User talk:UninvitedCompany/archive6

Old talk archived 1 2 3 4 5

Bankpuppet Patrol
Thanks for the rv. When I first signed-up for the bank thing, I guess I didn't realize how much spamming laid ahead. I don't mind being a troll-magnet; at least we'll know where to watch. ;-) hydnjo talk 18:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I ordinarily hesitate to rv people's talk pages but the current troll is making a pest of himself and is trying to utilize talk pages as a springboard for his nomic.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No mind on my talk page. I'll even drop bits of cheese if it would help. BTW, what would help? Regards, hydnjo talk 22:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Curse
I dont know whether serpents or corporations are inherently evil, but you are, because you destroyed our Nomic Bank. This is a curse against you, expiring at the end of times. The less seriously you consider this curse, the more painfull it will be. Bank Able 09:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm saved despite of the various evil aspects of my nature and behavior. I have no fear of your curse due to my faith and trust in the power of Jesus Christ.  Father, son, and the Holy Spirit -- one God, triumphant, ruling until the end of times and beyond; as it was in the beginning, is now and shall be forever, world without end.  May the Lord God forgive you, for you know not what you have done.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Apology
It may be a bit late, but I'd like to apologize as well for any trouble I may have caused by initally supporting the bank, even after becoming an admin. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-
Just to remind you that you didn't sign your last post on -Ril-'s talk page. For what it's worth, I think your action, although drastic and highly regrettable, was probably both inevitable and wise --Doc (?) 07:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. This looks a lot like an admin throwing their weight around. It would seem to have a lot to do with the RfC Ril brought against UninvitedCompany. I realise that by saying this, I risk being blocked too. If Ril is in need of censure, and I'm not saying he isn't, we have a court that can give him his show trial. -- Grace Note

Thanks for your note. I know you feel that way. I understand your feelings and to some extent I do share them. There are certainly editors here who it's clear are not aiming to improve the encyclopaedia. (There are others who are vexatious sometimes but have a good aim though, and the distinction between the two should be clearly marked.) I just don't think admins should arrogate huge powers to themselves, given that we have a dispute process (particularly when there is a suggestion that they have acted out of personal animus), and I believe, however foolhardy that belief, that miscreants must be given every chance, with the greatest assumption of good faith that we can muster (and as a consequence I am sometimes accused of being too friendly to trolls -- when the truth is that I feel that all must be given a fair chance before feeling the hammer of the law, whether I like the troll personally or not). I daresay you're right -Ril- is not rescuable (although I doubt he/she is Lir -- -Ril- seems to have a sense of humour) but ultimately the need for a rush to judgement is probably personal to you rather than something desperately required for Wikipedia's health. -- Grace Note


 * With thousands of competent writers who are perfectly willing to follow project norms, I see no reason to spend time rehabilitating miscreants. Just give them a choice of adhering to policy or leave. All must adhere to policy: bureaucrats, admins, users, IP's. The policies are designed to facilitate the organization and presentation of human knowledge for the benefit of all humankind. Those who want to help with this are welcome here, the rest can leave. Uncle Ed 14:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- Violating Ban
ALERT User:RonaldTaril has confessed to being a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. He is violating his ban. Agriculture 19:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note. I shall leave this matter to other admins rather than pursuing it further myself.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And I see User:SlimVirgin has already done it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't really figured out what I think about the block, but I was wondering, since you're fairly involved with Ril, if you could add your evidence to Requests for arbitration/-Ril-/Evidence? I'm hoping with this arbcom case we'll finally get some lasting solution. Dmcdevit·t 22:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite what Ril says, I'm not that involved with his editing because we have relatively little overlap in interests. As far as I know there is no article where we have both edited the body of the article text.  My role in this matter is largely that of a disinterested admin trying to maintain some semblance of order.  While I have reviewed his contribution history for 3RR violations and overall editing patterns, and it is clear to me that he reverts often and discusses but rarely, I have little to say about the substance of his contributions.  There does seem to be a progressive deterioration of civility in his dealings, over time.  I think that one of the mistakes that User:RickK made was to become a personal authority on and personal prosecutor of every vandal that he blocked.  I don't want to do that.  Other people, whose experience with Ril extends back farther, and who have more personal stake in the matter, are better equipped to bring evidence to the RFA.  I have no quarrel with Ril personally since his actions affecting me have been limited to the transparently retaliatory RFC and the transparently retaliatory comments he has littered about the Wiki.  Neither of these has done me any harm.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I think the same of myself. I was just some admin on CSD patrol when I came to warn him about his disruptive, bad-faith speedy tagging, and had a very disappointing interaction. With his talk page on my watchlist sincethen, I've come to the realization that something hasto be doneabout him. So when the arbcom case came up, I added my little bit to it. Since then I've been a little dismayed that so many have complained about Ril, but only I and another editor added evidence (I've even researched and added diffs that I wasn't involved in). You don't have to be a party, or even involved, to supply a few diffs as evidence. Dmcdevit·t 03:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please be aware of this

