User talk:WilyD/Archive

North America
Why you erased my edits in the North America article?, I fixed it, or the point is that you are treating North America as Northern America, this is not a UN article, they are posted many sources where you can check or verify about the North America geography, you are using 1 source vs many sources of information, you can leave Central America and the Caribbean as an independent article, but not grouping Mexico in Central America, is so offensive.

Wikipedia is free information source for all the people, the current version of North America is not the most accurate, the wikipedia articles must been wrote under a neutral point of view and this article is not, I feel a hidden racism inside it. Jcmenal 14:58, 14 September 2006 (PST)

Archive PLX? Wily D 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NATO
You made a mistake. I hope you're humble enough to admit it and stop reverting. See summary of last edit. Thanks, Gustav

Archive PLX? Wily D 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest WilyD, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat,  Wizardman , and  Husond , for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day. Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits
This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

GA review of Augustus Jones
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinfo
I would like to move Wikinfo into the project namespace, which seemed to have some support. Most did not comment on the idea of moving it, but it would make for an appropriate project page, such as Semapedia or Wikipe-tan, both of which started life in the article namespace. -- Ned Scott 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wahbanosay
Everything I've seen says Eagle totem (doodem) not Bear. Do you have some reason for thinking this? You might be right - his daughter was Eagle, and unthinking writers might've back-inferred wrongly. Wily D 02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Deeds/Nations (online source), along with several paper records I have access to, all say Waabanose signed with a nooke doodem, rather than a migizi doodem. Peter Jones, with a Gichi-mookomaan father would be a migizi-doodem, but his mother would have the same doodem as her father Waabanose.... And anyway, if she were migizi-doodem and married Augustus Jones, who in the eyes of the Anishinaabeg were considered a migizi-doodem, then their two sons would be social outcasts, banished completely from the Anishinaabe culture, as both sons would have been considered a product of an incestuous relationship.  However, historically, we know neither Peter or John were social outcasts. CJLippert (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I see several sources say Tuhbenahneequay (Dapinanikwe?, "Woman who Slays Things"?) was a migizi-doodem... including the Deeds/Nation.  As I don't have any records of her (other than what I can find on the internet), I connot confirm if she is nor not.  However, if she really were the daughter of Waabanose, she would have been listed as nooke-doodem.  Since I do have records that Waabanose was nooke-doodem, I wonder if someone extrapolated from Peter Jones to his mother to her father to derive the doodem, breaking the Anishinaabe idea of a doodem in which the child always have the same doodem as the father, and only in extremely rare exceptions (such as in mass adoption, which their doodem designation would be a Waabizheshi-doodem (marten clan)) do that rule ever gets bent. CJLippert (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a copy of Wahbanosay's signature from the Toronto Purchase on page 91 of "Sacred Feathers:..." book. Certainly looks like a pictogram of an eagle, not a bear, to me.  I'll try and put a copy of it into the Wahbanosay article for your inspection.  In the meanwhile, is it not possible that John and Peter Jones inherited their doodem from their mother because their father was not considered a member of any doodem?  I'm not sure I've seen any indication Augustus Jones was ... but I don't know the culture to be able to comment.  Wily D  11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that there are two separate chiefs by this name, both Missisaugas, but one of the nooke-doodem (fl. 1778-1816) and another of the migizi-doodem (fl. 1778-1806). It does appear that I was looking at the wrong Chief Waabanose, and Peter Jones' maternal grandfather was that of the migizi-doodem.  However, still, no.  Peter Jones' doodem is migizi not because he go that from his mother; doodem system does not work that way as the Anishinaabe doodem is patrilineal.  Peter Jones's doodem is migizi because his father was a gichi-mookomaan.  If Augustus Jones were instead Canadian-born, he would have been identified as nesawaakwaad-doodem (forked-tree clan).  I will fix the article, but this also means sometime in the future, the article will need to have an associated disambiguation page. CJLippert (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this a bit more, though Peter Jones and Waabanose (thus Tuhbenahneequay as well) are both indicated as "Eagle clan," they're of differing Eagle clans. Waabanose is an Alight-Eagle clan (according to the signature), while my guess is that Peter Jones would be a Spread-Eagle clan, as Spread-Eagle clan is the designation of those whose father are American-born. In addition to these two, there are the Gliding-Eagle clan and the War-Eagle clan that are simply called "Eagle clan" as well.  CJLippert (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

