User talk:Soundvisions1/Talk/Archive/Archive4

Copyright/Images
The images which I upload are with permission of the authors, most of whom are editors of Wikipedia itself, have given their permission to use pictures to which they hold the copyright to, even if it picture taken simply on their digital camera, such as the pictures used on the Pam Evans page or the Peace Mala page, and have been asked to have them placed used the Fair-Use attribution label. Could you give any advice on the matter ~Alosel~ | (Talk) 02:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping conversation on your talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Request
Please explain why you notified a known supporter of your proposal that discussion had resumed (and invited his/her feedback) without doing so for anyone else involved in the previous threads. Thank you. —David Levy 05:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First it was a courtesy notice to someone who uses CSD's on images on a daily basis and who had participated in the proposal discussion and the admin who suggested it be a "G" criteria. Second, other editors who have been involved are already involved and/or are aware of the conversation so there is no need to notify them. Lastly the entire manner in which you are "participating" in a conversation that is 5 weeks old is questionable as, prior to January 1, 2009, I notice zero participation from you on any speedy deletion issues after January 22, 2007. Between December 2006 and January 2007 it appears you were involved in a discussion that 'mirrors' the same discussion now by basically saying the same thing. For example on December 18, 2006 in the "proposal for images in deleted articles" discussion you were clear that "I certainly wouldn't trust a random admin (or any one person) to make the determination that it has encyclopedic use." and, coming forward to now - January 2009 - you have stated/asked several variations of the same theme which is that, in your opinion, admins should not be allowed to use their judgment when deleting images. (Comments/questions such as: 1> "Why do we want sysops unilaterally determining that unused images are "non-encyclopedic"?" 2> "Again, what qualifies a sysop to unilaterally deem images (apart from obvious examples already covered by other CSD, such as those of a blatantly vandalistic nature) "non-encyclopedic"?" 3> "I'm saying that it's inappropriate for someone (sysop or not) to unilaterally determine that something fits that description and act on this determination with its deletion (excepting some specific examples that already are covered by other CSD)." 4> "I don't want a sysop to unilaterally determine that an image like this should be deleted because its "parent article" was about a non-notable three-year-old." 5> "Someone can nominate an image for deletion because he/she believes that it has "no encyclopedic value," but there must be general agreement (or lack of disagreement) that this assessment is accurate. One person's judgement is insufficient (regardless of whether that individual happens to possess the sysop bit.") At face value it appears you have no interest in the overall criteria for speedy deletion but do like to randomly enter conversations where wording would allow an admin to do their "job". Ironically, despite how you have stated repeatably that admins should not be allowed to determine what has "no encyclopedic value"/is "unacceptable or unneeded" you made this comment on January 2, 2007 (Bold added for emphasis) - "Speedy deletion is not intended as a means of resolving good-faith content disputes. It's a means of quickly eliminating material that already has been deemed unacceptable or unneeded by the Wikimedia Foundation (or someone representing it in an official capacity) or the Wikipedia community." In the last portion where you define what your opinion for use of speedy deletion is you used the qualifier of "or" - which puts admins, acting in an "official capacity" for the "Wikimedia Foundation", into the first part and, according to you, would allow them to use their own judgment in deleting anything that has been "deemed unacceptable or unneeded". (Of course you also seemingly got irritated when I kept emphasizing your opinion and you replied that "no one has suggested that "that admins (or any other editor) should not be allowed to use their own judgment ever" or opposed the existence of "any 'one admin makes a choice/one admin uses their judgment' policy."" on January 2, 2009.)
 * I do not discount your opinion but the facts such as 1> you have not been involved in other discussions for addition/changes to any of the speedy criteria on a regaler basis but yet have said, more the one time, that "we're saying" as if you are acting on behalf of every editor/admin; 2> you keep restating the same opinion over and over and insinuate that it is the "status quo"; 3> you now start to attack me with comments such as "No offense, but I find it a bit scary that you're even asking that question." and "You appear to have a very poor understanding of what it means to be a Wikipedia administrator, and I'll keep this in mind if you ever seek the mob and bucket..." make me view your comments as possible trolling and thusly why I said I would hit my "cyber 'ignore' button. The fact you even thought to post the above question raises my "troll" concern even more. The idea was a proposal, whose root, I see now, has been a concern of some for at least a few years now - I thank you for bringing that to my attention in a roundabout way, and back in November 2008 when I raised the issue there was feedback from various editors and admins asking questions and suggesting wording. It is pretty simple to grasp how that all came about if one reads the thread and has an understanding on how a discussion works in these matters. They tend to flow. Five weeks later when you first entered the current conversation and voicing the same core opinion I see now that you have held for at least two years, when you last voiced it on the same issue, shows you have been somewhat consistent in maintaining your view on the subject. But now, once you voiced it once in the current thread there is no real need to insert it repeatedly several times. It proves nothing, adds nothing and does nothing to move the discussion along. If other editors and admins come in and say they can see a need for such a criteria (Which they have), suggest wording (which they have) and it is put into a formal proposal (which it was, reflecting various wordings based what others had suggested) than that reflects what others that are part of the community feel - not solely reflecting one opinion from one editor who implies that their opinion is the "status quo" or that "we're" correct the issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First it was a courtesy notice to someone who uses CSD's on images on a daily basis and who had participated in the proposal discussion and the admin who suggested it be a "G" criteria. Second, other editors who have been involved are already involved and/or are aware of the conversation so there is no need to notify them.
 * How do you know that Anomie, David Eppstein, Lifebaka and WODUP are aware of the conversation?
 * Lastly the entire manner in which you are "participating" in a conversation that is 5 weeks old is questionable as, prior to January 1, 2009, I notice zero participation from you on any speedy deletion issues after January 22, 2007.
 * So what? Am I under some obligation to take part in such discussions on a regular basis?  Via my watchlist, I noticed the assertion that wording had been inserted inappropriately, and that piqued my interest.  Then I saw that the wording in question (which I'm aware was written and added in good faith) prescribed something to which I'm opposed.  Are you suggesting that it was improper of me to join the discussion (because I hadn't edited that page recently)?
 * Between December 2006 and January 2007 it appears you were involved in a discussion that 'mirrors' the same discussion now by basically saying the same thing.
 * Yes, I held the same viewpoint then that I do now. What's your point?
 * For example on December 18, 2006 in the "proposal for images in deleted articles" discussion you were clear that "I certainly wouldn't trust a random admin (or any one person) to make the determination that it has encyclopedic use." and, coming forward to now - January 2009 - you have stated/asked several variations of the same theme which is that, in your opinion, admins should not be allowed to use their judgment when deleting images.
 * No. I've explicitly stated that I'm not taking such a broad stance.  I'm saying that an admin lacks the authority to unilaterally arrive at this particular judgement (whether an image is "encyclopedic").  But this is not merely my opinion; it's always been the prevailing consensus, which why no such CSD exists.
 * (Comments/questions such as: 1> "Why do we want sysops unilaterally determining that unused images are "non-encyclopedic"?" 2> "Again, what qualifies a sysop to unilaterally deem images (apart from obvious examples already covered by other CSD, such as those of a blatantly vandalistic nature) "non-encyclopedic"?" 3> "I'm saying that it's inappropriate for someone (sysop or not) to unilaterally determine that something fits that description and act on this determination with its deletion (excepting some specific examples that already are covered by other CSD)." 4> "I don't want a sysop to unilaterally determine that an image like this should be deleted because its "parent article" was about a non-notable three-year-old." 5> "Someone can nominate an image for deletion because he/she believes that it has "no encyclopedic value," but there must be general agreement (or lack of disagreement) that this assessment is accurate. One person's judgement is insufficient (regardless of whether that individual happens to possess the sysop bit.")