When I know what to ask, I know how to find the answer
I did this WAS 4.250 05:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk
Ah, thanks. I thought I had seen people doing the same before, but I think I got User talk:Jimbo Wales confused with Talk:Main Page. Easy mistake. [[smoddy ]] 20:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Spam blacklist
What's the ban on petitiononline.com for? Some articles have legitimate links to it, and now it's extremely difficult to edit them. --Zetawoof 04:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was requested by another user to deal with ongoing bot-assisted vandalism adding a link to some Elvis Presley survey, both to Elvis-related pages and some others. I searched and edited all the articles that contained the link and thought I got rid of all of them.  Of over 100 articles with links, the link was justified in only two or three cases and even in these the encyclopedic value was debatable.  In those cases I left the reference in but de-linked it.  There was some discussion at WP:AN.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks talk page
I left you a new message on your wikibooks talk page. MShonle 01:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC?
Hello! I'm not sure why you created a transcluded page for the first half of RFC? But individual entries should go on the subpages (WP:RC in particular) to give users one centralized place to track; the RFC page just links there. It would be useful to subpage out user and naming disputes, I've been meaning to get around to that. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; that's precisely why I split it up into subsections. I just hadn't gotten around yet to splitting out the user conduct and username sections yet. Now done. The only one who objects is Maurreen, but lately she's simply been objecting to anything I say without giving any reasons, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:39, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted user page
You deleted the User:Gcashman page 20 July 2005 per request. My reasons for the username change was anonymity. Unfortunately, a change in the software means that the page now shows a link to one deleted edit. Your description of the deletion shows it was a redirect to my new username. Thus, the anonymity I was hoping to achieve is lost. I know this isn't your fault; it's just a software change. What I'm hoping is that perhaps you could create a new User:Gcashman page and then delete it again, with a deletion summary not showing the connection (perhaps instead something like "per user request". I am thinking that if this is done, there will be a "one deleted edit" entry on the user page, but the summary will no longer show the connection between the usernames. I don't know if this would be the case. If you don't know either, or it would be the case, would you please do it (and in the former case so we can see if it would work as I think it might)? I'd also like the same done for User talk:Gcashman. Thank you for your time. --Durin 13:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyways. --Durin 16:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: RFB
Really? I had no idea. Why is that, exactly? Andre ( talk ) 02:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for letting me know. Andre ( talk ) 02:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
Mark, I have created a new project page at Bureaucrats' noticeboard, and Secretondon suggested that I tell my fellow bureaucrats about it. It's designed as a forum where users with bureaucrat rights can discuss difficult situations, either beforehand (for advice about what to do) or after taking action (for review and feedback). It's similar to another page I created, which is starting to catch on (e.g., Jimbo used it this month): account suspensions, which is not for 3RR or simple vandalism but for close calls and disputed blocks.

Please take a look at these new project pages and give some feedback. Good idea? Bad? Needs improvement? --Uncle Ed 12:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor - Trollderella
Hi. A vote has formed at Requests for comment/User names/Trollderella to determine if Ed should reverse his action regarding Trollderella's username. If you are interested you might want to vote since Ed has indicated he will do was the vote determines. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted
I understand that I was not promoted - may I ask what the rationale was? I was under the impression that Boothy443's vote is normally discounted, leaving 86% support. Andre ( talk ) 18:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't mean ignored entirely, but the fact that there were a lot of votes and many well-known Wikipedians, as well as several strong supports, should negate opposes such as his somewhat? Andre ( talk ) 18:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I counted 50 supporting and 9 opposing votes. I do not find Boothy's votes to be meaningful and generally disregard them.  However the votes that you struck out under the rationale that they were after the vote closed are indeed counted.  Though I do not like our policy of accepting votes until a nomination is acted upon by a "bureaucrat," that is the way things are done and I follow the precedent.  Numerically, the result is an 84.7% ratio of supporting votes.  The oppose votes, with a couple of exceptions including Boothy, are well-reasoned and reflect genuine concerns of well-respected Wikipedians.  While I supported your nomination with my vote, I cannot in good conscience conclude that it achieved the sort of consensus that we have come to expect for approval of "bureaucrat" nominations.  A review of Recently created bureaucrats will reveal that nearly all bureaucrat promotions have followed votes where there were few objections indeed, particularly when those by contributors who lack community respect are not considered. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I see, I didn't realize that those votes were counted as well. However, isn't 84.7% enough for at least an extension? It's oh-so-close to 85%. To quote Linuxbeak, "that's so freaking close you could sneeze on the score and it'll change." Andre ( talk ) 23:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * As a rule, I don't believe there is any wisdom in extending a vote that has already had significant turnout. It may make matters more clear but does nothing IMO to improve the quality of the decisionmaking.  There are a number of reasons for this.  Among them are the fact that the most thoughtful RFA voters are likely to have already voted because they follow the page closely; and the fact that many people, when a vote is extended, end up reacting to the extension itself or the nature of other votes or other matters rather than the suitability of the candidate.  Nor do I believe that this particular vote was close.  Do you think that promotion would have been called for if the percentage had worked out to, say, 85.3%?  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I believe that you are right when you say that if 84.7% isn't consensus, then neither is 85%. So, the question now is, where do I go from here? I have some ideas and your input on them would be appreciated.


