of images
Hi Papa, you sent me three messages in a row, each with the same canned message saying that an age-old fair use template that was good enough until now is now up for deletion. I ask you to reconsider your course of action: Singling out random images&mdash;screenshots of films in an article about that film at that&mdash;and asserting they may not enhance the reader's understanding of an encyclopaedic Wikipedia article is one thing you seem to be good at; another thing you might take up instead is replacing the template you do not like so that they can enhance the reader's understanding also in the future. Of course I'm only talking about those readers who want their understanding to be enhanced.

Do you believe what you are doing is actually improving Wikipedia? Or is there some altogether new policy I'm not aware of that completely prohibits the use of screenshots? (As always, no rhetorical question.)

All the best, and in case you care, a happy Easter,   21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi KF, thanks for your message. Sorry about the impersonal template messages - I use twinkle, so they get sent automatically.


 * I have no vendetta against screenshots. In fact, I'm perfectly happy for any non-free media to stay on Wikipedia as long as it's there for a reason.  The non-free media policy states that any such media must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and as long as that is justified, then I'm happy for it to stay.  Simply stating that "this image significantly etc..." isn't good enough; the fair use rationale must explain why that is the case.


 * In cases where I see an obvious benefit to the reader, I always replace the rationale (for example, this edit I made a few hours ago). In cases where I don't personally see any such benefit, I flag it as being inadequate.  If someone else can justify the use properly, then I'll happily withdraw the nomination.


 * Take for example The Lady Vanishes (1938 film). There is already an image of Redgrave and Lockwood in the article, so why would the reader's understanding be improved by the image I flagged for deletion?  I can't personally see any benefit to the reader so I can't replace the fair use rationale, but perhaps you or another editor can explain what additional information it gives the reader.


 * Regarding your concerns about my "random" choice of images, I am working systematically (not randomly) through the oldest images on the site to bring them up to the standards of the modern image use policy. I have a subpage describing my work on this.  I have also started working through this list in response to the recent deletion debate closure.


 * Finally, I firmly believe that this work is improving the project. I simply want to make sure that every piece of non-free media is used for a good, encyclopaedic reason.


 * Happy Easter to you too :) Papa November (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Userpage protection
Your commentary notes that you've protected it while you're away... You might consider lowering the protection now that you are back =) –xeno talk 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done :) Papa November (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy notice at File:Paranoid Android video.png
Hi Stifle,

I've added attribution to the creator and publisher of the work. Does this address your concerns? Thanks, Papa November (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems fine. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bends
Fancy working on it right now? I've got sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, I'm pretty busy at work at the moment but I'll help out with my usual pedantry ;)  Featured topic isn't too far away now! Papa November (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Would you consider reviewing your closure of the above thread? The result wasn't a warning, but a formal editing restriction (which has been protested by Rotational). S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've reopened it but I hope it doesn't degenerate into an attempt to debate specific style issues rather than the editing restrictions. I've created a thread at WT:MOS for that purpose. Papa November (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to provide a solution, I hope you don't mind me noting something here. You provided and discussed this diff, others have used the same, but did you notice that it also removed four references and text from the article? Two of these sources discussed and justified the inclusion of a second image (in a short article), added sometime back by one of the few contributors of content. In addition to removing the reliably sourced content of others, the account user refuses to supply the same for their own. Do you think the community's expectations regarding RS should be noted in the AN/I thread, or at the Rotational account's editing restrictions, or is this something that should be regarded as obvious to a long term user? cygnis insignis 03:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the belated reply. I think the AN/I thread was long enough with just the MOS issue!  I think long term users can reasonably be expected to be fully aware of WP:RS, but then I'd also expect long term users not to get into edit wars over minor MOS issues.  In honesty, I think this issue has moved beyond simple admin intervention.  I sincerely hope that the editing restrictions will work as Rotational is capable of making very constructive contributions.  If he resumes his disruptive behaviour, I think it's time to consider moving higher up the dispute resolution process. Papa November (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bibesco -
Thank you for your response to the photo of a 1924 painting by Augustus John of Elizabeth Bibesco. I REALLY need help to "re-tag as a non-free image and add a fair use rationale". Doing ANYTHING on wikipedia is mostly beyond my capabilities. In fact it was someone else who added the two photographs to the site and moved all three images into place - it's a mystery to me how thay did it?. Thanks Paul Darby173.35.58.235 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a draft fair use rationale at File:Augustus John, Princess Antoine Bibesco, 1924.jpg and tweaked the image a bit. Please could you have a look at the fair use rationale guidelines and check my edits? Papa November (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the Elizabeth Bibesco "fair use rationale". It certainly was a "low resolution" picture as I took it with my entirely inadequete camera. Your edits were perfect and I trust that the picture will be allowed to stay on wikipedia indefinitely. Wikipedia is the ONLY place in which to find a biography of this writer and as the biographer and wikipedia contributor I feel that this kind of item is a justification for the internet's very existence. Part of what the internet should be is a gathering of information that never before had a place to call home. I am happy with the "tweaking" of the picture - makes it look a lot more professional and the distortion is very minor. Paul Darby173.35.58.235 (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD of File:Emission spectrum-H.png
You have tagged this image for speedy deletion as an author is not specified. However, as the image states, it contains no original authorship and consists only of publicly available information. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some creativity required in representing scientific data: the range of wavelengths to plot, the aspect ratio and so on. It's very minor creativity and I guess it would be reasonable to just state the expression for wavelengths in the Balmer series, the image dimensions, colour profile and frequency range.  It would be better to specify the source explicitly though.  Feel free to remove the speedy notification (citing this message) and I'll sort out the image source details next week.  I'm too busy to do it right at the moment, I'm afraid. Papa November (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for May 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and War
Your edits to this article are being discussed at WP:EAR.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, already watching :) Papa November (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I LMAO at your new title for the article on AFD. I've never dealt much with AFD in the past, is it usually that much fun? Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually try to keep away from AfDs... they're either boring, black and white cases or long, protracted silly arguments. I guess my proposed title was a bit daft.  Must have been my frustration coming through! Papa November (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It ain't over 'til it's over - apparently there was "strong support in favour of keeping the article", which I must admit I didn't notice. pablo hablo. 11:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GaAaAaaaAAhh! Papa November (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop disruptive edits
I am concerned that you may have chosen to edit war with me over this and subsequent article's that I have been involved in. Please cease and desist. I took many of your initial edits, though disruptive, in good faith. Now you appear to be wiki-stalking me on other pages I have recently edited. I am not interested in the type of disruptive activity that you appear to engage in. I am interested in collaboratively producing balanced, informative and interesting content, and in improving my ability to write in an encyclopedic style suitable for the web. If you really want to help, please show me that you can exercise more good faith and are more willing to work to improve content over simply deleting everything. Thank you. Frei Hans (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have filed an alert here, as per your suggestion, asking you to stop disrupting valid content creation. Frei Hans (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copied article to userspace
I have copied your "well-referenced" version of the article to your userspace here. I'll start tagging it to show you exactly what I mean about the poor referencing. Papa November (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Papa November, in future please do this in your own user space or on some other page and drop me a note about it. My user space is mine to create drafts in and yours is yours to create drafts in. Thank you for your interest in the article, it has certainly generated more controversy than I expected. Frei Hans (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NB, I have moved your draft with suggestions back to Telepathy and war. If you are happy that our issues are nearing resolution, then perhaps we can remove some of the banners up the top. I have looked at your suggestions and citiation tags, and will be back to the article later to work on these. In the meantime, let's welcome intelligent and reasonable edits. Frei Hans (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS
In the deletion discussion here, you said I should send the email to OTRS. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to do that. Please help! -Rrius (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, sorry for the jargon! All you need to do is forward the email you received from the senate historical office to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.  Thanks for sorting this out. Papa November (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vietnamescape.jpg:
Thanks a lot for your help. Honestly, the non-free use rationale guideline is too complicated for me to read and understand :P. --AM (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychoville viral web sites
Hey, Papa!

