User talk:Redvers/Archive20

About an image
Hello,

Sorry to disturb you, as I'm sure you have a life outside Wikipedia, but I have a question regarding an image you deleted. The image was Bangor Grammar.jpg and was on the Bangor Grammar School article. I believe that I may have put a misleading summary on the image accidentally. Wikipedia has a lot of rules, and I don't know a lot of them, so the summary was incorrect in terminology. The image that I had uploaded was created by me for the school and is free to use. I just want to know if I'm okay to upload the image again, as in the page titled Your Image that you have, it says that if I reupload the image after changing the license it will be deleted again.

Thanks if you can help, Count Ryan 17:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on user's talk page. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted entry
Excuse me, but why did you delete my entry on Mobilephoria? This was the beginning of a meaningful Wiki entry on a company in the mobile telephone space that is (a) culturally relevant, (b) verifiable, and (c) NOT spam. Wikipedia users depend on Wiki to find out much about a lot of stuff, and your deletions (I checked your deletion log) appear to be arbitrary, judgemental, and culturally narrow--not the premise on which Wikipedia was built.

I understand your predicament as an administrator (so many posts, so little time), but wouldn't it be better for your users to simply edit the offensive material. What was it anyway?

Thank you, --Wikiwallace 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I tried to contest the deletion, but another administrator deleted the contest before I could restore the page and add the reason for contesting it. In the interest of fairness, could you (a) restore the original article text with the {hangon} tag and (b) recover my then-orphaned reason I tried to post to the talk page? Thank you :)


 * Replied on user's talk page. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jake Sheridan
Hi,

My name is Jake Sheridan (From Canada) and I was editing the "Jake Sheridan" entry on wikipedia. I believe that the name "Jake Sheridan" should not be wholly represented on wikipedia by the soccer players "Jake Sheridan" from England. It's unfair to those of us who have the same legal name and who also wish to be represented online in this encyclopedia.

Please let me know what I need to do in order to edit the "Jake Sheridan" page properly.

Thanks,

Jake Sheridan

The real jake sheridan 21:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

You can edit any article you like, in any constructive way you like. But you can't add details of yourself to the article of a notable namesake; and you can't alter your notable namesake's article to express your displeasure at the coincidence. It's just basic commonsense, really. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My response:

I was born in 1972. So therefore the "Jake Sheridan" from England is not my namesake. In fact he was born a full 14 years after me. I'm not displeased with the coincidence that we share the same name, however I do believe because wikipedia is in the public domain that I have just as much right to include the details of my history and biographical data as "Jake Sheridan #2" from England. Instead of arguing with me over details like this please direct me to your supervisor as I wish to pursue further action that doesn't involve you. I look forward to your response. Thanks for your help so far.

The real jake sheridan 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are being held in a queue. Please wait for an operator to become available. Your call is important to us. You are being held in a queue. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 07:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My response:

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I wouldn't classify myself as a troll or my behaviour as maladaptive. My objective is to find out more about Wikipedia's policies regarding changes that can be made to articles that contain my legal name. I would appreciate any help you could provide but assumed that you were dealing with me in an offhand manner so request to speak with a supervisor or another administrator in order to get clearer answers and possibly some policy documents to read over. Please be direct in your responses rather than covertly aggressive (see your previous post).

The real jake sheridan 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Emergency exits are located on both sides of the encyclopedia. To help you find you way to the exits, additional lighting will be provided in the aisle at sidebar level. Should the air supply fail, oxygen masks will drop down from the toolbar. Stay at your keyboard and pull the mask towards you. Place the mask over your mouth and nose and breathe normally. A lifejacket is concealed underneath the search engine. Pull it over your head, pass the tapes around your waist and tie securely in a double bow at the side. To inflate, pull the Wikipedia logo. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

