User talk:Seraphim/Archive 3

__NOINDEX__

Crazy wiki-gang
Thanks for the check-in. Don't know if I'm made for editing. On the one side, I don't like letting things slide when I think they're wrong, on the other, I'm lazy. More importantly, I'm moving to Madrid next month, so I am debating signing up so I don't lose my history with this IP. I suppose if I just quit thinking about these things, and edited more, life would be a little simpler.... ;o) 24.68.249.197 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (I added your comment to this page instead so you know where to reply :o) Seraphim  Whipp |undefined )

+44

 * Hi. I know your edits were in the utmost good faith in moving +44, however, this has caused a lot of problems. To begin with, it should have been moved to +44 (band). This was a difficult move and to be fair, it would have been better to have requested this move. Now all the pages that it linked to have been disrupted. Could you reverse it until the move can be done properly, with the band page moved to +44 (band)? Feel free to discuss this first at my talk page if you would like.
 * Seraphim Whipp 20:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am already fixing some links. Please join and help. If one day it is moved to +44 (band) this is absolutely fine. But the links that go to +44 have to be changed anyway. Redirect from +44 (2005 band) to +44 (band) is no problem. There are anyway 7 or so different names for the band. NoGringo 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, I know, the amount of names for the band are ridiculous, however it took months to reach consensus that it should be +44 instead of the other numerous ones. The 2005 part seems a bit extraneous. I'm not really sure how to do it exactly. How would I go about moving it from +44 (2005 band) to +44 (band)? Also, thanks for responding in a positive way...I never really know how comments about difficult situations will be interpreted.
 * Seraphim Whipp 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we need an admin. I will ask John. Same to you, thank you for the positive interaction. :-) NoGringo 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok then, :-).
 * Seraphim Whipp 20:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:67.49.30.120
Hi! Just wanted to mention that your blocking rationale was brilliant:

"Something may well be true (such as George W. Bush being spawned from the anti-Christ)"

Thanks for a giggle :-).

Seraphim Whipp 00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome and thanks. That was just an example. I have my own criticisms of the American President, but I don't actually believe that one.--Chaser - T 00:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hehe, I thought it an amusing example. Keep up the good work!
 * Seraphim Whipp 00:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Picture of Alcohol Gel
I have removed the alcohol gel picture again. If we have a picture of an alcohol gel, then we must also have pictures of alcohol foams and alcohol liquids since they are all alcohol rubs. By having one picture of an alcohol gel you are implying an alcohol gel is better than other formulas of alcohol rubs which is not true (see references in the alcohol rub article). Either have pictures of all rubs or no pictures at all. In addition, showing a picture of your alcohol gel is advertising which is not allowed on Wikipedia.--JSHibbard 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is simply not true. When I took that photograph I made absolutely sure that no logo can be seen, only the formula inside the bottle. Also having one picture of alcohol does not imply anything. It just means that at wikipedia we only have one picture available. If we had a picture of a double choclate muffin on the muffin page but not a blueberry muffin, does that imply, we at wikipedia believe that double chocolate muffins are the best? No, of course not. It is your opinion that we should have other pictures.


 * As a compromise, the caption beneath the picture can be changed to say "One type of alcohol rub". I feel this is a suitable compromise. What do you think?
 * Seraphim Whipp 20:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The logo is not the problem. You do not need a logo to recognize your bottle of alcohol gel. That is advertising. The article is a generic description of ALL alcohol rubs not one alcohol gel product. Please do not add the image back to this article or we will need to resolve the problem in arbitration. Thank you.--JSHibbard 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem
Hey, I noticed you uploaded this logo. It is missing a fair use rationale though; could you please include this information? Thanks.

Seraphim Whipp 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What can I write in the fair use rationale though for the image Image:+44logo.png, could you tell me please? Thanks. Omar otiniano 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, I don't think there is a rationale that could justify the use of that logo, that's why I asked you to add it rather than writing one myself. I'd suggest asking someone at the help desk. I hope that's of some use to you :-).
 * Seraphim Whipp 01:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regina Spektor
Hey. A moment ago I made a good faith contribution which you reverted with the edit summary of "rv ludicrous removal; she's certainly been affiliated with this artistic movement". If it was a mistake, ok, that's fine as I do make mistakes, but there was no need for the bitey edit summary. :(.