John Jones
In the Augustus Jones article, under "Family life" section, there is a sentence that don't quite sound right regarding John Jones' name. Since the name is Mohawk, and not Anishinaabe, whatever way the name was recorded would have been the best sound mapping into Mississauga Ojibwe, but then transcribed into English. In the Fiero spelling, my guess is that "Tyenteneged" (to approximate how the Mohawk Tyendinaga would sound to the Anishinaabeg) would be Dayendiniged, which would be a gerund from of an Anishinaabe non-sense verb dendinige (vai), a de-transitive form of another non-sense verb dendim (vta), meaning "to 'dend' someone (by speech)" or "to orally 'dend' someone", with an explanation of this non-sense 'dend' describe both dende ("bullfrog") as a "that which dends" or a dendesii ("bluejay" in Mankiwaki Algonquin for what the rest of Anishinaabe communities call diindiisii) as a "bird that dends". A good Minnesota example of a similar situation is with Dakota name Máza-máni ("Ironwalker"), which is recorded in Ojibwe as Moozomaanay. It was recorded in English as "Mazomanie" with an Ojibwe explanation of a "maanay Moose"... but maanay would be an Anishinaabe non-sense word, sometime further turned into an English word "many" just so that the explanation makes sense in English, but "many moose" in Ojibwe is moozokaa, not moozomaanay. CJLippert (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The bad touch
Good call dude. Thanks for the reminder.--Woland (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Ahehheh. my bad. Will do in the future though :) Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  18:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted GraalOnline article maliciously recreated secretly in german...
The GraalOnline article that was deleted due to WP:WEB, NPOV, and other issues noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GraalOnline has been secretly reposted at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graal_Online, with little to no changes except for the language translation... The English page was nearly unanimously voted for removal and barring any significant changes should not be allowed back in any language... Vipercat (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your comment in my RFA. Even though I withdrew, it still really means a lot to me. :)  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

if "that template is for talk pages"
Why is it using Ambox? Why is it formatted like all the other message boxes? ViperSnake151 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for creating Image:KnowledgeOfEnglishPercentOfPopulationWithSubdivisions.PNG which is very helpful for List of countries by English-speaking population. As you can read on the image talk page, I have questioned whether the image is an accurate reflection of the stats you cited. Particularly, the image seems to show that 0% of citizens in Kenya and India can speak English. Cheers! Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
Can you please explain why you created this page in my name space? I don't find it funny in the least. Bstone (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008
I think your blanking of this GA article is utterly reprehensible and a disgrace to you and this encyclopedia. --William Saturn (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Kendrick7talk 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Exploring_hogwarts.jpg & Image:Dumbledore_and_voldermort.jpg
I'm wondering if you might be persuaded to reconsider this deletion, or if I should try at DRV.

In your closing statement, you referenced WP:NFCC -- and rightly so. Including two screenshots was unnecessary given their similar nature. But now all we're left with is the box art, which does not reflect in-game visual output as the screenshots do since it employs a very distinct graphical style. I would like to see one of the two screenshots restored so that readers may gain a better understanding of what the game experience is like.

WP:NFCC of course leaves lots of room for interpretation, but I think it's reasonable to say that a screenshot in this context provides significant insight with regard to the graphical style of the game and (to a lesser extent) the gameplay -- information that is probably more important than, say, a list of voice actors. The many details that comprise the user experience can be difficult to describe in prose, and some aspects -- cell shading, blend modes, and so forth -- would be impossible to describe in simple and succinct terms.