About those Psychoville viral web site links, all of those are contained in the show and are a pinnacle piece to solving the mystery. The series takes place half on screen and half on the web, so to speak. I'm not sure how to give a spoiler warning, but we're going to eventually have to have them on the entry since they are part of the show and part of the BBC's campaign for the series. Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith did all exclusive content for the sites. Even Dawn French did, all in character. Let me know your thoughts on the matter! Best wishes. 76.117.121.148 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've merged the web sections for now. I think it's best to keep everything in one place if possible.  Also, external links should only be included if they actually contain some content - we can add new ones as they come online!  Also, we don't use spoiler tags on Wikipedia. Papa November (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that it was perhaps too early. I'm not out to spoil anything.  Maybe when the series concludes, we can decide on what to do. Thanks for the reply! 76.117.121.148 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Sunshine Anderson.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sunshine Anderson.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Papa November (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted. The image was already discussed about and why it should be kept. If you read the file and discussion page, you will that. Lovejonesfly (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Lovejonesfly, please don't remove deletion discussions. If you object to deletion of the image, please explain why at the discussion page.  Thanks, Papa November (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion, you keep talking about discussing it on the discussion, if you read it, you will see it fix Wiki standards. Stop trying to delete it when you have not read it. Lovejonesfly (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I invite you took take a second look. I think you miss the issue and reason why the image was uploaded. Lovejonesfly (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion review for File:Sunshine Anderson.jpg. An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Sunshine Anderson.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lovejonesfly (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The proper place for this discussion is at the files for deletion page. Papa November (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Ghost club logo.gif
Hey mate, give me the time to finish typing :oD

Seriously - thank you for your clarifications. McMarcoP (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

'right, I understand. What do I have to do for pictures I took? And, can you please check File:Ghost club logo.gif for me and tell me if it is fine? Thank you! McMarcoP (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You included the same license template twice, but otherwise the FUR for the ghost club logo looks great - it's very detailed and clearly explains why the image is needed in the article. Actually, as you become more familiar with the non-free content policy, you'll be able to write shorter fair use rationales.  For example, in the "Low_resolution" field, you can normally just say "yes" if the image is obviously very small (<300px)!


 * You can upload your own images if you agree to give permission to everyone in the world to freely use, modify and distribute your work. Here are the steps you should take:
 * Upload the image to Wikimedia Commons so that all Wikimedia projects can make use of the image. Use this upload form (not the one at Wikipedia)
 * Choose the "Entirely my own work" link
 * Follow the instructions on that page!


