Q: Why have you reduced the size of my file? A: In accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 3(b): An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate, is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). If you believe I have made an error in reducing the image, please let me know. If there was no error is the lowering in the resolution, please keep the image reduced and keep it tagged until an administrator has deleted the larger versions of the image.
Q: Why have you tagged my file as {{di-bad fair use}} 10(c)? A: I have tagged it as in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10(c): The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Meaning, provide a fair use rationale on the file description page, every time you use it on a different article. Otherwise it does not meet criteria for inclusion and it can be nominated for deletion.
Q: Why have you removed my image from an article because of 10(c)? A: The file does not have a fair use rationale on the file description page for why it is on that article. If you add a rationale, you are free to use the image on the article once again.
Q: Why have you tagged my file as {{di-bad fair use}} 10(a)? A: I have tagged it as in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10(a): Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. A source for where the image was taken from needs to be specified, otherwise it will be marked for deletion.
Q: Why have you added {{deletable image-caption}} to an article? A: This is to notify users that the image next to the caption is a candidate for speedy deletion in a number of days due to problems specified on the image description page.
Q: Couldn't you just fix this image problem yourself? A: While I tag and re-sizing images, I do keep a look-out for things I can fix, rather than tag it for fixing. There is somewhere near 340,000 non-free images on Wikipedia, so I can't do this alone.
Q: Are you an administrator? A: No, I am not an administrator here. I can not protect or delete pages, move over redirects, or block users. For a full list of privileges I have, and projects where I have them, see this page. Also, if you offer to nominate me for adminiship, I will probably decline. I have had a few nominations in the past, the last being in 2006. If I ever run again, it will be a long time from now.
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
Ideally, I would like to have any conversation continued on the page where it was started. If I have left a message on your talk page please do not reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
This page-
Drama free days
4221
done
Done, with help from Yonatan, Moe, can you go ahead and get rid you your CSD tags? --rogerd 22:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can get the speedy tags, but I may take a few minutes since my computer isn't reading the large archives well. — Moeε 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some reverting on 20-23 and also undeleted User:Moe Epsilon/Header. I haven't done too much undeleting/restoring before. I think I got it done ok. --rogerd 22:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think everything is fine now. Thank you for your help :) — Moeε 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template: Amazonimages
Feel free to delete the template now. I have finished removing the template from the Images which it transcluded. In addition to that, I tagged any image for deletion if they had no source other than the template. — Moeε 03:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for unlinking this. I'm usually pretty knowledgable about what turns up at TfD, but I still freeze when we decide to delete a widely-used copyright template. I have no experience with images or copyright and I intend on keeping it that way. Thanks! RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) — Moeε 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extra Spelling templates
So noted and deleted. If they want them back, take it to DRV. By the way, thanks for responding on my talk page. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please help
you were banned from youtube, apparently. your video Sanjaya Malakar - hot quotes was my absolute favorite. i need it. please upload it somewhere else. i had it on my site: http://bikerchick.freehomepage.com/photo3.html and now i have to have a different one. there is a new site called www.motiono.com, maybe you can put it there. i only know about it because someone from youtube spammed me. why were you banned from youtube?
here is a cache of your video. please please upload it elesewhere. it was a favorite of many
Hello Aharleygirl. I see that you requested that I re-upload a video from YouTube that I made from an account there. There's an issue with that:
I don't have a YouTube account and I wonder how you got me confused with him.
Eric82oslo is not me, and the account located on YouTube in relation to that name says that the account is suspended and it makes videos like the one you requested, so I assume thats who you mean.
It appears the person who made the YouTube account made one on Wikipedia located at User:Eric82oslo, I would ask him to re-upload any video for you.
It was not an ultimatum. It was a request. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for revert warring. Would you mind if I and/or the other editors interested in BJAODN have an edit history of the deleted subpages, please? It would be appreciated. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Im fine with my name that was just telling people where I got it from. Anubiz 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to my page in the first place? Anubiz 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done
All done -- Tawker 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism Warning
What vandalism are you referring to? --81.179.113.175 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a perfectly legitimate edit, not vandalism. --81.179.113.175 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
images
you can plaez stop posting the images that i didnt tag on my talk page, i dont care if they expire. --AlexOvShaolin 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, looks like you were very busy editing the "Harvest page.
You referred edit readers to "Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria items #3(a) and #8)." Thank you for the reference.
Regarding #3(a): I agree that I went way beyond minimal use, although I will say that this was without knowing of the 10 non-free content rules. My question is, does this mean that you needed to remove all album cover images and music samples? When I added the images, I was using "The Beatles" article as a reference. Looking at it now, I see that "The Beatles Discography" is without images, although the main article still contains music samples. Does minimal use mean "No use"? (referring to there being no images at all on the Harvest page). Why is showing album cover art excessive? I have a feeling I'm asking a common question.