 * Firstly, I believe that there is a gray area when it comes to promotion consensus. The poll held by Cecropia in October 2004 is not only out of date, but flawed. It concludes that an "increased" consensus is needed for bureaucrats, and considers admin consensus to be 75-80%+, when in fact the "standard 5% higher" of 80-85%+ is really admin consensus, and 75% is too low. Additionally, at the end of Grunt's unsuccessful bureaucrat nomination, Cecropia concluded that "...a bare minimum of 80% is what we will be looking for in the future." According to that poll and statements made then, 84.7% or even 83% should be consensus. I had numerically almost enough consensus in my first bureaucrat nom, but it didn't have enough turnout, enough well-known Wikipedians, etc. to be consensus. Going by this poll and my first nomination, ~85%, especially ~85% with ~60 votes, a number of strong supports, a large number of respected Wikipedians, should be consensus. Now, quite clearly it is not, and I am not going to try to get myself promoted by bandying about rules and numbers. But, the current idea of consensus that you and other bureaucrats have is not the same as the one found in this poll. I strongly believe a new bureaucrat consensus poll is in order, and I would like to run one as soon as possible.


 * Secondly, I do intend to run again. I feel that I was very close to consensus, and were I to run again at a later date, without soliciting any votes, I may be able to achieve it. I would like your thoughts on how long I should wait, and whether it is wise to try again.


 * Finally, I believe there is an unusual stigma that we already have enough bureaucrats. I managed to mostly overcome it by bringing up the backlog of username changes, but were it not for that, I think "We don't need any more bureaucrats" would be the reason for many many oppose votes. I think that this goes against what should be a Wikipedia policy, but isn't one I can find written anywhere: Redundancy is good. What are your thoughts on this? Andre ( talk ) 04:20, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the October 2004 poll is flawed in a number of important regards, I think you'll find that a close reading of the votes will show that the poll shows support for a higher percentage of support votes than you state. Consider that most of the "some other standard" votes were from people expecting something close to unanimity.  As for your plans to run again, I offer the observation that you may not understand the RFA process and culture as well as you probably should if you're going to perform promotions.  Objections to nominees who solicit votes are nothing new there.  Neither are objections to nominees who update totals and remove votes that they feel are invalid from their own RFA/RFB.  Finally, there is IMO a need for more bureaucrats since there are relatively few who are making a serious effort to be involved in promotions.  The original intent was to share the promotion responsibility among a small group (around 5-10 as I recall), and we shouldn't lose sight of that.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice and insight. I now direct your attention to Bureaucrat consensus poll. Andre ( talk ) 19:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.
UC, thank you so much for your vote. I'm flattered that an editor whom I respect so highly should have the same trust in me. I really appreciate your compliment. &mdash; Dan | Talk 06:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

About my RfA
Hi UC, just a quick note to tell you that, though you opposed my adminship nomination, I appreciate the fact that you made public your concerns about me. I have been made an admin nonetheless, and I will of course act my best to prove your fears wrong. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 07:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The Singing Badger
Hello UC, thank you for the positive comments about my RfA. Can I just point out that I'm a boy, not a girl? (Not your fault, badgers are notoriously difficult to sex...) :) The Singing Badger 15:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
The arbitration Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor has been accepted, please place any relevant evidence at Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Evidence and participate in discussions at Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Workshop. Fred Bauder 16:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool
Congratulations on being made a bureaucrat! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Tools. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is paste the following into User:/monobook.js: // User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line

document.write(' ');

popupAdminLinks=true; Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 02:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use issues
I'm at least somewhat aware of developments, and the situation does need more attention. As you say, part of the problem is how to get things moving in a productive direction. Unfortunately, the issues (not just legally, but socially as well) are complex and I don't have a pat answer on what to do.

I'd be happy to hash things out a little more with you, perhaps if you have time on IRC (which I only access from home, so I wouldn't be checking in until tonight, maybe 8-9 pm your time). --Michael Snow 19:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for supporting my RfA application! Much appreciated! The Singing Badger 16:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks, chief! It's a little disconcerting to see "block" after everybody's names now. I promise to only be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) Thanks again. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

GordonWattsDotCom's RfA
Could you please take a look at GordonWattsDotCom's RfA?

I suggested there that as it was 11 opposing, and no-one supporting, and that ill will was beginning to bubble up, that it might be appropriate to close it early. Another user suggested mentioning it to a bureaucrat to take a look at. (I delayed as the candidate replied, seemingly content with it to continue. Since then another user has suggested that it should probably be closed early). I'm not sure whether it sufficiently meets any criteria for closing early, or whether it should be allowed to run its course. Your opinion would be appreciated.