 * Send me a message if you get stuck with anything :) Papa November (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Admittedly, I was a bit verbose because I cp'd the rationale from another similar article and adapted it. Great! Thank you. McMarcoP (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Beth Ditto at Evans
Hi Papa November - Thanks so much for adding my content to the Beth Ditto fanpage! I really appreciate it :) Breli457 (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem... it's an encyclopaedia article though, not a fanpage! That means that we have to make sure that all the information is really significant and has come from reliable sources.  It's great to have you on board.  In a few days, you should find that you can edit the article yourself.  Let me know if I can help you find your way around :) Papa November (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging photos
Do you have anything better to do than tag my photos. This was uploaded the same way as. It was released under a public domain which means it doesn't need permission. Lovejonesfly (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I only delete/tag images which break the image use policy. I tagged File:DaughtersofSoul.jpg because you did not provide proof that it is in the public domain.  I strongly suggest that you read the image use policy before you upload anything else.  I won't delete any images if you upload them following the rules.  If you need any help understanding the policy, just ask me or another administrator. Papa November (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I got permission to use the photos and they said, "they sent an email to wikipedia saying it was usable." Lovejonesfly (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've tagged the image to ask an OTRS volunteer to confirm that the email has been received. It would help if you could forward your message on to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass. But if I change my mind in the future, I'll know where to ask! Cheers—indopug (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Telepathy and war
Yes it's true! You are being accused of vandalism at this DRV, and may want to take a look. pablo hablo. 12:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up :) Papa November (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for June 2009
SoxBot (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Solange Knowles discography
You can protect and revert the page all you want because I don't care about it. Also, please stop following my edits. I've noticed that for sometime now, so please stop. Now will you please stop interrupting me with your comments, 1st its about images, then its about Lalah, now its about something stupid that I can care less about. Thank you for consulting me but who cares, I'm trying to fix my talk page. Lovejonesfly (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been accused of sockpuppeting(not by me, the other user forgot to tell you)
Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November Abce2 | Free Lemonade  Only 25 cents!(Sign here)  16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The report has already been declined, but thanks for the heads up :) Papa November (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above reminds me, could you add "abuse of process through frivolous or repetitious filings" to your rationale on the RFC/U? thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)]

I added it to the Requests for comments. Right everyone who talks to him on his talk page he's accusing of sockpuppetery. Abce2 | Free Lemonade  Only 25 cents!(Sign here)  17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I was about add a comment to the RFC suggesting Frei Hans be mentored, but now I see his problems are much more serious and probably better handled at AN/I. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comment
If case you haven't noticed, I have been discussing it like an adult. And once again, I can care less about the Solange Knowles disc., so do whatever with it. You can't have a dispute resolution if you and DT128 are only ones editting it. Oh yeah, we're not fighting over the page, but I did use it as an example. Lovejonesfly (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
User:Lovejonesfly added the template after copying the content from your userpage. —  Σ xplicit  22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It nothing to have a heads up about. Lovejonesfly (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Explicit. I'm not sure whether he copied it from me or not, but it should certainly not be on his userpage. Papa November (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do worry about it. I didn't copy it from you and I removed myself. Lovejonesfly (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Star (band) reviewing
Now most editors I have worked with (Giggy, Scarian) on music articles have now retired (or I have already notfied them of this one and they are working on or have had a look at it. I see you have worked on radiohead, so I figured you might be mildly interested in having a look at Big Star (band) which I reviewed and passed for GA and has a bit of momentum to go onto FAC. It would be rather nice to see this one on the mainpage sometime, so any ideas on how it could be improved would be very helpful and much appreciated.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo
I notice that the painting of Christ carrying the Cross is back on the list. The owner is very insistent that it actually is a Leonardo. If it actully was, then it would be really big news and people like Martin Kemp (the expert from Oxford) would be racing over there to get a closer look. However, it's a blatant pastiche. If you look at the reference that I inserted, you can read all about it. Amandajm (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Image question
Hi Im hoping im asking the right person. This concerns an image on a talk page. I cant find any logical reason to remove it so id like to ask your advice. Its a commons image showing several nude woman supposeofly taken at a night club (some doubt here), but if so its technically a public place. The image doesnt give anywhere saying that the people agreed to be in the photo and this has been in doubt for some time. the image is not posted in the article but on the talk page. Im aware that its generally not a good idea to edit someone elses threads. So my question is can I disable the imgae by placing : in front of the file name. Am I allowed to do this? Is this a good idea? the image is located at Talk:Nightclub. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm at work, so I don't want to risk looking at the image! However, it is already tagged for speedy deletion at Commons. Although Wikipedia is not censored, we shouldn't show compromising images of identifiable people without a clear indication of permission.

As for its placement at Talk:Nightclub, I think you'd be justified in adding a : under the circumstances. I suggest leaving a clear comment underneath, explaining what you have done and why. It would be courteous to inform the person who made the post too. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Ive left the comments at the posters talk page as well as a description on the night club talk page Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FfD
Hi. Why did you close as keep? The only arguments for keeping were not based on policy, as the image is not necessary to understand the topic. Davidspalding said that it was necessary so that readers could understand what the Wicker Man looks like, but as I noted in the discussion, the WM is already pictured in the poster, and we have other free pictures of Wicker Men. Since consensus is based on policy-backed arguments, how was the consensus not for delete? ÷seresin 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Seresin, I'm the last person to stand up for proliferation of non-free media, but I felt that in this instance, the rationale given by Davidbspalding appeared reasonable. The film itself is named after the Wicker Man structure and the image depicts an important scene, which is the subject of discussion.  I didn't feel that the Wicker Man image in the poster sufficiently captures the scale of the structure or accurately depicts its appearance.  Wicker men are created in many different shapes and sizes with radically varying appearances, so a free image of any old wicker man isn't an adequate replacement.  Papa November (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well he's been at it again
Remeber Frei Hans? Well, he got upset by someones completely normal coment, and well, he's now closer to an indef block that he was before. You can check it out.Abce2 (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Maybe we'll have a month of peace now? :D Papa November (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Soccermeko
I see that you processed most of my speedy tags for the cleanup. Thanks for that. He'll be back. If you notice someone that you think might be him, I'll always be happy to provide a second opinion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, you do know
That I posted Frei Hans response message, and he can't answer due to being blocked for a month? Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, but he can still answer on his talk page. Papa November (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Braque.woman.400pix.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Braque.woman.400pix.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw this while I was checking your page, and fixed it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks! :) Papa November (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparent Ignore of May be uploader
I note the tools you are using seem to be ignoring may be uploader which was explicitly placed to prevent images being unreasonably deleted, without at least some attempt to contact the original uploader.