John Azzopardi
Why was the breaking point records page deleted, and can you supply with me with the deleted text so i can make it compliant? Johnbpr 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on user's talk page. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Antivandalism
Thank you for the antivandalism at the article Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Commator 12:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem familiar!
I say! It's good to see you back on wiki Redvers, I myself am going to try to get into the habit of doing some editing each day. I hope all's well and that you will remain as valuable a user as you used to be in the evergrowing fight against vandalism. Your old "friend" --  Ji MoTh Y  TALK 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I only decided to come back to wikiepdia today and havn't looked at my user page yet, it appers that most of the content needs to be updated. I've also forgotten how to stop all the code from my signature coming up... is it something like subst:??  Ji MoTh Y  TALK 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on user's talk page. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back!!! :) Jmlk  1  7  04:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is madness!
* whistles innocently before you respond with your sig* Will (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm saying nothing. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Meols
Sorry you felt it necessary to remove the Meols railway totem image after my recent additions. Could it still be put somewhere in the Meols article? (Quite liked it!) Or perhaps on the Meols railway station page? Snowy 1973 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried various places to make it fit, but it doesn't. If the article expands (or if you can find a place for it to go neatly) then it can go back. This is actually the image that wouldn't die - it keeps coming into and going out of semi-related articles, too bad to keep, too good to lose. As it is one of the few totems I still own, I may get around to taking the picture again with a better camera and lighting etc. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

John Azzopardi
By 'Hobby record label' it was intended to convey that the record label was started as a hobby, many successful organisations (Virgin records for instance) were started as a hobby. The label is active, has put out records, and thus one could argue it is notable. Thanks. Johnbpr 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And when your hobby record label is close to the size of Virgin Records, please get back in touch. Thanks. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar
Suggested code: Wikibar

Now its more readable and there is a link to the templates page at the bottom of the list. 70.233.156.5 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. The reason the text was so small was to avoid any horizontal scrolling; enlarging it produces horizontal scrolling, which, as we know, is a crime against humanity :o) or else breaks lines across the table, making copy-and-paste selection difficult. The link to the templates page is a good idea, but the link would open in the sidebar, making it unreadable. Some targeting could open a new window but that would annoy the hell out of most right-minded people :o) (I think I'm channelling Jakob Nielsen now). But the prompt to update the page was valuable - it had gotten stale and was out of date on many common templates. Sorted now. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Go you - supernanny...
lol. WjBscribe 19:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

SmackDown vs. Raw 2008
Cheers for blocking that page from being edited for five days, cos everytime I looked at it, there were new superstars every time. Cheers again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfcucl1972 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Signature
Is the new sig better or worse? AngelOfSadness talk  19:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problemo. I thought it was about time for a colour change in the signature anyway. Cheers AngelOfSadness  talk  19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the barnstar. It's so pretty. AngelOfSadness  talk  19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Travis Middle School
I see you deleted Travis Middle School (Irving, Texas), which had a speedy-delete tag. I had found this article on Special:Newpages and fixed it up somewhat. I wonder whether I should have removed the speedy-delete tag. After I fixed it up, it was still very short but was not lacking in context, in my opinion. Note that the other six middle schools listed at Irving Independent School District have Wikipedia pages. If the page had been left, perhaps interested people would have added content to it. In other words ... perhaps this should have gone to AfD rather than be speedy-deleted? --Coppertwig 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored it; but the article is a clearly a classic CSD empty as it just states the existence of the school and provides a link. Of such articles an encyclopedia is not made and I'd expect deletion to take place again by someone else. AfD isn't appropriate unless it doesn't fit a CSD (it'd be CSD'd by the AfD !voters if it did) but I will consider it for tomorrow if the article survives. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