Seraphim Whipp 10:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly apologize, then, as I see you didn't know that there was an editor a couple of days ago who insisted on removing that genre from the box since she is no longer entirely associated with that artistic movement (she's "grown out" of it, apparently). But since she was prominently associated with it early in her career, before she "broke" into the somewhat-mainstream, it really is important the genre is reflected in the article's cats. Her inclusion in as an artist within the genre is discussed in both her article as well as the Anti-folk article. Badagnani 10:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just thought I'd let you know. Sometimes people have bad days and they don't realise how things sound. I like to let people know if I may have taken offence or for people to let me know if I have caused offence so I can fix it :-).
 * I'll keep the page watchlisted and revert if people make the same change I did. Happy editing!
 * Seraphim Whipp 10:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:American Psycho Music From The Motion Picture.jpg
Is there are reason why you removed this from American Psycho: Music from the Controversial Motion Picture and nominated it for speedy deletion? It seems to meet all of the fair use criteria... Caknuck 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes there is a reason. I wrote a fair use rationale for that image but I don't think that it actually gives valid enough reasons for using a copyrighted image. On wikipedia, I'm pretty much still learning everyday.
 * At the time I was notified about one of my images not having a fair use rationale, I went through every image copyrighted image I had uploaded. I added fair use rationale's for each of them. I have now come to understand that those fair use rationale's really don't justify why those images can be used. In fact, I'm now on a line of thinking where I ask, why are album covers actually allowed to be used? For identification? Personally, I don't think that is a good enough reason. That is pretty much the reason I had given for all of the images I added fair use rationales to. I hope that makes sense :-).
 * Seraphim Whipp 22:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging images
Why did you your own image with a speedy deletion template that doesn't even apply? Please review your use of Twinkle and your understanding of the speedy deletion criteria. Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the fair use rationale is invalid. As the author, I have been aware that the image has remained that way for over 7 days so I requested deletion. Why exactly doesn't that speedy category apply? It's just my opinion, but to my understanding, that fair use rationale really isn't good enough. I'm trying to take a harder line on copyright since this is supposed to be the free encylopedia; I want to correct my past mistakes in copyright, which starts with these images. If you read the discussion just above, I have gone into more detail :-).
 * Seraphim Whipp 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am responsible with Twinkle. Any errors I've made, I have tried to correct myself.
 * Seraphim Whipp 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem with Twinkle - I just thought you might have clicked the wrong button accidentally. It's kind of a weird situation - normally I would tell an editor to use the "disputed fair use rationale" template but you are the author.  The images are actually useful, and there is a good fair use case for album covers.  Rather than deleting them, the better thing to do would be improve the fair use rationale using examples at Non-free use rationale guideline.  Hope that makes sense.  Also, take a look at the speedy deletion criteria for images.  If an image qualifies for "pseudo speedy deletion" (one of the criteria that take a few days to take effect), that page tells you what template to place on the image.  You use special templates that place the images in holding categories until the proper day comes to delete them. Let me know if you have any questions. --Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I justed wanted to make sure you didn't think I was some sort of tearaway who was abusing the tools. In a weird way I guess it's good that the fair use rationales are ok, since I did spend the time writing them out in the first pace 8-). If in your judgement you think the images are useful then I shall improve the fair use rationales :). Thanks for your time and help.


