User talk:Savidan/Archive 5

Quendor Maps?
Savidan - I noticed you uploaded a map of Quendor called quendorglobe.jpg. Do you know where I can find an original of this? I see it's on the Encyclopedia Frobozzica, but I'd like to find the original source material if possible. Any ideas?

Congressional Softball
I posted a comment on the discussion page for congressional softball. Please let me know what you think. I am new at this, so I am not sure about communication protocols and such, gwis 15:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

FAR
Hi, Savidan. It's been several weeks since you nominated Papal conclave for review. Can you please follow up on FAR and let us know your thoughts on its progress? Thanks, Sandy 02:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

tfd for "distressing"
distressing I couldn't find the comment section or the listing for tfd for template:distressing so I removed the tag on the template. If you still want to delete it, please revert my edit and place it on the tfd page. Thanks! --Tbeatty 06:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD
Sorry. You're right. I was closing TfD noms after a nine hour shift at work, which by the way, was very bad. Add to that the fact that no one else closes TfDs regularly, (I have closed 70% of noms since July 12), mistakes are bound to occur. I'll re-list the TfD in today's nomination section. Thanks for the heads up, RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Penisphone.jpg
I uploaded this a long time ago and now that I look back on it, its a silly image that doesn't add much to an article which is prone to vandalism (I copyedited the article after having been drawn to IP vandalism there several times). Is there anything I can do to expedite its deletion, or should I just wait for the period to run itself. The image came for the Icelandic Phallological Museum website, if you prefer to keep the image, although I imagine its copyrighted but can't see what the fair use claim would be other than the generic ("there are no free images of the penis phone..."). Incidentally, the most common type of vandalism to this article is people adding themselves as either donors or employees. You recently removed links to some of these people, which is better than nothing, but really you should just revert their addition completely in the future, unless sourced. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can nominate the image for deletion, but that will also take a week, so probably the easiest thing to do is to just leave it alone. I just happened to wander by the article today, and I removed the links on the assumption that the names were accurate. I didn't look through the article's history or investigate the claim, because the article was really just a ten-second stop. —Bkell (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I guess IFD takes only five days, not seven as I thought. So if you want the image deleted two days sooner, you can nominate it there. In the meantime, you can just delete the image from the Icelandic Phallological Museum article. —Bkell (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unverifiable-external-links
Thanks for the heads up. My contribution was made after that point, though :o) — OwenBlacker 08:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident
I've nominated the article George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Cjosefy 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pontifex Maximus
dear sir: thanks for fixing the photo. is this a standard in wikipedia? above and right? sorry about that, i'm still feeling my way in wikipedia when it comes to including photos. thanks again. oh, and if you ever come to a reference pertaining to pontifex maximus on the web, please expand the article or send me the http so i can use it. thanks very much. Dr mindbender 06:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice!
Hey, thanks! I really appreciate your praise of Roman Vishniac: I worked (and continue to work) very hard on it. -- Rmrfstar 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote on your nomination...
...at Talk:Minutemen (militia). -  AjaxSmack   18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

13 Tzameti
I was thinking the same thing about the page, had only seen the trailer and wasn't going to do anything controversial so just made a redirect. A page move is the way forward though. Cheers. Driller thriller 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, I should be bold first time round next time. Driller thriller 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A cappella brouhaha
No worries. I understand why impulse to go for a mass deletion. Thanks for being gracious. Chart123 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept the apology, but don't understand the decision to continue. The articles you listed are benign, in form and harmless. Why not spend 30 minutes contributing to Wikipedia constructively rather than destructively? There will be plenty of time in the future to delete articles that we don't think fit any longer. --SparqMan 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note of apology, its rare to encounter that sort of politeness on WP. For what its worth, I think I can understand your motivation here a little. I looked at your userpage; I too for my sins have to spend a great deal of time on the sort of campus where at certain times of year a million a capella groups spring out of the ancient woodwork to sing last year's hits at unwary passers-by. Fall is coming, and every gracious colonnade and awe-inspiring staircase will be crowded with a bunch of kids in tuxedos harmonising happily at me. I dread it. Hornplease 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cups and Balls Museum
Since you will not respect my wishes not to be linked to your web site, I have changed my index page to one that will not lead anyone into the site.

Too bad you had to abuse my art and my web site like this.

Bill Palmer, MIMC

Okay. You have asked for it. I am reporting you to your ISP for an abusive link. I know I can do this. It's perfectly legal.