 * Yes, all of those questions/comments reflect my aforementioned longstanding viewpoint. And?
 * At face value it appears you have no interest in the overall criteria for speedy deletion but do like to randomly enter conversations where wording would allow an admin to do their "job".
 * Substituting his/her editorial judgement for that of the community isn't part of an admin's job. That's my point.
 * Ironically, despite how you have stated repeatably that admins should not be allowed to determine what has "no encyclopedic value"/is "unacceptable or unneeded" you made this comment on January 2, 2007 (Bold added for emphasis) - "Speedy deletion is not intended as a means of resolving good-faith content disputes. It's a means of quickly eliminating material that already has been deemed unacceptable or unneeded by the Wikimedia Foundation (or someone representing it in an official capacity) or the Wikipedia community." In the last portion where you define what your opinion for use of speedy deletion is you used the qualifier of "or" - which puts admins, acting in an "official capacity" for the "Wikimedia Foundation", into the first part and, according to you, would allow them to use their own judgment in deleting anything that has been "deemed unacceptable or unneeded".
 * Once again, you've demonstrated your misunderstanding of what a Wikipedia administrator is. We're ordinary editors with a few extra buttons.  We don't have special editorial authority, and we don't represent the Wikimedia Foundation in an official capacity.  Please see Office actions for an explanation of the type of situation to which I was referring.
 * Of course you also seemingly got irritated when I kept emphasizing your opinion and you replied that "no one has suggested that "that admins (or any other editor) should not be allowed to use their own judgment ever" or opposed the existence of "any 'one admin makes a choice/one admin uses their judgment' policy."" on January 2, 2009.
 * Right, so why are you still claiming that I'm doing that?
 * I do not discount your opinion but the facts such as 1> you have not been involved in other discussions for addition/changes to any of the speedy criteria on a regaler basis
 * Again, what's your point?
 * but yet have said, more the one time, that "we're saying" as if you are acting on behalf of every editor/admin;
 * No, I'm referring to the discussion participants (myself and others) who are saying the things in question. I can't imagine why you would interpret that any other way.
 * you keep restating the same opinion over and over
 * Yes, because you're misrepresenting it over and over.
 * and insinuate that it is the "status quo";
 * I used that term to refer to the current state of our speedy deletion criteria (which lack the proposed addition). You presented our options for how to go about inserting it, and I noted that the status quo (not adding it) is another option.
 * 3> you now start to attack me with comments such as "No offense, but I find it a bit scary that you're even asking that question." and "You appear to have a very poor understanding of what it means to be a Wikipedia administrator, and I'll keep this in mind if you ever seek the mob and bucket..."
 * Those aren't attacks. They're honest expressions of concern.  You evidently believe that Wikipedia administrators are official Wikimedia Foundation representatives with the authority to make unilateral editorial decisions.  I would strongly oppose the adminship nomination of anyone harboring those misconceptions.
 * And yes, it is a bit scary that you would ask a question that reveals an inability to comprehend the basic difference between speedy and non-speedy deletion:
 * ..."no encyclopedic value" is a term used for images at IFD and PUI so why can it not be used in a CSD for images?
 * Do you honestly not realize that you could replace "no encyclopedic value" with any deletion rationale presented at the non-speedy deletion fora?
 * make me view your comments as possible trolling and thusly why I said I would hit my "cyber 'ignore' button. The fact you even thought to post the above question raises my "troll" concern even more.
 * 1. I'm mildly amused by the fact that someone who just accused me of waging an "attack" is now engaging in name-calling.
 * 2. How does inquiring as to why you selectively notified a supporter of your proposal of ongoing discussion make me a "troll"?
 * The idea was a proposal, whose root, I see now, has been a concern of some for at least a few years now - I thank you for bringing that to my attention in a roundabout way,
 * Yes, others have proposed similar ideas in the past. And yet, no such policy change has ever been enacted.  Why do you suppose that is?
 * and back in November 2008 when I raised the issue there was feedback from various editors and admins asking questions and suggesting wording. It is pretty simple to grasp how that all came about if one reads the thread and has an understanding on how a discussion works in these matters. They tend to flow.
 * I've read the threads, and I see how the proposal evolved. I just don't see anything remotely resembling consensus.
 * Five weeks later when you first entered the current conversation and voicing the same core opinion I see now that you have held for at least two years, when you last voiced it on the same issue, shows you have been somewhat consistent in maintaining your view on the subject. But now, once you voiced it once in the current thread there is no real need to insert it repeatedly several times.
 * When you continually misrepresent my position, there obviously is.
 * And are you implying that you haven't voiced your opinion repeatedly? Am I not supposed to respond?
 * It proves nothing, adds nothing and does nothing to move the discussion along.
 * It would help to "move the discussion along" if you would address the various concerns that you thus far have ignored (or responded to by telling me to read the archived threads, where I found no such answers).
 * If other editors and admins come in and say they can see a need for such a criteria (Which they have), suggest wording (which they have) and it is put into a formal proposal (which it was, reflecting various wordings based what others had suggested) than that reflects what others that are part of the community feel - not solely reflecting one opinion from one editor who implies that their opinion is the "status quo" or that "we're" correct the issue.
 * That sentence doesn't quite parse, but I'll once again note that several users have expressed similar concerns and that you've badly misinterpreted my use of the term "status quo."
 * Given the relative inconspicuousness of this forum, I'll also take this opportunity to point out that "criteria" is the plural form of the word "criterion." Oh, and "it's" is a contraction for "it is" or "it has"; the possessive form of "it" is "its" (without an apostrophe).  This is merely some helpful advice, not an attempt to "attack" or embarrass you.  —David Levy 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Arshad Mehmood.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arshad Mehmood.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: On the image Image:Arshad Mehmood.jpg I have reverted User:Waqas.usman edits back to the version by STBotI as no fair use rationale was added but all the tags were removed.(diff) The tags needs to stay there until this issue is resolved. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I went to the bot's page and I went to a help page and posted the following message, I haven't got a reply, the image is not replaceable and I provided this rationale on the image as well but perhaps I didn't use the right template (or didn't use this template the right way), can you tell me what constitutes as "rationale provided"? I thought I already provided that. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 04:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to put more information than is already there, the image is not replaceable and I couldn't find the appropriate way to add the pic (wikipedia keeps evolving and I came back after a long wiki break). User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 05:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you respond to the above? I wrote on your talk page back in November and I responded on my page as well but I never heard back from you. If you are making too many edits to handle, then that is not good either. If you actually respond on this rather than just deleting or archiving my message it would be appreciated. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 23:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I did respond and it can be read at: which is in the archive. Please do not cut and paste conversations/discussion from other areas and repost them here. Also please do not respond in the archive. And, as the image has already been deleted under CSD i7 there is no use asking over and over how to fix the problem. Your question was also answered at by Sarcasticidealist on November 19, 2008. From what I see s/he's reply was clear in that the image failed to meet all 10 of the the official English Wikipedia policy on Fair use criteria. In particular, criteria number one. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IFD and PUI listings
Hi, Soundvisions1. I notice that you've been spamming Images and media for deletion and Possibly unfree images with the following, copied and pasted over and over:

NOTE: The below cut and past does not indicate each core nom, only part of it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of recent image deletion discussions this image is being sent here for community discussion. The discussions point out that :
 * An individual (Admin or not) should not be allowed to decide what is deleted (i.e - doing a CSD)
 * Images eligible for deletion that may not be useful in any currently existing article, but for which an article may be written in the future should be kept
 * Any free image that meets Commons:Project Scope should be moved to Commons.
 * All unused images should be sent to IFD or PUI

This isn't helpful in IFD and PUI discussions. For one thing, I had no idea what "image deletion discussions" you were talking about; I had to visit your talk page, read others' comments, follow links, and do other detective work to figure out that you're referring to stuff that's happening at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Until I figured that out, I had no idea what your bullet points were supposed to mean. Now, even after skimming through the CSD discussion, I still don't think your bullet points are relevant. They appear to be summarizing the consensus of the CSD discussion, but that consensus is not germane to an IFD or PUI discussion. At IFD or PUI, the focus should be on the particular image at hand, not on conclusions that have been reached about the CSD policy.

I would appreciate it if you would avoid copying this list into your future IFD and PUI listings. Frankly, your repeated copying feels a bit POINTy. —Bkell (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion but it is clearly not SPAM by any means. In order to be clear as to why I am listing otherwise CSD-able images they are valid reasons. Without those reason being said many of these images would have been CSD noms. Also I thought there was a link to CSD in the posts - wait...in looking there is one so you might have missed it, but I will make a more obvious one. In any case they are also more than just a "cut and paste" if you read them. Some may be, others not. The "bullet points" are however because it is easier to "cut and paste" rather than type each post with a specific reason as given in CSD discussions. Likewise I have checked talks pages of some of the other regular editors to see if you had also warned them about valid IFD/PUI noms and accused them of "Spamming" and "Cut and Paste" but I see no such warnings. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, there is no need to explain why an image is not speedily deletable when you're listing an image on IFD or PUI. I did see the link to CSD in your list, but it was certainly not clear that the talk page of CSD was the source of the "image deletion discussions" you were referring to. I also realize that you have been providing more explanation than just this copied list; you will note it is only the list itself I am talking about. Finally, you are correct that I have not posted similar comments to other editors' talk pages. This is because other editors are not copying and pasting a rather large and apparently irrelevant chunk of text into every one of their IFD and PUI nominations.