 * I do have just one question, what is it in the fair use policy which allows album covers to be justified under fair use? I'm still a little shakey on my knowledge of that policy (which I shall spend a little more time learning), but it's sometimes not exactly clear to judge. Hmm if in my time here I learn the various image and copyright policies well enough, I'll write an essay regarding album and single covers, unless one already exists somewhere. It's an area which needs a little coverage for people like me :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 09:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not an easy question to answer, since there is not a firm consensus that any particular thing should be allowed under fair use. You'll note that Non-free content is a guideline, not a policy.  Generally speaking, the fair use case for an album cover is that of "visual identification".  You state above that you don't view that as sufficient, and there are definitely many who feel that way.  My view is that many people associate a visual with popular media; for example, you might see the cover of Abbey Road and recognize it without anyone telling you what it is.  Therefore, I think it appropriate to place such visuals in articles to help readers identify the subject. --Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you to a point about visual identification. For example, I think the Sticky Fingers album cover is important because it was iconic. I think in an album article where the cover is part of the subject, covers have good reason to be used for visual identification but otherwise, personally, I believe they look like they're just being used for decoration. Thanks for all your help regarding this; I really feel like I'm coming to understand more about it. I think it's also important to understand other people's views regarding this type of issue as they are almost as important to consider as the guidelines, at the times when the guidelines can be subject to interpretation. Just like what happened here :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 08:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strawberryland
OK, so sorry about that; I was waiting for some guy who will put some additional stuff on it... Blake Gripling 07:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey. You don't have to apologise :-). I just think the main article would be a more suitable place to add this info since it is a one-line article and it would be very simple to merge. If you think this warrants it's own article, maybe it would be better to develop it in your User:Blakegripling ph/Sandbox with the other guy? I'd think someone like myself would come across it and might prod it again.
 * Seraphim Whipp 08:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I already had a Sandbox page before, but I ditched it for some reason. Thanks for the help, though... Blake Gripling 09:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I wanted to be helpful :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 09:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

MyChildren MyBride
Beat me to it, huh!? Thank you for adding some sources. Like I said on the talk page, I added the article at the request of another so I myself had some trouble making the article sound amazing - I'm a little short of info!

--Rosario 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's ok! Sometimes it's worth checking out a band like that with a quick google test. Good luck!
 * Seraphim Whipp 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Note
If you are currently in the process of creating an afd for Aestate, don't worry about it. It was a speedy :).

Seraphim Whipp 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaahhh...thanks for the help with that. I don't have much experience with afd, so that was the best I knew how to do. Now I think I know how to "handle" the situation. Thanks! jj137Talk 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!
Many thanks for reverting my user page back to normal :) Thanks for moving the comment over to my talk page too :) Mike6271 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to help :).


 * Seraphim Whipp 08:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, help me.
Hello friend :) Just a small question... I've edited and edited my way around wikip, but I've never uploaded a picture. How on earth do I do it? --Rosario 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! :). Uploading an image is really easy once you get the hang of it. In the toolbox on the bottom left-hand side of your screen, you'll see a box of links marked "toolbox". In here, click the upload a file link. This will lead you to this screen, Upload. Now depending on where you got the photograph, you have to pick an option. Which image would you like to upload? Once you give me some more details about it, I'll be able to explain the next steps :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 08:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How do add this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eliska_Amor.JPG#filelinks picture to the model section on the Eliska Amor page? --Rosario 09:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll only be able to use that paticular image if the image itself is discussed/analysed in the article. We aren't allowed to use non-free images of people who are alive because it fails our non-free usuage criteria WP:NFC. Also images need source information (where you got it from) and a fair use rationale to justify usuage.


 * If the image is discussed in the article:


 * Add a source
 * Write a fair use rationale (you can ask me how to do this if you'd like some help)
 * Add the image to the article using this code:


 * [[Image:Eliska Amor.JPG|thumb|center|450px|Caption goes here]]


 * All of those parameters can be altered too. The first parameter is alignment, which can be center/left/right. Then you have size which is a number followed by px. The last is the caption you want the photo to have. If you look at the image on my user-page, that's what it'll look like :).