Until then, I warn you. If my bandwidth exceeds the maximum permitted and I can prove it is because of your link, I will bill you for the difference.

My site is my private property and I choose not to allow you to link to it.

Bill Palmer, MIMC
 * Um..what a deluded loser. "If my bandwidth exceeds the maximum permitted and I can prove it is because of your link, I will bill you for the difference."   He's completely nuts.  He probably yells at pedestrians for looking at this house.  Shaundakulbara 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pius XII and the Appalling Image
Hi Savidan, I think we should go into a moderated mediation. I stated several times my opinion about why this image of a cardinal steping on a jew should not be in Wikipedia. Since you did not answer even to one of my points and kept on behaving like a dictator concerning this article of Pius XII, I do not believe that a non - moderated discussion with you is going to bring about anything. I'm really sorry, but in my eyes your behavior and also this appalling image are violating Wikipedia-Standards. I shall contact an admin now. --UAltmann 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've removed the image. I am not taking sides as to its suitability. However legally we cannot use that image on that article under fair use. To qualify for fair use the image would have to be directly relevant. That would only be the case for certain in an article about the artist. It probably would qualify (though it would be a somewhat grey area) in an article on the Concordat. It would not qualify however for articles like Pius XII, the Holocaust, etc. The reason is that in each of those cases the link is indirect. Pius doesn't feature in the image. The link is indirect: a member of Pius's hierarchy -> a Vatican policy -> the Pope. That is too indirect under fair use to allow usage. Similarly as it does not directly show an image of the Holocaust it would not qualify under fair use to be on the Holocaust page. The bottom line really with fair use is that the image must be direct, vitally relevant and there must be no alternative. As the article is not about the image or the artist it fails fair use and if used on that article would get WP into legal trouble. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\(caint)  01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even then, as a work of art, and with an unclear representation of its possible subject, I suspect it would fall foul of fair use. The bottom line really is that as it is not a photograph of an event, but rather an (unclear) artistic representation, it probably would fail fair use for any article on Pius. I think the only guaranteed place where it would be OK would be in a page on the artist. It probably would be OK on a Concordat page. WP follows a very cautious interpretation of fair use (to cautious IMHO). I very much doubt if it would qualify under WP rules even (just about) OK under fair use. My gut feeling is that it fails both. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\(caint)  01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD reminder
Just a friendly reminder to list new AfDs at the bottom of the day's listing. BigHaz 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert
This page appears to have been semi-protected for over a week. You were correct to respond in this manner to vandalism from multiple sources, but perhaps it is time to open the article up again. savidan(talk) (e@) 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've unprotected it now. Just to let you know, the better place to request unprotection would have been at the WP:RFPP page in the requests for unprotection section, because you will get a much quicker response there. — Mets 501  (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobov
Hi Savidan; I'm giving you the courtesy of letting you know. There is an internal dispute who is the legitimate successor to the previous Rebbe of Bobov; and obviously every side wants Wikipedia to represent their POV. Fortunately for almost a year we've been able to keep all the articles that mention this dispute with relatively NPOV; all this with the help of many Wikipedians who are keeping a watchful eye on it. So if we put a cleanup tag on one page we need to do the same on the other page which really says the same thing but reversed. Therefore I'm removing the cleanup tag. Thanks for your understanding. Issac 18:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church
There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony Snow image
Do you have something more neutral for Iraq Study Group Report? -- Kendrick7 17:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My original instinct was I wasn't going to make a fuss unless someone else brought it up, but someone else did. I can see that at a later phase of the article, this image could be used to illustrate a section relating to the media/white house tensions, were these to be such a section (you could add one, even a few sentences, and put the image there). But, it's somewhat overwhelming the way things are now, know what I mean? -- Kendrick7 18:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pius
Thanks Savidan for the heads up and sorry for the delay, I was sidetracked elsewhere on WP and in real life. Am I right in supposing that the remaining issues are what is not striked out at Featured_article_review/Pope_Pius_XII? Str1977 (smile back) 08:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Two of the three shouldn't be hard to find and the third also not very difficult. I will add the references during the next two days. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Helmsshcoker.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Helmsshcoker.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

