User talk:TheProject/Archive 0

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some tips to help you get started: Good luck! [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

ISPs
Hi. Since some ISPs assign IP addresses "randomly", you received a message that was intended for another of your ISP's customers. If you don't think it was intended for you, you can safely ignore it. &mdash; David Remahl 04:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What he said. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow, you guys are fast. Thanks for putting me at rest -- I hope to become a fairly active member of the Wikipedia community. TheProject 04:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Key
I responded to your concern about the key of the Imperial March at Talk:The Imperial March.

Mushroom vandalism
It's funny, given how common homophobic vandalism is--that's the first time I've noticed racist vandalism on WP. Nareek 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, not that I would know -- today was my first time ever on RC patrol. Tiring but fun. I think I'll go again. TheProject 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page! _-M  o   P-_  02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad I could be of help. TheProject 03:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy nominations
Thanks for the speedy nominations on the three articles I AfD'd earlier today. I wasn't sure if they qualified, as one at least claimed notability and the criterion at WP:SPEEDY seemed to say that any assertion of notability, even a disputed one, requires an article to go through AfD instead of speedy. I looked deeper and saw that WP:DVAIN clarifies that such claims of notability must be "remotely plausible", which that band's claim certainly did not fulfill.

So thanks for helping me to get those articles deleted (though now I wish I'd saved "Declined" for WP:BJAODN, haha!), and also for helping me to gain a better understanding of when it's okay to use a speedy nomination. I guess I'm still a bit hesitent to use them because of a few times an admin changed my speedys into prods, but now I think I've got the hang of it :-) Long live the RC and NP patrols! --Icarus 04:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad I could be of help. But it was my very first day participating with any volume on AfD, so don't take me as any expert on the process. The fact that the articles seemed to be complete hoaxes were good reason to place them for speedy deletion per G1 and A7, though. TheProject 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Transwikied dicdef
Hi, if you tag an article for a speedy because it is a transwikied dicdef, please make sure first that it actually has been transwikied (such as Combi deck, which I had to create before speedying it). Regards, Elf-friend 08:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I just went through what I did during the transwiki, and it appears that I copied over the article text where I should have copied over the edit history -- is that what you meant? (I've since fixed that.) Because otherwise, I did transwiki the article, log it in Wiktionary, and log it in Wikipedia before tagging it for speedy deletion. What did you have to create before speedying the article? Thanks. TheProject 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. On a very related note, I just noticed you took off the speedy tag on Coup de main (cajun) for the same reason, but I did copy it over to Wiktionary, copy over the edit history to Wiktionary, log it on Wiktionary, and log it on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what the problem is there, either.


 * P.P.S. I went through your edit history for Starter pack to figure out what the confusion was, and I think you were looking for the transwikied article in Wiktionary's main namespace, whereas I transwikied (as transwikis are supposed to be done, according to meta) to the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace in Wiktionary. If that's the source of the confusion, I hope that clears things up.


 * Yes, you are right, I was expecting to find it in the main namespace of Wiktionary, I am not all that familiar with transwikification, sorry for jumping the gun. :-/ That being said, there seems to be some question whether transwikification is a valid reason to speedily delete anyway? Regards, Elf-friend 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm justifying most of my speedy deletion tags by WP:SNOW. So far, I haven't had anybody complain about my discretion (although I will admit that once -- now twice, with Coup de main (cajun) -- have my speedy candidates not been speedied, but instead redirected), which means that either my judgement is either pretty good, or most administrators don't care. I'm not sure which one it is, but if I'm asked to stop, I will gladly do so. TheProject 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC/GDFL?
Hi. You mentioned on Articles for deletion/GAMES Magazine bankruptcy that my copy-paste act might be considered a violation of GDFL, and something about IIRC? I don't know what these terms mean. Could you enlighten me? - Rainwarrior 05:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Rainwarrior, glad you asked. First off, the easier stuff: IIRC is a common Internet acronym for "if I recall correctly", and if you ever come across other acronyms you don't find, a good start might be to head over to AcronymFinder. As for GFDL -- I apologize for accidentally mistyping that as "GDFL" earlier -- that stands for the GNU Free Documentation License, under which Wikipedia is licensed (and if you're wondering what GNU stands for, have a look at its article).


 * Part of the GFDL basically states that a document's content must carry attribution to everybody who has worked on a document (to make it more Wikipedia-specific, basically, articles in Wikipedia must properly credit all editors of previous revisions of the article). This is usually done trivially in an article's edit history. However, this requirement makes merging somewhat tricky: if an article A has content that is to be merged into article B, then article B -- since it contains content originally from article A -- must also correctly attribute previous editors to article A as well as its own. Hence one cannot do a merge by simply copying and pasting: the editor doing the pasting would be the only editor to show up on article B's edit history, which would violate the GFDL. If only it were that easy! Hope that helps. TheProject 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Nice to see a fellow musician and pianist on Wikipedia.


 * Thanks. That makes things perfectly clear. - Rainwarrior 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of help. TheProject 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC
You may endorse as many views as you please. In fact, there is even no rule (as far as I am aware) that prevents one from endorsing completely conflicting views on an RfC. Endorsing multiple views on an RfC is standard practice. JoshuaZ 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good to hear -- this is my first participation in an RfC. Thanks for the guidance. TheProject 05:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I may have given you bad advice. Looking over the standard wording it looks like it may be disallowed, but as a matter of practice everyone does it. I've brought the matter up at the main RfC talk page for clarification. In the meantime, I recommend to ignore the possible rule and keep your endorsement. JoshuaZ 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
You may be interested in this RfC, concerning a recent AfD in which you participated to some degree. TheProject 07:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * Thanks for the tip. I have provided what I saw here. I wish people could accept they are wrong without having to go to such lengths. -- ReyBrujo 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing "that" song
As someone who falls between the two extremes regarding "El kondor pada," may I ask you a quick question: since I'm sure you'll agree that Princess Diana's death is much more likely to be "common knowledge" than this song, what sort of sourcing would suffice to demonstrate the song's existence and notability? I think that both are true -- it exists (duh) and it could pass Wikipedia's notability threshold. But how to demonstrate it? Anything that could be found easily would undoubtedly be in Serbian. My guess is that nobody who wants this article sourced (or deleted) reads Serbian. Then of course there's the part about it being a song, and not a widget of some sort. How do you source a song's notability, short of getting lucky and having some (Serbian) journalist write about it? This strikes me as a dilemma. For the record, I (1) speak Serbian, (2) know that most of the Serbs involved here are basically trolls, but (3) still think the entry has merit. Not enough merit to get overly worked up about, though. Profnjm 16:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the language barrier should be a reason for discarding an entry, as that would probably constitute blatant systemic bias. You'll notice none of the links on the AfD were actually rejected because they were in Serbian. Of the four links provided, one was a 404, two were rejected because they were free Geocities-type sites, and another was rejected because it was a forum. These would be considered unreliable sources no matter what language they were in. It is my opinion that were there reliable sources, but in Serbian (which I don't question the existence of, just that they weren't provided in the AfD), that those should still be accepted. TheProject 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that Balcer has already pointed out that Serbian-language songs do receive coverage in Western press, so if it's notable enough, it wouldn't be too much to expect an English language source. However, as I said previously, I wouldn't discount a reputable Serbian language source. Others might not, though. TheProject 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to Balcer, I can't think of any Serbian language songs that have ever received coverage in the Western press. Profnjm 17:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't speak for him, so you may want to see the relevant discussion at Sam's talk page, or contact him yourself. TheProject 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I think I'll pass on talking with him, because his cites were done in bad faith. All he did was go out and find Serbian websites that were in English translation, mostly advertisements, and proclaim them "western press coverage of Serbian music," which they obviously were not.  My only response would be that if those count as evidence of "notability," then Dzoni ought to just put up a page about them.  That would, of course, be a travesty.  No, I don't think I'll discuss this with Balcer, who was merely yanking crazy Dzoni's chain.  Profnjm 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Two of the websites Balcer has brought up might fit under mere English translation, as you have suggested. However, Balcer has also brought up three links to The Guardian's website, which is a widely read and respected British newspaper, and that would suggest to me that there is at least some coverage of Serbian language music in the Western press. TheProject 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

4 sites I named
Project,what is wrong with those two sites that were Geocites?Or with the one that was forum?

You are just repeting what you heard.Why dont you tell me whats wrong with it?Dzoni 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do believe the AfD, the RfC, and I have made it very clear already. Websites where anybody can just sign up and get free web hosting are not considered reliable sources, nor are forums to which anybody can contribute. Now, if you would mind moving this discussion back to the RfC which it came from, instead of harrassing everybody on their talk page, I would be greatly indebted. TheProject 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I expected,no valid response...Ok,I wont ruin your talk page any more,so be in debtDzoni 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Prod removals
Ardric47, your recent removal of my prods on call gate and bleah for the reason of not having been transwikied (I assume this was the reason for the latter, although this was not specifically stated) seem to suggest that you might have been looking for the transwikied dictionary definitions in Wiktionary's main namespace, instead of the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace, where meta dictates they should be copied. If you look closely, I think you'll find that both articles have already been transwikied, to wikt:Transwiki:Call gate and wikt:Transwiki:Bleah, their edit histories copied to their respective talk pages, and the transfers logged on transwiki logs for both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. I hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject, 9 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * I began thinking about that not too long after making the changes, and I'm currently trying to seek clarification at Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log. In the meantime, I have no objections to the reinstatement of the tags. I guess having the content moved to the transwiki pseudo-namespace of another project counts as having "been transwikied"? Ardric47


 * After something has been moved to Transwiki namespace in Wiktionary, it is Wiktionary's responsibility to decide what to do with it. Wiktionary may even delete it, in fact, so waiting for the transwikied content to show up on Wiktionary's mainspace may in fact be futile. TheProject 01:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Advice on red links (and removals)
Hi theProject,

I just saw your advice at Articles for deletion/Michael Shay, with which I agree by the way.