 * Seraphim Whipp 10:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a modeling picture and the section I wanted to add it to is the part of her article that talks about her former modeling, so it fits right? I found it on the fashion model directory but I saved it to my PC and uploaded from there. Wrong? or?
 * I'm so sorry, but I don't follow your instructions. I think I have a preconceived idea of how to do it because I looked on other articles and they seemed to just be added, I couldn't find the sourcing and rationales. Haha, ahh. --Rosario 11:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the website you downloaded it from would be your source, so you would add the URL to the image summary and says this was the source. Secondly, don't worry about having a preconceived idea, in fact, cast it aside completely. It's likely that the other articles you saw are also incorrect unfortunately.
 * Images without source information/copyright information/a fair use rationale (if they are copyrighted) get tagged and deleted after 7 days if that information isn't added. The images you saw probably weren't tagged so that's why they're still around.
 * I don't think you'll be able to use your image for the purpose you want because the image itself isn't analysed. Also the image in the infobox isn't usuable, I think, since it fails the first fair use criteria. If you can, try looking for a free alternative on the internet or on flickr. If you'd like to know more about images, this guy (User:Videmus Omnia) is very experienced and profficient at dealing with images. You might find that he's a bit more helpful than me :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

...
Angie Y. has once again caused another problem. She was making POV edits to Jim Moralés, while Jetlover and Someguy kept reverting them and telling her to stop, which caused the article to be edit protected until October! I just thought that you might want to know. I hope that she does not cause yet another fiasco like the episode one. Thanks, Codelyoko193  Talk 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe a few kind words might be helpful :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Angie is a good person, but she has made a few mistakes. Thanks, Codelyoko193  Talk 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Time to block user?
Please see. Cheers Benjiboi 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They were blocked about two minutes ago :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 12:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You rock! thank you. Benjiboi 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't block them myself as I'm not an admin but I did report them about 10 mins before they vandalised gay pride :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 15:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you still rock regardless! Benjiboi 15:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. [[Image:Smile.png]] Seraphim  Whipp 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Halfcocked albums
I've been on the other side of this argument before, so I know what you're talking about. I've also found myself arguing for articles that I didn't feel were really deserved, but the subject met the bare minimum for notability (talk about your internal conflicts!). There's gotta be a support group around somewhere for this. Anyway, if you ever need a hand with any music-related articles, let me know—I've been a music junkie for over 30 years, and was "in the business" for 20. Cheers! Precious Roy 23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Beautiful cat!

Fart
Regarding Articles for deletion/Fart I would ask you to reopen the discussion. First of all, the discussion was developing, regardless of any "snowballing" effect. It was not complete, and I believe it deserves the full standard time period to evolve to a real consensus instead of a simple supermajority. Second of all, I ask you to look at the arguments and their merits. Wikipedia policy is very clear: articles about words belong in Wiktionary. We need very good reasons to circumvent that clearly stated policy, and I don't think any such reasons were displayed in the AfD. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtPowers (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A non-admin closure
Hello there. Recently I closed a deletion debate as a non-admin, Articles for deletion/Fart. I asked on the talk page if this looked like a clear snowball; someone replied and it was agreed. I closed the debate as a snowball keep, although now the nominator has left a message on my talk page, requesting that it should be re-opened. I believe that I was bold and made the right decision although it is entirely possible that I made the wrong decision; I just wanted to ask your advice, should the debate be re-opened?