Please reconsider images with this tag which you marked for speedy. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry - I haven't been ignoring it. You've already requested information for each of the images I nominated, on the uploader's talk page a couple of weeks ago.  I have been considering whether or not we'll realistically hear back from uploaders based on their last contribution date.  I guess an email to the uploader may also be appropriate in the case of old files which are still useful to the project.  The only one I can think of that I have tagged is File:Rabaul volcanoes from Kokopo.jpg. Papa November (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2009
SoxBot (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Leonardo paintings
DEAR PAPA NOVEMBER PLEASE CHECK THE CHRIST CARRING THE CROSS< DAVINCI< TALKPAGE and see the reasons the why this painting is by DaVinci. Please make the corrections and lock the page from further changes....Sothebys does not attribute this painting to Maineri...Pedretti (leading expert in the world on da Vinci -- head of UCLA Graduate School of Art )attributes it to da Vinci (per FORBES Cover article)...these numerous corrections to the page is frustrating and time consuming. Thank you. Dgump1@aol.com
 * Thanks for your comments, but I'm not getting involved personally with the content dispute. The only way that this will be decided is by forming a consensus with the other editors.  Try to back up all your statements on the talk page with links to reliable sources and take special care not to make your own synthesised conclusions. Papa November (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello...
Since you got Radiohead's Kid A to FA, I was wondering if you'd like to comment on Bloc Party's Kid A-of-sorts A Weekend in the City. The FAC is here and I guess the major issue ATM is the need for a third party look at the prose. Thanks. Rafablu88 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At first glance, it looks pretty good, but I'll take a proper look at it this evening if I get a chance. Good luck! Papa November (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Rafablu88  14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2009
SoxBot (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Verbal, me, Elen, pablo, etc. I haven't seen myself in a long time. [] Abce2 | This is  not a test  02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. tedder (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the only person who isn't us, we, I, you know what we mean, is Jimbo. I think you'll remember Papa November. Abce2 |  This is  not a test  02:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank myself kindly for saving me from my conscience. Papa November (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Enricoberlinguer327.jpg&action=history]
Regarding the change you undid i am curios,CSD states it can be used for any redirect except for those in the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Please respond on this page.
 * Not quite. CSD#R2 allows speedy deletion of redirects from the article namespace to any other namespace.  In other words, article→article or file→file redirects are OK, but article→file are not.  You'll start seeing a very large number of file→file redirects appearing now that administrators are able to move files to new names. Papa November (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tx for the reply, i understand now.But i still think that file -> file redirects are not necessary, back links can be changed easily and no one outside wikipedia is going to hotlink a description page.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but there are about 4500 files waiting to be renamed, and each of these will result in a file→file redirect. I don't think it's really appropriate for all of these redirects to be eventually be deleted without discussion, given that CSD#R2 doesn't really apply.  The best practice would probably be to raise a discussion about this at WT:CSD. Papa November (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Self Delete
Thanks for that, and the advice. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Color
Of course, you spell color with a 'u' too ;-)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid so ;) Papa November (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because the Brits have never forgiven us Yanks for being the first colony to kick them out and regret that we had to save your butts in TWO World Wars ;-)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, and I there was thinking we were trying to make an encyclopaedia together. Papa November (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we are, but we need levity amongst all the seriousness ;-)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ubuntu image
hello papa november, fancy sorting out the licensing crap on File:Ubuntunetbookremix9.10screenshot.png? It's beyond my understanding :) cya Coolug (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems fine already, but I've tidied the image description page and made the source unambiguous just in case. Let me know if you have any other problems with it. Papa November (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Complex category structures, and who to notify of rename and deletion discussions
Hi Papa November,

I think that interested editors should be invited to contribute to CFDALL. How do you think that we could find interested editors?

I found you as someone who put a page into a category which is a subcategory of Category:World music albums, which is a subcategory of Category:World music, which is a subcategory of Category:Category:Traditional/folk music world-wide. (i.e. virtually randomly)

Does this mean that you might have an interest in the categorisation of traditional folk music? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Very kind of you :D Papa November (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I didn't unlawfully put the links there, I am actually trying to promote the band on a website that they are already affiliated with which I think they would appreciate! <span class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by Daverac11 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the band would greatly appreciate it, but absolutely no promotional material is allowed on Wikipedia I'm afraid. The anti-spam guidelines are pretty clear about this.  If you can find encyclopedic information about the bands in reliable sources like newspapers, books and magazines, we'd love to have your assistance.  Jambase, however, really isn't suitable to be included here. Papa November (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm curious, can we link relevant articles about the band that are listed on our site?