... On the other hand, speaking of deleting pages, you might want to have a look at 5 Hour Energy. I'm tempted to put a db-spam tag on it but am not familiar enough with the criteria. --Coppertwig 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call. Had already been deleted five times as spam. Now deleted and the earth thoroughly salted behind it. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks. :-) --Coppertwig 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My silly proposed deletion of User talk:C06bx700
Ah, sorry about that. I was in the wrong window; I thought I was still on the talk page of the article the user had created. I'll be more careful in future. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh! Don't worry about it. My motto is: a day on Wikipedia has been wasted if I haven't done something silly. Three years I've been here, and I've stuck to this every day! :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
I thought I was going to be reverting waterdoor's vandalism all night. I guess he's been blocked now. Either that or it's past his bedtime ;-) Cosmo0 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The former. See his block log. Clear vandalism-only account, also nasty personal attacks. Gone. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:172.201.229.182
The guy who's been vandalising Theft is back since you blocked him. Can you deal? --Rodhullandemu 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's now back as User:Ketias. I have a feeling we're in for a long night. Could you protect and freeze Theft for 24 hours? Thanks --Rodhullandemu 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gave it three days so we can see if he's bored or just very, very sad. Also blocked the account he created. Clearly it's someone who knows the system. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But still doesn't seem to realise that vandalism will be picked up. Bizarre. His IP points to somewhere in Brooklyn. Maybe it's been quiet there of late. Thanks anyway. --Rodhullandemu 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete republic of korea passport?
Kingj123 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Explained in the deletion log. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hello Redvers. About a year ago, you helped me out with my wikaddiction by blocking my account from editing for a year by my request. I thank you for that.

I am contacting you for assistance on another matter now. I wonder if you or another administrator knows how to delete the history of my user page (but not the user talk page). I ask this because in earlier versions of the page, I imprudently included some personal information about my real life identity. I'm not asking for account deletion or anything like that, because I want to continue editing. I just would like to start the user page completely fresh.

Are you able to help with this? Thank you. Rohirok 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on talk page, awaiting reply. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Rohirok 18:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Midtown Connection
I noticed you deleted Midtown Connection, and agree with your A7 band deletion. I was wondering if we should also delete the slew of photos and sound files that User:ITecture uploaded to go with the article. It's not clear to me if they meet any speedy criteria, and was wondering if because in my gut I feel the sound files and images will not be useful to other pages, and the purpose of them were to promote a non-notable band, that it would be ok to IARs and delete the images. Or should we just tag them as no-source/no-license and wait 7 days? Your more experienced admin opinion would be appreciated. -Andrew c [talk] 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no CSD to cover them, but they can be tagged with subst'd nsd and nld and will evaporate in a week or so. I think a bot might do this, given time, but it doesn't harm to do it first. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved to more logical place
The photos in question were taken by my father in 1938 & 1939. He is now 86 years old and thinks the internet is the lining of a mens bathing suit. How do I secure his permission to use his photos freely. Bobhaybob 9/20/07 Bobhaybob 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ensure he understands that he needs to release the photographs irrevocably under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike licence and/or under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. This precludes him, or anyone else, from ever making any money out these images and cedes the rights to the general public for any use and any modification. Then contact WP:OTRS and tell them what you've done. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bananas
Hang on. Thank you for replying to my request about the banana article. The article "report" is not an original piece of research but summarises 12 papers in refereed research journals.I included 3 papers to show the evidence. It has not been copied from somewhere else. I am trying ,in retirement, to make the information available to banana growers and their advisors in poor countries where bananas are a major food source. These people are unlikely to be able to see the original work and I feel they may be able to to read a short summary in Wikipedia. The simple,low cost,technology has been confirmed in USA, China and several other Asian countries.There is little evidence of it being used commercially. A problem I've had with this technology is that it is very cheap and the established banana producers do not want a low cost option to be available.The technology would allow small communities to store bananas when there is oversupply and allow shipment to other countries where a market existed.I am prepared to help people in poor countries adopt the simple technology. I am not sure how to add my contribution and would be grateful of further help.Kevin Joseph Scott 101 19:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk page. This post moved from top of this page. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Theft
Is being messed about again. Could you put a temp protection on it? --Rodhullandemu 12:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Already on it :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 12:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the impression this is the same vandal & is testing us. --Rodhullandemu 12:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No doubt at all; but I'm off work with the 'flu and have, literally, nothing better to do today than watch him. So it works out well for everybody. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm retired, so I've plenty of time. I'm beginning to understand how the term "AOLamer" came about. --Rodhullandemu 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ceská televize CT1 logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ceská televize CT1 logo.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted it; replaced by another image. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 14:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, I noticed that you recently speedily deleted the pages Bart Has Two Mummies‎ and Little Big Mum because they are unofficial alternate spellings of an official title. Well, the user who created those pages has recreated them, as well as a third (Pokey Mum) and continually removes the speedy templates. Could you please redelete them, and possibly protect the former two, because they have both been deleted twice. Thanks, Scorpion0422 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Before we do something daft and inane again, can we please rather discuss the matter first? Reginmund 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at talk pages, this has been discussed ad nauseum and people have chosen to edit war on these, frankly ludicrous, redirects. People appear to have a point to prove, but I'd rather they didn't do it on my time. These have now been deleted and salted, so the edit warring now ends. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