Seraphim Whipp 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I endorse the snowball "keep". As far as "We keep or delete articles based on their current state, not potential for expansion, don't we?" goes, no, we usually keep or delete articles based on the inherent encyclopedic quality of the subject. Of course there are cases where the article is so poor that it makes sense to delete it and recreate it later, but I don't think this article falls into that category. It would have done no real harm to let the AfD run the full period, but I don't think it would have brought about a different outcome.--John 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank-you. I always like to learn from the decisions I make :-).
 * Seraphim Whipp 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Thank you for helping out with admin work. I realised when I was composing my first reply that I have been an admin for over a year and have never closed an AfD. Shame on me. --John 16:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as it's understood that that wasn't the crux of the deletion argument. I still think there are significant issues at stake here in regards to the proper place of dictionary definitions on Wikipedia.  Powers T 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you were trying to bring up issues that were important to you about wikipedia, which is right to do, but you were bringing them up in the wrong place.
 * Seraphim Whipp 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at Talk:Fart, you'll see an awful lot of people saying the article should be merged and/or deleted. Imagine my surprise when only one person agreed with me when I actually made the nomination.  I hardly think that was misguided of me based on available evidence.  Powers T 02:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was actually referring to what you had just said above about "significant issues at stake here in regards to the proper place of dictionary definitions on Wikipedia"; a lot of your arguments in the afd were coming from that viewpoint. I didn't suggest you were misguided, I was suggesting that you were making the discussion in the wrong place. The changes you are talking about really involve policy, not the word "fart".
 * In regards to the available evidence on the talk page, a lot of the unsigned comments about redirection could have been made by the same person. They made no arguments about why it should be redirected. There are also a remarkable number of editors who didn't want this to be merged/redirected/deleted and demonstrated that by using discussion.
 * Seraphim Whipp 10:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point was that I didn't start off talking about any changes. I saw a page that didn't conform to policy, so I nominated it for deletion; I had no concerns over the state of that policy until the AfD was well underway.  I don't see how I could have anticipated that the consensus would be so vehement against the current policy.
 * As regards the AfD itself, I'm still trying to talk to Benea to try to understand the reasoning opposing the AfD, but I anticipate filing a DRV in the near future. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, but it still seems to me that you didn't sufficiently consider the validity of the arguments being made, but rather only at the raw numbers.  It could be that I am wrong, and that you did look at the arguments and found mine wanting; if that's the case, though, there's some very significant piece of the puzzle that I'm missing that no one has yet been able to explain.  I will continue to look for that piece, but I don't want to wait too long to file a DRV.  Powers T 17:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When/if you take this to DRV, please inform me. I will be intrigued to see how this evolves. Thank-you.
 * Seraphim Whipp 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the same source/reference twice or more in an article
I've noticed that other users have used and re-used the same source to add content to an article and it's something I've needed to do in the past but wasn't sure of the process. Sometimes one source provides information that fits into different sections of the article, for example, a paragraph might say "Mr. X drinks 10 cups of coffee daily and starred in Mr. X the big X in 2003."

Say I wanted to add the coffee consumption to personal life and the film credit to filmography (this isn't the greatest example, I know, I'm desperately trying to think of something else!) using the same source of information. How do I use the source, and then re-use it a second (or third or fourth time) without it duplicating in the references section?

I have looked at other articles on Wikipedia that seem to reuse a source at least once, but I am yet to understand the html required to do so. If you know, could you explain or demonstrate? I'm desperate!

--Rosario 13:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

An explanation, which hopefully makes sense
Hello. Your example was fine :). A normal reference would look something like this, . To re-use a source without creating duplicates, we replace the and the one we can reuse will look like this, . The NAME OF REFERENCE can be anything, normally one word which relates to the source. If you want to then re-use that one source all you have to do is this, . We add this symbol / before we close the brackets. As long as you have used a full one,, somewhere in the article, you can use the same reference,  anywhere else in the whole body of the article.  I hope this is all making sense so far :).

Ok, so I'm gonna give you a proper working example, using an extract from an article that I wrote, first in bare code, then how it would appear in the actual article.

"Crystal Castles are a Toronto-based '8-bit terror duo' consisting of multi-instrumentalist Ethan and vocalist Alice. The group's music has been described as a 'blend of spontaneity and inspiration'"
 * Behind the scenes

The band has been very successful despite the fact that it was formed accidentally:

==References==


 * How it would appear

"Crystal Castles are a Toronto-based '8-bit terror duo' consisting of multi-instrumentalist Ethan and vocalist Alice. The group's music has been described as a 'blend of spontaneity and inspiration'"

The band has been very successful despite the fact that it was formed accidentally:

==References==

If you have anymore questions or if that didn't make sense...or even if you'd like me to explain in a different way, let me know :).

Seraphim Whipp 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou thankyou thaaaaankyou.