WikiProject Java and portal
Hi Papa... In particular, I see you did some work on the Java Transaction API article and I was wondering if you could address the 2 warnings on the page (subject+inline)? Drop me a line if you can, -- AlainR345  Techno-Wiki-Geek  16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Picasa images on Commons
Hi! You uploaded some of you images from Picasa to Commons. That is nice :-) The names of the accounts are however not alike so perhaps you could make a link from Picasa to Commons/Wikipedia (and perhaps the other way)? The reason I ask is that a Picasa review process is being implemented and all of your images ended up in a category for human review. --MGA73 (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi MGA73, I'm not sure if it's possible to add a link from my Picasa account to Commons. If you know a way, please let me know!  However, I have set a shortcut to my account: http://picasaweb.google.com/PapaNovemberPicasa - hopefully, that should allow some verification that I own both accounts? Papa November (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can not link from the account it should be possible to link from a gallery. It was done here http://picasaweb.google.com/sigurdas/DumpsterDivingFreegan# so it should also work for you :-) Anyway i "reviewed" your images on commons but if you manage to make a link then noone should be in doubt. --MGA73 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

could you help with the licensing on this image?
Greetings papa November, could you do me a favour and make sure this image complies with all the licensing stuff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chatroul26022010.png

Live Long and Prosper my fellow Wikipedian Coolug (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have moved it to File:Chatroulette screenshot (non-free).png. Firstly, did you get permission from the other guy to upload his picture?  If not, it might be better to get a new screenshot from someone who is happy with it.  Have a go at filling in the non-free media template on the image page.  If you get stuck, I'll help out.  Basically, you just need to explain why that particular image would significantly increase the reader's understanding of that particular article. Papa November (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Conservapedia
User:Tmtoulouse has removed talk page comments placed by me at talk:Conservapedia. Can I get my response restored, please? nobs (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't restore it because it makes an accusation of malicious behaviour by a living person. I'm not saying the person in question is innocent or guilty, but those comments can only be included on the talk page if you can cite a reliable source that explicitly states those exact words. Papa November (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version says,
 * Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit Conservapedia's article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's statement naming abortion as a major cause of the disease, but found his medical credentials being questioned by Schlafly and other Conservapedia administrators, all of whom ended the debate by deleting Lipson's edits and blocking Lipson's account.
 * Lipson was blocked because of his involvement in Rationalwiki 1.0 and not for the reasons he told Stephanie Simon. nobs (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Papa November, please note the privacy concerns cannot be considered resolved because non-public details have yet to be submitted.   nobs (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alleged revealing of non-public details
Please take note of Sid's attempt to out the purported real name of this user. It was never, not once, connected to TK in the L.A. Times article. Please remove this under-handed attempt at linkage, and impose sanctions. --TK-CP (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ...what? The LA Times article says the following (pages 2/3):
 * [Andy Schlafly] promotes writers he finds trustworthy to be systems administrators, who are able to block editors and protect certain articles from changes.
 * Even among this elite group, there's no ideological conformity. Terry Koeckritz doesn't take the creation account in the Book of Genesis literally, but he enjoys the site and spends hours writing articles on topics such as Fox News.
 * I took "this elite group" to mean the "system administrators" from the paragraph before it. At no point did I make a connection to a Conservapedia or Wikipedia username. In fact, that edit was about not outing people since my concern was that Brian Macdonald was labeled as a CP Admin even though there's no real indicator for it in the source (since he's not mentioned in the "elite group" context and since when he's introduced, he's not introduced as a CP Admin or anything). --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Papa, Sid3050 is well aware of my efforts on his wiki, Rat(ional)wiki, to stop them from trying to associate that name with me, Conservapedia Admin, TK. It has been an ongoing bone of contention for several years now, one he cannot possibly claim not to know about. Please be aware I have contacted Jim Wales and Oversight, and demanded sanctions against Sid3050, and will now do so again since he is repeating his slander here on your page. --TK-CP (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * TK, I just mentioned a name that is indicated in a RS to be a CP Admin. I did so without mentioning any WP/CP names. Are you saying that this is now forbidden? Really? --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Sid, as you have been aware for several years, and what hasn't been removed from your wiki shows, the RS article never connects that full name with any CP Admin. What you did above, cleverly, was break the sentences in such a way as to pretend you didn't notice. That is the tact you have taken on your wiki, Rationalwiki, to try and out my name, draw conclusions that are not there. Given our past correspondence, years ago about this issue, and your own posts on Rationalwiki about this matter in the past, one can only conclude you have thought yourself clever by half here. I can assure you I will never relent in making sure appropriate sanctions are taken against you. You have earned whatever those are all by yourself. Enjoy it. Outing people is of a real and constant concern here on Wikipedia, and it is never taken lightly.  --TK-CP (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. With so much bad faith against me, there is little to add. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wouldn't bother even acknowledging this directly, it is awfully close to an open legal threat which is likely to get TK blocked from WP if he keeps it up. Just ignore him and let him slink back to his corner or hang himself (edit: in the metaphoric sense of dropping legal threats on WP). Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sid 3050, the only bad faith is your own history of emails and on-wiki discussions about this problem. And still you went forth and did it. And still you haven't even attempted to remove your violation of WP rules, or ask for it to be over-sighted, or apologized. I'm afraid your crying bad faith is more like calling wolf. --TK-CP (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

← Hi everyone, I'm afraid I don't have oversight rights so I can't really help in that department. If you have already contacted the oversight mailing list then someone will take care of legitimate requests within the near future. Personally, I can't see any explicit outing or legal threats and I don't think that blocking Sid 3050 or TK-CP is really necessary. Once again, I encourage everyone to remain civil and to concentrate all your efforts upon improving the article rather than attacking other users. Papa November (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this about improving an article at Wikipedia, or what? Conservapedia is a newcomer to the online encyclopedia world, and has at times had different policies about allowing anonymous contributions, i.e., letting users hide behind pseudonyms. This contrasts with Wikipedia policy, which zealously defends the privacy of all contributors.