 * I don't want to get in a big argument over this. All I am saying is that the particular piece of text I referred to above does not seem to be helpful in individual IFD and PUI discussions, and thus it seems somewhat disruptive to continue duplicating it over and over. This is merely a suggestion, and I suppose you can choose to ignore it if you want. —Bkell (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What my personal opinion of this is that the information is probably not needed but, because there was such as strong backlash at the suggestion that admins be allowed can use their judgment on CSD matters in order to determine what may be deleted, I felt it was needed to point that out. Likewise the opinions voiced that any unused free image should be kept and sent to Commons and/or sent to IFD/PUI are valid issues to list. I know I have seen image noms and said "This is a speedy" or have made noms where someone said it was a speedy. As these points are not already on the IFD/PUI pages I am placing them in the noms. Certainly File:Actualcarpet.JPG could be simply listed as "unused" and left at that but images such as File:CAFFO LOGO BW.png, which was orphaned by the deletion of CAFFO and Community Art Force For Offshoots (CAFFO), and is a logo - uploaded by the supposed author via a free license (or PD), based on the discussion, I feel it should be noted the image was not nominated for any of the following (which all have been used for image deletions of this type at some point): G11, G6, G8, i5, i6, i9 or tagged with a "di-no" form of notice because of the discussion. I know a few weeks ago I would have seen such and image a replied "This could be speedied". As the editor above pointed out time and time again, "an admin lacks the authority to unilaterally arrive at this particular judgment (whether an image is "encyclopedic"). But this is not merely my opinion; it's always been the prevailing consensus, which why no such CSD exists." In which case no CSD criteria would work because, as another editor said (and others implied) "Images eligible for deletion that may not be useful in any currently existing article, but for which an article may be written in the future should be kept" In other words while I find that asinine when it come to these types of images if it really is the "prevailing consensus" is than fine. But it needs to made crystal clear to all editor and admins who may not know this. I mean I even though about adding citations to each "bullet" but I felt that would be overkill. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You make good points, and these are issues that should be kept in mind by all contributors to the debates and especially by the closing administrator. However, I don't think the best solution is to repeat these issues for every single listing. A better idea would be a "Points to keep in mind" section on the IFD and PUI pages (which should definitely be discussed on the relevant talk pages first), or (probably better) an essay listing these things to consider that can be linked from IFD and PUI. —Bkell (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm struggling to assume good faith on your part, Soundvisions1. As initially suggested by Bkell, repeatedly posting that list comes across as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  (You feel that it's "asinine" to list these images instead of speedily deleting them, so you're making sure that each listing is as ridiculous as possible.)  I didn't want to believe this, but a nomination in which you state that the image has possible "future use in article about 'Signs with similey faces' or 'singed in restaurant in Dublin'" is simply too ludicrous to interpret any other way.
 * Additionally, your third bullet point is the only one that isn't misleadingly worded at best. —David Levy 12:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For David Levy
"hit my "cyber 'ignore' button" = please move on. There is nothing more you can say that I will not take with a grain of salt, nor as "good faith" on your part in regards to the issue, because, since I first encountered you on January 1, 2009, it has became apparent you simply like to argue and act as though your opinion is fact. When someone is vocal and presents material that is not of your viewpoint you bait them. In all of this discussion I see no posts by you directed against other editors who made like comments - for example when another editor said "Orphaned works with no "encyclopedic value" are often sent to IfD for days with no comment (search for "orhpaned, unencyclopedic, absent uploader" and you'll see what I mean) and then deleted. Covering them under a speedy criteria seems like a good solution to this problem" you barely responded to them. But when I reinforced that it was not only my opinion but other editors (and admins) that some such criteria would be useful, and that "encyclopedic" was an oft used term thusly why not use it, part of the response I received from you included this: "No offense, but I find it a bit scary that you're even asking that question." And when I brought that specific comment up in the response to you above you re-enforce your opinon: "And yes, it is a bit scary that you would ask a question that reveals an inability to comprehend the basic difference between speedy and non-speedy deletion".

As to your comments on my reply to Bkell I will say this - I thought about adding citations, as I had said, for each bullet point but I thought that it would be better to allow editors to simply read the main thread for their selves. Had I not showed good faith on my part the posted bullet points may have looked like this:

The discussions point out that :
 * 1) An individual (Admin or not) should not be allowed to decide what is deleted (i.e - doing a CSD)1
 * 2) Images eligible for deletion that may not be useful in any currently existing article, but for which an article may be written in the future should be kept 2
 * 3) Any free image that meets Commons:Project Scope should be moved to Commons.3
 * 4) All unused images should be sent to IFD or PUI4

1. David Levy: "Why do we want sysops unilaterally determining that unused images are "non-encyclopedic"?" "G8 proposal (from archive)", January 1, 2009; David Levy: "Again, what qualifies a sysop to unilaterally deem images (apart from obvious examples already covered by other CSD, such as those of a blatantly vandalistic nature) "non-encyclopedic"?" "G8 proposal (from archive)", January 1, 2009; David levy: "I don't want a sysop to unilaterally determine that an image like this should be deleted because its "parent article" was about a non-notable three-year-old. I want the community to arrive at the conclusion that it's a useful addition to the Toddler article." "New "i12"?", January 2, 2009; David Levy: "We're saying that no one person is qualified to determine that an image should be deleted because it's "non-encyclopedic" (a highly subjective and controversial assessment) or because it has no "parent article"" "New "i12"?", January 2, 2009; David Levy: "It's beyond a sysop's purview to unilaterally determine that images (apart from specific examples already covered by other CSD) have "no encyclopedic use."" "New "i12"?", January 2, 2009; David Levy: "''We're disputing that it's appropriate for a sysop to unilaterally determine that an image qualifies. Commons operates under the same principle.''" "Commons wording of the types of files included in this proposal", January 5, 2009