More of these kinds of pages can be found by following links on Maryland General Assembly Election, 2006. Every non-notable person wandering around in Maryland seems to be redlinked on those pages, and sometimes their names coincide with those of notable people.

I just wanted to ask for your advice in this case? Do we change all the blue links to wrong persons? But thereby we might create a page for a non-notable person? Or do we remove all the links on that page Maryland General Assembly Election, 2006, because very few of them will become notable in the end?

Thanks for your time, Jadriaen 01:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC).
 * The redlinks should be removed. Precedent on AfD is to delete biographies of people whose sole claim to notability is as a failed electoral candidate, so there's no point in inviting the creation of pages which will be deleted at AfD anyways. Hope that helps. TheProject 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I'm not looking forward to removing all those links, but I might already start. There probably is a template for that too, right? ("Too many red links" or something.) Thanks again, and cheers. Jadriaen 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any template for lists of redlinks. You may want to try copying and pasting the wikicode into notepad and then running a find and replace on and  -- it may make the process faster. TheProject 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just found a template for redlinks and added it to the page. I'll go through the page later on (some links have their value, so a pure find and replace might not suffice). Cheers, Jadriaen 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not an automatic find and replace, that's for sure. But a manual find and replace (where by "manual" I mean still using the find and replace feature, but not using "Replace All") would still speed up the process, I think. By the way, thanks for pointing out the template. TheProject 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That pesky IPvandal in the 84 range
How often is WP:AIV checked, anyway? That guy is still active. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The IP was blocked five minutes after your addendum to my alert. TheProject 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tradable
I decided to rewrite tradable instead of letting it get deleted after a few days. I was working on another article and wanted to link to "tradable goods" or something similar, but all I could find was this page (with no useful information). I typed up a new article; it's brief, but I think worth keeping now. --CRGreathouse 18:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work -- it's very much appreciated. TheProject 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my userpage so quickly. It's been a long time since I've seen someone explode with so many userpage vandalisms in a minute because of a simple test4. Wow. --→ Buchanan-H e  rmit™ .. Talk to Big Brother  03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. I'm guessing the vandal would have gone after my userpage too, but it's semi-protected for some reason. TheProject 03:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Brunoise
Hello,

You recently removed the tags from the Brunoise and Tester stubs. If they have been transwikied like you said in the edit summary, why did you just remove the tags without taking the actions necessary for deleting the entries? Folajimi 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If an article has been transwikied (which has been done at wikt:Transwiki:Brunoise), it can go through one of three processes: an editor may propose that it be deleted or list it on articles for deletion, it can be redirected to a more appropriate article, or, if it has encyclopedic potential, it can be left as a stub for expansion. Which process the article goes through is at the discretion of the transwiking editor. In the case of Tester, the definition does not add anything to that already at tester, so I removed the transwiki tag. I chose to leave both as stubs; obviously, if you feel that either article should not be on Wikipedia, feel free to either one. I have nothing against either being deleted; I just happen to be a bit more cautious than usual with  today. TheProject 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's understandable. By the way, thanks for the transwiki effort on the Brunoise entry. FWIW, the entries are not being wasted &mdash; just relocated to a sister project ;) Besides, the author of the second entry has been banned by none other than Jimbo Wales; usually, I give authors a heads up before nominating such entries for deletion.


 * Thanks again. TTFN. Folajimi 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Prod marked as minor
I don't think that adding Template:Prod should be marked as a minor edit... Ardric47 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My general rule of thumb is that if I'm not adding anything of substance to the article itself (i.e. changing its meaning), I mark it as minor. Also, most of the time my prods are in the same edit as my removal of a Transwiki tag, which I usually mark as minor. However, I do see your point (I guess the rule about AfD tags being marked non-minor should be specified as applying to proposed deletions as well) and I will start marking prods as non-minor. Thanks. TheProject 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

TY


For RC patrol. - Xiong Chiamiov 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's good to know I'm appreciated some days. TheProject 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What did I do
What did I due I got a message from you that I put a nonsense edit in the Legislative building what was it and can you provide a link I am having trouble getting to that article.
 * Just as a follow-up: your IP was previously recorded carrying out these two edits, hence the warning. TheProject 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * I um dont understand and could you provide a link to the article.


 * The article in question is at Saskatchewan Legislative Building. (Just click the title.) TheProject 17:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * COuld you tell me what I did that was bad.


 * Your IP added nonsense to the article, which is considered vandalism at Wikipedia. TheProject 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * What was it like a mistake or dfgngjd something like that I am sorry I dont know I am not the only one who uses the computer you know.


 * Your IP added "Kelsey Teneycke is the coolest person on earth!" to the article. If you weren't the one who added that, you can safely ignore the warning. TheProject 17:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Thats my point other people use the computers too I will just use my account thing and sign in to avoid this from happening again.


 * By the way this is a school computer so I am not sure what should be done hundreds of students use them so what should be done?


 * We'll take the appropriate steps. Signing up for an account definitely would be a good idea. The basic principle is, if you don't vandalize, you can safely ignore the warnings. Thanks. TheProject 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Barnstar

 * Uh, thanks. But is that really worth a barnstar? :-) TheProject 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

MacArthur Article
You have to admit though, Arthur MacArthur is a pretty funny name to name your kid. 209.51.250.35 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Game articles
Please stop transwikiing game articles to wikibooks. Wikiboooks has stopped hosting game guides, supposedly by order of Jimbo Wales. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't aware of this, and I'm done clearing out the backlog anyways now. Anyways, I'll do that. You wouldn't be able to tell me where it says video game guides are not to be sent to Wikibooks, would you? It would clear up a lot of confusion for people who are marking them as such, as I didn't tag them, but just saw them and sent them over. So are video game guides just supposed to be listed for deletion, then? TheProject 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of them are being absorbed by StrategyWiki, I think. And if I knew where that was stated, I wouldn’t have said “apparently”. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Manu militari
Paolo, your recent removal of my prod on manu militari for the reason of not having been transwikied seems to suggest that you might have been looking for the transwikied dictionary definition in Wiktionary's main namespace, instead of the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace, where meta dictates they should be copied. If you look closely, I think you'll find that the article has already been transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Manu militari, its edit history copied to wikt:Talk:Transwiki:Manu militari, and the transfer logged on transwiki logs for both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. I hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * This is correct: after looking for the exact term on wiktionary, I performed a search, but did not notice that search defaults to the main namespace (this would mean there is no way for searching in the transwiki: pseudo-namespace, as far as I can see). I have now deleted the article. Thanks for pointing this out. - Liberatore(T) 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

School question
(By the way, if I may ask -- which school are you currently at?) TheProject 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's subpage
 * I'm currently at the University of British Columbia. :) -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / !?  23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tiki Bar TV recipes
I saw the proposed deletion tag you had on Tiki Bar TV recipes and replaced it with a tag requesting that it be moved to Wikibooks (with the other recipes). It appears that this was not transwikied from elsewhere and has not yet been transwikied to Wikibooks. Crypticfirefly 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Same goes for Tamate ka Kut Hope this is useful. Crypticfirefly 03:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. Okay, never mind. I'm easily confused and couldn't find those recipes in the Wikibooks cookbook because I didn't know about the transwiki page. I added some text to the pages so others won't be confused in the same way that I was. Crypticfirefly 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how you're the fifth person to be thrown off by this, I'm going to start adding the transwikied destination to my transwikied prods now. TheProject 04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WP: Figure Skating
Thanks for joining! :) --F a ng Aili talk 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to participate. TheProject 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please vote
Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC).
 * I've gone and added my voice to the discussion, but please note that 1) AfD is not a vote, and 2) alerting users to AfD discussions (especially ones that aren't particularly relevant to them) via talk pages is very much frowned upon. TheProject 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually think your input on the Afd is much appriciated and a good solution. Zeq 08:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say
... I'm sometimes rather pushy (maybe "sometimes") is an understatement, so I apologize in advance and please don't take it personally if you feel that way. Now, if I could ask you ... did you have a look at my sandbox and/or my question about style? Any comment?

Have a great trip. TheProject 20:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * Thanks for writing. No problem; actually, I value directness. Same goes for me--if I say something that irks you, let me know.


 * I have looked at your work and comments and I'll respond when I get back into town. I'll be getting off the computer within the next hour or so. Cheers. --F a ng Aili talk 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC) I've responded to a few things.