I think this view is fairly well-precedented. has 9,034 transclusions, and while I understand that some of these images are the subjects of important commentary in one or more articles, I suspect that the large majority are used just as the Harry Potter images are -- to illustrate the graphical style of the game and perhaps provide a bit of insight into its mechanics.

Anyway, let me know if my attempt to convince you succeeded or not. If not I'll perhaps bring it up at DRV for further discussion, or just let the issue rest.

— xDanielx T/C\R 06:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay -- thanks for replying. I may bring it up on DRV as I think we're likely to see many similar cases in the future; I'll drop a link here if I get around to that. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_19. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
I miss User:Armedblowfish. What happened to him? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Dodd
After trying to block user Saturn for 24 hours and protecting the article for 24 hours without any result (the article was reverted back after the block was over), maybe it's time to increase the block to 7 days? --Wiendietry (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I see. I shouldn't review each users' account in multiple wikis. Simply as per WP:NOT don't upload free images at English Wikipedia. That's is not a random note. you're an admin, remember that users lose their time for Wikimedia, don't give them killer phrases --OsamaK 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pahkatequayang
Sago WilyD, First of all thank you for your ongoing contributions to native North American history and cultural articles, it is appreciated. I am currently in the process of attempting to improve the "History" section of the London, Ontario article and I am experiencing some difficulty. As it now exists, the section attributes the name "Kotequogong" to an early community on the site of the present city, however thus far, I am only able to trace that name to a paper dealing with flood control issues from a few years back and it is not attributed in that context. I have been able to find another name applied to the area now in the centre of present day London, "Pahkatequayang", in a 19th century source found here and I wonder if it is possible if you could check with your own language sources for any information on what it, or a close variant, might actually mean? I am going to make this request of at least one other editor who might be able to help as well, but feel free to consult anyone who you think might be able to offer advice. Once again, thank you. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please Undelete
was deleted, when a bot said it was orphaned. It is a WDefcon image, and it was marked orphaned because the level wasn't 2 at the time. Can you please undelete. Thanks, TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Peter Jones
Actually, since we're talking about a person who died before even my great-grandfather was born, I do not think using his journals as a source would constitute OR. In fact, you've got a great source of information right there, as long as you are using stuff whose truthfulness has not been questioned by later historians. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Corktown (Toronto)
Nothing plausible about it. We don't want people getting confused about naming conventions. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If they type that in (unlikely), they'll be taken to the search, where they'll see the "Corktown, Toronto" article. By your logic, I should create all these different redirects to all the articles that don't have them. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The search field narrows down results as you type now. My contention is that having too many redirects would actually make it harder to get to the right article. I'm all for redirects that are useful, but this one serves no purpose. Plus, it benefits the project to have consistent naming conventions (neighbourhoods and cities use the comma). --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing about these redirects is that they might encourage articles with those conventions, on top of the clutter issue. If this doesn't meet the CSD, then why is there a whole criteria for it? It's implausible, and really doesn't do much except for cluttering the search field. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion
For what it's worth, yours is the first time I've had this notice. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Tag at Molly Jenson
Hello There!!!!

You removed the speedy Deletion tag at Molly Jenson with a comment that she asserts notability because she won some awards.

However, FYI the winner of San Diego Music Award is Molly Jensen not Molly Jenson. You may cross check it with the link that claims her achievement.

If You wanna reply then reach me at my talk page.

Hitrohit2001 (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001


 * Hello!!! You may be correct, its just a typo. She asserts notability. However, Thanks for  clarification. Regards.