--Rosario 08:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 09:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagging - will you please hold off on legacy images
Hi. I see you've been tagging many images for deletion (about 100 in one hour today), including lots of logos for some of the major companies in America used in articles about the companies. I've looked at abou 40 of these and without exception they are perfectly appropriate images, and deleting them would be disruptive. A fair number of these images actually did have use rationales and so the tagging was just wrong, e.g. Image:PeopleSoft logo.svg.

In case you're not aware, we are developing a process for handling these older images by fixing the use rationales rather than deleting. Please see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal. In connection with that, there's an informal understanding to concentrate any tagging efforts on the newly uploaded images to give us time to implement the new system for older ones. I'd appreciate if you could do that, be careful about images that do have a use rationale, and when it's obvious what the image needs, fix it instead of tagging it. Also, could you please confirm you're not using a bot? You're doing 2 images a minute. Thanks, Wikidemo 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a mistake...normally I'm quite good at spotting my own mistakes and fixing them but clearly I missed that.


 * No, I'm not using a bot. I pick an image from a category (xbox covers), tag and look at the uploader. From there, I look at the talk page to see if there are any other image messages. If so, I go through a user's log. I use tabbed browsing. I open 20 images and tag using Howcheng's quickimgdelete code (check here User:Seraphim Whipp/monobook.js)


 * An appropriate image is a copyrighted image that has a fair use rationale. I see that you have removed some of the tags, although I think this edit summary is a little inappropriate. The image is copyrighted and has no fair use rationale. If you are removing the tag because you want to save the image under the new guideline that might be brought in, you should have said that. But your edit summary is misleading and makes me look bad when the tag was correctly applied. If you believe the image not to be copyrighted, you should have made that your edit summary. I'm unclear why you chose to do that. Also here you removed another saying it has a FUR, except it doesn't. As an example to get across where I'm coming from, if you look at the Non-free film screenshot, it clearly says "identification and critical commentary" but a FUR is still required. To say "Clearly illustrates organization in question" is essentially the same as the wording on the film tag. That is not a FUR. Personally, I once wrote an extensive FUR for an image about a band who had a memember that left. The photograph was historical as it couldn't happen again, yet that image was still deleted. I follow that as an example, basing my standards on that admin's deletion.


 * With respect, I think it's a matter of choice whether I choose to tag images or write fair use rationales. The burden of providing a fair use rationale lies upon the uploader. Sometimes I do choose to write fair use rationales or improve ones which exist already. I don't really focus my efforts on one thing. Some days I like to write articles, others I like to find sources for unsourced quotes, tonight I felt like concentrating my efforts on copyrighted images with no fair use rationales.
 * In regards to the informal understanding about tagging, I am tagging images which fail our policy on images, whether they be old or new. I will continue to tag any image that fails policy, not from inflexibility but because I would like wikipedia to be as free as possible. I'm just doing my bit to help get it there. I think it's admirable that we can make a free encyclopedia and distribute knowledge. Images aren't everything, although free images are a bonus :). I think of J.K Rowling and how she manages to paint such a vivid picture with words alone and that makes me believe that wikipedia can do it without non-free content.