 * I'm hoping Pelladon comments about the hyphenation thing. He seems to be up on all those details. --F a ng Aili talk 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't really comment on the template stuff. When I look at the template code all I see is gibberish. I get by with templates by experimenting with the fields, when I need to. Sorry I can't be of more help. --F a ng Aili talk 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically all I'm trying to say with the template is that, as the first and second infoboxes are virtually the same (except for trivial differences), template expansion will not break any pages currently using the infobox. The third infobox is just saying that the expanded infobox would have additional capabilities. TheProject 02:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, additional capabilities=good. :) --F a ng Aili talk 00:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted one of your prods
You were right, I didn't have to type a thing. Cheers! :o) E WS23 (Leave me a message!) 06:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:007ThunderballLife.jpg
I'm not exactly sure why you think Image:007ThunderballLife.jpg does not qualify as fair use. If you could provide some reasoning I would love it. xxpor ( Talk |  Contribs ) 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Clearly I wasn't paying attention when I looked in the article for mention of the magazine issue. Mention of the magazine issue has to add non-trivially to the text of the article, and it does that. I have taken off the tag now. Please accept my apologies. TheProject 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no problem :) xxpor (  Talk |  Contribs ) 17:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alessandra Mussolini Playboy IT Cover.jpg
A similar plea for fair use consideration for the Playboy cover in the article on Alessandra Mussolini. I unindented the fair use rationale on the image, that was there, but possibly hard to read.

You're right that the article didn't mention the magazine issue very much, but it should have. I've added some text, and am looking for more. Here's the point - Mussolini is a fairly notorious politician, first due to being the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini, and second due to her apparent iconic status as a neo-fascist (she's one of, if not the most prominent European politician considered a neo-fascist), and her past as a fairly notable sexploitation actress and model is a notable contrast to that. If she weren't a politician, being on two Playboy covers could have made her a notable model just for that. Also, as best as I can tell with help from automatic translators, the Alessandra Mussolini article, seems to say that though she was in several sexploitation films, it was her Playboy appearances that caused a scandal that ended her actress/model career. ("Partecipò effettivamente in alcune sexi commedie, ma lo scandalo suscitato da un servizio fotografico apparso su Playboy, di cui era protagonista, non giovò alla sua carriera da attrice.")

AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe magazine cover appearances have to be notable as more than just cover appearances. If the part about said appearances causing a scandal is verifiable and added to the article, I have no problems with the image as a proper fair use. However, at the moment, it does not. TheProject 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Chrysler LeBaron images
Why did you remove the images I added to the Chrysler LeBaron article? They were properly taged. I'd like if you would explain this to me. Bavaria 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The images were only orphaned because you deleted them from the article. I would like a better explanation if you do not mind. Bavaria 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that the images are orphaned, but that the images are fair use violations. I guess I'll go through each one individually:


 * Image:1989LeBaron.jpg: was improperly tagged and in contravention of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines because the tag states "... where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". No other fair use rationale given, as the image was used with a generic fair use tag.
 * Image:1979LeBaron.jpg: has no fair use rationale, and was improperly tagged due to the "no free equivalent" restriction.
 * Image:1984LeBaron.jpg: claims to be a promotional image, but there is no evidence that the image is released as part of a press kit or otherwise promotional media, nor any evidence that copyright is held by the automobile's manufacturer. Also fails the "no free equivalent" restriction.
 * Image:1993-Chrysler-LeBaron-GTC.jpg: claims to be a promotional image, but no evidence of this, and I would think the latter, as it comes from domain name consumerguide.com, and consumer guides are not considered as promotional media. Again, no evidence that the copyright is held by the automobile's manufacturer, and also fails the "no free equivalent" restriction.
 * Image:1993Chrysler-LeBaron.jpg: see above.


 * As all of the above were fair use violations, I removed them from the article, and have re-removed them again. If proper fair uses (i.e. not in violation of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines) are not found, they will be deleted as orphans. TheProject 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you need proof for the latter two when it's pretty damn obvious that they ARE promo images? I don't understand Wikipedia's image policies sometimes...--ApolloBoy 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not obvious that it's a promotional image. In particular, promotional images are copyrighted by the product's manufacturer, and as the images come from a consumer review site, it's not clear as to whether the images are copyrighted by the reviewer or the manufacturer. If the image comes from a manufacturer's press kit, please make this source clear. TheProject 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mean source-wise. If you look at the images, you can see that they depict a new-looking car without license plates in front of scenery. That's why I said that it's obvious that they're promo images. --ApolloBoy 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is a promotional image, I'm sure finding a source will be easy. TheProject 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And they do have sources. --ApolloBoy 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources that illustrate the use as a promotional image? I thought I already established that. Furthermore, the last source URL is broken. TheProject 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The images are obviousley promotional images! As ApolloBoy already said they show a new car without liscense plates in fornt of some sort of scenery. If they aren't promotional images then explain why I found one of them in an old National Geographic magazine! THEY HAVE THE PROPER SOURCE! AND SEEING AS THEY ARE CHRYSLER LeBaron IMAGES THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY OF THE Chrysler Corporation. WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? Bavaria 11:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Number A, you don't have to shout. You know how many internet etiquette laws you're breaking by typing in all caps like that? Well, you're breaking one: Don't type in all caps."


 * Now, if I may rephrase: if it's so obviously a promotional image, I'm sure finding a source that shows them in a promotional context will be absolutely trivial. If they're from a magazine advertisement that you scanned, say so. At the moment, the source that is given on the image page -- a consumer guide -- is not a promotional context. Moreover, the last image has a broken source URL. TheProject 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Word Up! (Slang) Deletion
Hi there. Firstly, I should let you know that although I was the creator of this article I am not the originator, I just moved the content from Word Up! when cleaning up and creating a disambig for the phrase - so I hold no real affinity with the content (i.e. this is not "why are you deleting my stuff" post!!). Here is my view - yes the phrase appears on Wiktionary - and that’s fine. If the content of the above article was going to be transwikied over there then that would make sense, but you have marked it for deletion. It would seem to me that we are wasting good information here in that the article here on WP has an interesting bit of content to it, but the article on WT is as bare bones as they come - it is simply a definition. So can the extra background info that is here at WP be moved across? Or should the article remain here because it contains useful info that doesn't fit inside the WT remit? It just seems a shame to throw away interesting bits and bobs as a result of "it is on WT so it can get delete". Regards, SFC9394 00:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On second look, I'll send it to Wiktionary, as I'm on a transwiki run right now. Thanks. TheProject 00:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Cornwell and Image:1-02richmag_cover_story.jpg
Hello TheProject : - ) Why did you remove Image:1-02richmag_cover_story.jpg from the Patricia Cornwell article with out discussion on the talk page of the article and notifying me on my user talk page. I think that you should have notified me about your concerns regarding fair use with that image. At the time I added the fair use claim, I consulted with a Wikipedia editor that is familiar with Fair use. I carefully followed the instructions for meeting Fair use and crafted a specific fair use claim that should cover its use on that article.

I do not mind you questioning the fair use claim. It's possible that I am wrong and the claim is not valid. But, I can not address your concerns if I do not know about them, right? Could you spell out why my specific fair use claim found on the image page and on the article is not adequate to cover fair use for this particular article? FloNight talk  19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually don't notify on fair use disputed (nor do I see any policy that requires me to), but I did forget to notify you of the orfud tag -- please accept my apologies. Now, as for the fair use claim itself -- it's my understanding that fair use magazine covers should be used primarily in articles about the publication itself, not the subject who appears on the cover. If a magazine cover is indeed used in an article about the cover's subject, the article must discuss the notability of the cover image itself. In this case, I didn't see the article discuss the cover appearance.


 * I might add that I don't think the image is necessary to show the relationship between Cornwell and the city of Richmond, either, because what I'm reading in the article that has anything to do with Richmond (and there seems to be rather little mention of Richmond to make a good fair use claim) is that the city features prominently in the author's writing, not the author featuring prominently in the city's culture. A legitimate fair use for this piece of information might be an excerpt from one of her publications, for example, that illustrates the prominence of Richmond in her writings (I'm being intentionally vague, of course, but that's just an example).


 * I strongly disagree with the fair use claim, but I did forget to notify you when I orphaned the image. Sorry about that. TheProject 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. Sometimes I get in a hurry, get distracted, and forget to follow up. It's a bitch being human. ; - )


 * Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of the fair use. I know that the mag cover image did not meet fair use before I made changes to the article and added a second fair use tag. I did not add the image to the article. I came across the Patricia Cornwell article when it was listed on AN/I for persistent problems. When I first noticed the magazine cover image, it was used to "illustrate" the article and clearly did not meet fair use. No attempt had been made to add a reason for fair use at all. I started to remove it from the article and then I looked more closely at the magazine, the magazine article, the specific magazine cover image, and the Patricia Cornwell article content about her relationship with the city of Richmond. I decided that this particular magazine cover could meet a Wikipedia fair use exception because a magazine named Richmond with a cover story article about Patricia Cornwell did show the special relationship between her and the city of Richmond, VA. Unfortunately, DreamGuy did not think any changes were needed (that it was already fair use per Wikipedia policy) and he chased me away from the article before I finished making the changes to the article.


 * The changes I made that support US fair use law and Wikipedia fair use policy are:


 * I added the second Wikipedia fair use tag to the image page and added specific reasons for fair use on the Cornwell article.
 * I added a caption to the image on the article that I think supports its fair use.
 * I moved the image down the page next to article content about Cornwell relationship to Richmond.
 * I added the hidden fair use statement to the article.