 * There has been public discussion about what is the best policy for an online, collaboratively written encyclopedia. Some feel that better results come from promoting pseudonyms, as it frees up people to provide viewpoints and information that they'd otherwise be reluctant to share, for fear of social pressure (or even persecution or legal problems). Others scoff at this, challenging pseudonym supporters to name even one single article that turned out better due to anonymous contributions.


 * Larry Sanger's new project, Citizendium, is well over 95% real names only, because his group feels that this provides increased accountability.


 * As Wikipedia matures, no doubt its contributor community will eventually want readers to be able to cite Wikipedia as a reference. At that point, the idea of using pseudonyms vs. real names may come up for discussion again. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ...what does this have to do with anything, Ed? This isn't about the reliability of Wikipedia or improving an article. It's about TK accusing me of having tried to out him in the section he links to. Considering that Jimbo Effing Wales and the Oversight panel have been contacted, this really isn't the best section to go off on a tangent. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Trolling
This user, in spite of your warning, seems intent on continuing his odd behavior. --TK-CP (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Blocked for 24 hours.  I'll keep an eye on them. Papa November (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem with an editor making attacks and allegations against other Wikipedia users, other organisations and other individuals
Hi. I am getting in touch with you concerning the editing behaviour of Nobs. The reason I am getting in touch with you in particular is because you have dealt previously with an incident that is of relevance to my concern. The crux of the matter is that Nobs has spent the month or so engaged in repeatedly attacking or accusing others, both Wikipedians and not, of having engaged in acts of harassment, intimidation, bullying, trolling, insertion of anti-semitic content, criminal activity or lying. I'll do my best to list these incidences in as concise a manner as possible:


 * Here Nobs accuses, by name, an individual of engaging in and facilitating vandalism of a site.
 * When we expand the entire section we see the same pattern of behaviour by Nobs01, where he makes allegation after allegation about named individuals, unnamed individuals and an organisation. He specifically accuses one named individual of smearing Conservapedia, but when the evidence is examined  we see one man's personal opinion about Conservapedia and one that, whilst not flattering to Conservapedia, doesn't seem to meet the criteria to be considered a smear.
 * Here Nobs makes the accusation that editors of Rationalwiki have taken over the WP:Conservapedia page, and then accuses those editors of sockpuppetry and vandalism.
 * Here we see Nobs making the accusation that "much of this criticism of CP over the past year was was inserted by RationaloWiki parodists in both the "Hit List" and "Lenski" incidence."
 * Here we see Nobs make the sensationalist claim that "A handful of Conservapedia Sysops (few than a dozen) have blocked and deleted over 10,000 sockpuppet accounts from roughly two dozen Rationalwiki editors over the past three years. That averages out to 50-100 sockpuppets daily."
 * Here Nobs accuses another editor of "trolling behaviour".
 * Here Nobs accuses other editors of "bullying and intimidation".
 * Here, after an editor makes a single posting to Nobs Talk Page, Nobs accuses him of harassment.
 * Here Nobs accuses Rationalwiki editors of interfering with his Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests.
 * Again we see Nobs accusing other editor(s?) of bullying.
 * Here Nobs accuses the organisation, Rationalwiki, of self-promotion, and again makes the accusation that Wikipedia is controlled by Rationalwiki founders.
 * Here Nobs once again makes the claim that Conservapedia is under attack.
 * Here Nobs makes accusations of interference and personal attacks.
 * Here Nobs makes the accusation that he was "shouted down by RationalWiki editors and impugned with all sorts of trash" and also makes the accusation that he has been intimidated and "viscously attacked".
 * Here Nobs accuses a specific Wikipedian user of "encouraging readers who share your lack of NPOV to vandalize an off-wiki website". Yet the template which Nobs talks about does no such thing.
 * Here Nobs makes the unsupported and from my point of view (given the lack of evidence he offers), despicable claim that Rationalwiki editors have engaged in inserting anti-Semitic vandalism into Conservapedia.
 * Again Nobs makes the claim that Conservapedia underwent "cyber-vandalism attracted by this misuse of a Wikipedia project page".
 * Again Nobs reiterates all the claims of vandalism and anti-semitic content that he made in the previous three points.
 * Once again Nobs attempts to link the insertion of anti-semitic content into Conservapedia with Rationalwiki editors, again without justification or evidence.
 * Again an accusation of suffering personal attacks from a (named) editor that Nobs had already leveled many other accusations against (see above).
 * Yet again, another accusation that Rationalwiki editors have used Wikipedia pages to vandalise Conservapedia.
 * Here Nobs makes the claim that "hostility, incivility, and trolling" had been directed at him, and then asks another named user whether "As a RationalWiki founder, do you have any influence over the conduct of these users who are intent on ridiculing and making life miserable for Conservapedia editors who are also fellow Wikipedians?". Again, Nobs provides no evidence that such a thing has happened.
 * Once again Nobs makes the accusation that "&hellip;RationalWiki editors were both involved in discussions on an archived Talk page here about anti-semitic content in conservapedia. I am a Checkuser in Conservapedia and personally reverted much of that content, which was placed by several of the founding editors of RationalWiki" and once again gives no evidence to support this attack on Rationalwiki founders.
 * Nobs makes an accusation about Lipson, an individual named in the article, source and publicly known. Nobs states "Conclusion: Peter Lipson misrepresented the circumstances under which he became involved in the RationalWiki project."
 * and diff Nobs edits the Conservapedia article in such a way as too link and accuse Rationalwiki of being involved with the spate of vandal attacks that Conservapedia alleges happens in 2007 (I have to say alleged at that point because I believe that there have been instances where what Conservapedia considers to be vandalism can differ to how vandalism is described or perceived in criminal law. I don't want to get into libel issues here, so alleged will have to do).
 * Here Nobs makes the strange claim that vandalism is less serious than "malicious editing". He then makes the accusation, once more, that Wikipedia was used by Rationalwiki editors to mount vandalism attacks against Conservapedia.
 * And again the accusation that Rationalwiki members were involved in "coordinating massive vandal attacks." Nobs also prominently mentions Lipson's name in connection with these events.
 * And again, the same accusation that Rationalwiki members were vandalising Conservapedia. Interestingly Nobs even points out that in the article he is using as a source the journalist actually says "malicious editing" in that particular section and context, not vandalism.
 * And again.
 * And again.
 * And again.
 * Now Nobs claims that "The underlying WP:RS essentially states certain named editors, who are also Wikipedia users, engaged in "malicious editing."". The WP:RS mentioned doesn't support seem to support that claim.
 * Again the contention that Rationalwiki co-ordinated vandal attacks.
 * This time Nob makes the accusation that the source mentioned names and accuses individual Rationalwiki members of vandalism. It doesn't.  As far as I can see, the only thing the source says about vandalism is: "And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."  As you can see, this is a single sentence, set by itself between two paragraphs and, because of it's setting, difficulty has been found in placing an exact context.  However, what the source explicitly doesn't do is name individuals and state that they engaged in vandalism.  For the record it should also be noted that Rationalwiki specifically states that it doesn't engage in, endorse or condone vandalism of any site.
 * And again, pretty much the same accusation made by Nobs, only this time he claims that the source used in the point above states that Rationalwiki members engage in "malicious vandalism". As far as I can see, it doesn't.
 * And again.

