User talk:WilyD/Archives/2007/August

Thank You !
Dear Wily. Thanks for importing the picture to Trooping the Colour. I think you will be pleased with the use to which it is put. I am considering two other articles (both short and relatively uncomplicated), which will need an image or 2, and will contact you again in due course. Many thanks again. --FClef (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't try to replace it. When I uploaded it it uploaded there. Sorry SLSB talk  • contrib   14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I Think I Mistook A Good External Link For Linkspam
I recently just made |this edit, reverting a link placed by User:Encycloar, thinking it's linkspam. Then looking at the user's contribs I'm having doubts? Is it linkspam or did I make a mistake? -WarthogDemon 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I put it back and told the user about it. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfDs
Please make sure to place the at template above the section header for the AfD discussion. This will ensure that Mathbot properly determines the discussion is closed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Éva Gauthier
Just to say I nominated Éva Gauthier as a Good Article. Someone has done an assessment and made suggestions. Perhaps you would like to respond? -- Kleinzach 12:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Trooping the Colour pic
Dear WilyD and User:Man vyi - I have received an extraordinary message on my talk page from one User:Jeff G..

Here is my reply.

I'm copying this note to User:Man vyi and will still come to both of you for help when needed - mercifully not too often! :-) -- FClef  (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note! Jeff G. has sent me a very nice reply.  You are right about the territorial point (I had some negative experiences last year with deletions .... but that's a different story.)  --FClef  (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All appears to be sorted to everyone's satisfaction :-) I'll just mention that the Commons Flickr Upload tool http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bryan/flickr/upload automatically reviews the licence if you use it. I heartily recommend it! Man vyi 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A mis-sent missive?
Dear WilyD, I think Jeff G. sent this to my Talk page in error..it's an answer to a query of yours? All the best, --FClef (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wily, you can be a Flickr Reviewer on Commons. I suggest the following two-step process:
 * 1. Update your user page here and create one there, such that they reference each other.
 * 2. Ask at Commons:Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers.
 * Cheerio!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I just saw your response to my question at Crockspot's RFA, and I signed for the mailing list. O, this is a little random, but I've seen you around before, and noticed that you used the term "Soviet Canuckistan" alot. Can you explain to me what that means.

-- New  England  Review Me! 18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now that I know what Soviet Canuckistan is, the joke makes sense (I don't follow Pat Buchanan enough to know he started the usage of the term). And it is funny (and puzzling) that while you're trusted to be an admin, you're not trusted enough to have un-moderated posts on the mailing list.   New   England  Review Me! 03:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Music video screenshot deletions
Hi, in regards to your many copy-pasted deletion opposition notices, first of all please note that the usage of non-free images is supposed to be restricted only to what's necessary. Given that, each use needs to be examined in context. I'm not opposed to the use of screenshots, but we need them to back up statements made in the article so that they make things clearer for the reader (i.e., you might imagine the reader thinking, "Oh, that's what they meant!"). Most of these that are nominated for deletion just show the artist's face, which really doesn't help. Does that make sense? Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