 * As it stands now I think it meets Wikipedia fair use policy because of the caption in the image thumb. If the image was moved back down the page and more article content was added about the relationship between Cornwell and the city and mentioned the mag article, the fair use claim would be stronger. Regards, FloNight talk  20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'd very much rather the fair use claim be made stronger, as you mentioned, so I'll keep the fair use disputed tag, but I'll not be orphaning the image anytime soon. Hope there are no objections to proceeding in this matter. TheProject 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Apology"
Sorry about giving that detailed explanation on the AfD on D-flat minor like you didn't know. Your "uh..." made me think you had no idea what I was talking about. Consider it an explanation for anybody who actually does have no idea what I'm talking about. :-) TheProject 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * No prob, and no apology necessary, as that was overly snarky of me myself, to be honest. I should have assumed better with you anyway, you're much more versed in the playing, I was simply a lowly vocalist. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

D-flat minor
Hi Gwernol, I've done a little bit of research on the pieces you listed, and I'm unfortunately of the opinion that none of them are legitimate. Please respond at the AfD. Thanks. TheProject 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * Sorry for the delay in replying to your message on my talk page. I've added yet another set of examples I've found to the AfD debate. I'd really appreciate it if you could give your expert opinion on these, as I do not have the technical knowledge to evaluate if these are valid examples or not. Thanks, Gwernol 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately they all seem to be mistakes. TheProject

FIFA World Cup Group Articles Deletion
Thanks for the support for deletion. Looks like we're down quite a few votes. Do you know anyone else in Wikipedia who doesn't want these articles? Kingjeff 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm on the fence myself, especially due to precedent. I'd rather not try anything that might be construed as vote-stacking, and I wouldn't know any like-minded people anyways. TheProject 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try to get it overruled. It goes against Wikipedia policy.Kingjeff 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And what policy would that be? Consensus? Leave me out of it, while you're at it. I'm neutral on the issue. TheProject 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy is What Wikipedia is not. If you look under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information then you'll see it's not a news report. It says, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known."


 * They aren't news reports. At any rate, I'm not going to make any more of this matter. Consensus is quite clear. TheProject 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Constitution articles
Hi, theProject. I saw that you WP:PRODed a bunch of constitution-related articles, since they had already been transwikied to Wikisource. I went ahead and tagged these for speedy deletion under criteria A2 or A5, depending on the cirumstances. Cheers, Lbbzman 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, A5 only applies to transwikied articles which have already been through AfD, which is what I've been following, but I don't really mind. Thanks. TheProject 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Montreal Competition
Could I ask why you moved Montreal International Musical Competition to Montreal International Music Competition? The former is the name of the competititon and is how they announce it at the competition. Thanks! TheProject 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * Looks like the lead text was confusing. I have fixed it and have moved it back. Please let me know if you have any objections. TheProject 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * I moved the page because of the lead text, but also because the Ivo Pogorelić article was linking to 'Music Competition'. I wrote most of that article so I know that I pasted the competition's name from some other site... but yeah, if that's the official name, than it should stay so :) --Missmarple 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's a little complicated. Pogorelić won a different "Montreal International Music Competition" (no idea whether it was "Music" or "Musical" then) in 1980. I have no idea what happened to that competition -- the current "Montreal International Musical Competition" is a different competition and was only started in 2002. Regardless, the article that is on WP right now is the latter. TheProject 21:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * I see. Well, it would be really great if there was a sentence or two about the previous competition, I guess :P Regards from Slovenia! --Missmarple 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting accounts
Hello, I just saw the straw poll about deleting accounts, and I think it is a great idea. I only have one question. What aboutdoppelganger accounts?. Those are important for stopping impersinations, but yet they never make edits. I would appreciate it if you addressed this in the straw poll.  Thetruthbelow  19:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not too terribly concerned about doppelgangers, but if this is a particular problem, we can have an amendment to the policy that says that doppelganger accounts clearly labelled as such will not be touched. Alternatively, since doppelganger accounts have to identify themselves, they can just make an edit to their own user account to label themselves as a doppelganger (and thus be saved, as the doppelganger has a single edit). TheProject 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that if they edit the account so that it shows that they are adoppelganger account, they should be kept, like you said. Otherwise, I think the poll is a great idea. I would like an ammendment though.  Thetruthbelow  19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway typed letter
As it has been less than 70 years since Hemingway's death, unpublished works by Hemingway (in this case, a private letter) are still under copyright and are considered copyvios on Wikipedia. Thanks. TheProject 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * Hello Project. Well, I uploaded that image so long ago (probably years before you'd heard of Wikipedia) I remember nothing about it. Is there a way I can see the original image page, allowing me to verify any copyright or fair use claims made there? JDG 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Doink-- nevermind. I didn't think to just look in the history. Thanks... Added 16:56: I see the image came from LOC. Obviously the Hemingway estate made this material available to the LOC and it is now Public Domain. I object to its removal. Are you an Administrator? JDG 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not an administrator, but that's quite irrelevant, I think. Do you have a source showing that the work is actually in public domain? The fact that it comes from the LOC does not necessarily mean that the LOC has obtained the copyright to the work. In particular, LOC's legal page says that "... as a publicly supported institution, the Library generally does not own rights in its collections", and often, donations of Hemingway materials to the LOC say something along the lines of "single copy reproductions require the donor's permission". Unless there's a source somewhere that says the image is actually in public domain, it should be treated as a copyright violation. TheProject 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * You are misapplying the first statement: "the Library generally does not own rights in its collections". Of course it doesn't&mdash; at least 98% of its textual/photographic holdings are in the Public Domain, meaning there are no rights to be held. Your second statement about "donor's permission" bears looking into. I would appreciate it if you would restore the image page, plus the page referenced in the Hemingway article, until we can sort this out. They have been there since 2002, and have passed the scrutiny of many copyvio checkers (in fact I think there was a challenge in `03 that was shot down). Unless you have a particular expertise in copyright law, I'd say respect for these earlier workers should keep the longstanding arrangement intact until a judgment is made. I'll be looking into it and I'll be contacting one of our legal people. Thx JDG 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Source texts belong on Wikisource, actually, not on Wikipedia. If it meets copyright, then it needs to be moved to Wikisource. If it does not, then it should be struck as a copyvio. Since the copyright on this work would need to be explicitly released before Wikipedia could use it, there needs to be proof that said release has already occurred. If that evidence is provided, it will be moved to Wikisource. TheProject 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * It should not be moved to WikiSource. I saw that suggestion by the other editor and was about to enter an objection when my attention was taken by your action. The primary interest of this image is in seeing an actual typed page from Hemingway's actual typewriter. The text itself is less than secondary. To see his original spelling mistakes, his own erasures and handwritten addenda, etc,. is the whole reason for the image being there. If you can't see the reasoning behind this, then I ask you: why does anyone bother with an autograph? Why isn't it enough to have a slip of paper with the letters W-I-L-L-I-E M-A-Y-S typed on it? Why would someone bid, say, $20,000 to own a hat that Hemingway wore when he/she could have an exact replca for $12?. The interest is in seeing the article exactly as it was produced and seen by the subject and his/her associates. JDG 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your rationale. In that case, the image should probably be moved to the main article on Hemingway and not the subpage, as it seems the notability of the image pertains to Hemingway and not the text of the letter then. An article devoted to the letter itself is very likely to find itself moved to Wikisource. At any rate, if the copyright status of the image could be clarified, I would be very much obliged. TheProject 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Yes, it's an odd arrangement-- the way the image is a page unto itself. I had a reason at the time... Maybe it should just be a standard image with a standard image tag in the article. I'll try to clarify the copyright status... JDG 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it's a footnote in the Hemingway page, as I'm sure you already know. If the image is indeed in public domain, I'll tag the article as merge to the parent page. Thanks! TheProject 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Donation of a letter to a different party in no way affects the copyright status. Copyright exists independently of the physical item.  There is no reason to presume that this letter is in the public domain, and therefore without permission from the copyright holder (who may be the Hemingway estate or the LOC, depending on the arrangements made when the letter was donated) it cannot be used on wikipedia. And yes, I do have particular expertise in copyright law. Kcordina Talk 08:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

SAT
IIRC, SAT questions are copyrighted material and therefore cannot be included on Wikipedia. Let me know if this is incorrect. Thanks. TheProject 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * According to the agreement students have to sign on the SAT test, the questions cannot be discussed or shared until they are posted on the collegeboard.com website which all have been. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ram32110 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 June 2006.