Hitrohit2001 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

DRV
My comment re DRV related to three who are clearly not "replaceable" in any common meaning of the word. Pictures of very old men would theoretically be obtainable (and I say theoretically given they don't exactly go to the local shops) but would make a mockery of the articles they are meant to adorn. They were last in public/political life a very long time ago. Nearly all of the others, though, are either current or recent, hence why I felt a DRV would fail on those grounds. Orderinchaos 00:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Sometimes one thinks the whole world's gone mad. Not directed at you at all, more generally - but when we have major major problems with articles because the encyclopaedia refuses to ban trolls (but is quite happy for good faith editors to be driven away by them) and spends more time navel-gazing than article-writing, you'd sort of think people could get more of a sense of perspective on this thing. We've already tried with the political parties, they're just not interested at all - they're scared the pictures will somehow be used nefariously and they're too technologically illiterate to be convinced. We literally have to wait for former politicians to meet their end so that the living persons component of fair use can be made use of. The security around public figures is so intense that you have to almost be one yourself to meet them, let alone take a picture. Orderinchaos 02:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite three years of work, I don't think we'll ever manage to score free images of major figures of any kind in Australia = the few offers we've had have come with conditions so restrictive that they don't even allow fair use under the NFCC. Any rays of light on the horizon have usually turned out to be hoaxes or frauds, such as the National Party business in Victoria. Orderinchaos 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note Timeshift has responded to you at my page. Orderinchaos 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-block?
Long time since I saw one of those. You are aware your comment and a following response was removed? I would prefer to see your comment remain on the record, but the diff I added to the thread is probably enough for now. It kind of threw me, though, seeing that self-block in there. I thought you were joking, and then I saw the block log! Anyway, this is another reason why I nearly always step through the page history when following such threads. Invariably there is some background kerfuffle in there. Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:LastoftheTimeLords.jpg
Hi, would you reconsider or explain your keep closure of Image:LastoftheTimeLords.jpg? I'm considering WP:DRV. Your keep rationale did not address the substance of several of the delete votes, including mine. The formal lack of a written-out rationale was by no means the only substantial reason to delete here. Yes, it has a rationale now, but it's not a valid one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Sigh. So it's now at DRV. And what a humunguous DRV nomination it has become. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Rlevse is a he. :) Rud  get  14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review
An afd you closed Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination) is now under discussion at Deletion Review: Deletion review/Log/2008 July 27. You'll quite possibly want to comment there. DGG (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

:P
Quiet you - I'm very glad to have been proven completely wrong in your case. —Giggy 06:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
Your comment there is unsigned. You may wish to sign it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
I was wondering if you could answer a question about your comment (or inspired by) here: did he willingly talk about it, or was it brought up and he felt that he needed to defend himself? There is a difference between having to make it clear that he wasn't mentally retarded and being comfortable with other people talking about it. Has anyone actually asked him how he feels if that was used on the main page of Wikipedia to promote his article? Thank you in advance if you can provide any information about this. The issue is too scattered about for me to keep up. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is interesting: "But I didn't build my company to sell it. I built my company as an example of what you can do with difficulties in life. In first grade I was labeled mentally retarded, and the teachers told my mom and everybody else that I would never get anywhere. Now I want to show young African Americans that they can run a business too." Instead of saying something like "those who are falsely labeled" or "those who are limited", he switches from being labeled "retarded" to generic African Americans. I wonder if he feels that the false label could have been an overall problem based on race, or if these two aren't linked. Hmm. Are there any other links? I'm wondering what other instances have it as. By the way, what was the exact wording of the original hook? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the hook as you wrote it might have a problem for not stating "improperly assessed" instead of "assessed". Simple fix and was probably overlooked. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, thank you for the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I put forth a proposal that might help ease future problems. Who knows. Too much drama around DYK lately. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nedroid
Hi, could you copy this to my userspace? Cheers, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 00:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List of films by gory death scene
Hi, could you copy this to my userspace also? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, could you do a couple more, too?
List of snowclones and List of tongue-twisters. Cool, thanks. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of noindex to Template:Userlinks
Why? --Random832 (contribs) 15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another request
If it's possible, I'd like to see all versions of Kevjumba (I think there have been at least 5 different versions). Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 03:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi WilyD
You blocked a user called 82.36.94.228 back in June because he was inserting abuse to the Lionel Blue page. He has for the past month been inserting abuse into the Johann Hari page, calling him 'fat' etc. Despite reverts by several admins, he just keeps putting it back. Would it be possble to permenantly block him, given he is ignoring the warnings you gave?