5_Hour_Energy
I wonder if you'd reconsider your deletion of this article, or at least userfy it to the bewildered newbie's user pages with a nice message. It seems to have been a Good Faith attempt - and it doesn't look too bad to my eyes, but as a courtesy, I didn't want to undo another admin's deletion. --Dweller 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm usually happy to be undone - it's just easier to than people turning up here and bitching. However, in this case I object to the article being undeleted - did you read it?

5-Hour Energy® is a 2-ounce liquid energy shot manufactured by Living Essentials... Living Essentials is marketing 5-Hour Energy with the slogans “Hours of Energy Now – No Crash Later” and “Drink it in Seconds – Feel it in Minutes – Lasts for Hours.”... 5-Hour Energy is available in all U.S. and many Canadian markets with chief classes of trade being drugstore, convenience store, health and nutrition and grocery. It is packaged in a 2-ounce plastic bottle that features a tamper-evident seal and a screw-off cap and sold as single bottles, 2-packs and 6-packs... 5-Hour Energy contains Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, Niacin (Vitamin B3), Folic Acid (Vitamin B9), Citicoline (an essential nutrient), Glucuronolactone (a naturally occurring chemical compound), Tyrosine (an amino acid), Pheylalanine (an amino acid), Taurine (an organic acid), Malic Acid (a fruit acid), and Caffeine... Notably absent from 5-Hour Energy’s formula is sugar and herbal stimulants. In contrast, a 12-ounce can of a typical energy drink contains 46 grams of sugar... Its advertisements are informative in nature, delineating its differences with canned energy drinks and clearly describing its benefits and features


 * This article couldn't be any more spam if it was taken out of a can of spam, carved into the spam and then sold as spam on spam. That last sentence could be written into the CSD guidelines as a textbook example. A WP:DRV calls if the author wants this undeleted, believe me. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I read it. I'm prepared to AGF that this is just a newbie creating a bad article because he doesn't know any better. And I certainly wasn't bitching - I think you've cast an unfair light on my request. Userfying doesn't seem such a bad option, where if he doesn't take advice on how to improve it, it can be dealt with anyway with no impact on mainspace. See the article creator's comments at User talk:The Rambling Man. --Dweller 12:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * NB His contributions history (inc. deleted edits) show him editing on 2 IT companies and a load of different drinks made by different companies. I find it unlikely in the extreme that he's deliberately spamming us with this product and he's definitely not a "bad" SPA. --Dweller 12:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I never said you were bitching! I said, and I quote, "I'm usually happy to be undone - it's just easier to than people turning up here and bitching", which is general fact, not insults!


 * I've had a look at the original author's talk page; I'd be surprised if he were just "a newbie creating a bad article because he doesn't know any better" - there are spam warnings after spam warnings on the page, and, as you point out, deleted spam articles. AGF and all that, but one could question if someone was being paid to create these tawdry advertisements. He's had plenty of opportunity to learn that this type of free advertising is not wanted, and AGF or not I'd think he's cruising for a block for spamming.