 * Thanks for the clarification. I have reverted the copyvio listing. TheProject 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

For your consideration
Seems like wikisource material, but I'm still a little unsure about how that's done: Proclamation of the Independence Order (Bangladesh Liberation War Documents)

Hornplease 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you ever see something that should be moved to Wikisource, just use the tag.  Thanks. TheProject 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Transwikis to Wikisource
You are doing a great job cutting through the backlog with these! I would appreciate it you kept any comments on the talk page (especialy those regarding questionable copyright or sources lacking) attached to the texts. Fair warning; anything that I have questioned on this end is guarnteed to be immediately put up for deletion over at Wikisource. If the orginal contributor over here has not clarified in all this time the chances of them doing so over at Wikisource are slim to none. Thanks for all the hard work you have been doing.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  10:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm checking through as many for copyvios as I can, although there may be some that slip through the cracks. Where I am unsure, I've marked it in my transwiki at Wikisource. TheProject 14:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This was the one I had noticed Talk:Interoperability in health IT. The talk page comments were not moved to Wikisource and I could not find any comments about the lack of source and unverified copyright (which isn't specifically mentioned but you must have a source to know the copyright).  Maybe I am just not looking in the right place?-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm... looks like I mistakenly interpreted this as a work of a government organization. I'll strike both copies as copyvios. Thanks for the double-check. TheProject 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The one I mentioned above is the only one I remembered having a question about so far. I check out that category pretty often and tag things I am reasonbly sure are copyvios.  Then I also leave notes on the borderline ones, which are usually translation issues.  I was watching you and noticed you were being really careful with these which I really appreciate.  I am sure we will go over them carefully before moving them out of the Transwiki space as well.  We are doing some major maintanence over there so they may being stting tight for a bit.  Thanks for all the good work you are doing!  Let me know if you have any questions regarding Wikisource.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  22:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA Nom
 Tawker would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Tawker to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/theProject. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
 * You already know this, but thanks for the nomination; it is gratefully accepted. TheProject

Deletion of transwikied articles
Hi! I've deleted a few of the articles you prodded as already transwikied. However, those need not be prodded - already transwikied articles are eligible for speedy deletion; just put db-transwiki on them. Thanks!

P.S. Best wishes for your RfA. Kimchi.sg 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kimchi. I might as well seek clarification. I was under the impression that db-transwiki was for articles already considered at AfD where the outcome was to transwiki, not for articles not yet passed through AfD. TheProject 03:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki log
I can't begin to tell you how absolutely delighted I am that someone's cleaning up the mess I'm leaving on the transwiki log, and I think it's fantastic that the en.wikibooks log has been cleared already. (You know, I'm going to fill it right up again in a short while...)

I just had one request of you when you're doing cleanup for en.wiktionary in particular. Could you have a look at "what links here" for the entries that have already been deleted, and remove backlinks that invite the creation of a dictionary definition, rather than an encyclopedic article? This will usually be most backlinks, except for those whose backlinks are completely irrelevant -- a movie title, place name, entirely different concept, etc. This should help curb recreation of dictionary definitions.

Actually, this applies to all projects, but to Wiktionary in particular, so could you in general please check the backlinks on redlinks on the transwiki log please? It would help greatly. Many thanks! TheProject 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * I knew it wasn't that easy! I'll check whatlinkshere when I get the spare time to start going through the logs again (school holidays in one week...).. Thanks for the heads up (and good luck on your RfA!). :) --james  // bornhj (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * An example wouldn't hurt, I guess: check out these two diffs. Most should be orphaned but some more common words may have backlinks like these. Thanks again. TheProject 16:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Benny the Bull
You've removed the copyvio from the current edition, but it still exists in the history. The copyvio material was inserted by 69.114.103.143 in this edit, and I believe that edit (and several other edits after it) should be purged from the history if the copyvio problems are to be resolved completely. If you're an admin, go ahead and do that; if not, please ask an admin to do this. 69.117.4.132 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, it's enough to strike copyvios from the current version; striking a copyvio from the history is usually only necessary if we're specifically asked to. (Of course, if there's another reason to delete a revision -- personal information, libel, etc. -- that'll be done.) TheProject 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

K-K-K-Katy
Just to clarify: I removed the lyrics from the article because public domain lyrics belong on Wikisource, not on Wikipedia. The transwikied page is at s:Transwiki:K-K-K-Katy, and when the transwiki process there is completed, a link may be added from the article to the page. In the meantime, I have removed the lyrics again. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Thanks. TheProject 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * "...when the transwiki process there is completed, a link may be added from the article to the page. In the meantime, I have removed the lyrics again." OK, let me know when it is completed, and I will add a link and remove the lyrics. In the meantime, I have added the lyrics back again. Wahkeenah 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Song lyrics do not belong on Wikipedia. Whether or not the process at Wikisource completes (Wikisource, after all, may choose to delete the transwikied text outright), the lyrics cannot stay. TheProject 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * "Song lyrics don't belong on wikipedia." So you say. Just tell me when you're done with your transwiki process, and I'll remove them. Wahkeenah 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cite me chapter and verse of where lyrics are not allowed... and I assume you plan to scan all articles looking for lyrics. Wahkeenah 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, not exactly only "so I say". Don't include copies of primary sources. And by the way, yes, we plan to scan all articles looking for lyrics. Care to help us with that? (Obviously, there are some articles on Wikipedia which do have primary source texts, which are only included if they add to the article other than just "here are the lyrics".) TheProject 22:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * As with various policies, it's nebulous. Anyway, I don't have time to work on fixing something that I don't see as being a problem. You want to fix a problem? Keep anon users from editing. That will save everyone a lot of time that they could better spend doing your projects. Wahkeenah 22:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Whistling Gypsy
I know this was about a year and a half ago, but since you still seem to be moderately active here, I thought I might tell you that I've labelled the inclusion of lyrics in The Whistling Gypsy as a copyright violation: the song was written around 1950 and the lyrics are still copyrighted in the United States. Thanks. TheProject 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * I understand about the copyright. I don't remember what I wrote in that article, as it was a long time ago.  Could we just keep the rest of the article, without the lyrics, then? Ed Sanville 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd love to keep the rest of the article, without the lyrics, but if you look at the last revision, you'll see there's not much in the article outside of the lyrics. Thanks. TheProject 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Section 6 copyvio
Hi there, you've raised Section_6 as a copyvio.

As I can't find an easy way to add this comment on the copyvio page itself, I just wanted to point out that if the article is indeed a copy of UK law then it is freely reproducible under UK Crown Copyright:

(see point 10[d])

Cheers... --Jscriv 09:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. 10. d), however, applies to non-commercial websites only, and Wikipedia cannot accept materials released on a non-commercial license, as there are reusers of our content who generate money off of advertising. At any rate, the article looks more like a legal notice than an actual copy of legislation, so I'm still keeping this as a copyvio for now. TheProject 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, actually if you read point 10 again you'll see that the waiver is extremely free and open - you can (point 10.b) make multiple copies of the Material for distribution and sale; and (point 10.d) reproduce the Material on free and subscription web sites which are accessible via the Internet; therefore regardless of the commerical or non-commercial nature of the website, the copyright is waived. As for the question of Section 6 being a legal notice - perhaps a UK property lawyer could advise? Cheers... Jscriv 11:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikisource has been through this issue and Crown Copyright is not acceptable to the Wikimedia Foundation. One of the problem is the material cannot copied copied downstream as copies must be made from the UK offcial version.  The rules against using the material in a "misleading" way are also a problem. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  11:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. Amusing that shortly after I unprotect it, it gets vandalized... TheProject 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * You're welcome ^_^. Apparently this guy attacks everyone who reverts him, and has a changing IP... <_< -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your New Adminship!
 ~Kylu (u|t)  20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --M e rovingian { T C @ } 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * TheProject 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC): P.S. I appear to have broken your talk page. Sorry! :-) copied from user's talk page


 * Oh, it wasn't you; User:RedHotHeat forgot to use the  tag.  --M e rovingian { T C @ } 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Smashing vote! 67/0/0 eh? You must be liked! Congratulations, and use it well! :D --Steve-o 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oho, don't forget, RfA isn't a popularity contest! It just means that consensus has decided that theProject would make an excellent user to have the few extra "not a big deal" buttons. But he's still quite popular. :D  ~Kylu (u|t)  23:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on achieving admin status. I'm sure that you will do the mop and bucket proud! Regards,  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats&mdash;and, seriously, I thought you already were. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help you with your recent RFA and i'm happy to see you passed. I know you are competent enough to hold this position. Happy editing! -- Will Mak  050389  02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks everybody! TheProject 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and well done. Abcdefghijklm 11:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Transwikis
Special:Import on Wiktionary has now been sync'ed towards en.wikipedia, meaning transwikis can happen now directly, including edit history. So in a way, how will things change now? Wiktionary sysops can do the import, but basically it's the Wikipedians who want to get rid of the stuff, right? Any ideas? &mdash; Vildricianus 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * About Special:Import being enabled on Wiktionary: I can't use it right now, so I'll probably continue to transwiki as I've always been doing it -- manually. If that's a problem, just let me know. Thanks. TheProject 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Well, you can't use it because it's a sysop-only thing (on en:wikt). We don't have a clue either but I'll keep you posted. But using Special:Import would be much easier and faster - no more cutting and pasting of histories necessary. I myself would be glad to help out. And congrats on your RFA :-). &mdash; Vildricianus 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a note, if you need extra fingers to c&p-transwiki to wiktionary, please pester me? I've got accounts on both.  ~Kylu (u|t)  00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Impostor
You may be interested to know that User:L Gagnon has been blocked as an apparent imposter of you. Congratulations, if that is appropriate. :-) TheProject 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * Thanks for blocking him. Fans of Ayn Rand have been viciously attacking my user page for some time now, as they are angry at me for forcing them to follow the NPOV rule by adding criticisms of Rand into articles about her. This guy was likely another one of their several sock puppet accounts. -- LGagnon 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do be careful with that statement though. NPOV is policy, so forcing you to follow it isn't necessarily such a bad thing. It just depends on various interpretations of NPOV, of course, as with all POV disputes. :-) Anyways, I don't really wish to get involved with a content dispute -- I just came to inform you about your imposter. TheProject 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Block duration
I just came across this, and thought you should know that 3 hours is rather short. 24 hours would be the usual for a first block on a registered account for clear vandalism. That's if it's not a clear vandal-only account then an immediate indef block should be used (in that particular case I would have done 24 hours). I see you're a new admin, and many admins have different blocking styles. Block lengths are often more of a fine art than a science, but I hoped you'd still find this useful while you're getting used to things. Let me know if you have any questions, Petros471 17:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the heads up. TheProject 17:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