Best wishes

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.168.112 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * David
 * It's a broadband UK internet provider, which probably means its not the same person, nor is the same person likely to have it for very long. I put a bit of a block on it, but IP address blocks that run extended periods are rarely worthwhile.  It's sometimes done for schools, but in this case long enough that he feels compelled to move along is all that's worthwhile.
 * Brian.
 * Wily D 20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but...
Hello. First of all, thank you for correcting the map and the description for the English official language clickable map template. Second, there is still an error: English is not official language of Quebec, even de facto and de jure. We should do the same as in the French article about English language (Anglais): say “Countries and territories where English is the official, de facto official or primary national language (excepted province of Quebec). [...]” or change the color of the province (but is more difficult and long). Thanks. talk 18:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if English is an official language in Canada, the Charter of the French language (Charte de la langue française) remove English official status in Quebec as only French is official. Quebec case is really interesting. As you can see, the culture of Canada and the culture of Quebec are really different, but it’s a fact. Your new maps are right, there are English speakers in Quebec, but when writing in the article "X color means it’s an official language" is wrong. You should put one for your maps (they say how much people are speaking English in different locations, not the official status). I particularly prefer this one. Thanks a lot for your care about this subject. talk 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride
Did I actually see that right? Did you just block User:MZMcBride for 3 hours for this edit? I will note that this page is a stomping ground for partisan politics and that I do think that the page should be protected. However, I think blocking an administrator for what could be a completely innocent edit is wrong and in fact calls into question your own biases. Is there an explanation for this?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. So a consensus was reached that you can point me to about what the protection status of the page should be? I guess I didn't see it. I assume it's in the archives.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. I actually still don't see a consensus reached in any of those links. AN does seem to favor full protection but the discussion is ongoing. There does not appear to be a consensus reached at Talk:Sarah_Palin either. I suppose you are correct that this issue will be resolved at Requests_for_arbitration. To be continued there I guess...--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Requests for arbitration. GRBerry 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya
It's been a bit of theme today, hasn't it...anyway, I've reversed your block of MZM. AFAIK we don't usually reward wheel-warring (and I agree he was wheel-warring) with blocking (there even used to be something in WP:WHEEL about this), and blocking for 3 hours just seems punitive. It will hardly stop him fiddling around with the prot levels, will it? If you'd blocked for 31 hours, I wouldn't have a problem, but 3 just seems like..well...blocking for the sake of blocking. Plus, he probably should be allowed to participate in the RFAR (the requesting of which is the way to deal with wheel-warring, IMO). Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S: I have no problem - and will not count it as wheel-warring - if you put the original block back on if you feel there's an overwhelming need to do so. That's fine. hopefully we, being rational people, can sort this out ourselves without Grandpa ArbCom getting involved :) Best, Moreschi (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: Was your block justified using the footnoted quotes arbcom decision? I think that was the rationale, but I'm curious of your view on it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't know that. I'm... interested in administratorhood, not in becoming one, but in what ya'll do. :P Curiosity killed the catlord. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image
Hi, one editor tagged the Image:Girl sufferedwithburnwounds.jpg for speedy deletion. I am not well-versed with images. I checked the commons page, there is not speedy deletion tag in commons page. But the articles in which the image is present, showing the image is a candidate for speedy deletion. See Persecution_of_Christians. The caption below the image shows "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Friday, 12 September 2008". Could you please look into the matter if the copyright is ok or not.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
You seemed interested in this link-breaking and COI issue when it was at ANI. After failing to get any action at ANI, I eventually took it to WP:COIN as suggested. Take a look if you're still interested: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, which lists you as a party, has been opened.
 * Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
 * Your contributions are welcome at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

If you have any queries, please drop me a note and I'll try and assist you.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉  20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OTRS confirmation
Hello!!!

I just dropped by to request that could you please confirm the permission of. This image seems to have reserved copyright as available on this site.

Thank you for your time!!!!