I apologise for the size of the list, but it does illustrate my concern. Over the course of twenty five days Nobs makes a total of 36 allegations on Wikipedia about a variety of matters. Now I can't say that Nobs is wrong in all of his accusations, although where evidence could be seen next to his allegations he often seemed to be. Rather, what concerned me was Nobs' pattern of editing and behaviour during the past month. Now I'm inexperienced in dealing with such matters on Wikipedia and so thought that it would be best if I brought it to the attention of an Administrator. That way this can be reviewed by somebody experienced in these matters and, if it turns out that there is nothing to be worried about, then I can be told that I'm an idiot and to bog off, as opposed to me trying to take this through other channels, being wrong, and causing harm to other users as a result.

Any help you could give me in this matter would be brilliant.

Thanks.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, if you have concerns about the behaviour of another user you really need to take it through the dispute resolution process. I appreciate that things feel like they're running in circles at Talk:Conservapedia, but some progress does seem to be made toward improving the article.  An individual admin can't make decision here about imposing bans against a user, but I can deal with obvious short-term disruption.


 * I know it's difficult, but try to keep any discussion on the article talk page directly to the point of improving the article... even if someone else there appears to be acting against this advice. Dispute resolution is definitely the way to go if you're feeling upset about another user's behaviour.  You can (pretty much) just copy your statement from this page across to the appropriate forum and take it from there. Papa November (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. As for the Conservapedia&Talk Page, I'm not that concerned as to when and how a consensus is reached, mostly because I don't consider it all that important.  What has worried me is the level of behaviour on the Talk Page, and the fact that Nobs seems to be at the centre of it, not with his requests for clarification or changes, but with his accusations.  I'll copy what I've got here over to Dispute Resolution and hopefully things can be sorted out amicably.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cmon
What was wrong with my Snakes on a Plane reference? I thought it was funny. That CP-RW feud has gone on too long. 174.148.85.37 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was funny and I agree that the feud is ridiculous... however, I'm trying to salvage some kind of coherent conversation from the article talk page so off-topic comments can't stay! Papa November (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Point of order....
I didn't introduce the matter, I merely commented on a possible COI. There wasn't any "veiled" threats or the like. Is it now illegal to comment on what a Wikipedia Admin brings up? I'm not angry, just perplexed by the ever-changing rules applied here. --TK-CP (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to comment about the behaviour of other editors and admins by following the process at WP:DR. Article talk pages are solely for discussing specific changes to the article.  I have also asked David Gerard to remove the section from the article talk page, as I believe it does not offer any prospect for improving the article. Papa November (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it this place is so big, that any deviation from a strict interpretation of that guideline completely derails the talk pages.....I am learning, albeit slowly, Papa..but just from that page, where everyone will have to comment, I can see how problems can snowball. Thanks for your patience. --TK-CP (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, most of the time things go quite smoothly. Unfortunately, when there is a clash of opinions some fairly strict mediation may be necessary. Papa November (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobs
At this point he is simply attacking editors over and over again. Today he has attacked me personally accusing me of creating a hit list on senators, and has just now openly attacked Peter Lipson once more. I think this needs to stop and I think direct intervention admin intervention is necessary. Posting to AN/I seem silly at this point since you we all ready have an admin monitoring the situation. I guess the only solution is to move forward with an RFC for user misconduct, but is till think all that material needs to be removed from the page. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * David Gerard asked me to post the link to the previously non-public Rationalwiki 1.0 information. Thank you.  nobs (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tmtoulouse, what specific use of admin tools are you proposing? Admins can only dish out blocks to prevent extremely obvious disruption or enforce community decisions.  If you have wider concerns about another editor, then you need to go though dispute resolution rather than requesting unilateral admin action. Papa November (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mediation_Cabal is a viable possibility, too. nobs (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look
At my talk page and the CP talk page, will you? I believe we were actually making some progress at accommodation and resolution of the situation when another editor took what I consider to be arbitrary and unilateral action to remove the conversations. Thanks, as always. --TK-CP (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is correct; I made a specific proposal to remove the section on criticism of a woman's increased risk of breast cancer by an internist with (a) a COI; and (b) has personally denied the factual basis of the Wikipedia reliable source cited within the article. nobs (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Papa November, you have my sympathies for adopting this onerous task. Godspeed to you in your efforts to untangle and moderate these issues. I hope you are enjoying other activities/projects elsewhere on Wikipedia to offset the chores you have taken on here. Huw Powell (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobs (again)
I'll post here since rather than on Talk:Conservapedia because this isn't about that article.