 * By all means userfy the article if you wish, but there's a line where "assume good faith" becomes "Wikipedia admins are idiots". ➔ This is REDVEЯS 11:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would chime in as a Newbie editor. I wrote this article in good faith as I am a huge fan of energy drinks. I followed all Wiki guidelines that I know about. The article may sound like spam to you but I used countless other energy drink company articles as guidelines. These articles such as, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_%28soft_drink%29, have the same type of content that I wrote for the 5 Hour Energy entry. I do apoligize if it came off as blatant advertising or spam, but I used current wiki articles as guidelines. If you were to provide some suggestions I would be more than happy to remove any spam / advertising from the article. All I wanted was to add one of my favorite energy drinks to the list. There are tons already on this list, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_energy_drinks, and I hope to add more.

As per the spam warnings on my home page this has to do with an article I wrote about GSInnovate. After talk with User talk:The Rambling Man I found out that the main reason it was deleted was because I did not have supporting references.

Thank you, Oshburg 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia policies do require the assumption of good faith in other editors (except for admins, who always act in bad faith, as everybody knows), so I apologise for not bring that to this particular party. However, look at the evidence available to me: an article that reads like a press release (I've written press releases for a living myself - this one ticks all the boxes); another (deleted) article that reads like a press release; a series of escalating warnings on your talk page for spamming (so it's not just me); and finally running to a friendly admin rather than the deleting admin (people "caught in the act" either turn up here shouting and screaming, or they go beg someone they reckon will listen to them; they never just come here and be reasonable).
 * If you're serious about writing articles on your favourite things, the best advice I can give is to not write press releases. You're not (I hope) being paid to sell the product. Therefore, don't sell it. Don't tell us how great it is, how wonderful the advertising for it is, the slogans, the selling proposition, the target markets... at least, don't in such a breathless, sales-oriented way. The mark of an encyclopedia article is a certain degree of dryness - telling people who, what, where, when, how, without sounding like a spokesman for the company. And definitely no ®s, ©s or ™s. It's very long, but the official policy on NPOV is worth reading - or at least its shorter brother the NPOV tutorial.
 * In the meantime, I think Dweller wanted the article userfied - put in your user space for you to edit down to an acceptable article away from the real articles. I'll arrange that for you now. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 10:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. It now lives at User:Oshburg/5-Hour Energy. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 10:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia rules seem to be endless. I have read as much of them as possible. I think the problem that I keep running into is that I use similar articles to base the ones I write about. For example I used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_%28soft_drink%29 and several other energy drink company articles as a basis for writing the 5 Hour Energy article. For the Glovia article I wrote I used other ERP software companies as a basis for writing the article. The main problem I ran into there was that I did not use any references. I genuinenly want to write good articles; however, the guidelines seem endless and whatever I seem to write ends up being called spam. This is not my intention, I just want to add articles for things I am interested in.

I will edit the article in my user space. What is the procedure from here? Should I notify you once I have edited it?

Thanks for your time Oshburg 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they seem endless (and, actually, are almost endless) but it's rare that most people here run into them at any point. You've just been unlucky - honestly! I was here for well over a year - in fact, I think I actually made admin - before anyone ever templated me about something (templated: stuck on your talk page a standard, pre-written reminder that you have broken a rule).


 * When you're done with the article, you can let me know and I'll look at it; however, since you already know that I'm hardline on these things, I'm happy for you to admin-shop for someone else if you want. User:The Rambling Man and User:Dweller both know you - and certainly Dweller knows I don't mind the protections being lifted etc in this case. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ceský Rozhlas logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ceský Rozhlas logo.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Had been replaced with absolutely massive, print-resolution PNG. That's not good for a "fair-use" image. Replaced this lo-res version on the articles, checked the rationales and removed the tag. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Kolum sewell
Hi there. I see that you have rejected the Kolum sewell article for speedy deletion, saying it doesn't fall under the "Nonsense" category. As the article is about a person the user has made up, as the host of a programme that doesn't exist, it evidently shouldn't be part of Wikipedia. Can I ask what speedy deletion category it should fall under? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The deletion guideline is clear: patent nonsense, not just nonsense; and patent nonsense is defined: "Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all... [or] Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". This article was neither. It doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criterion. Therefore AfD was the correct course of action. You may wish to voice your opinion there. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 15:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Theft
Hi there. User:Ketias2 is obviously the same guy who did this last week- the wording of his vandalism is exactly the same. Furthermore, he uses fake annotations to hide his vandalism (Edited #Canada subsection for sentence structure.), and he's sockpuppeting an anon IP. He's clearly not going to stop so I suggest he's just blocked, indefinitely. And again, and again, until he gets the message. --Rodhullandemu 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice you'd already done this. --Rodhullandemu 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted him within 5 minutes; blocked him a moment later; also found a probable sleeper account User:Ketias1 and blocked that bugger too. And, on the off-chance he's checking back here and reads this, he's violating the Terms of Service with his ISP and he doesn't have nearly the degree of anonymity he thinks he does; the point where we get him kicked off his internet service approaches. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 17:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Morning Post[sic], The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Times
If your going to protect the page against reversion, my I suggest that you do so with my version - for obvious reasons? I ask that you (1) Unprotect the page, (2) Move it so: Morning Post → The Morning Post? Thanks, --Ludvikus 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an outside link to a page which has a copy of the paper. If you look carefully at it, you'll be able to see (at the very top) that the paper calls itself:

The Morning Post.

Accordingly, I ask that you protect the page with "The" preceding "Morning Post." --Ludvikus 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out, I deliberately protected The Wrong Version, and it is staying that way. I have no opinion on which actual name is correct. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
"Redirects are cheap"... and utterly useless. Somebody reading the article clicks on the link expecting to see the info on the person and he gets to the same page (because of the loop). What kind of logic is that?

And for your information all those things that link to those redirected articles are because of the loop. They appear to be linked from other pages, but it is just a link for the band from all those pages. Nothing actually links to the very article that is a redirect, except the article in which the information is conatined. So check what are you doing with more detail next time.

If you haven't understood what I am saying then you should take a computer class or go to a neurologist.

And that VANDALISM!!! tag was there for a purpose, and has several meanings. There is no policy which prohibits that, and edit summary's are for the individual to add a description at his own discretion. And do not lover yourself to the J standard of insulting others of being a dick, because you are only making yourself one. No personal attacks anyone? You could have mentioned it politely and discuss the edits with me than mentioning dicks. Assume good faith, over and out. Death2 04:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then remove the links from the article, rather than requesting deletion of the redirect. As for the rest of your trolling, well, it's a bit obvious. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me how to link to a wiktionary entry.
I like being edited, but I think it’s important for every editor to identify him or herself. Any good editor should always be willing, and should often be eager, to discuss any piece of editing. Doing so can often be very valuable for everyone involved. (As it was in this case).

I still believe as strongly as I did before, that it is highly exclusionary to use words that some people might not know, without providing easy access to definitions of those words. (re-read my comments on my user talk page to see more on this topic). Linking to a Wiktionary article, does this just as well as linking to a Wikipedia article, would do this. And I will try to remember how to do this, and will try to do this in the future. What is important, though, is that we link to a definition, wherever that definition may be. If someone who doesn’t know how to link to a Wiktionary article, creates a Wikipedia article, though, then at least this is far better than not linking to a definition at all. And I am strongly opposed to the idea of a “simple-english” Wikipedia, because complex language helps us express complex ideas. A “simple-english anything is condescending. It is saying to a person, “You don’t need complex ideas. Simple ideas will be good enough for you.” It’s just important that we provide definitions whenever necessary. Links can do this well, because then people who do not need definitions, are not slowed in their effort to acquire information, and then people who do need definitions, can get them. I urge you to urge everyone you can, to link to Wiktionary definitions often, and I urge you to show people how to do this often, as you did with me. Creating this link in the article I created was a good way to show me this, and even if I had not learned this skill from this, it still would have helped in the article you edited.

George Pelly-Bosela

p.s. Other people should also be able to see what I have just written to you. So I may also post this letter as an open letter. But I will probably write a new message instead. Just letting you know this is a possibility, though. If you want to forward this letter, or post it as an open letter, to show that your editing was helpful to me, feel free to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPelly-Bosela (talk • contribs)


 * The information is available, but people often miss it. Interwiki links are encouraged, but do add an extra layer of complexity to what can be for many an already complicated editing system. I promote interwiki links, but don't see myself becoming a cheerleader for them in the way you suggest.