 * Thank-you.
 * Seraphim Whipp 03:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what I'm doing. I removed a handful of "bad tags", meaning the "no fair use" tag was inappropriate on images that did have a fair use rationale.  You seem to misunderstand the image use policy and how it relates to the use rationale requirement.  Identification of the organization in question is a sufficient reason for using a corporate logo.  Yes, you can always choose what you want to do on Wikipedia.  But it really isn't your prerogative whether to delete a bunch of images or save them.  A number of us are seriously working on a solution to the problem, and solo efforts like yours are going to be disruptive to a solution.  I'm asking you nicely to get with the program.  Please don't force this issue.  There is a lot of good you can do without stepping on our toes.  Stick to the new images and it will be a lot of help.  Wikidemo 03:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Why don't you join us over on WP:NFCC discussions, and also the new proposal?  There is a lot of good stuff going on there, and I think we may finally be at a point of breaking the logjam over these images. Wikidemo 03:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow it's like the image mafia has come to visit me :) . I have listened to your request and taken it into account but with respect no, I will not comply with what you are demanding of me. My actions are well-within policy. I am tagging images that have no fair use rationale with a tag that is used for tagging images with no fair use rationale. Thank-you for inviting me to the discussion but to be honest, I don't want to be involved as wiki-politics is not really my thing. I don't like the intellectual point scoring and circcular conversations I have seen going on. I don't want to be part of that. I feel that it's that sort of thing that could push me out of the project.
 * Seraphim Whipp 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay then, I'll bring it up on the policy boards in view of suspending the policy as it applies to this type of deletion campaign. If you would actually [please] consider what's going on now, we have gotten consensus for doing something productive with the images.  You cannot avoid the consequences of what you're doing by saying you don't want to work with people - you've been proposing deletion of 100 perfectly good images per night on some very important articles.  Wikidemo 09:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Wikidemo 10:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your tone almost threatening (ie. "consequences"); I volunteer here. I have discussed this with you in very civil terms. Please also set your facts in order. Last night was the only night I tagged 100+ images so to say I have been doing this "per night" is incorrect. To call this an image deletion campaign is putting it in very extreme terms. They were not "perfectly good images"; they had no FUR and I tagged them as such. You are painting a very distorted image from one night's editing. It is misleading, the way you have tried to portray me as some sort of image deletion warrior when I've already made it clear that I don't spend my time doing one particular thing here too.
 * Seraphim Whipp 10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No threat intended. It's very simple.  I'm asking you to stop tagging "legacy" images to allow us time to implement the solution I mentioned above as under discussion.  You refuse, saying you will continue.  That forces an issue that doesn't need to be forced.  So far everyone is on a voluntary truce whereby there is no edit warring, large-scale image purging, etc., while we all agree on what to do next. Our efforts are for nothing if all the images get deleted by people acting on their own to delete images on a seven day notice while we gain consensus and hammer out the details.  I believe that is disruptive to our efforts and also to Wikipedia's articles so I've raised the issue at WP:NFCC.  Wikidemo 10:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not disruptive to tag images that have no FUR with the appropriate tag. It's like you're saying, "you don't comply to what I want so you are disruptive". I checked out the legacy issue since you didn't really explain it. It's not policy/guideline or essay. It's a choice whether people want to follow it or not. Under current policy, my actions are correct. This conversation is precisely why I don't take part in wiki-politics. It makes me feel unhappy to have to spar with someone, defending my actions that are perfectly reasonable.
 * Seraphim Whipp 11:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand why you might have thought it is reasonable to tag old images. I've let you know what the problem is, and asked you to stop. You refuse.  So I take it up on the discussion board.  I don't see any more to it than that.  Wikidemo 11:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The copyright situation with regards to logos is delicate. if you are not prepared to get involved with wikipolitics (ie discuss and debate the full consequences of your actions) it is probably better to step away for the time being.Geni 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want you to feel bad, so don't stay away too long. We've just got a lot of work invested in this.  :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The crux of this whole debate was that I was allowed to refuse what was being asked as it was optional and either outcome was allowed by policy. I am never adverse to discussing the consequences of my actions as I think it helps me grow as an editor, but I am adverse to discussing my actions when basically the conversation is being used as a platform to attack me and is therefore not constructive. My actions didn't even need discussing since adding a "no fair use rationale" to an image that has no FUR is correct.
 * Seraphim Whipp 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