redundancy
Yes, I understand how it reads. I cut the words as I saw them from the blue-link, without interpretation (practice as dogmatically defined?--maybe somebody will yell at me). If you can phrase the intent of the edit while sticking to religious language, all good. Marskell 22:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete nomination for deletion
You placed a deletion tag on legally frivolous, yet stated no reason and did not add the template to the TFD page. If this is still the situation when I next log in, I will assume this was an error and remove the tag. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed right after I left this note. Well, that was one reason for waiting!  I have put down my reasons to keep, but you've probably read them already in the old TFD.  I trust you will not object if I let Famspear and a couple of others who use the template know about this nomination. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Rings image request
I saw your screenshots from LOTR and I wish to request an multiple image. It is needed for The Return of the King: I'd like Saruman, the Witch-king and the Mouth of Sauron to emphasise the new villainous additions to the film in the Extended Edition. I'd be very thankful. Wiki-newbie 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, sorry to nitpick, but I need the Witch-king in his particular EE scene. Wiki-newbie 19:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That scene however is in the TE. What I want to emphasise is the EE's restoration of the villains in the film. In the article I describe how those scenes add some new context, and really I wish for WK with his fiery sword. I don't want to sound rude but I really appreciate your work. Just one fix and I'll upload the image, as well as provide a fair use rationale. Wiki-newbie 19:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the fiery sword in the staff break scene however. It's the shot just before he reveals his chained mace to Eowyn. Wiki-newbie 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you! Wiki-newbie 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, a new problem. Do you know why the original image is the one appearing on the article? Is it fine on your browser? Wiki-newbie 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Pszork1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pszork1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

re: J. R. R. Tolkien
Thanks for the tip. I thought that the main page featured article protection was not to be protected. I actually wasn't the one who protected it. Can't argue with the user who did protect it though. The vandalism was coming fast and furious at the time. --KeithB 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Battle of Castelfidardo
Thought you might be interested - just completed the English translation of the French article on the Battle of Castelfidardo that you requested as a high priority translation over at the [|French Collaboration Project] back on 2nd September. It's pretty much a direct translation with little additional research other than to anglicise the names - hope it's what you wanted. - Popacatapetal 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dominic Savio
Dear Savidan,

Thanks for removing the Pope Pius XII image from the Dominic Savio article. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. I had redone the article only yesterday and included that image without checking its copyright status. Your edit made me take another look at the pictures I had put into that article. I placed a public domain image of Pope Pius X where the Pope Pius XII image had been. I replaced the image of Pope Pius XI with another public domain image of him. So thank you for pointing this out. I had edited the article because someone had inserted two tags into it: 'disputed' and 'expert'. Now that I have edited it, I'm not sure if it would be proper etiquette to remove it myself. Should I wait for the person who put up the tags to remove them himself? If you have the time, would you please take a look at the article and decide if the article is now encyclopedic enough for the tags to be removed? Thanks for your time.

Yours,

Savio mit electronics 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I have contacted the person who placed the tag in the article.

Yours, Savio mit electronics 14:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images with urls, etc
I believe the tag you are looking for is imagewatermark (or just the redirect watermark, it's generaly a bad thing, and outright not allowed in user-created images (credits go on the image page, not the image) --Sherool (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Diocesan Infobox
To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Please Take Responsiblity For Your Edits
Since the article is contentious, you should discuss your edits and attempt to reach consensus on the talk page instead of blindly editing the article without consensus. Wikipedia seeks to divulge all form of bias so that readers will not be mislead with false authority. If an article is wholly critical on Sathya Sai Baba, the reader has no was of assessing this (especially when the original article is in Dutch) unless it is stated neutrally and factually. The fact remains that the article in question is wholly critical on Sathya Sai Baba and this bias needs to be divulged. Withholding this bias is POV pushing. Please suggest an alternate wording on the take page and let us work on it together and try to obtain consensus. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already posted on the talk page of the article and will continue this there. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba
Thank you for your contributions to Sathya Sai Baba. The article has been criticised for several of its editors (including myself) to have some sort of bias and that the article needs more editors (and "more eyes") who are able to maintain NPOV and improve the article with general standards of cleanup and maintenance. It is nice to see a fresh face so to speak, and hopefully you will be encouraged to help with the article as it is terribly contentious. ekantiK talk 01:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Sorry about that, I'm online from 23-8 usually, so I'll do the next shift. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Hello, I have been trying to find the Wikipedia position on pseudoscience (and inclusion of inaccurate information) that you mentioned here, but was unable to find it. Could you kindly point me to it, please? ekantiK talk 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Impact wrench
You mentioned on the DYK page that the article could use more sources, however both myself and another user have been unable to locate any. Since much of the article is a statement of what is currently used, the seemingly only reference for it would be links to the manufacturer's product pages, and wikipedia really shouldn't be a big collection of external links to commercial sites. Much of the article is also common knowledge, which seems difficult or impossible to find references for, and even after searching the patent archives for information on impact wrenches, the simpler mechanisms listed in the article are only mentioned as "prior art" or "known in the art." Do you have any suggestions of sources, or any specific parts of the article you feel need a reference? Thanks, Bushytails 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Just to let you know, I replied on my talk page. Thanks again, Bushytails 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos
I've noticed you're very involved here, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Village_pump_(proposals) and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FA Nomination
Recently, you left an objection against Avatar: The Last Airbender becoming a featured article. The article has been fixed and organized. Therefore, can you please review your objection and tell us which parts of your objection still stand. I would appreciate it. Thank you! Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: a capella
Thanks for the quote :)  T   h    e    R    S    J  00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, AfD is really flawed! Can't we somehow ban IPs from editing AfD debates? The meat puppet problem wouldn't be fixed, but it would fix the IP problem.  T   h    e    R    S    J  01:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well, Wikipedia will always be flawed.  T   h    e    R    S    J  01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