Hitro 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re:Shavona
Thank you for this information. This user has introduced lots of copyrighted infringement in past and currently he is under temporary blocking. Therefore, I think this OTRS tag is fake.

Even shows same OTRS ticket number. However, I hope you'll soon be able to clarify about this.

Thank you

Hitro 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. but Please note Image:Shavona.jpg does have copyright mark on the photo itself, unlike Image:Elizabeth_Hawthorne_long.png and most of the pictures related to beauty pageants. Hitro 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence
Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.

To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.

Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
Care to explain what "POC (close, eh?)" means? Prince of Canadat 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Insulting people--because it is obvious what you meant by 'close, eh' is also likely to result in what is known as a 'block', so your point is what, exactly? Prince of Canadat 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
What you describe as my definition of uninvolved, was taken from the admin policy. PhilKnight (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Jones (missionary)
Looking pretty good, good luck with it. It's a shame if it fails due to a lack of comments. If so, just wait a bit, give it another touch up, and try again. FAC is weird like that, sometimes. Giggy (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion request
Sorry if I mistook it. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OSU.svg
Sorry, I don't see where I'm wrong. The image is copyrighted, so it should have a copyright tag. As an advertisement it passeses the Threshold of originality and copyright is therefore owned by The Ohio State University. You could also argue that the font which is used is not a free font. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

re: your removal of my comment
I don't know you very well, but your edit summary was far more-BITEy than anything in my portion of the comment you removed. I can see how you might wish to remove my comment, since it made reference to an ACTUALLY un-civil comment; however, nothing AT ALL about my evaluation of the situation itself was even REMOTELY uncivil. It raised a perfectly-valid point re: the wisdom of having >60 middle-schoolers running amok through Wikipedia with no assurances as to how their "volunteer" coordinator would be guiding or supervising their activities. Similar concerns have been raised regarding classes of COLLEGE students, and have been treated with MUCH more consideration than that which you gave my equally-valid comment; again, I don't know you very well, but I should hope you don't make a habit of referring to considered user input as "trash" on a regular basis. On a scale of greatest to least WP:CIVILity, here's how I perceive that exchange: 1. original poster; 2. me; 3. tie: you and Kurt, for different reasons. Your removal of my comment, though I will not revert it (not being as persistent as Kurt) was inappropriate. Gladys J Cortez 01:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Gladys, that she has a right to voice her concern. Since it was civil it should not have been removed and certainly not with "trash". — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Simpsons chalkboard gags deleted, yet couch gags remain?
WilyD, why delete the chalkboard article but keep the couch gags page? They're pretty much the same format, length, etc. I read the deleted article on Deletionpedia and liked it. User:newspaperman 18 September, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

(from Ling.Nut) Peter Jones

 * Hi Wiley,
 * I kept meaning to reply to your message, but kept getting distracted.. mainly by Wikipedia-related things, but also by RL. I'm sorry that I didn't reply before PJ was closed. I apologize.
 * Having said that, I probably would not have changed my vote due to copy editing efforts that took place during the FAC. I thought the whole article needed a good top-to-bottom scrubbing by a good copy editor. The examples I gave were just that&mdash;examples. I didn't think my examples were the only probs.
 * Please do give PJ a good going over. Find one or more outstanding copy editors. Send it through WP:PR. And try again. :-)
 * Later Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 08:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * GA doesn't guarantee FA; PR is supposed to be better but even there the quality can sometimes be a little uneven... suggest that you start making friends with some of the better-known copy editors. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Qilinmon listed as a notable (former) Power Rangers editor
Qilinon, the user you banned last week has been listed in my user subpage User:Mythdon/Power Rangers notable editors in the "former" piece of the list. Do you approve of him/her being listed? If not, notify me of your dissaproval and I'll remove him/her from the list. Mythdon (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Quicktime 7 Leopard.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Quicktime 7 Leopard.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Declined speedy
If you'll look at the deletion discussion, Loretta West has already been merged and redirected, and the AfD has been closed. Outrageous Fortune/Loretta West, the article I tagged for speedy, is an unnecessary duplicate of the original Loretta West article that needs to be deleted. Deor (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reinhard Jaeger(bodybuilder)
I realize that this wasn't technically a redirect, but if you note my edit summary. The page also exists at Reinhard Jaeger (bodybuilder). I suppose I could have made it a redirect before tagging it as r3, but that would seem to be process for the sake of process. --Onorem♠Dil 12:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Wily
Haumea's resonance is mentioned in the "orbit" section, though it hasn't been observed for anywhere near long enough for its orbit to established, so it's currently just speculation  Serendi pod ous  14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So what do you think needs to happen? Are you saying we should abandon our cautious wording and say that it definitely is in a resonance?  Serendi pod ous  15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since it's named after a creation deity (standard for classical objects), and since it spends nearly its entire orbit between the 2/3 and 1/2 resonances, like classical objects, it seems apropos for now to consider it a classical object. I could email Mike Brown about this but I'm pretty sure he'd say the same thing he said when I asked him about Makemake's resonance: there are no agreed upon boundaries, and you can find the same object under both classifications.  Serendi pod ous  15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: Kheider just did a good edit of the sentence, I think.  Serendi pod ous  15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war
This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is viewable through the above link.