.sig
Y'know what occured to me, tP... even if you can't have User:theProject with proper caps, you could well do it with your sig. Currently it's TheProject, but theProject would work fine as a sig, it still points to you. Only thing that has to show the incorrect caps is the userpage and user talkpage prefixes. Just a thought. :)  ~Kylu (u|t)  19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Never thought of that. Thanks! :-) theProject 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob! TTYL.  ~Kylu (u|t)  00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Belated congrats!
Dear tP, if you allow me to apologize for the belated reply, I didn't want to miss the chance to congratulate you on your newly attained adminship, and your most kind words to me. With people like you around, we can all be optimistic about the future of... this project! ;) I'm afraid this also puts you in the list of those I'll go pestering for administrative help - hey, you asked for it! ;) Have great weekend, my dear tP, and make sure to drop by and visit me every now and then, k? A big big hug,  Phædriel   ♥   tell me  - 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will be sure to do that. Come bug me any time. theProject 00:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 01:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Decomplexify
I see that you removed the speedy tag and recommended this entry for Wiktionary. I have listed it as AFD due to the fact that the author seems to be doing little more than poking fun at the President (the word is referred to as a "bushism"). I'm no right-winger, but I still think it's mostly a nonsense page. Feel free to join the discussion if you would like. Cheers! --NMChico24 21:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Gah. I just saw dicdef-style writing and tagged it for a move. I'm speedying it as an attack. theProject 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

New Transwiki methods
Hello,

You seem to have been the most active (recently) on Transwikiing stuff to Wiktionary. I've just experimented with using the new Import: function to move the entries in the category, over to Wiktionary with full history of edits. Please review what I did, and see if you approve. I think that besides greatly simplifying the process, we'll have much safer handling of the history, in the future.

Are you interested in helping hash out the new policies and whatnot?

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help with the new transwiki method. However, I currently don't have access to Special:Import on Wiktionary, so I'm still confined to doing manual transwiki (with edit history, of course). Vildricianus has informed me that there is a possibility that this may not be acceptable anymore now that we have a method of copying over edit histories properly, so I've stopped transwikiing manually for now. I'll resume if I'm either given access to Special:Import on Wiktionary, or if I'm told that I can continue to do manual transwikiing. Not that this will matter in the next month anyways, as I'm leaving in a few days on a Wikibreak for the rest of July, so you have a lot of time to get back to me on this regard. Just clarify whether or not I'm allowed to manually transwiki and/or allow Special:Import permissions as necessary, and hopefully I'll be able to pick up right where I left off.


 * By the way, I might as well note that your imports appear to have overwritten the manual transwikis I did for the following pages: Sangkut, Rubber chicken dinner, Remote access, Rajiv, RINGO, Purger, and Net operating income. I don't think this is a particular problem, other than the fact that you've now imported over the prods I put on the pages as well. Please keep me posted. Thanks! theProject 00:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't see what I overwrote? wikt:Transwiki:Sangkut is identical in the latest revision.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 00:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually what I transwikied was this revision. It doesn't matter that much, though. Please do let me know when the Import function stuff is sorted out. Thanks. theProject 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Anti-Zionist.PNG
In the future, please list images on IfD, not MfD. I've speedied it anyways as an attack image (I8).

Best wishes for your RfA, although you don't need them and I'm sure will be speedying things like these in a matter of hours. theProject 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC-4) copied from user's
 * Ah; thank you. I'll do that in the future :) --  Where  00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rajiv Prod
I have removed the Prod because a previous Prod was removed by another editor. Thus, it becomes a contested prod and hence cannot be prodded again. You may want to take it to AFD. I see that it has some potential to be converted into a disambiguation page for famous people named Rajiv/ Rajeev including Rajiv Gandhi, Rajiv Bajaj and Rajiv Menon. I dunno if I'll be able to get to it though, at least in the next couple of weeks. --Gurubrahma 07:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good now. Thanks. theProject 23:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yabba
Hello, I de-prodded the above as I don't believe its a transwiki candidate for reasons I've left on the talk page. If you still feel it is, please discuss there. Regards -- I@n &equiv; talk 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't prod it because it was a transwiki candidate, I prodded it because it had already been transwikied. Either way, it looks fine now. theProject 23:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my misunderstanding. Thanks -- I@n &equiv; talk 04:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for reverting my userpage. It is very much appreciated. theProject 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * No probs and belated congrats on adminship. -- Samir   धर्म 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work
I notice that you have done some excellent work disputing fair use on magazine covers that are in use on the page of the person who is on the cover. Keep it up, and don't be afraid to just IFD the images, especially when the uploader is likely to be unable to return to it. Stifle (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:O
Oh man, Wikibreak??? Limited internet access?? What? You can't do this to me! There are about a dozen things I need your opinion on! Come back! --Fang Aili talk 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Worthy use of your new admin powers
Congratulations on your recent granting of admin powers. I would like to draw your attention to a worthy use of those powers - the closing of copyvio reports listed on WP:CP. As you'll see there are many tens of such reports that need dealing with each day, and the backlog is barely being kept under control despite a couple of us spending lots of time working on them. The process is pretty easy and sorting a few only takes a little time and with a group of people helping, we can keep the backlog under control easily - just review the article & the source to ensure it is a copy, and then delete. Any help would certainly be appreciated - any questions, ask away. Kcordina Talk 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's a bit on wikibreak, I'm sure he'll get around to assisting once he's back!  ~Kylu (u|t)  00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And while I'm on this page...


 * Thanks so much for your support, both direct and via proxy! :D  ~Kylu (u|t)  00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems whatsoever. A very belated congratulations from I, who should really have gotten around to doing this sooner. I look forward to working with you on admin-related tasks. :-) theProject 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you know, I now have a new username at User:Seivad. Previously I was known as User::Abcdefghijklm. This message has been left for everyone who has left a message on my talk page. Thanks for your time, Seivad 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) copied from my user page

Refusal to block
Hmm, just wanted to say that I was a bit surprised that the addition of a penis image to a children's tv page didn't warrant a (permanent) block for User:Qwerty1211, particulalry with the user's track record of not one single postivie contribution to the Wikipedia. I've seen permanent blocks for much much much less. Budgiekiller 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So have I, except that the user hadn't edited for half an hour when the last warning was handed out and hadn't edited since then. If the user continues to vandalize again, a permanent block would be in order, I think. theProject 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. Last time it was a couple of weeks between vandalisms.  Is he free to keep doing this every so often or will he really be blocked next time?  With each admin making a judgement call based on their own experiences, I'm afraid this user will continue to add images of penises to pages children are likely to visit.  Budgiekiller 17:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As blocks are a preventive and not a punitive measure, no actions actually "warrant" a block. The reason why blocking is done for vandalism is to prevent vandalism that might occur in the absence of a block. In the absence of this block, however, no vandalism has occurred as of yet, and I'll monitor the user and permablock if necessary. theProject 18:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Deal. Thanks for the discussion.  Budgiekiller 18:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
You can use db-u1 for speedy deletion requests on your own subpages. theProject 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * Thanks :) C a  rm  el  apple  01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hangon
Hi, thanks for removing that, I was just about to, I was just archiving my talk page first. --Wisd e n17 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sonny diaz
Hi. I'm the one who moved the Sonny diaz article to Sonnydiaz's user page, as the article was inapprorpriate under WP:BIO. However, the move creates a redirect such that Sonny diaz (the article) remains and simply redirects to the user page. This isn't really what I intended and I'm assuming that the redirect page should be deleted. If so, can you assist? And secondly, can you either tell me how to better clean up user pages posted as articles or point me to the process? I do my best to patrol, but I don't know all the ins and outs, and I'm not an admin. Your response is appreciated. Thanks. CPAScott 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar
Would you be able to do me a favor? Could you protect the Adnan Oktar page? I've already listed it on WP:RPP. &mdash; Khoikhoi  06:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC) copied from talk page history
 * It looks like Blnguyen's protected it for you. In the meantime, I've blocked three of the sockpuppets indefinitely as such, and I don't think there are quite as many as Blnguyen suspects. But I can live with it. :-) theProject 06:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Allright, thanks again! :) &mdash; Khoikhoi  03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki-AfD backlog
I notice that you are familiar in performing trans-wiki tasks to other projects, so I though I'd alert you to the current trans-wiki backlog we've got at Articles for deletion/Old, in case you may be interested. - Best regrads, Mailer Diablo 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it soon. In the meantime it's probably just best to leave the appropriate transwiki tag on the affected pages, which will ensure that I see it. Thanks. theProject 06:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

GSFE/Global Sports Financial Exchange
Dear TheProject,

I am writing in reference to the above link. You posted here that: Delete both as a company failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Searching through the net all of the articles I can find are clearly written by the company. The exchange appears to be simply a sports gambling site disguised as derivitives trading.