afd
Yeah, I will admit to getting lazy on the last few of those a cappella pages and just copying and pasting. However, for each one, I did visit and read the article. As I rebutted in one of those a cappella discussions, those college organizations have some notability. They are attended by many students, and a staple of college life, have famous alumni, produce albums, and have appeared on media programs. I do believe the ones currently up there are notable enough. Btw, no incivility is meant in any of my replies. If I come across and agressive, you have my apologies.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can both agree on that. After reviewing the criteria for notability, I am willing to change my views on some of those a cappella groups. However, I still believe the two that are over 50 years old (1 from the 1940s, the other from the 1950s) should be kept. They are entrenched clubs at their respective schools. Through AFD before, many things that are notable only to a small group of people are kept. The long-established a cappella groups have toured the world and have had an impact on our society (through their alumni).

And btw, I think that the Josh guy is also copying and pasting, as he's just going down the list and saying "per nom".  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your views on this topic and, although I don't agree with them, accept them. However, I would prefer that the notability of topics as a whole (such are radio towers, a cappella groups) are first discussed by Wikipedians who comment on policy rather than directly dumping them on AFD. AFD is notorious for being a place for people to get up their edit count quickly by simply copying "Delete per nom" all the way down for every single nomination. Before nominating large groups as a whole (in this case, a cappella groups), I would suggest you run it by the folks at the Village Pump first. Although I understand that this should be taken on a case by case basis, it should be noted that


 * A) These groups are not radio towers


 * B) This kind of large grouping is dangerous, as it could lead to escaltion of deletion, with actually good articles being deleted because a majority of those for Keep/delete chose delete due to their haste in (not) voting.


 *  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, everything is case by case. Our differences are only on the scale of notability.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with all your points. My only gripe is that some that you find to be non-notable, I consider to be notable enough to warrent their own pages. All we have is a different scale by which we measure notability.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If I remember, I'll look tomorrow to see if I can find 3rd party sources. I have to be up for school in 4 hours. On a side note, have you ever considered trying for Wikipedia Adminship? After reading through much of your achievements and contribs, I have come to the conclusion that you're more than qualified.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  07:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you get up on Editor Review and Admin Coaching, although I don't think you need the latter. And, if you ever have time, I would be honored if you reviewed me as a Wikipedian (link on my main page near the top, found here.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sherwoods, et. al.
The Sherwoods were written about in Michael Slon's Songs From The Hill, a history of the Cornell University Glee Club, so there's plenty of reliable information about them. If sourcing is your issue for many of these, it's a pity that your first reflex is to go to AfD, rather than to put ref tags on them. I'm also concerned that you may be conflating notability issues with reliability issues in regards to issues reported on group web sites. Being the subject of multiple published works requires sources independent from the group itself. But the other criteria, such as touring or containing a former member who went on to be in an even more notable group, there's no real reason the group's web site can't be used as a source. It's not preferred, certainly, but in that case it's more appropriate to ask for further sources rather than to say that the article ought to be deleted for lack of ideal sources. JDoorj a m    Talk 07:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to agree to disagree: I'd rather have information that is highly likely to be accurate on Wikipedia about the past membership of later-famous people than eliminate it altogether because there isn't a newspaper article about it someplace. You proffer a similar argument that a tour not covered by the media is not important enough to count.  That's simply not supported by the WP:MUSIC guidelines. JDoorj a m     Talk 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"War on a cappella"
Thanks for going through the less notable a cappella groups and prodding or nominating them for deletion! —ShadowHalo 08:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