 * I agree, to a degree, with the "mission to explain" thrust of your post here - seeking clarity is a good thing. However, it's worth noting that too many links in a sentence are bad for readers and editors alike. More clarity is obtained by judicious use of links rather than saturation.


 * BTW, other people can see what you've written to me. This page is, like all Wikipedia pages, open and public. People are encouraged to read (and write) on talk pages. More talking is A Good Thing and helps damp down edit wars. There's no need to publicise that I helped you (though I'm glad I did!) as I don't do this for any form of acclaim. I edit Wikipedia because I believe in the project's aims, that's all. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

beJesus, not becheeses
beJesus, not becheeses —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPelly-Bosela (talk • contribs)


 * Except I don't believe in Jesus (well, he existed historically, that seems clear, but the rest is a bit unlikely); and "becheeses" is funnier. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for more info on interwiki links.
Why do you feel that “too many links in a sentence are bad for readers and editors alike”? To me each link is an opportunity to gain more information. I’d like an article best, if every word were a link. I don’t have to click on any link if I don’t want to. At some point, for words very few people would click on, making these words links, might not be worth the effort this would take. And this effort might lead to a worse article because the opportunity cost of doing this, might take away from an author’s efforts in other areas. But still, all other things being equal, I always prefer live links. Lots of live links, is one of my favorite things about Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPelly-Bosela (talk • contribs)


 * As I said, I understand your "mission to explain" point. Basic usability guidelines for websites, however, are against you. Multiple links with little or no justification will often cause readers to surf away immediately and never return to the point at hand. They make surfing impossible for readers with some disabilities as screen-readers will announce each link. They look poor on screen, print out poorly and require an above-average understanding of internet conventions to understand. Lots of cons, with just "clarity" (mitigated against the cons) as a pro. Plus, Wikipedia has a well-written guideline in the Manual of Style which devotes quite some bytes to the pros and cons of vast number of links and comes down narrowly in favour of "less being more". Manual of Style (links) for further reading. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don’t want to say, “beJesus” then you’d be better off not using this term, or any corruption of this term.
You told me that, having their work edited, “annoys the becheeses” out of some people. This just made you sound bad. You could just as easily have said that this annoys some people greatly, or annoys some people no end.

The same reasoning, is the primary reason that people should not use the terms, C.E, and B.C.E.. If someone doesn’t want to say “Anno Domini”, or “Before Christ”, then why would that person want to use this date as the turning point of the dating system that he or she uses. And of course many people do not use this date. The terms C.E. and B.C.E., are an attempt to bamboozle people who would not use this date if they thought clearly, into using this date. Nothing that depends on the creation of confusion, or obfuscation, can ever be good. The truth shall set us free, if we are able to see that truth clearly, with minds that are not surrounded by a cloud of haze. If we care enough to spend the time and energy to talk or write about history, then we will realize that it is an important historical fact that this is the date that so many historians have chosen to use as the turning point in their dating systems. And that it is also an important historical fact that the religious significance of this date, is the reason, that early historians chose this date. The term common era makes it sound as if there was an international conference at which this date was chosen by common assent, as the date at which our world’s history suddenly became much more interconnected than it had been before. And many young people will believe both of these things when they hear this term. You and I may be old enough to be spared these false inferences, because we first learned dates under a more straightforward system. But don’t younger people deserve the same advantages that we had? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPelly-Bosela (talk • contribs)
 * I think it's funnier as well. I often refer to "...always having a friend in cheeses..." The Rambling Man 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don’t want to say, “beJesus” then you’d be better off not using this term, or any corruption of this term. _full version
You told me that, having their work edited, “Annoys the becheeses” out of some people. This just made you sound bad. You could just as easily have said that this annoys some people greatly, or annoys some people no end.