Many thanks. KeithD (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor case closed
Hi UnivitedCompany. Are you were aware that the Ed Poor case has just been closed? You hadn't added any "evidence" yet and I wondered if you had intended to. Anyway I'm not completely happy with how this case was handled. I was still in the process of tweaking the evidence and I was considering whether to summarize the evidence and state some of my conclusions. But now that seems pointless. I have made a query here Perhaps you would be willing to share your thoughts there. Regards Paul August &#9742; 01:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case
The Arbitration case against Ed Poor has been closed without action after Ed resigned his bureaucrat status.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your view is requested
I am contacting logged-in users who have taken an interest in, or edited, Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith, and asking them to respond to a question I have placed on that page which goes to the policy of WP:AGF.

Thanks in advance. paul klenk 23:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Extreme lesbian support
Err, no. I just do it to be silly. -- Phroziac (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there
I think you dont know my case, and probably others told you that I am resposible for Faethon's behavior. I dont know about bank of wikipedia or anything. In case its IP profile matches mine, it is probably User:Faethon and his friends. I am sending you this message, hoping to clear the misunderstanding. -- Iasson

Indefinite ban of -Ril-
While I know there is broad community support for your ban of -Ril- it would be convenient for the Arbitration Committee if you lifted the ban on him to permit him to participate. I tried to get an injunction in place which would have severely restricted his editing, but it failed to pass, see Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-/Proposed_decision. If you feel an indefinite ban is appropriate perhaps you should join the case. Fred Bauder 22:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Extreme lesbians......again
Hey. You never responded on the extreme lesbian support, and I did not know you wanted me to remove it. If you tried to imply it, I don't take implications well. It would have been nice if you just asked me to remove it on my talk page, and I would have done that. The RFA talk stuff just feels too much like an RFC. --Phroziac(talk) 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought my first note to you was pretty clear... Anyway, relax. I put it on WPT:RFA only because some others have been imitating it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
Hello, UninvitedCompany. I'm wondering if you are going to be organizing the 2005 ArbCom elections again this year. Thanks! (In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing an ArbCom election series for the Wikipedia Signpost, and your input would be greatly valued). Thanks again! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 13:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Do you who is? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 15:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The UnInvited Company-
You live up to your name. You are definitely uninvited company, anywhere. Michael 15:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany's law
Your recent comments on the mailing list were so insightful, I have accorded you a place of honor in my list of Laws that govern Wikipedia &rarr;Raul654 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What-
What about old magazine and catalogue photos? Michael 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In general we can't use them unless they were first published before 1923, unless we get permission from the publisher. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's what the copyright law says.  It is vitally important to the project that we get rid of images that pose copyright problems, which is why we are going through all the images and tagging and deleting the ones that are a problem.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

A request
I got this file off of ourmedia. It says it is "Beethoven's 3rd Sonata". Presumably this means the third piano sonata, but can you verify that? &rarr;Raul654 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a computer-generated recording of Piano Sonata 3, Op. 2 #3. I checked by listening to the recording and reading along in a reliable score.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, so is the caption correct on the Ludwig van Beethoven article to which I added it? &rarr;Raul654 04:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Image removals
Can you please let me know the reasons for the deletions of images from Prem Rawat. ALl these images wehe uploaded under creative commons licenses. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 22:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia no longer permits combinations of the CC licenses that include the NC or ND clauses, because they hinder reuse. They have been discouraged for some time and have been prohibited for new images since May.  If you are able to have the files relicensed under CC-BY-SA or GFDL you can re-upload them.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw that you deleted three images "CG_Un-namedDog.jpg", "UnknownPlantCG1.jpg", and "UnknownPlantCG1.jpg" without even warning me.  Could you please un-delete them and advise me as to a better license to use.  CanadaGirl 00:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * (Added note) The reason for deletion you gave for "CG_Un-namedDog.jpg" was "orphaned fair use image". The image was cetainly not orphaned, as it had a prominent place on my user page.


 * Images may be deleted under the "orphaned fair use image" policy if they are not in use in an article and are not GFDL licensed (or licensed under another approved license). There are thousands of such images and we are trying to get rid of all of them as part of a broader effort at copyright compliance.  Unfortunately, I cannot undelete the images because the software only provides for undeletion of text, not images.  You may re-upload them if you wish, and if you indicate a source (if you took them yourself, say so), and tag them as GFDL, they will be kept.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's particularly rude of you to delete images that aren't orphaned (even if they're only used in the User: space) without telling people about it. Particularly when they're images that could easily have been relicenced, had someone brought my attention to them. You might want to consider posting a note on the image page (or, better, users' talk pages) before pissing other users off in the same way. — OwenBlacker 06:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding image "Bssm7.png", you deleted it without waiting the 7 days stated in the template. Please, at least wait until the time has expired. -- ReyBrujo 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The image had been uploaded over a year and a half ago, more than seven days required, before I deleted it. That's what policy requires, per Jimbo.  The subsequent requirement that the template be in place for at least seven days is not what Jimbo had in mind and as far as I'm concerned is not a binding requirement.  I do use judgement in deleting images and am particularly careful where the image is an important one or where the uploader is still around to answer questions.  This didn't fit either criteria.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Avatar
Thanks for notifying me about my avatar's deletion possibilities. I decided to update mine with my own pooch. Just thanks again! 03:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Pgsafjak3.JPG
I added fair use rationale under the fair use tag. "This image is being used for identification of the subject of an article written for informational purposes. It is believed that the use of the image on Wikipedia does not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of this image."