But this very untrue. There have been two live TV News pieces done on our exchnge one from Denver and one from NY,NY I will gladly provide you with a link to these. There are also several radio and newspaper stories covering our exchange. Here are two links to newspaper articles:

http://www.al.com/business/mobileregister/kturner.ssf?/base/business/114276370150830.xml&coll=3

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Lankhof/2006/03/08/1478175-sun.html

We are not a sports book or variant of a gambling website. I believe the above mentioned falls under the WP:CORP requirements. We do not want to use Wikipedia as a form of advertising, our sports derivatives contracts exchange is a super inovative concept. It is one that represents the forward thinking and independant growth of our generation. Please give us a chance, take a moment to write me and get to know us and if I am mistaken on the requirements please help me, you can reach me at carlosd@allsportsmarket.com Thank you.
 * Glad to hear from you, Carlos. However, the recommendation to delete that you mistakenly attribute to me was actually posted by Peripitus, whom I note you've also contacted already. I actually didn't write any recommendation other than my nomination, which simply stated that the article appeared to be spam, an opinion which I still hold.


 * Regardless of whether or not the article passes WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB, and regardless of whether the two latest recommendations of deletion are indeed "out to get you", as is claimed, as a general rule, articles should not be written by people associated with the article's subject. Since it very much appears that users on your site were offered incentives for creating and contributing to this article, I strongly doubt whether this article can remain neutral should it survive AfD. theProject 18:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * TheProject thank you for your time and clarification. I would like to provide the following media link where two news stories are archived on our exhcange that I believe will fit what is required.  I would also like to take whatever steps are needed to ensure that our listing is of quality, accurate, meets WIkipedia standards, and is not spam.  Here is the link (NO DOWNLOAD is required):


 * http://www.criticalmention.com/vg/allsportsmarket.com/


 * The Username is: allsportsmarket.com
 * The password is: allsportsmarket.com0895


 * All the Best,
 * Carlos Duran ASMMarketing August 10, 2006 00:21 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Slipgate article?
Please answer this. It was a perfect legit article, about a legit and running company, the article might have been short, but should then have been stub-flagged instead. --Hipshot 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because it appeared to be about a non-notable subject. Do note that the issue is not about whether the company exists, or whether the company is "legit and running", as you state. Rather, the issue is with it's notability. I encourage you to read Notability. If you still believe this deletion to be in error, you can raise it at Deletion review. Hope that helps. theProject 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Benjamin "Ben" Holladay:
You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bleah, yeah, I noticed that one right after I pressed OK. Yeah, it's a deleted page. theProject 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the deletion and and protection of Benjamin "Ben" Holladay. Ben Holladay bought the assets of the Pony Express  and sold it to the Wells Fargo.  I've been updating the Pony Express article.  I linked to Ben Holladay when I found an article in the request log.  I tried to clean it up.  It may be a weak starter but it needs some clean up rather than nuking.  Check out the links to that are already in place.  Americasroof 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, I likely made a mistake on this, as it looks like sufficient notability is either claimed or established. I'm going to refer this to Deletion review; sorry about the pre-emptive deletion -- when you're going through about a hundred obvious speedy deletion candidates, sometimes it becomes a bit routine. theProject 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm just going to undelete the page. It can be sent to AfD if someone still requests its deletion. theProject 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Canol y dref.jpg
Thanks for clarifying the copyright status and source of this image. theProject 22:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's


 * Hi. As I just wrote under the image, I got this from German Wikipedia.  I can only assume that if a picture can be used in one place on Wikipedia, it can be used on another.  However, I can't seem to find a mention of this situation in policy.  Nor could I find a way to move it directly from German Wikipedia to English.  Anyway, I've put the question to Media copyright questions.  Do you have any advice? garik 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the German WP has a much more stringent policy than the English, that's for sure. Anything on German WP (that's been checked, of course) can be used on English, I think, but not the other way around. By the way, I've deleted your upload Image:Dolgellau3.jpg, as it seems to be an exact copy of the other image you uploaded. theProject 22:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Thanks. garik 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian homeland
Why did you delete this page? I have discussed it with an admin, and he was the one who came up with the idea. I want an explanation. Chaldean 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From the db-reason tag placed on the article: "Empty, and also necessarily small. It will only recreate information from Assyria." theProject 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I just started the page, I'm not going to write an essay in minutes. 2. No it will not recreate information from Assyria, because Assyria is ancient, and the page we were trying to create had to do with today's time. You obviously did not even know what the subject is about, yet you delete it without putting it into vote. This reminds me of my dictatorial days in Iraq. Chaldean 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. " Chaldean 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no need to get snappy over it. I have no problems with starting the page again. You're welcome to do so, as long as it's made clear that it has different substance from Assyria, and as long as it remains NPOV (which an article named as such may have problems with). Apologies for deleting the page -- however, you do have to understand that the speedy deletion queue has been quite backlogged lately, and if it looks like it meets speedy deletion criteria, it will probably go. The best way to avoid this is probably to use a sandbox in your own userspace before moving to article space. theProject 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Prometheanism
Could I ask what the reposted content is? I could not find any deleted revisions. Thanks. theProject 01:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * Upon further inspection what I assumed were deleted revisions were in fact splinter articles of the original vanity article. I still maintain it's a vanity article, but if you feel it can't be speedied I can begin a standard AFD if you prefer.--Rosicrucian 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead with the AfD. I can't find a speedy deletion rationale, but I don't mind an AfD process. theProject 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Done. Thanks for helping out. I've never really proposed a deletion before, but this just seemed to merit it.--Rosicrucian 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ITASA
Hi, um, actually I, as National Information Director of ITASA created the 3D logo for use on backgrounds and other materials. Its okay with direct permission from the creator... well me. --Shrimpcrackers 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NetCMS
Hi,

I would like an explenation regarding the fact that you've deleted the page and the reason was G8 ( Talk Page ). I do not see a valid reason for deletion.

[contents of deleted page snipped]

I've requested an aswer if there is anything else that must be changed and you've just decided to delete everything. I would like to know on what was your decions based since I consider this an abuse.

Regards --Netcms 23:22, 11 August 2006 ( GMT )
 * Talk:NetCMS, the article's talk page, was deleted under criteria G8, which is talk page. NetCMS, the article itself, on the other hand, was deleted under criteria A7: people, groups of people, clubs, or bands with no assertion of notability, or associated articles. Furthermore, you may wish to read WP:CORP, grounds on which the article was also deleted. theProject 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * First of all if you would have read the Talk page you would have noticed that I was instructed by an admin to change some data that determined the script to put the page under deletion and I did changed that part and asked for a second opinion, to make sure that I did solved the problem. The tag was still there


 * Second of all it's a lack of respect deleting something without even providing the full reason.


 * Also I do not see why the other admin did not mentioned anything about the A7 part, and only mentioned what was presented above.


 * I do belive that you have to respect a certain common set of rules and not act on personal ideeas.


 * I would like to submit this case to your superiors since I do not find you action suitable.


 * I consider that what you should have done was to put a message in the talk page telling me what the problem is, at least that's what I've expected and not a personal decision with no complete information.


 * Regards --Netcms 23:51, 11 August 2006 ( GMT )


 * If you have a look at any hangon template, you'll notice that the text clearly states that hangon requests are not binding. At any rate, I did have a look at the talk page, and I'm not exactly sure which administrator you claim instructed you to change something, because User:Vegaswikian, the only administrator who contributed to the talk page, did nothing more than state that the article fails WP:CORP and that it would be deleted shortly (which it was).


 * If you are referring to User:Mumpsy, please be aware that Mumpsy is not an administrator. In fact, that user account was created last week. Perhaps that is why Mumpsy did not mention anything about CSD A7, because the user was probably unfamiliar with the speedy deletion criteria, with which I deleted accordingly (and not on a "personal" basis, as you so claim).


 * I provided my reason for deletion quite succinctly in the deletion summary: it states, "CSD A7". As it appears you've read enough about the speedy deletion criteria to know which criterion G8 is, I imagine it won't be too difficult to figure out the meaning of A7, either, especially considering that I've already stated it for you above.