SSB
Hello Savidan, your comments would be appreciated [Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#SSS108_Stop_reverting_the_article here] and perhaps for any preceding discussion that you may have missed. Ekantik talk 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War
I appreciate your attempt to get me to rediscuss this issue, but I dont really have time anymore. I put a significant amount of effort into getting to the bottom of the issue, from April to July the issue was debated non stop by yours truly, eventually we reached a consensus. The US led "War on Terror" is a campaign, and as the Iraq war was stated as a part of this campaign by the US government when they authorized war originally, it is therefore a part of it. Thats what it came down to. Whether or not it is truly fighting terror is a seperate issue. This was the consensus reached, if you want to revisit it I urge you to look at the authorization of war by the US Congress and look for yourself, its there. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it that you did not edit against a consensus that has been established. The idea that the USA isnt the only combattant is a true one, but every nation fighting under the coalition is therefore participating in a war effort that was began by the United States. As this effort was begun as a part of the campaign, its a part of the campaign. That is cut and dry. You are somewhat right in it not being a cut and dry issue as far as presenting this goes, which I beleive I addressed at the talk page itself. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to ignore the consensus and reopen a debate because you dont agree with how it was settled, go for it. I wasnt entirely happy with the way this one ended either, but I understand that sometimes its better to compromise and put time into something more constructive. If you honestly want to waste your time and other peoples time, I am fully willing to try and revise the agreement to not include quotations or the "US" before it as I see these to be giving it an unfair treatment. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 02:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont know how familiar you are with Wikipedia policy, but a straw poll is not how consensuses are reached. They are ultimately reached through pure discussion and getting to the bottom of things. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and therefore no amount of polling means anything. It can be useful is seeing where people stand, and that May poll you found revealed that at the time it was a 15-11 split. A later nonbinding straw poll taken in June showed different results,  (25-4 as I count it.) But as I said, discussion went on actively until July with various people over time ignoring it only to be reverted by people defending the consensus. I dont really see this happening now, and thats an unfortunate aspect of Wikipedia. Discussion isnt necessarilly read by everyone new and therefore the same problems arise time and time again. The link I posted at the talk page to the actual consensus didnt consist of a poll result, but instead the result and reasoning that was acheived through discussion. Admins, such as GTBacchus helped out in acheiving it, despite finding it an exhausting experience. Before you or anyone else considers posting an RfC or any other steps, I truly recommend reading past discussions, even if that puts you into the archives of talk pages. I dont want to see the same discussion happen again when it doesnt have to. ~ Rangeley  ( talk ) 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, easier to keep it in one place. I therefore refer you to the question posed in the RfC subsection where I ask how it is violating NPOV. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A Proposition
Please read the proposition on the Sathya Sai Baba Talk Page. If you agree to it, please sign it. It is an effort to build good faith and resolve controversial issues on the talk page, rather than engaging in edit warring. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 'original research' on Euphoria, Part 1
This info in the 'goofs' section wasn't original research. The source for that info is the episode itself. No analysis was done on it, so it really doesn't qualify as original research. I've put it back. --Sopoforic 04:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I have filed a request here to reopen the previous arbitration case regarding Sathya Sai Baba and related articles, as I believe there are serious ongoing problems with disruptive editing and personal attacks which were not addressed in the previous case. You may wish to add a comment of your own. Thatcher131 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
 Wishing you a Happy Holidays from  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work
Hi -- just wanted to drop you a line and say you're doing good work trying to clean or delete if necessary the bulk of a cappella-cruft on Wikipedia. I stumbled across Proof of the Pudding and thought it wasn't really up to notability standards, then realized that it was hardly alone in Category:Collegiate a cappella groups. Half the articles I would otherwise have ed or AfD-ed, you had already taken the initiative on. So, just wanted to say good work and thanks! Dylan 17:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the heads-up! I forgot to check for previous prods -- I'll AfD them. Dylan 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Buttmann
I've added the "prod" template to the article Rudolf Buttmann, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Rudolf Buttmann. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. - crz crztalk 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow that was a long time ago! I think I only created that to get people to stop adding info about him to the Pope Pius XII article. I have no personal attachment to it, but your prod reason (that there aren't any sources) isn't entirely true. savid @ n 05:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA notice
Hello Savidan! Thanks for contacting me. I made this comment based on comments other users have made on other RfAs, and Guide to requests for adminship to a lesser extent. However, I would cast out the latter upon reconsideration, since it's not really "advertising" to post notice on your own page. Moreover, I wasn't really concerned about this in the first place, and I only brought it up to show that I did not mind, and hoped other !voters would share my opinion that your pros far outweighed that which might be a con for some. I hope I didn't overplay this. I wish you the best of luck and please let me know if you have any other questions, Dar-Ape 19:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I have no objections.  Dar-Ape 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PennSix (band)
Hi there. You prodded the PennSix (band) article some time ago. I, as the creator, missed that due to a heavy work flow and issues at home. I had it restored as a contested prod. I'd like to know what factors contributed to your opinion that this article as not notable. Perhaps the 125 years of history at an Ivy League university, and the strong sentimental connection to Glenn Miller wasn't enough (I am having trouble corroborating this). I am currently working to get the fact of their biannual concert sellout status confirmed and maybe even published on the group's University website, but seeing as I just did this, I can't confirm it yet. The website is strewn with humorous misinformation, but the facts are there just the same. I may even ask them to offer a serious review of their history, just to satsify inquiries like this. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission to Co-nom
Hey Savidan,