Jossi and MZMcBride are both separately admonished for their conduct in this matter—the Sarah Palin wheel war—and are warned that any future, similar actions are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of their administrator privileges.

The community is strongly urged to continue ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons regarding how the BLP policy and its enforcement can be further improved.

Additionally, all parties to this case are instructed to review carefully the principles and findings of fact which were also passed in this decision (click to read), and to adjust their conduct and future behaviour accordingly.

For the Arbitration Committee, <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the positive support for the page George Karakunnel.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request
A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada revert
I'm curious why you reverted here. It's difficult to see the exact change. Is the only difference the cite request tags? Why did you not note the reason for the revert in either the edit summary or talk page. Surely Soulscanner's change was not obvious vandalism. Thanks, Double Blue  (Talk) 02:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

M102
Hi,

I understand your point of view about M102, but it is not an opinion but a fact that it is a duplicate observation of M101.

Pierre Méchain wrote himself that he duplicated his observation of M101, and NGC5866 doesn't fit with the description he gave of "M102".

Stephen James O'Meara described all the reasons why some people thought that Méchain might have been referring to NGC5866 in an article published in Sky & Telescope in March, 2005. It is quite clear that while an error could have happened, it did not happen, and while many people would wish for Méchain not to have been in error, he still was.

Like you, I used to consider NGC5866 as the "real" M102, but the historical evidence is simply against it. So that is why I have put it that way in the List of Messier objects, and I just changed the Messier 102 article accordingly.

See
 * O'Meara, Stephen James. "M102: Mystery Solved", Sky and Telescope, volume 109, number 3, page 78, March 2005