 * Please be aware that my superiors are the whole of the community of Wikipedia. You'll have to convince most of them that what I've done constitutes an abuse of my administrative privileges. Alternatively, if you still find the deletion to be in error, you can go to Deletion review. Best of luck. theProject 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alfred kleiner.jpg
Could you confirm that the above image is granted to anybody to use given attribution, not just Wikipedia? Thanks. theProject 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's
 * Dear tP, thank you for your query about this image. It was granted for use by Wikipedia. So if I've used the wrong attribution for that case, pls can you fix it and change to the correct one for me? Because I'm havng a "senior's moment," I'm not sure which to use:-) So it is better left to a real expert :-) Best regards, bunix 23:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing about the tag that needs to be changed. The only issue is that there are reusers of Wikipedia content that would presumably copy the same image, and if permission is not granted for them to use the image as well, then Wikipedia cannot use the image. I would be very grateful if you could check up on whether the image is granted to anybody to use given attribution, not just Wikipedia. Much thanks! theProject 05:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Dear tP, OK I will ask them about "reusers of wikipedia content" and if this is allowed. Please can you tell me who these "reusers" generally are? Are they "approved" reusers?  They will probably ask me these questions. Best regards, bunix 07:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reusers of Wikipedia content don't have to be "approved" by us, although we generally become aware of them at some point. The GFDL states that anybody can reuse our material, so long as they include a copy of the GFDL and other things required by the license. Some of the reusers are different from us in that they're commercial reusers of the content and are actively involved in producing revenue from the content. There's a very partial list at Category:Websites which use Wikipedia which should give you an idea. theProject 15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Hi tP, Pls see me talk page for the positive response and out come :-) bunix 09:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great to hear. Thanks for the contact. theProject 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ShivLing of Makkeshar
You deleted the piece that I wrote and published on another website. How about finding out more about the copyright before deletion?
 * I'd love to help, except I'm not exactly sure which deleted page you're referring to, as I've had to delete several hundred today alone. Could you tell me the article's title? And if it was deleted as a copyright violation and you are the copyright holder, please make that clear. Thanks. theProject 00:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Copy to Wiktionary
Hi Connel, it's theProject. Could I bother you to please import Wiktionary-worthy entries listed in w:Category:Copy to Wiktionary (there are about 200 right now)? I would be very much obliged. Thanks! TheProject 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * Thanks for the reminder. I've been a bit occupied with today's events.  Perhaps someone will get to it before I do tomorrow night.  --Connel MacKenzie 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've started...finished the As so far. I'll update the log when I finish the page.  Total of 197 entries...  --Connel MacKenzie 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, thanks for the reminder. --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 05:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After finishing the "C"s, I made the mistake of seeing how many more there are. There are over a thousand just in that one last category.  I'm going to stop doing this right now, and write a rudimentary bot for these.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 05:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't been transwikiing vocabulary and usage stubs. I'm not sure if you want them, but if you want to, by all means. It's the ones in the main Move to Wiktionary category that I'm primarily concerned about. Thanks! TheProject 05:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page


 * The script I wrote worked. I'll import the lists from the sub-categories on Sunday if I have time.  The main category is done though!  Did you have a script for snatching wikt:'s Import log, and reformatting it for the Wikipedia Transwiki log?  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 08:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha -- no. However, copy + paste + random Java string manipulation is one of my favourite things to do... theProject 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, dear tP!
 I'm sorry I didn't get back from Wikibreak until after your RfA had concluded to change that neutral into a support, because you can safely ignore everything I had to say in my neutral. :-) I have great faith in your responses. I am fully confident that you'll make a great administrator and look forward to working with you as an administrative colleague. Congratulations! theProject 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * My dear TP, there is nothing to be sorry for :) Your kind words mean incredibly much to me, and tho you made me blush, just allow me to hug you back and thank you! :) Count on us working side by side, mop in hand - and if you don't mind the constant bugging by this newbie admin, I'll drop by often to ask you questions and see how you're doing, sounds ok? Have a great weekend! :)  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 07:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Did You Delete Seagull Fish Bar?
Why did you delete my article on the Seagull Fish Bar? It is an Overseal village landmark and i'm not advertising it i don't even live there. I spent my time and internet fees making that article. Please reply on my talk page. -Plowright 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there wasn't anything in the article that distinguished the subject of the article from any other fish and chips store around, so the substance of the article didn't make any claim to notability. Please read Criteria for speedy deletion, under which the article was deleted (section A7). theProject 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Second Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07
Looks like most users want to keep Second Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07. Since you're an admin, do you want to make it official.
 * Or the AfD could just run its course, you know. theProject 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you Delete page Perry Marleau
I am in the process of developping pages for the city of Ottawa Councillors regarding the election coming up.

Information on those who do and do not have sites, and have been gathering information.

The first page I posted up Perry Marleau, you deleted, even though it complied with everything I have read, and was modeled after other notable ottawa figures such as Gary Ludington.

I'd just like an explanation - If one candidate's page is to be deleted, it should be done impartially, and to all.

I am not a candidate, nor involved in the campaigns, nor will I have a hand in any of the pages on councillors in my own ward. But I did want to bring attention to this, as I feel there is a clear double standard.

Cheers,

Thirdfield 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsuccessful candidates, or as-yet unsuccessful, in elections are generally not considered notable enough for Wikipedia. If Mr. Marleau is successful in his candidacy, then there may be more grounds for inclusion (that is, however, not a guarantee). theProject 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your explanation as to why an individual of this nature would not be considered appropriate, as such I will not persue adding more to wikipedia, but it still remains un-answered why there is a double-standard -> just because one person is already "included" in the site, does that mean that it should remain there (ie: Ludington, as noted above). This is a clear, and un-supportable double standard. Should I go through and list those individuals who are of the same standing so that they too may be removed? Thirdfield 00:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends. There is a deletion process that might be proper for similar articles to go through, as you suggested, at Articles for deletion. On the other hand, please read WP:POINT and try not to list the entire encyclopedia for deletion just because "your article" was deleted, or it might be construed as a bad faith nomination for deletion. (I may nominate the page you've brought up, merely on a technical basis.) If you can keep those two things in mind, I'm sure you'll be fine. Thanks, and sorry for the late reply. theProject 06:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Just ... came back from a Wikibreak, then spent some time getting affairs back in order, then ... got sick. Sorry I haven't been around to help much with the Wikiproject lately. I'll be back ... eventually. theProject 23:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * No problem. I hope you're feeling better! I've taken a break from the figure skating wikiproject.. just been deleting the dross and some random cleanup. But I'll get back to it. I really would like your feedback on the ladies/women issue, whenever you get a chance. That whole thing was never resolved and Dr.frog will not talk about it. So.. yeah. But whenever. No pressure. Heck real life is more important. :) --Fang Aili talk 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, here's what i'm talking about: Talk:Pair skating. --Fang Aili talk 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Scott Smith Article
You are going to have to explain to me why you deleted the article about my late brother (Michael Scott Smith), written by my friend David Kane (www.davidkanemusic.com). This is my first time using Wiki, and I am very disappointed. Seems as though this was done without much rational thought. If you'd taken the time to research and maybe even contact Dave Kane, you'd see that my copying this article in whole or in part should in no way be considered a violation of GDFL.

Zeig Heil!! &mdash; Thomas Smith 03:09, 18 Aug 2006 (UTC)
 * An explanation as to why I deleted that article should be rather simple, and it lies in the deletion summary: CSD A8 -- copyright violation. And as for any assertion of permission, there was none. If an article walks like a copyvio, talks like a copyvio, and furthermore, looks like one and is tagged as one too, it gets deleted as a copyvio. It's not incumbent upon the deleting administrator to take the time to explore whether or not the copy is permissible. Rather, it's incumbent upon the Wikipedian who wishes to use copyrighted content to prove that permission is given, or that the copyright is lifted. (By the way, we're not talking about a violation of GFDL here -- we're talking about a violation of plain old copyright.) At any rate, even had the material not been a violation of copyright, it is likely that the article would have been deleted under CSD A7.


 * I'll politely decline to pay attention to the closing greeting. Thanks. theProject 19:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Please see below:


 * A8 - "An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:


 * Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service)..."


 * Meets Criteria? NO


 * The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material..."


 * Meets Criteria? NO


 * "Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely..."


 * Meets Criteria? NO I made the fair use assertion.


 * The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem)..."


 * Meets Criteria? NO


 * Lastly...


 * A7 - "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."


 * I take offense. Let me enlighten you: My brother has a significant discography covering a period of nearly 40 years as a jazz drummer.  He played with big names - big names knew him and sought him out.  His keeping a low profile in no way diminishes his contribution to the genre.  Just because you never heard of him does not make him "unremarkable."


 * Your willy-nilly application of the deletion criteria must be stopped. You have no business doing what you do here. I will follow up with Wiki-admin on this.


 * &mdash; Thomas Smith 07:01, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)


 * You confuse me. Are you saying that the content of the site was not copyrighted, or that it was copyrighted and that you have permission to use the material? In either case, proof must be submitted to that effect. Online content is assumed to be copyrighted unless it is specifically stated that the content is licensed under a free licensed, or that all rights are released. If you claim permission, make it clear, and provide proof. Absolutely no assertion or proof of permission given was provided in the original article. Furthermore, the material was identified as a copyright violation and was tagged for wikification (not by me, by the way) within 48 hours of upload.


 * If you still find this deletion to be done in error, I suggest you have a look at Deletion review. Best of luck to you. As for "Wiki-admin", I can only assume you mean a Wikipedia administrator, which I am. theProject 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please refrain from removing another user's comment on my talk page. Thanks.

User:Yiyicy
Just a note: the user was creating indefblocked pages for users that have actually been indefinitely blocked. You may want to investigate the block logs. Thanks. theProject 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page
 * theProject: I'm pretty new to anti-vandalism - could you clarify what user Yiyicy was doing? From the recent changes page it seemed that he was trying to make those pages? Thanks!


 * --Vince 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, when a user gets indefinitely blocked, usually there's a template that gets put up on their user page to say that they've been indefinitely blocked. Yiyicy was creating these user pages and putting in this indefinitely blocked message template. That's a large part of why the pages Yiyicy was creating had usernames like "Iamgay" -- because usernames like that are usually blocked on sight as an inappropriate username.


 * When you do recent changes patrol, try clicking on the link labelled (diff) to make sure that the edit you claim is vandalism is actually vandalism, to ensure something like this doesn't happen again. Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! theProject 06:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Why did you erase "Ozzi Waterpark"?
It wasn't an advertisement or anything like that. --BLuToRsE 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless there's something in particular that distinguishes the subject of that article from any other waterpark (and I saw no evidence provided to that extent), the article makes no claim to notability and consequently was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7. Sorry about the late reply. theProject 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)