I noticed your pending RFA at WP:RFA and I would be most honored if I could give my co-nomination for your RFA. Although you really don't need it, I still feel strongly about your RFA, moreso than most, as I have had close personal interaction with you here on Wikipedia. Good luck with it!  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Enjoy!  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with an article
Hey Savidan,

I was wondering if you could spare some time and help me out with the Space warfare in fiction page, which I spun off from Space warfare. It is currently up for deletion due to lack of sources. I do not have much experience in matters such as this and I am hoping you could lend a helping hand. Thanks in advance!  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  08:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and hopefully this doesn't count as canvassing (WP:SPAM).  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  08:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I really realized that the article was screwed the moment the tag went up. I had been working on that page (little edits) for so long (at least, over such a long period) that I didn't source it. I guess I hoped that due to the size of Wikipedia, it wouldn't be found until it was in good shape.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New Year
 Wishing you a Happy New Year from  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to help the project keep improving. Use them conservatively, especially at first, and re-read the policies before acting. Try to de-escalate situations whenever possible instead of blocking for example. The community has placed it's trust in you, so do your best to keep living up to that. Again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Savidan! Have fun with the admin tools, and if you ever need any admin-related help, feel free to contact me. =)  Nish kid 64  03:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Savidan enjoy putting the tools to good use, I Gnangarra 03:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I normally beat the Bureaucrats to the congrats! If you need any assistance with the shiny new admin tools then please don't hesitate to ask and I will do my best to answer you! Happy New Year, by the way! (aeropagitica) 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, all congratulations to you Savidan. :) And hope you had a good New Year too. :) Ekantik talk 16:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know I'm way too late, but I saw you around and remembered your RfA. So congrats and best of luck with the mop. ← A NAS  Talk? 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ohhh no!!! I missed this RfA while I was on a break. Well done, I see you have been enjoying the DYK editing! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Shilpa Shetty
I would also like to request your assistance Savidan, if its not too much trouble? Please take a look at Shilpa_Shetty; why are the references for that section pointing to earlier references listed for other sections of the article? Quoting the same reference several times seems to work fine in the Romanov Vodka section, so why not elsewhere? I've tried verifying the syntax and it is correct, maybe it is an issue with the template itself? Thanks in advance. Ekantik talk 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote transwiki nightmare
Savidan, could you explain how a Wikipedian entrusted with sysop privileges could perform literally hundreds of transfers of material from Wikipedia to Wikiquote without any attempt to follow the transwiki process required to provide editors with proper credit under GFDL? We now have a massive amount of quote data at Wikiquote that give no indication that possibly thousands of edits from many different editors went into this material. Instead, the only person credited with these edits is you. Worse yet, they weren't even properly integrated into Wikiquote, but slapped into episode articles that encourage the kind of copyright violations that got French Wikiquote shut down for a year.