Since I resolved the reason for the image being a PUI, I did not delete it.

I believe the OCILLA template should be on every non-free image, so I usually add it.

If you don't agree with my decision, slap that puppy right back on WP:PUI at the top of the Phase II - September 27 heading and I'll let somebody else take care of it. Regards Nv8200p (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act provides a safe harbor to online service providers that promptly take down content if someone alleges it infringes their copyrights. By claiming "fair use", we are saying that we are not infringing on copyright. OCILLA is a remedy for the copyright holder to disagree with us.


 * My fair use rationale "This image is being used for identification of the subject of an article written for informational purposes. It is believed that the use of the image on Wikipedia does not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of this image." This speaks to the purpose and character and the effect upon work's value.


 * If you don't agree with what I've done, slap that puppy right back on WP:PUI at the top of the Phase II - September 27 heading and I'll let somebody else take care of it. That's the great thing about Wikipedia. It is self correcting --Nv8200p (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the usage? It's not being used for identification in the article, it's being used as a generic illustration of a broad style. The article isn't about the photograph, so there is no fair use rationale.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo
Why did you delelte my photo? I said on the discussion page to change the image tag to whatever it takes for me to keep my photos on

MY

user pages. They are not "orphaned" they are on

MY

user pages.

Go play somewhere else, where your wanted.

WikiDon 05:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed the tag on the images you took yourself. The tag on the others can't be changed without the permission of the photographer.  As you are probably aware, we are in the middle of a copyright compliance project for the images.  Images that aren't used in an article, and that lack proper licensing, are being deleted; because they are not used in an article, they are orphaned.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. &rarr;Raul654 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

RfAs
There is no question that the RfA process on Wikipedia has changed over time, and in some ways, I feel the unwritten culture and norms behind acceptable behaviour on RfAs has changed too. Considering the general sentiments being expressed on RfAs of late, I wonder if it would be beneficial to start some discussion regarding the process? --HappyCamper 23:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I wish it were not the case, but at the moment I am somewhat inclined to agree with most of what you have written. --HappyCamper 01:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the image
You removed the image "ammonite.600pix.jpg" from the article Ammonite as "unsourced image". But the image actually does mention that it is in public domain, taken by a user himself: "Picture taken by Adrian Pingstone in 1987 and released to the public domain". Could you please explain why you removed it as "unsourced"? Thanks. --BorgQueen 01:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm you must have confused the image Ammonite.600pix.jpg with the image Ammonite.jpg, which I had tagged with {no source} you subsequently have deleted. Since it seems to be a mistake, I am going to resurrect the article's link to the former PD image, believing you wouldn't mind. Thanks for your work. --BorgQueen 03:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I had the images interchanged. Thank you for cleaning up the mess.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Elections
I think your analysis is perceptive; of course, you've been saying similar things for a year and more, and they're becoming increasingly true. For what to do about it, learning from other communities is obviously a good thing. You may have seen the link David Gerard posted on the mailing list dealing with the experience of the feminist movement, and that article is yet another interesting read on the subject.

On the need for election of arbitrators, I agree that it's not inherent in the nature of the position as it currently exists. Rather, I'm focused on the dilemma that it's the only significant element of formal community self-government, which should not be taken away with only vague ideas of how to replace it.

I don't claim that my proposal, or the arbitration system in general, would be permanently fixed in place as they are. Our systems of governance remain in transition and their mature phases will come only in a future we cannot fully foresee now. I did think that more systems could eventually branch off from the arbitration process, but that has not developed so far. Perhaps it is time to launch a quasi-legislative body or have some sort of Constitutional Convention. However, I would recommend against basing it on a problem-specific group such as a deletion task force, which would get too bogged down in minutiae to be useful for establishing a broad policy framework. But where is a good place to start, and with whom? --Michael Snow 17:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Seven would be a good number, I think, roughly half appointed and half elected (which group is the majority won't matter). The plan of attack sounds reasonable. A critical issue, I think, is setting an appropriate process and threshold for ratification of the committee's proposals. Otherwise its recommendations will mostly fail, and people will continue beating their heads against the walls whenever they attempt to change policy. --Michael Snow 21:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ratification by vote is likely the best option, yes. As far as preserving the openness of discussion, that could be accomplished instead by having the committee publicly indicate that it is reviewing a certain policy area. While the committee deliberates, the time would thus also serve as a comment period for public input. In the referendum phase, the committee would need to focus on advocating for the proposal, rather than continuing to tinker with it. --Michael Snow 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Safari Jacket images!
What is the matter!?!?!? I told and told where I got the images from! What is the Matter!?!?!? Michael 16:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