2. Dcoetzee: "I object to this is because it makes images eligible for deletion that may not be useful in any currently existing article, but for which an article may be written in the future." "G8 proposal (from archive)", January 1, 2009; SoWhy: "Images can be useful someday even if they are not used at the moment - but an admin cannot decide that alone." "New "i12"?", January 2, 2009; David Levy: "An image intended to depict a specific subject might be useful for depicting something else." [SNIP] "The argument isn't that the images should be kept because the specific people depicted might one day be notable; it's that the images are useful for reasons other than their original purposes." "New "i12"?", January 5, 2009

3. davidwr: "In general, anything that qualifies for the commons and which wouldn't be deleted from there for whatever reason should not be deleted from here." "G8 proposal (from archive)", January 1, 2009; Dcoetzee: "It's also a bit strange in that most images that are "self-published" are candidates for transwiki to Commons anyway, where they would be beyond the reach of CSD, and there is no similar speedy deletion rule on Commons, so this is easily circumvented." "G8 proposal (from archive)", January 1, 2009; davidwr: "If the images are uploaded "free" and fit within commons:Commons:Project scope, transwiki." "New "i12"?", January 2, 2009

4. David Levy: "Why do we want sysops unilaterally determining that unused images are "non-encyclopedic"? As noted above, isn't that what IfD is for?" "G8 proposal (from archive)", January 1, 2009; davidwr: "Many an orphan image at IFD has been transwikied to the commons. If an IFD result would be anything other than "delete/no transwiki" then it should not be speedy deleted." "G8 proposal (from archive)", January 1, 2009; David Levy: "IfD and PUI are processes that invite input from the Wikipedia community. Someone can nominate an image for deletion because he/she believes that it has "no encyclopedic value," but there must be general agreement (or lack of disagreement) that this assessment is accurate. One person's judgment is insufficient (regardless of whether that individual happens to possess the sysop bit)." "G8 proposal (from archive)", January 2, 2009; SoWhy: "But if it's not so clear, then IfD should be the way." "New "i12"?", January 2, 2009; David Levy: "''We're merely saying that sysops lack the authority to unilaterally determine which images are and aren't useful. That's why IfD exists." "New "i12"?", January 2, 2009; Balloonman: "IFD is always an option" (Response) SoWhy: "As you say, Balloonman, we do not talk about keeping or not, we talk about whether an admin can decide it in speedy deletion. And I maintain that they can't.'' "New "i12"?", January 4, 2009

All things being considered my decision to only refer to the current discussion was a good one. I was going to also cite the older, archived versions as well. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "hit my "cyber 'ignore' button" = please move on.
 * No, I will not "move on" when I see you engaging in disruptive behavior.
 * There is nothing more you can say that I will not take with a grain of salt, nor as "good faith" on your part in regards to the issue, because, since I first encountered you on January 1, 2009, it has became apparent you simply like to argue and act as though your opinion is fact.
 * No, you factually misunderstand/misrepresent many things.
 * When someone is vocal and presents material that is not of your viewpoint you bait them.
 * Expressing disagreement ≠ baiting.
 * In all of this discussion I see no posts by you directed against other editors who made like comments - for example when another editor said "Orphaned works with no "encyclopedic value" are often sent to IfD for days with no comment (search for "orhpaned, unencyclopedic, absent uploader" and you'll see what I mean) and then deleted. Covering them under a speedy criteria seems like a good solution to this problem" you barely responded to them.
 * That was a very general statement with nothing in particular to refute. My only reply would have been to point out the problems with such an addition, which I'd already done (and continued to do) in response to your specific ideas.  You previously complained that I'd expressed my opinions too much, and now you're complaining that I didn't do so enough.
 * But when I reinforced that it was not only my opinion but other editors (and admins) that some such criteria would be useful, and that "encyclopedic" was an oft used term thusly why not use it, part of the response I received from you included this: "No offense, but I find it a bit scary that you're even asking that question."
 * Why are you continually quoting me out of context? Your question was:
 * ..."no encyclopedic value" is a term used for images at IFD and PUI so why can it not be used in a CSD for images?
 * You've repeatedly spun my reply into an attack on the term "encyclopedic," which couldn't be further from the truth. What I find scary is that you don't understand the difference between users presenting such an assessment to the community for collaborative evaluation and sysops (whom you incorrectly regard as Wikimedia Foundation officials) unilaterally applying it to images and deleting them.
 * Please set aside the word "encyclopedic." The crux of your question is: "If someone can nominate an image for deletion because it seems bad to him or her, why shouldn't we allow an administrator with the same opinion to just delete that image without discussion?"
 * And when I brought that specific comment up in the response to you above you re-enforce your opinon: "And yes, it is a bit scary that you would ask a question that reveals an inability to comprehend the basic difference between speedy and non-speedy deletion".
 * Yes, I stand by that statement. And the fact that you still don't understand (assuming that you're being sincere) is quite troubling.
 * As to your comments on my reply to Bkell I will say this - I thought about adding citations, as I had said, for each bullet point but I thought that it would be better to allow editors to simply read the main thread for their selves.
 * Had you posted your list of citations, at least users could have easily seen that most of your bullet points didn't reflect the discussions that they supposedly summarized.
 * For your first bullet point (which incorrectly conveys that there is opposition to all speedy deletions), you've cited opposition to a specific addition to the speedy deletion criteria.
 * Your second bullet point incorrectly assumes that the images in question are "eligible for deletion." It also ignores the fact that the principle in question isn't limited to future articles.  (I cited current articles as examples.)
 * Your fourth bullet point, like your first, ignores the fact that no one is disputing the validity of the CSD in general. Claiming that users have taken the position that "all unused images should be sent to IFD or PUI" is patently absurd, as there are plenty of uncontested speedy deletion criteria and plenty of unused images that needn't be discussed or deleted.
 * Now please explain to me how stating that an image has possible "future use in article about 'Signs with similey faces' or 'singed in restaurant in Dublin'" is remotely constructive. —David Levy 10:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Heart (band)
Re this edit, are you able to add any information / comments? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Only what I said. When the information on the other two members get to the photog and then me me I will update the photo info. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. (I look forward to that.)
 * Meanwhile, have you ever seen a photo of Michael Fisher?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New Message
Hi I replied to your post on the wp:MCQ page DFS454 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons auto-tag
If the images are incorrectly licensed, change the license, rather than moaning about licenses which ARE commons compatible saying so.