I'm sorry if I sound angry, but I am. You have left us with a maintenance nightmare that it will take the already horribly overworked sysops of en:Wikiquote months to untangle. I would really like to know how you might help us fix this mess. Please discuss this in detail on the appropriate Wikiquote pages: my WQ user page, your user page, and/or q:WQ:VFD, where we're just starting to call attention to the problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-writing of Sathya Sai Baba
I would appreciate help with re-writing of Sathya Sai Baba. It seems that part of the problem is that editors (incl. me) want to stay very close to the sources in the many controversial issues which leads to a tortured writing style. I am very much afraid of not staying close to the sources, because of repeated and heavy accustations against me of misparaphrasing and misrepresenting sources. Due to this I am afraid to make summaries, so I am limited in my possibilities for rewriting. Andries 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC) amended 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job, mate!
Congrats on being an admin, hombre! That must be pretty cool! NIRVANA2764 20:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Link Removal
You removed a link earlier from the September 11, 2001 attacks attacks article. Can you please replace it with its correct location, Fatawa of Osama bin Laden, as the Fatwa is his declaration of war. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons images on the Main Page
I know you just recently became an admin, so I can forgive your mistake, but please take a look at Administrators%27_noticeboard (note you're not the only one to have made this mistake recently). The process may be explained a bit more clearly in the hidden comments of WP:DYK and WP:ITN. --  tariq abjotu  19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know the process, but forgot to copy the rest of the image info because I was in a hurry. I thought I'd gotten it because I was looking at the commons version of the image in another browser window. Thanks for fixing it. Savidan 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the image info that was the problem; it was that the image was not uploaded locally in the place of the image taken directly from Commons. --  tariq abjotu  20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war
In past discussion, a majority of users opposed the use of the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" subtitle into the infobox on the Iraq war page. Nonetheless, Rangeley has repeatedly re-inserted it. I'm hesistant to just remove it myself again-- could you look the situation over, deter Rangeley from continuing to re-insert the subtitle, and remove it if you feel it is appropriate to do so? --Alecmconroy 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A hello
Hey there. It's Leo Z. I always knew you were a hardcore Wikipedian, but had never Wiki-encountered you before. But: I'm watching policy debate and saw you edit. So... hi.

DYK!
Thank you for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  00:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD
I nominated template:ReaderFeedback for deletion. Please see WP:TFD. Savidan 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The template has been removed from all articles (see coment on WP:TFD). Any reasons for deletion or are we free to develop it into derivates for project intern use(bot-readable evaluation) on non-article pages? Wandalstouring 15:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Uruguayan Civil War
I am uncertain about that. I got it from the Uruguayan military website on the Guerra Grande. I have not yet verified what it demonstrates. If you find out, please add it. --Ineffable3000 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is either the Montevideo siege or Buenos Aires siege (not as big). The ships may be of almost any nation, but I'm leaning to them being Colorado (just an educated guess). --Ineffable3000 05:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Much thanks for notifying me that East Kowloon Corridor is on DYK. --Deryck C. 08:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Primal Scream
Eh, I'm not sure. I took them with a disposable camera and had them developed at a CVS. CVS put them on a CD for me. --Briancua 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Primal Scream
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to do this.

All these photographs, on the various occasions they've appeared, have been uploaded with a dearth of evidence that the uploaders were the copyright holder, or that there was any consent for their publication from those people photographed. Indeed, we've had explicit complaints - I've corresponded with them myself - from those pictured in some of the photographs, which causes me to have serious doubts about the status of the others without positive proof.

Indeed, I just checked the four images I deleted recently; all had previously been deleted. Two files were direct re-uploads, under the same names, of those nuked in the initial batch of complaints, marked as deleted because of no indication of consent; they'd been uploaded by two different users both claiming authorship and whose only edits were these images and that article. In the case of the other two, it seems a single specific file was uploaded by two seperate users, in May and September, each claiming authorship; both had been deleted and new material on the same topic loaded over them, again by single purpose accounts. It gets worse; the more I look into this warren of deleted images the more times I find them being uploaded by single-purpose accounts, who upload a batch of physically very different images (different file sizes, aspect ratios, etc) claiming authorship, then try to edit them into the article or leave it for another user to do so. Filenames replicate, change, spread around; the files themselves keep recurring, coming from different users with different claims, but the same images. Very, very, very confusing situation to figure out where they came from.