CielProfond (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I never claimed that "one person's argument makes it a fact", and multiple sources (old and new) identify M102 as a duplicate of M101. The discoverer himself retracted ("On page 267 of the Connaissance des Temps for 1784 M. Messier lists uder No. 102 a nebula which I have discovered between omicron Bootis and iota Draconis. This is nothing but an error. This nebula is the same as the preceding No. 101. In the list of my nebulous stars communicated to him M. Messier was confused due to an error in the sky-chart."): why would he do so if M102 was anything else than M101?. True, people "seemed unaware of [Méchain's] correction until 1947" (Owen Gingerich, in Mallas & Kreimer's Messier Album, 1978), so it doesn't help in creating confusion.
 * Hartmut Frommert's article is not an authority on the subject either, and is not as widely accepted as you might wish it to be. I recognize his good work, don't take me wrong. And he does mention O'Meara's article, saying that it "will be subject to a future discussion here" in a page that was last updated April 4, 2006, more than a year after O'Meara's article, so long enough to write that "future discussion"...
 * Anyway, let's not argue on the subject: it is pointless to keep undoing each other's revision on Messier 102 and List of Messier objects, so why not work together on a solution that will satisfy us both?
 * I suggest the following, which is a mix of my version and the previous version:
 * Messier 102 (also known as M102) is a galaxy listed in the Messier Catalogue that cannot be identified unambiguously. Its original discoverer Pierre Méchain later claimed that it was a duplicate observation of Messier 101, but there are historical and observational reasons to believe that it would actually be NGC 5866.
 * What do you think?
 * CielProfond (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I really do like how you put it in the List of Messier objects article. :-) May I also presume that you like it how I put it in the Messier 102 article? If so, that is what I call constructive criticism, and I am happy we got that agreement instead of our useless argument. :-) CielProfond (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm actually I meant the version I entered up here but did not recopy in the Messier 102 page. What do you think of:
 * Messier 102 (also known as M102) is a galaxy listed in the Messier Catalogue that cannot be identified unambiguously. Its original discoverer Pierre Méchain later claimed that it was a duplicate observation of Messier 101, but there are historical and observational reasons to believe that it would actually be NGC 5866.
 * CielProfond (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I don't see any part of the current intro to Messier 102 that mention other possible identifications for it. Anyway, maybe it could be along those lines:
 * Messier 102 (also known as M102) is a galaxy listed in the Messier Catalogue that cannot be identified unambiguously. Its original discoverer Pierre Méchain later claimed that it was a duplicate observation of Messier 101, but there are historical and observational reasons to believe that it would actually be NGC 5866 , although NGC 5879, NGC 5907, NGC 5908 and NGC 5928 all have been suggested as possible identifications for it.
 * I invite you to actually change the above paragraph to suit your taste; as I said before, we should work on that together.
 * Thanks,
 * CielProfond (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I approve your version:

Messier 102 (also known as M102) is a galaxy listed in the Messier Catalogue that has not been identified unambiguously. Its original discoverer Pierre Méchain later claimed that it was a duplicate observation of Messier 101, but there are historical and observational reasons to believe that it would actually be NGC 5866, although other galaxies have been suggested as a possible identification.


 * I'll leave you the "honor" of changing the Messier 102 article accordingly.


 * Thanks for your collaboration, and I look forward to future team work with you. You have a very nice white cat, btw! ;-)


 * CielProfond (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your definitive version of the intro is perfect, yes I agree with your grammatical change.


 * I'd like to know more about your interest in astronomy?


 * CielProfond (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada?
Hello WilyD,

Please see the talk page at American (word). Check the next section, "Canada", in which I have expressed specific reasons for removal of the expression, "Dominion of Canada".

My edit is clearly not POV, and should not have been reverted.

Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. Prof.rick (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tung-Wang
Hi, I want to let you know about my re-nomination of Tung-Wang for deletion. Previously you voted to keep on notability grounds, but I think if you examine the sources you will see they don't really verify him. Juzhong (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion
Hello, I am writing this to you not to start an argument but to clarify some things. I have noticed that you have many comments on WP:AfD that say "Keep notability established the usual way." This does not tell anyone why the article meets the notability guidelines. According to WP:ITSNOTABLE one should avoid commenting without providing evidence specific to the article in question; saying "it is notable" does not tell anyone why you believe it is notable. As I understand it, even pointing to a policy without saying why that policy is met or is not met by that particular article should also be avoided (see WP:JUSTA ). I know that I am significantly newer to Wikipedia than you are, but when I review an AfD nomination and you don't cite why an article is worthy of being kept, if you don't give even a hint of how the article is notable in your comment and I don't happen to find what you do in my research, I will end up voting to delete an article that may be worthy of being kept. Any comment on why WP:ITSNOTABLE doesn't apply in the examples I have seen would be appreciated. (and yes, I am aware these are essays and not official WP policy, but they certainly make sense and I see no reason why they shouldn't be followed.) Theseeker4 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question...
To what "cadre" do I belong? I didn't know anything about the block etc. until I reviewed the unblock request. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)