You can also use |commons= This image is not compatible with Commons on any images which are in dispute.

Which specfic examples are of concern? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to make the site wide change you made. More on your talk page and keeping discussion on your talk page. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I could tell from what SF00 told me, there was consensus. Mostly to save strain on the job queue, I will leave the template until SF00 tells me that I assumed wrongly, and that no such consensus exists (or if he fails to respond in a reasonable timeframe). I am merely the proxy making the change, and I trusted and trust Denelson83, so I felt I didn't need to ask (since he is an admin, he obviously knows about the nature of consensus and the requirement of it). If I was wrong in believing that consensus had been achieved, I will revert all changes made. &mdash; neuro (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Semmingly WP:BEBOLD, No longer applies on enwiki - Revert all changes made to tmeplates by myself back to the pre undefined state. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK That came over too strong, apologies to all concerned:) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed wrong - and to SF00, being bold is a bad ethos to quote when the changes are over such a large area. Reverting all relevant edits made by myself. &mdash; neuro (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All reverted now. I'll make sure to be more stringent before acting upon requests from SF00 in the future. &mdash; neuro (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * all should now be reverting :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons auto-tag
(Start to gain consensus) Would you have objection to images being automatically marked as commons candidates based on license? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the scope their really needs to be a main proposal on this placed somewhere and "publicized". When there is one I will gladly participate. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem/ bad license images
Above you mention problem images being wrongly tagged? Do you have any specifc examples of this? Or of a template that should not have been tagged? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at all the files in Category:Self-published work - now scan them for logos, posters, flyers, CD covers, book covers, magazine covers and other like media. Some may be fine, some will not be. Some may be clear cut, some will not be. Now look at each image. Some will have a source listed, some won't. Some will have "fair use" in text, but not tagged as such. It is impossible to list every image with potential issues. Only a few to represent the descriptions I just gave: File:Cd meltemi.jpg - CD Cover; File:03.jpg - generic name used by several different images in the past and text summary from old image. Current image contains "© Rogier Westerhauis". User that uploaded is "Hector94". Also upped File:2296138137 57da9e2bd5.jpg; File:061 34.jpg - nice looking headshot uploaded by the user of the user. No source or author information supplied; File:H & H.jpg - no information other than "Hitchcock". being used in the David Knijnenburg with the caption "David Knijnenburg as Alfred Hitchcock in his play Hitchcock & Herrmann". No source, no author information. Same user uploaded images such as File:Tomsullivan.jpg amd File:DKCop2.jpg, all with no source or author information. Unsure the user is the actual photographer of any of these; File:H-txt.gif - logo; File:H2OXPOpromo.png - poser/advertisement credited to "Michael Harris" and the "National Rural Water Association"; File:HMDKD Temp Webpage copy.jpg - title card from a film whose article was deleted. How My Dad Killed Dracula; File:MC8.JPG - scan of a 1934 newspaper clipping; File:MET.300x250Romeo.jpg - frame grab or other form of advertisement. No author information, says "self made";File:J.Que.jpg - says it is self made, and does look like it. Says the author is "Kidfrost08" and it is being used in the Patrick J. Que Smith article so we can assume good faith that "Kidfrost08" is "Patrick J. Que Smith". However this same user uploaded File:Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell.jpg which says "Photograph by Julie Frost". And File:Kuk sm.jpg, upped by the same user, says "taken by Angela Morris and used by permission"; File:PamEvans 11Jun07.jpg - third time the image has been uploaded from what I can tell. This time it says "Author: Keith Griffiths Source: Peace Mala Office Fair use". "Fixing" the tags to add a FUR to this image would result in quick deletion as it is of a living person. The subject, who is not the uploader in this case (nor the copyright holder), posted saying the photographer allows her company to freely use his photographs. Both the uploader and the subject have been asked to have the photographer submit a permission email so an OTRS can be assigned.
 * You get the idea. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed... So maybe any auto tag needs rewording...
 * PersonallY, I think the way Image uploads are done on enwiki needs to change, so that if you select a 'free' license option

the upload system redirects to the Commons process. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:MaksimirStadium.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MaksimirStadium.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea - I did not upload this. But one look at the image page shows that information is at http://www.worldstadiums.com/copyright.shtml. You must have not seen it. I have gone ahead and removed the tags. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

File:TrickyStewart.jpg
The file's licensing is GFDL-self. Isn't that source information? Chocolate Bar 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply on your page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