R.e.: Your fair use message for Image:Basecamp logo.png
Regarding referring to the fair use claim of the image Image:Basecamp logo.png, I apologize for not already having added a fair use rationale, and has since done so - for both the articles it is used on. Thank you for being vigilant and keeping Wikipedia a great place. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 07:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you find this sufficient, please remove the copyright tag. Thank you. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 07:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I improved it further and removed the tag. Thank you for your comments :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 09:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Free-to-try
Sorry I am still unclear with Wiki system to understand if how should I contact someone, therefore I write my complain regarding the deletion of "free-to-try" article here. Sure the meaning is enough close to "shareware" and "demoware", however it includes BOTH models of software distribution and is used widely on some well known download sites such as download.com, so why to redirect it to less used "demoware"?! Just try to google for "demoware" and compare with search results for "free-to-try", also check some pages containing "demoware" to see that it has different meaning from the article in WikiPedia :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaleksanyants (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to undo it; I personally thought it was too synonymous with the other examples given. You might want to ask someone else about this as I'm not going to be around for a few days. Sorry not to be of more help.
 * Seraphim Whipp 12:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV for Fart
Hi SW. I apologize greatly for your current WikiStress, especially any of it to which I may have contributed. I hope this doesn't add to it further, but I have begun a DRV of your non-admin closure of Articles for deletion/Fart. This is no knock on you as an editor or volunteer; I just feel this was a step that was necessary to gain some clarity on an important policy document. You asked me to notify you in the event I filed the review; you can find it here. I hope you don't feel like your decision is under assault; this is not a contest or an ego-inflation thing for me, it's just a matter of trying to make this encyclopedia the best encyclopedia it can be. Thanks. Powers T 18:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed on your userpage
Hello, I read your userpage and found you contribute to CAT:ORPHAN. You may be interested in this. Happy editing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be sure to be a part of it! Thanks :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! It appears we've gained members quickly! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deorphaning team
Hi there, I'm proposing to turn the deorphaning team into WikiProject Deorphan. I'd love to hear your opinion on this change at the team's talk page, you can add your name to the list of interested users here. Davidovic 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately I won't be able to be a part of the discussion until next Monday because I'm not currently at home. I'll take a look in then :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 10:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks
Hi. I spoke to you a while ago about an IP that was continually vandalising (87.167.xxx.x) and you performed a one month range block. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have deterred him/her from vandalising further as they have finished their block (on the 26th) and returned to make the exact same vandal edits. They have vandalised every day since their block finished, with changing IPs every day (list below). Could you perform another range block?


 * 87.167.226.29
 * 87.167.208.54
 * 87.167.221.5
 * 87.167.212.63
 * 87.167.239.182

Thanks.

Seraphim Whipp 12:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Looking at some of the edits, it seems more like a content dispute than vandalism, unless I'm not understanding how its obvious that the genres added are so antithetical to the bands. Before I block another 8,192 IP's, can you please explain how these are truly vandalism? Thanks! -- Avi 13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. There are countless issues with this user. The behaviour their main account was blocked for was, abusing other editors, edit warring, abusive use of sock puppetry and 3rr violations. Now their behaviour is more an attempt to be disruptive and less directed at specific editors like it used to be.


 * The main actions that this vandal is performing are, slow edit wars by disruptively changing the genre without discussion (inserting their own POV as to what the genre should be), often removing any sources that are present, changes the capitalisation of the genre's names to antagonise people e.g Alternative metal → Alternative Metal, despite the fact that people have explained numerous times to s/he the reasons why this is wrong , ) and changes the way the genres are separated e.g Alternative Metal, Rock, → Alternative metal  Rock  . This is despite the fact that people have also explained why this isn't correct.


 * These IP addresses all come from the indefinately blocked sockpuppeteer, . All edits from this person have been considered vandalism up until this point, but I do respect your wish to question why this is vandalism since you haven't dealt with this user before and you are being asked to perform a range block, and I do understand that it is a very serious preventative measure.


 * If you would like some more diffs to reinforce my rationale, please don't hesitate to ask and I'll provide you with some more. Thanks!
 * Seraphim Whipp 14:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8,192 addresses between 87.167.208.0 and 87.167.239.255 have been blocked from anonymous editing for three months. I hope that's enough [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]] -- Avi 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank-you very much! In the kindest way possible, hopefully you won't have to hear from me again in three months :).
 * Seraphim Whipp 15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)