xxx
Just what are you afraid of? And you are one to speak about good standing my friend. Sheesh..Wikiphilosopher 18:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sbi.png
You put &#123;{GFDL-self}} on the image page... a more appropriate tag would have been &#123;{GFDL-presumed}}, since GFDL-self says "I, the creator of this work...". I've fixed that on the description page. By the way, while I'm here, thanks for sysopping me. :D Coffee 07:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture
You saw the licensing comment on my picture on my user page. I figured that on the image page I sufficiently explained the rational for its licensing. It is true that pictures for Wikipedia must be under a compatible license, however, in this case, my picture is not for Wikipedia. In fact, usage any place other than my user page would violate Wikipedia policy, because I am not permitted an article on myself (being self-promotion and all). The only reason to license it in any other fashion would be to permit others to modify the image of myself. Now what would be the point of this? I don't want anyone doctoring my photo and misrepresenting me. That's an afront to all that is decent and good in the world, and its all too common in popular media. This protects me from that. They can still modify the user page however they see fit, but not my personal picture. The only real restriction that is placed on this is that it can't be modified, but then again it shouldn't be. And resizing the picture really doesn't count here. Afterall the page itself uses a resized photo! If, hypothetically, I became famous enough to merit a Wikipedia article and someone wanted to use the picture, then by all means I would relicence it. But that has not happened. The creative commons license I am using is compatible for usage in Wikipedia articles licensed under the GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses. It is just the image itself that cannot be used elsewhere, but that is already policy. I'm basically using licensing to legally enforce Wikipedia policy. If that policy shoudl ever change, then maybe the image license should change or the image be deleted. I should also mention that user pages are not considered to be part of the encyclopedia.

You may believe that I'm crazy, but WIRED featured me in an article and used the image in question in their article, without properly citing it. They later took the picture down (I suppose the article was aged enough not to save it) so it resolved itself. But nevertheless, you can't be too careful about personal stuff. And I promise you that if I ever become incompatible with the spirit of Wikipedia, I'll be the first to make the licensing change. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree with your rationale completely, the fact is that the community has discussed a separate licensing policy for user page images at great length and the consensus remains that GFDL or other completely free licenses are required. As you may be aware, there is growing concern about reuse and we're trying to get rid of anything that can't be used under a reasonably uniform set of rules.  I support that broader goal, and if you truly do not wish to GFDL the photo in question, I suggest you delete it.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Some imagevios you reported
I was clearing out Copyright problems/2005 October 10 and came across Image:MLB-VE-Wilson_Alvarez_02.jpg, Image:MLB-VE-Wilson_Alvarez_01.jpg, Image:MLB-VE-Omar_Vizquel_03.jpg, Image:MLB-Bucky_Harris.jpg, Image:MLB-VE-Omar_Vizquel_02.jpg. I was adding {fairuse} (and leaving out a rationale for the time being) to them instad, until I realised that it was you that had listed them. Presumably, you think they are not fair use even in the articles they appear in. They've had their 7 days (and more) on CP, so they can just be deleted if you think they should be. I've removed the GFDL tags. -Splash talk 00:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. They are most assuredly not fair use, and though I am not especially concerned about these images, the fact that there is broad disagreement on what constitutes fair use is particularly troubling.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

re:Boothy443
I'm honestly surprised it took this long for someone to do it I honestly expected him to be indef. blocked long ago and with that assumption sat back and stayed out of it but harassing admins was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. If you would like to help you are more than welcome to comment at Account_suspensions and/or Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Boothy443_Indef._blocked. Jtkiefer T - 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a ton !!! ......
.....for your changes on wp:rfa abt getting de-sysopped and then re-affirmed. While it is the most commonsensical thing to do, common sense is typically uncommon. Thanks again. --Gurubrahma 14:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Commonsensical, procedurally-correct&mdash;yes, it was. However, it is our duty to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a bureaucracy, and to do so we must be more flexible, and allow the occasional bending of a rule, when required to accommodate the wishes of a valued member of the community (within reason, of course). I believe this is exactly what Jimbo meant by WP:IAR&mdash;policies are meant to serve us, not enslave us.
 * I hate having to spend so much time on this issue; after all, we have an encyclopedia to write! But it pains me to see a long-time, dedicated contributor being denied a modest wish based on what I see as an administrative technicality. We may not be at a risk of losing silsor, but I wouldn't be surprised if this strict approach ends up curbing his enthusiasm. Please also see my reply to The Uninvited here. Owen&times;  &#9742;  18:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not an isolated incident. We previously had a voluntary "confirmation" of, IIRC, Seth Ilys.  And it serves no purpose other than self-aggrandizement, as far as I can tell, and if silsor has some broader point to make, he certainly has everyone's attention and would be welcome to articulate it.  If I felt that some grander purpose was being served, I would feel differently.  Further, there is a long history of bogus requests being placed on RFA, and they are a considerable distraction due to the amount of traffic the page receives.  Some time ago we finally got a plague of "de-adminship" requests under control through the creation of RFC.  We don't need to replace that with something equivalent.