File:MaksimirStadium.jpg‎
Lest you think I'm trying to edit war with you, I've left a note at File talk:MaksimirStadium.jpg‎. --Mosmof (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason you are hard set on deleting this image by any means. I have responded more on that talk page but basically while it took a few minutes to confirm confirm that "Long Foot" is a photographer in Croatia I can assume good faith that 1> Long Foot did take this image 2> At some point in September or October 2006 the ulpoader spoke with the photog via one of the forums and obtained permission. It appears to me that in 2006/2007, rather than seeking the answer to "Who is long foot?" nobody bothered. Now it becomes much harder as the possible website that would tell us more  information is gone, as the uploader also seems to be. The overall lack of this same image being available elsewhere helps to establish the uploader did not simply steal the image from the web and claim it as their own. However I can not take the search any further as I do not speak the language of most of the forums where Long Foot has posted. I did notice at least one user asking people for photographs for use on Wikipedia however. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Explaining the Adam Carr MfD
Hiya. I understand that you think you were following WP:WEBHOST when you suggested that the page be deleted. The reason why you weren't--and why the policy doesn't need to be changed--is that a list/gallery of Wikipedia content isn't a violation of the policy. If the page were, for example, a gallery of his flickr uploads, you would have been absolutely right! But given that all the images are hosted on Wikipedia, there's no difference between that page and a page which lists all the articles someone has started. // roux   16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts are that we allow a certain class of users to stand on their soapbox if they are also active users, we allow this same class of users to link to their personal business sites or have userpage/subpages that contain photo gallery's and resumes and we need to state that clear. Currently, for example, the Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not "in a nutshell" states  policy is one "that should normally be followed by all editors". While there is a link to Use common sense it still does not make it clear that the true "in a nutshell" is really that the policy "should normally be followed by all new editors. "Veteran editors", those who have made numerous contributions and other "prolific users of Wikipedia" are exempt".
 * As I clearly stated in my deleted post, with the snide comment of "no need to archive" aimed at me, we greet new users with a "fuck you" or "no thanks" attitude if they dare violate a policy, while turning the other way if a certain class of users do the same thing. For example when a new user creates an account and makes the mistake of creating their user page first and not making main space edits they are greeted with an MFD. (See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jason E Ramsey and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarredland) However when an established user (irregardless of the reason they are here. i.e: COI, SPA) creates the exact same type of page they are ignored, and should an MFD arise there is no question of it being  "keep". (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman).
 * No one seems to have the balls to actually put this policy down in witting however. Instead it is much easier to throw attacks words at other editors who make the "mistake" of nominating one of the "higher class" of editors work - be it mainspace or user page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with some of it. What you are not understanding is that the policy does not apply to this specific case because it is solely Wikipedia material that is on the page. Would you MFD someone's "List of articles I started"? Of course not. "List of photos I created for Wikipedia" is just as acceptable, and falls within all guidelines. // roux   17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." 2. Images should not be uploaded merely to fill a userspace gallery. Images appearing only within a userspace gallery are presumed to have been uploaded for private amusement and are subject to deletion as orphans. 3."user pages are not personal home pages nor is Wikipedia a free host, webspace provider, communal image-sharing service or social networking site. Now, perhaps when they were uploaded the referenced 487 images were indeed being used used in "encyclopedia articles or project pages" but, as I stated, I only found this because I found an image that was only being used in this personal image gallery. This is how I find many "hidden" items, I am not looking for them mind you but when I find "unused-except-for-userpage-gallery" images it tends to raise a red flag and I look. I know other, like, photo gallery's have been deleted under the same criteria, but once again, from what I recall these were "new" users, not "highly respected long-time contributors" (thusly the editor who made the nom was not called "stupid and insulting") FWIW - a quick glance - File:Adamcarr.jpg is unused except for the archive. File:Ac.adamattemple.jpg is unused except for the archive and two other user talk page archives. File:Ac.adambangkok.jpg is unused except for this gallery. File:Pict1761.jpg is unused except for this gallery. File:Chulalongkorn.jpg is hosted on Commons but only used in this gallery. File:Adaminlaos.JPG is only used in this gallery. The point is the assertion at AFD by the first poster that "Most, if not all of the files are in use on articles, so there are no files being stored" is not correct - it is doubtful the editor had time to view every image to see not only it's use, but where it is being hosted, between the time I made the nom and they made that comment. As many of the images are on Commons your comment above of "If the page were, for example, a gallery of his flickr uploads..." is not too far off. Face it - the only reason this was speedily kept (with all but one "keep" coming allmost at the same time - Viriditas at 05:35, Bartlett at 05:37, Hesperian at 05:37 and you at 05:38 - is because of who the user is. And that is fine - but please, lets just put it in the actual policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

← I just wanted to tag on this - Deceased Wikipedians. While I fully understand the "why", this mainspace article/list also proves my points above. Even though we have a policy that clearly states Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. we are asked to throw it out the window for a certain class of editors. This also leads to Notability (people) which, according to our policy, says must be followed for any sort of article on a deceased person. Clearly the one criteria missing is: "should have made at least several hundred edits or be known for substantial contributions to certain articles on the English Wikipedia". To be clear - I have no issues with this except that currently it is clearly against policy and related guidelines. We should, no, we need to, change the wording across the boards to be clear in our selective enforcement. Perhaps a policy, much like WP:IAR, called "Selective enforcement policy" that states no policy is to be enforced under the SEP and will contain only one requirement: "To be able to invoke the SEP an editor must be considered a 'prolific Wikipedia editor'; that is, they must have at least several hundred edits or be known for substantial contributions to certain articles on the English Wikipedia." What do you think? Should I Village pump it? Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers
I just wanted to say thank you for understanding my position in the MfD discussion regarding User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. I am becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the systems put into place to reach consensus here as they seem to be applied arbitrarily as seen fit. I was criticized on one MfD of an article in userspace for not waiting long enough and on this one they claim it still hasn't been long enough. It just makes no sense!