The same reasoning, is the primary reason that people should not use the terms, C.E, and B.C.E.. If someone doesn’t want to say “Anno Domini”, or “Before Christ”, then why would that person want to use this date as the turning point of the dating system that he or she uses. And of course many people do not use this date. The terms C.E. and B.C.E., are an attempt to bamboozle people who would not use this date if they thought clearly, into using this date. Nothing that depends on the creation of confusion, or obfuscation, can ever be good. The truth shall set us free, if we are able to see that truth clearly, with minds that are not surrounded by a cloud of haze. If we care enough to spend the time and energy to talk or write about history, then we will realize that it is an important historical fact that this is the date that so many historians have chosen to use as the turning point in their dating systems. And that it is also an important historical fact that the religious significance of this date, is the reason, that early historians chose this date. The term common era makes it sound as if there was an international conference at which this date was chosen by common assent, as the date at which our world’s history suddenly became much more interconnected than it had been before. And many young people will believe both of these things when they hear this term. You and I may be old enough to be spared these false inferences, because we first learned dates under a more straightforward system. But don’t younger people deserve the same advantages that we had?

George Pelly-Bosela —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPelly-Bosela (talk • contribs)


 * Okay... Thanks for the assumption of my age, a good one but one I can neither confirm nor deny. I might have an opinion on CE, BCE, AD, BC etc, but on the other hand you may have mistaken me for one of those admins who gives a fuck. This just made you sound bad. You could just as easily have said that this annoys some people greatly, or annoys some people no end. I could have said this, but I didn't. I'm a fairly boring person - Mr Average in many ways - with just the poky-bum-sex thing to really set me apart from the great unwashed. But one thing I do enjoy is a bit of wordplay now and again. For my own amusement, not for that of others. Although, when someone spots the wordplay and also enjoys it, I tend to be drawn to them. Kinda the opposite to what happens when I'm being trolled. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Redvers
Roger has referred me to you. I created the page for artist Marion Harding and it was deleted - I would like to know why and what can be done to remedy this situation. Pleas inform me of all supporting documentation that you require and it will be sent to you immediately.

Sincerely

Ruan Joshua Harding UserID: Ernstblumberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernstblumberg (talk • contribs)


 * Explained in the deletion log with clickable links. To confirm, it fell under the criterion for speedy deletion "A7" - failure to assert notability for the subject of the article. And Roger, well done on the buck-passing. Yeah, you just nominated the article: the flack belongs to the guy clearing CAT:CSD. Thanks. And I mean that on many levels. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sud Belgique
Well, funnily enough I'm off to Dinant next week for a couple of days, lovely place. A lot nicer than Charleroi (where I've spent about six terrible weeks over the past five or six years). Thanks for the cheese award, can't stand it when people get so hot under the collar! The Rambling Man 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Charleroi is awful; Dinant though is lovely - I was there last year (pictures I took). ➔ REDVEЯS was here 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice. No saxophones?!  The Rambling Man 07:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think I was trolling you, you are wrong.
I tried to give you some feedback that would help you. Maybe I wanted to return the favor for help that you gave me. I too enjoy deft word play, and it is because I enjoy this, that I am so disappointed by word play that fails to be deft, (even by near misses). Even if you are a person who doesn’t “Give a fuck”, (as you say you might be), I would be glad that I had assumed that you did, when I wrote to you. Because that is the best way to find out, and because it is the best way to treat people who do give a fuck. Actually the vast majority of us do give a fuck. Sometimes we just prefer to pretend that we don’t. And you have already shown that you do, “Give a fuck” about many similar things. So it’s not much of a  stretch to think that you would give a fuck, about clear thinking.

George Pelly-Bosela Wikitalk username - GPelly-Bosela If this username does not show up as a live link, then please show me how to make it do so. Also, would this make my messages read as “signed” —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPelly-Bosela (talk • contribs)


 * Sign your posts by putting  at the end. This automagically changes to a link to your user page and the date and time (UTC). You can customise the result by visiting your preferences. And I said nothing about you trolling. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 07:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that maybe you were implying this. I now see that you were not.  Thanks for showing me how to sign a post.


 * George Pelly-Bosela GPelly-Bosela 09:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)