Combine this with the fact that the images are pretty much unencyclopedic - we don't need them as illustration, as we know what naked people running around look like - and I feel no qualms about killing them on sight, especially when the matter has been Made Clear To People Before. This is before before we get into grounds of taste - I'm as much for cheerful nudity as the next man, but I'm just as much for common sense...

On the whole, I really don't see anything would be gained for the project by undeleting these and letting Process Take Its Course; there is clear indication of harm and distress caused by us continuing to publish them, both on the talk page and by correspondence, which makes me very loathe to undelete even with a good reason. If the only effect of the conventional process would be that we continue to publish them for another week or two before deleting, then I really don't see any pressing advantage.

Process is useful, but common sense trumps it, and in this case common sense tells me to delete them, to keep them deleted, and to slap down any future attempts to claim they're legally acceptable and suitable for the article without a very good case backing it up and provided to us.

I hope this clarifies my stance, and my apologies for rambling on a bit. I don't like whimsically deleting content much, but sometimes it's necessary to avoid further harm to someone, and I feel this is one of those cases. Shimgray | talk | 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure - if I'd realised you were an admin I'd have given links... It's not as messy as it seemed last night (my eyes kept glazing over at the filenames and all the redlinks), but there's a clear level of dubiousness about a lot of it. The four in question were (using holding names) 1, 2, 2A, 3A.
 * 1 was first uploaded by in May; "I took this photos and release all rights to them"; a different reupload was done by  in October, tagging it PD-self.
 * 2 was first uploaded by Briancua (but we've lost what the file was), and something re-uploaded in September by ("The uploader took this photo during the Spring 2006 Primal Scream at Harvard."); this latter was exactly the same file as Briancua's initial upload of 1. A third file was uploaded here in January by  ("i am the author"), different to the others seen.
 * 2A was uploaded by in August as PD-self, and identically reuploaded in October by Wolbach555 as PD-self. 3A was uploaded by the same pair in the same way. Both of these users were single-purpose accounts, with no other contributions than a string of dubious images and an attempt to put them into the article. Other single-purpose accounts I've turned up so far are, ,.
 * Of all the various ones, the only plausibly legit looking set are from Briancua - but there's that weird reupload from Illuminatio, apparently another legit user, claiming authorship. Very odd. Shimgray | talk | 23:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Unless I am reading wrong it was way, way too soon to update DYK just now. House of Scandal 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Yeah, but look at the history. It was like 2 hrs. I was here when the last update happened that's why when a new one just happened I was wondering "huh?" House of Scandal 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The timer said 9 hours... Savidan 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image stone
I did the update twenty minutes before the new day began (well not for me, but for UTC). I left one entry out at the time because it distorted the Main Page. Once it hit 0:00 UTC, I added back that entry, as there was a short DYK and an extremely long ITN. I tried to tinker with ITN, and fixed it up by removing the last two entries from there. By doing so, I made the left column much shorter than the left column. To fix this balance, I removed the last item from DYK. It was only up on DYK for 30 minutes or so, and it can go back up for the Next Update.  Nish kid 64  01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah! I forgot to go DYK-refresh! I'm going to have to revert you for now, and send back to Next update.  Nish kid 64  01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion :-P.  Nish kid 64  01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, when adding to Recent Additions, be sure to not forget the picture link.  Nish kid 64  01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, you're supposed to keep the (pictured). You just have to add the link to the image, so it shows up like this (pictured).  Nish kid 64  01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, lol. You're Mr. Dartmouth :D. I was going to apply there, but it's Maine. C'mon...:-P. So I ended applying to the home of grade inflation and got deferred lol.  Nish kid 64  01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol...I'm stupid. I knew that 10 minutes ago. really i did!  Nish kid 64  01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria FAC
Hi! Today I've nominated the article Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria for a featured article, believing it meets all criteria.

This is the article's third nomination (see the previous ones), and because you voted or commented on one of the previous nominations, I'd like to invite you to voice your opinion about the current state of the article, be it as a vote or a comment, on the article's nomination page.

Thanks! :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Australia1889.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Australia1889.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Longhair\talk 09:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for updating the DYK articles, I know it takes quite a bit of effort and time, I put some effort into one of the articles you chose, so I thank you for that also. -- Epousesquecido 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)+

A request for arbitration
Please see this. I noticed that you have recently discussed the relevant issues on Talk:Iraq War. --Timeshifter 04:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter
The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter
The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD
Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)