XavierVE
While I agree with XavierVE's block, I think you should leave his response to the block on his talk page. You state that you were "forced to remove" his post, but in reality, you could have simply redacted the name of other editor he mentioned. Removing his response in its entirety, and then locking the page after various admins have posted their perspective on his blocking, looks like only one side of the disagreement is being presented. While having the admin of a rabid vigilante group calling people "pedophiles" on Wikipedia is obviously undesirable, both from a civility and a legal perspective, this gives the impression that he is being silenced, in addition to being blocked. Blocking we can clearly defend based on his behavior. Taping his mouth shut, on the other hand, and presenting only our interpretation of his views and behavior, kind of reinforces the stereotype of Wikipedia he is trying to perpetuate. So I hope you'll reconsider letting his final comments stand, after deleting any libel. Hermitian 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hermitian that Xavier's response should be restored. I disagree heartily with his indefinite block, however.  I don't feel any libelous statements were made. Powers T 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is posible for admins to do version delets. Killing the entire talk page history is unhelpful.Geni 17:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes all of it the events are ongoing and I don't like working with limited info. Deleting the talk page of indef banned users is not common practice and is inconsitant with our deletion policy.Geni 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me re: your interest in this issue, as you already have a section on your talk page regarding this I am leaving correspondance here as to avoid polluting it, I hope it finds you despite not being on the bottom as standard. Since your comment (and thus looking into the issue) I have spent a good deal of time elucidating my reasons for wanting Xavier's blocking repealed in a message I left on User:Kurykh (the moderator who indefinately blocked him)'s talk page. I'm unable to link to the message directly (can't find a ToC) but it is basically on the bottom here: User_talk:Kurykh. If he later archives this I can attempt to find it in his archives, or provide you with a copy of the text I've saved (I spent a lot of time on it, no way I'm not keeping a personal copy, might even be valuable to me in pressing legal charges or something, lol, like I have the resources for that). But anyway, please reference this before you come to any conclusions about him. Also, I note you are in charge of blanking his talk page. First off, you should note that his user page is not locked, I believe it can be edited, so you may want to resolve that. That being said, while blocking both pages from being edited does make sense for the duration until his block is repealed (though I think that should happen soon) it would be nice to restore whatever comments he specifically made (or is making through private correspondance) presuming he agrees for you to display them. I would personally find what he has said in regards to this issue to be very informative, as I am quite confused about what has happened privately to result in this ban. I want to make sure everything is known about the issue and how Xavier may be being misjudged for what could be potentially honest intentions behind is (I admit it seems like) very chaotic and nonstandard efforts. Tyciol 18:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixing deleted revisions of User talk:XavierVE
How many revisions are you expecting to see in User talk:XavierVE? How many deleted? I see 4 undeleted and 145 deleted. Sometimes they take a while to restore. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of XavierVE...
User talk:XavierVE is protected, but User:XavierVE is not. You might want to think about locking down both pages, as the user page could also attract vandalism. --Jaysweet 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you had done you should be blocked too. Stop trolling or further comments will be removed, SqueakBox 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have edited my above comments so they do not reflect my personal disdain for the user in question. Honestly, I did not mean this as trolling in any way shape or form.  I observed that there was a former editor who a) is permanently blocked, and b) had been at the center of frequent controversy.  Therefore, it seemed logical that both the talk page and the user page be fully protected to prevent potential vandalism.  The editor in question cannot edit the page (because he is indefinitely blocked) and no other person other than an admin has a legitimate reason to edit the page.  Therefore, it seems to me that the page ought to be protected.  What am I missing??? --Jaysweet 23:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given your refactoring I dont think you are missing anything. Cheers for doing so, SqueakBox 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Images for Speedy Deletion
What sort of deletion should it be put up for, because WP:Awards has decided that these images are too similar to the Service awards and are used as spam, it says "this barnstar isnt free, pass me on to 2-5 other users" so we feel they need deleting El- Nin 09  07:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Meetup Toronto
We are having a discussion to host another Toronto meetup very soon due to the fact that the existing one cannot accomedate people of all ages, particularly students, because it takes place on Tuesday night in a pub. Please give us your thoughts on this matter on Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Toronto OhanaUnited  Talk page  01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I keep getting contacted about these Toronto Wikipedian meetings too, they sound really cool and interesting. It'd be awesome to be able to go but unfortunately, arranging one under this alias just seems too dangerous at the moment what with these whole issues of Xav stalking me and stuff, if I went to one he'd just need to bring a picture and go "there!" and then run me over with a car or something. The idea came to mind of getting a separate Wikipedia alias for doing things like this, but honestly I don't have the resources for flipping around all the time like that, not to mention I do believe Wikipedia discourages/outlaws the use of 'sock puppets' or multiple accounts. I would never want to break Wikipedia rules. It's too bad that with public access things like this, if you make controversial edits that upset someone then essentially, using Wikipedia as a forum for public gatherings is quite unsafe. Tyciol 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Two comments, Tyriol. One, it is a bad idea to accuse someone of perhaps wanting to attempt to murder you, that wont make you any friends or do you any good on or off wikipedia. Two, there are legitimate reasons for having sockpuppets, editing controversial articles is one and avoiding what you perceive to be trolling is another, see Sock puppetry, SqueakBox 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I would never accuse anyone in specific of doing so, just some unknown random member of PJ. With thousands of members you're bound to get someone who's batshit and influenced by false propoganda. It's sort of like saying "I won't join a KKK message board and post my picture and then go attend a Black Panther rally." Anyway thank both you and Wily for informing me of the legitimate use of multiple accounts, I'll take that into consideration, though it's still sort of a hassle since you wouldn't technically be any attribute the majority of your work over the years, and plus people might still show up suspecting you might be there. Tyciol 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockpot's RfA
I know, I already apoligized to him. Thanks for reverting, though. Panoptical 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am WilyD on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/WilyD. Thanks. --Wily D 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wily, there seems to be something of a problem with your Kuiper belt picture
It's linking at full size in every article it's listed in.  Serendi pod ous  15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to have spontaneously fixed itself. Must have been a momentary bug. Thanks anyway. :)  Serendi pod ous  07:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)