I'm going to keep watching this one because I still believe that the user has no grasp of the notion of OR or synthesis, as evidenced by the fact they don't understand that the route they are pursuing is pure OR and synthesis. I just wish there was a way to get it across in the MfD that this will never be ready for the mainspace. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at User talk:Ruslik0. I asked them to consider reopening the discussion for a short time in order to address the "how long" issue and also have asked for a more clear "summary" in why it was a "keep". While I can fully see why the OR concept came into play my reason for voicing a delete is based on the fact(s) the article has not been seriously worked on since last July. And really, nothing of merit has been done since March 2008 - the same month the article was created. Placing an Underconstruction tag on an article and than not working on it for six months would seem to be a pretty good indicator of meeting: "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes" But, as I had said, if there is any doubt one need only read the users own comments such as "When I am fully back editing Wikipedia...", "...doing no harm sitting there waiting for me to either stumble upon more reliable sources...", "...let me get back into the swing of things..." or the most telling one: "...I have reached the limit of my search capabilities". I feel in these cases it is fully appropriate to ask "Ok, if we say 'keep' can you give us a time frame?" Invoking "There is no time limit" is akin to invoking IAR and makes polices and guidelines pointless. In a way it is not surprising other users and admins feel there is no policy or guideline that sets a time frame when, more times than not, they are tossed aside - depending on who the user is. (see my discussion above). This one subpage aside there was another discussion about "how long" where I used a one line stub that has been in userspace since June 2006 with no work at all being done on it. Not only was I told that "the user is a very active user who has a reputation for saving pages from deletion." I was told "This is not a case of webhosting at all" and, in a clever twist of wording, "the content is not an attempt to indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia, it is an attempt to indefinitely preserve a draft article that is not yet suitable for the encyclopedia" And not only that another editor chastised me saying it was a "scandalous example", a "silly example" and that the subpage "should remain on Wikipedia forever". Of course it ties back to who the user is because when I brought up another subpage that was speedily deleted after a year I was told it fell under CSD because it "was an example of WP:IAR" and the admin knew "from experience that it would not have any chance to survive an MfD." They also justified the speedy deletion because the user had only two edits and that the article was placed in the user space "January 2007 and never touched". So yeah, you see my point in all of this. Your wording of "increasingly disenfranchised" sums it up fairly well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dzstudios uploads
Regarding files uploaded by User:Dzstudios, we'd already gone through FFD for File:Ian brown 001.jpg. We acted on the assumption that the user was actually a representative from DZ Studios, assuming good faith on his part. However, I understand your concern and as an OTRS team member, I've already contacted them to confirm it was actually them who uploaded the photos. However, I have removed the pending speedy deletion from the Ian Brown photo.  howcheng  {chat} 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You posted this as I was adding a post to the image talk page. Because of the internet and the ease of with people can upload someone elses work here I would rather be safe than sorry. A recent example is an image that was uploaded by a user who claimed it was their image and licensed it under a free license. It was listed at PUI and another editor voiced a "keep" using the argument it was simply mis-licensed and, as it was a band promotional shot from the 70's, it fell under public domain. I did some legwork, tracked down the photographer (Who is a fairly well known photographer in the music world) and asked them if they had released the image. As I suspected they did not - they stated they had never uploaded any image to Wikipedia not ever released any of their work for free. To come back to the existing image - the website given as a source indicates a professional photographer. The uploader gives no credit to a photographer, only to the website. I can assume good faith to the uploader however with only 4 uploads - three of which have been deleted - all watermarked and credited to a website it would fall under a copyvio or, depending on what the watermark was, blatant advertising. Because of the user name I am more than willing to allow an OTRS to be submitted, which was my intent. On a different matter if the uploader is the copyright holder and website owner than creating a username that is your business name and using it to upload images that contain embedded url's or other information about the same named business is clearly blatant advertising. However their edit history does not indicate their text based edits were simply to promote a business. In other words it is not as simple as saying "Cut out the watermark" because one assumes the license is correct. I see two of their images may now reside on Commons - although the Ray Davies image found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/29572161@N00/173185714/ is not sourced to "Dzstudios" but is "All rights reserved". (And their main flickr page states: "Note: © All rights reserved. Be aware that all photography and content are copyright © Yves Lorson. All rights are reserved world wide. Use without permission is illegal. None of these photographs may be reproduced and/or used publicly in any way, no blog or /and use on the Net without my written permission. If you are interested in using my pictures, please contact me via FlickR ..."). However the images removed from here came from http://www.d-z.co.uk/raydavies/ and are all obvious in their watermarks. The website has changed how it presents images, but the Ian Brown image is now contained in the http://www.d-z.co.uk/ianbrown.swf presentation. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pam Evans
SEE: Articles for deletion/Pam Evans

Re: Did you know...
That is interesting. What is frustrating, though, is that this discussion has been like talking to a brick wall. With the exception of seresin, no one else wants to acknowledge that guidelines suggest there is a time limit. If you can't get admins to even admit their own policies and guidelines exist, how do you get them to enforce said guidelines and policies.

On top of that, Ruslik has basically accused me now of forum shopping by initiating a RFC on the guideline, despite the fact I'm not the one who initiated the DRV and the aims of the DRV and the RFC are slightly different.

I'm so tired at this point. Redfarmer (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree overall. The "how long" is not new to me although to the extent this has gone it is. I think what is more interesting is that up until a few weeks ago there was a clear guide for admins that clearly laid out that "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.", in which case the entire OR discussion on the talk page for the last 11 months becomes 100% applicable. This now deleted paragraph clearly lists the OR policy and states it "cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus". The simple non consensus, non discussed, removal of that one paragraph ties into every single deletion discussion where any "editors' consensus" can allow articles (and userpages) to violate policy. Everything ties in and all it takes is one policy or guideline to be worded slightly different than the other and than all bets are off. I have no problems with a guideline or policy as long as it is followed but having a clear consensus that an article is never going to survive in one conversation and than have another conversation saying the first conversation does not matter because policy and guidlines don't apply "here" is sort of like - well, to be drastic in my example - the Senate hearing/investigation into September 11, 2001 when Condoleezza Rice was being questioned. (From memory - may not be 100% word for word) "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." "Are you familiar with this PDB from 1998?" "Yes" "What is the title?" "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks" "And what is the title of this PDB from August 6, 2001?" "I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
I strongly advise you to read WP:TALK. It specifically warns Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. Note that adding attribution to unsigned comments and mending format errors is permitted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Back at you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)