 * Finally, IAR is a fine thing insofar as it permits the necessary work of the project to get done without the rule framework getting in the way. Misusing IAR merely to create a podium from which to expound upon one subject or another is the sort of thing that WP:POINT was intended to address.  And so far as I can tell that is exactly what's going on here.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Governance and community size
I posted this to the foundation mailing list, then it occurred to me that I'm not at all sure you're subscribed there. Thinking it might interest you, I thought I'd point it out directly. --Michael Snow 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen the "shared mutual acquaintance" test discussed before, but I find it to be a good description of what's involved. Certainly it seems like an important factor in the problems with social dynamics on requests for adminship of late. --Michael Snow 18:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Shanel
Hi. Yeah, I had accidently promoted him while clearing a number of promotions. I realised my error almost immediately and emailed Angela to desysop him. After that was done, I informed him about the incident. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  05:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Image [[Image:philip pullman carnegie.jpg]]
Just curious - what is the procedure for these deletions? I was fully unaware of the status of that image (I thought it was supposed to be marked in the articles?), and now it seems to be unsavageable. (It probably falls under the reason about a copyrighted image being fair use because it was used for publicity.) --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Jimbo Wales started a campaign to delete images that lack sources, see Category:Images_with_unknown_source. Any images more than seven days old that lack source information are being deleted.  The Uninvited Co., &#91;&#91;User_talk:UninvitedCompany&#124;Inc.]] 21:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, but shouldn't the image have been tagged somehow first? --AySz88 ^ -  ^  00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It bore the unsourced image tag, Template:Nosource, which states that deletion is imminent. You could re-upload it if you still have access to it, and know who owns the copyright.  One of the reasons that unsourced images are being deleted is that it is believed that if the source is not credited, any fair use argument is weak.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your broken signature
See Help:Preferences for how to fix it. Uncle G 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Classiccat link
I added the Classiccat link on Gaspard de la nuit&mdash;among other contributions&mdash; and don't think it's spam --Sketchee 20:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the sites linked on WP:EL are commercial. The site only has Google ads, no popup ads.
 * The site doesn't have mp3 content, it only links to various places on the internet which do so you can access various recordings. These are mostly recordings by private parties (often individuals) that can't just be swiped into an ogg without their permission. Just because it is licensed to use on another site doesn't mean that the content is free to use by Wikipedia.  So an external link is appropriate in those cases (which is what most external links on all articles are). --Sketchee 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD
Hello again! Great to see you back! We both seem to have multiple lives on Wikipedia... I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. I think this AfD is particularly important because it has been bringing to light some fundamental differences in interpretations of content policies among editors. If you have time, please take a look at the page and add your input. Best regards. 172 07:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

5 pillars not policy?
Um, it's a summary. If you're going to cut all of wikipedia down into 5 paragraphs, then you have to pick and choose.

Are you going to be posting opposition to WP:NPOV too?

Kim Bruning 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Kim, the problem I have is that the title "5 pillars of Wikipedia" implies that the page is tantamount to policy, or even perhaps bears some sort of "constitutional" status of a foundational nature that other policy does not share. The page does not present itself as a summary of policies contained elsewhere, and that's why I have an ongoing problem with it.  I also have a problem with the "policy trifecta" page for the same reason.


 * You know very well that I don't oppose WP:NPOV. Please don't be obtuse.


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Find a grave
I have no relationship with the Find-a-Grave website. I consider it a so-so resource, mainly good for biographical pictures, and in some cases confirming birth and death dates. Is there a co-ordinator or project manager for the Find-A-Grave project? RustySpear 00:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you let me know when you have read Brian's last comment on the talk page. I would like to refactor the talk page and remove all the paragraphs that do not relate directly to the issue of whether the links belong, but I don't want to remove comments until I know that they have been read. -- DS1953 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've read my talk page. No apology needed on your part, I tend to agree with you. I belive this project needs to be better designed. The potential of adding between 10,000 to 30,000 links to Find-a-Grave should be reviewed by the WIkipedia community (the orginial list of names is 40,000. RustySpear 15:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom
Please see my comments and reaction to your comment. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unable to notify you
In your role as an Administrator, I need your help with Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, which forbids me from issuing to you and other Wikipedians a notification required by anti-spam procedures. (SEWilco 05:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC))


 * I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. If you're encouraging me to do something about the ever-growing thicket of "probation" that the AC has set about you, there is little I can say or do.  I have been very clear for a long time that I oppose such "probation" mechanisms at Wikipedia in any form, and that we should limit the AC's penalties to bans and other wholly objective measures, for a variety of community-based reasons that I am not moved to expound upon right now.  I have made my feelings clear to them and have been, largely, ignored.  Making such a point with the specificity of your particular case is likely to achieve no different result.  I maintain the confidentiality of any e-mail I receive so if you have something different that you're trying to say that for whatever reason you cannot state with clarity here, use that mechanism instead.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