Frankly, yes. I think some kind of sanction against nobs is overdue. From making personal attacks against other editors to bringing up the same point time and time again, he is being disruptive. Every time any kind of discussion gets going it is derailed by nobs claiming that the LA Times and The Register say the same thing, or that there are BLP issues, or that there are privacy concerns. A block is probably going too far, but surely some kind of warning is in order at this point?

I mentioned AN/I and you say it's the wrong process. Fine - you know more about the processes than I do, but as I already said, I don't think Dispute Resolution is the right course either: if the argument was between all the CP editors and all the RW editors, then it would make sense, but it's not. It's one person so I don't think there's a dispute as such.

I'm not going to keep beating this horse so whatever you decide I'll go along with it. Further, I apologise for the brusque tone of my last post on the talk page. I was annoyed that you called the RationalWiki editors whiners when I think nobody has been guilty of anything more than expressing frustration. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Rpeh, I appreciate that it's very frustrating for everyone involved. The point is that admins here are no different from regular users.  Anyone can warn Nobs01 about his behaviour, and several people have already done that at Talk:Conservapedia and User talk:Nobs01... a warning from an individual admin doesn't actually carry any more legitimacy.  Any decision about editing sanctions needs to come from the community rather than an individual admin.


 * Dispute resolution isn't limited to big multi-party edit wars. It is there to fix problems with individual editors too.  A request for comment is definitely the way to go here. Just put together a short case, which basically says (in so many words) that several editors have concerns about the conduct of Nobs, that you believe he is repeatedly making personal attacks against other editors and repeatedly raising frivolous concerns with the intention of disrupting the development of the article.  Provide a couple of diffs to demonstrate each point, and show that several editors have tried and failed to get Nobs to change his ways.


 * Sorry if my wording was too harsh previously. It's just quite frustrating having to read through so many repetitive comments when an RFC should have been opened long ago. Papa November (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it alone for the moment and hope that everything quietens down. Thanks for taking the time to reply, and for your suggestions. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)
Hello Papa November. Could you have a look at the article and let me know if you think we've now met Nehrams2020's suggestions? To my untrained eye I think we have but I'd like you to have a look too. Nehrams2020 has said once we met his suggestions we can just upgrade the classification to B-Class ourselves, but I'd feel more comfortable having someone unconnected make the upgrade since it might look a little dodgy to the casual observer. Therefore I'm going to ask Nehrams2020 to have another look and change the class for us. Of course if you feel it's ok for us to give it B-class then I'm cool with that.

The article has recently reached 500 edits, has imminent B-class status and over 350,000 page views since the beginning of the month. I'm tempted to have a Human Centipede party to celebrate all this when the page hits one million page views. I'm going to make a Human Centipede cake! Do you know any other Leeds based wiki editors who would like to come? Coolug (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, just letting you know that I've asked Nehrams2020 to have another look at the article and upgrade it if he/she feels we've done what was asked of us. So if you've any last minute things you feel are vital then you'd better get on with them! :) cya Coolug (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooray! Hooray Hooray Hooray! We did it! Can I put this on my cv? Coolug (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done! Onward to WP:GA soon? Papa November (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

hey, could you help out with this game argument? It's doing my head in. People are ruining my beautiful centipede article! Coolug (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, could you lock the Dr Heiter Award template? People are writing stuff on it and this results in the award on peoples user talk pages also having the writing! Coolug (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You should subst the template on the talk pages [as suggested by phone ;)] Papa November (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened on the page? What could possibly be so offensive? Coolug (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just some rather unpleasant school bullying. Papa November (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on receiving the Dr. Heiter Award!


Hi there, thank you for your contributions to The Human Centipede (First Sequence). When the article was first started in October 2009 is was but a tiny stub that was immediately tagged for deletion, but thanks to the efforts of wikipedia editors that tiny acorn has grown into a great oak tree of an article. The Human Centipede (First Sequence) now has B-Class status and on the 17th June 2010 the article received its 1,000,000th page view!

The Dr. Heiter Award was created to reward editors who have made positive contributions to the article. It can be presented by any wikipedia user to anyone who has helped the article grow. This might be by adding new content, fixing any errors or reverting vandalism.

Thanks!
 * Thanks awfully, it's a beautiful gesture. Papa November (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Coolug (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the documentation re Six's "100% medically accurate" claim
Hi Papa,

I've put in a reply over at the Human Centipede talk page. Please consider that Wikipedia is not a place where the bizarre undocumented medical claims of a movie promoter are given preference over the statements of a licensed professional MD.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I just replied again over there. Scott P. (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)