April fool ?
Re two articles you created 1 April 2004: religion saver was speedied but I have restored it, flat chain was nominated for deletion but I have rescued it. Will you please speedily provide refs for these otherwise I will have to agree with the Uthbrian. -- RHaworth 18:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles are genuine; I do not participate in the April foolery. Though I do not have references for them in my personal library, any vo-tech book on agricultural machinery repair and maintenance would cover these topics.  There is some engineering information and photos: chain itself attachment units for flights etc., though they call it detachable chain rather than flat chain.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

But what about religion saver - can you reference that?? I reckon you heard your grandfather use the term when you were a kid and it has stuck in your memory. But it was his own private term that no-one else used. -- RHaworth 09:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from such demeaning conjecture. My grandfather was a surgeon, not a farmer, and had no use for such equipment nor any occasion to discuss topics related to the repair of farm equipment with me.  Of the dozen or so people I have heard mention one of the devices, none of them has used any other name.  Occasionally I see them listed by the name "religion saver" in catalogs and on auction bills.  I don't have a scholarly reference, though I imagine one could be found with considerable effort, of which the topic is hardly worthy.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
Hey man can you help me? User:zanimum and his sockpuppet have added fair use images to their user page but vandalised my user page for doig so. This is the message they leave. Please block them Ferall 05:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to waste you time on this, Ferall and Batzarro refuse to comply with Wikipedia's clear fair use policies, and thus US law. The situation and Batzarro's numerous sockpuppets are being taken care of. Thanks! --  user:zanimum


 * Ferall, I have reviewed the situation and acted accordingly. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sort of backfired on him, didn't it? Thanks for blocking him. --  user:zanimum

Mt 26:26
You are right. I misread. Lima 18:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeking guidance
I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to kindly post on my talk page please. I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Patajali.jpg
Weird. I uploaded that back in April of 2004, and I don't remember where it came from, and I have no idea why I thought it was PD. On the other hand, that photo clearly is not the photo on the site of the guy who complained. The photo used to be here, and a reversed version is here - but neither of these is the photo's source.

Anyway, I have to assume I was wrong, and the photo is copyrighted. And if someone's complaining, we should certainly remove it. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
You are invited to take part in Wikipedia_talk:Changing username. Ems2 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers
Thank you for doing what I should have had the balls to do months ago, and delete that silly, pathetic, pointless and juvenile excuse for an article. You are my Wikihero. I hereby award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. FCYTravis 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am curious about this request from a family member. I understand you may not want to reveal details, and I do trust your judgement on the manner, but I think it's safe to ask a few things:
 * 1) Are you sure the person is a family member? Do you know them in real life, or have proof they are who they say they are? There was just a controversy (that is still unsolved) recently with someone who claimed to be a family member of the man.
 * 2) Since when do we delete Wikipedia articles at a person's request without a VfD? If there was false or defaming content, the person with the complaint could have taken it upon themselves to correct the error and provide a reference or source. I have found nothing in the privacy policy about this. Since you are a Meta administrator, can you point me to the policy used?
 * 3) Was there a threat of legal action against Wikipedia?--Aleron235 21:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not absolutely certain of the writer's identity and have asked the writer for details and clarification. The person involved wrote to info-en@wikimedia.org, not to me specifically.  In general, we do not delete articles upon request, as you point out.  In this particular case, I believe that the article could have posed legal problems for the foundation, not because of defamation, but because of invasion of privacy.  As such there was no way to "improve" the article other than by deleting it.  This is the case whether or not the person who wrote to me is who they say they were.  I note that this article has been deleted three times already after going through AFD.  My sense is that the current article would have been kept given the overall climate at AFD had I listed it again, and for this reason I did not feel that AFD was a useful venue for discussion.  Ultimately, in my judgement, this article isn't valuable enough to Wikipedia to merit the legal exposure it could generate.  Dodgy grounds for deletion, perhaps, but still the best answer for the project, IMO.  There is a weeks-long backlog on the legal queue and so only the most pressing issues are getting sent there.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Antecedent Action
Wow. It's nice to know that someone can start and article, and while they step away to continue their research, not even ten minutes later the article is completely deleted. I seriously think some caution should be used in just deleting things. What am I supposed to do with the half page of material I just researched? The two examples I made? I'd appreciate a little more caution in speedying things into deletion. Why was this deleted so quickly? Ten minutes is not enough time to assume an author is finished working, and I think we should give a little breathing room in that regard. --DanielCD 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Truth is, I didn't write it. But I was working on it. But despite this, ten minutes is a little swift. I realize your interntions were to do the right thing, and I don't mean to imply you did it with any ill-will. I just think we should be a little more patient before we delete things. Don't you think an author may still be in process inside of ten minutes? It's ok, there is no harm done. I'm not going to resurrect it tonight though, as I am too sleepy now.


 * I appreciate your response, and believe this was all done in good will. Ten minutes is a little swift, in my opinion though, and would urge a weeeee bit more patience. Thank you for your time. Kind regards. --DanielCD 05:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re. SPUI
Note that he also created Template:User paedo, which JamesF deleted. Ral315 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)