Regarding #8 (significance): Is the discography considered a list? I would assume so. I guess this would be why no image- photo or song sample is allowed within it. I would think this rule alone would suffice for removing all of the images I had put in the article, since they were all within the Discography section. Would it be acceptable to create a separate section for music samples, as in the Beatles article? If so, how many music samples would be allowed? 25?, as in that article?
I would really appreciate you responding to this post. I would like to know what you think. And I would also like to find out if any of the images/samples I uploaded are salvageable. This would save me time in re-uploading if they are.
Is it possible to restore one of the audio files that I used to have in the Harvest article? Does Wikipedia have some kind of an archive of deleted samples, or do I need to re-upload?
I would like to re-add the music sample for the song, "Because I Am". I would be incorporating it into the main article for the band, as it refers to the song.
If you have time, could you help me reincorporate the image into the article? I'd like to place it next to the text which states: "The writer praised the group's vocal harmonies and was especially fond of the song "Because I Am" (found on the album It's Alright Now)." I'd like it to be similar to the format of the song sample in the Mariah Carey article. I've tried adding it myself, but the text won't wrap around the sample. This is the text I was trying to add:
{{sound sample box align left| }}
{{multi-listen start|Audio sample of:}}
{{multi-listen item|filename=Harvest-Because I Am.ogg|title="Because I Am" (1982)|description=Harvest's song was noted by CCM Magazine in 1982.|format=[[Ogg]]}}
{{multi-listen end}}
{{sample box end}}
I would really appreciate your help in this regard. The image is scheduled to be deleted in seven days if I can't incorporate it by then. Please let me know if you can't make the edit and I will try to get help elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihiltres#Audio_Sample_List
I've tried to express my need as best as possible for that list. I direly need it, at least a copy of it back, I wish there was a way to make it non-public (as it is of personal use only), but since there isn't away I made it easy for myself and linked to it from my user page. --x1987x(talk) 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were just linked to, a link to a non-free audio file is not allowed from userspace?--x1987x(talk) 01:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings
I understand the situation and I apologize for any misunderstanding however I do feel that you could have approached me in a more courteous manner without threatening me. This will not happen again. I apologize. Please may this event not leave us with a delinquent sentiment towards each other. Best Regards. ˉˉDuranDuran╦╩ 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Images
May I suggest then, that you go out there and find free images to replace those you removed? -- 我♥中國 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, believe that the responsibility of an editor is to create, not destroy. But I digress. Pray tell, which specific section and clause of the fair use policy do my use of these images in this article violate? I would like to know, where does it say that 1. one 50x50 image per military medal is excessive, and 2. pictures of military decorations are to be discriminated against in fair use policy? -- 我♥中國 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By #8, do you mean to say, that having a picture of the actual object in question does not significantly contribute to its presentation in an article? If you can perfectly visualize an object after only reading a text description, then more power to you, because normal people cannot. In that case, can you make life easier for the rest of us by at least trying to replace all the images you removed with a paragraph or two of description, something along the lines of "This medal is perfectly hexagonal, with the national emblem embossed on it and golden rays extending from the vertices of the hexagon"? -- 我♥中國 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not asking you to "sit and write 60+ paragraphs of information" or "to create a article off the top of [your] head". I am asking you to replace the information which you removed, which are vital and essential to the article. Since you removed the information, it is only fair that you restore it to a similar, if not equivalent, level of quality. As for why I don't want to fix it: I don't fix something that is not broken. The article was just fine until someone decided to arbitrarily remove all the badge pictures on it. I do know, however, HOW to fix it. -- 我♥中國 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only "threat" I could find is you threatening to get me blocked. I never said I was going to restore the page, have I? There is a reason I haven't done it yet. The last time I heard, policies are subject to interpretation, and I doubt you have the authority to dictate your interpretation of a policy to others. If anything, WP is a consensus-based project, and based on the input of the two of us, I do not believe we have a consensus. I have not restored the article, because I know the importance of consensus, and I don't go about arbitrarily enforcing my views and beliefs on how an article should be or how a policy should be interpreted. Furthermore, I do believe that images constitute content as well as text: otherwise we could save millions of dollars' worth of bandwidth by simply deleting all the pictures on WP! Finally, a word of advice: You have an enormous edit count, yet most of the articles you edit often are in pretty bad shape. I think your drive-by attitude to editing might have something to do with it. -- 我♥中國 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it has been resolved, and your deleting our conversation was not a very WP:CIVIL thing to do. We can still try to sort out our differences if you wish, but I want you to know that I am considering escalating this issue beyond just the two of us. -- 我♥中國 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I was about to say:
I do not think it was correct. However, we were making some progress before you rudely cut me off. If at all possible, I would still like to resolve our content dispute with minimal drama, but if I file an RFC it will be for user conduct. We can either take a step back and breathe a deep breath, then talk over it WP:CIVILly, or we can have an RFC and sort things out in a decidedly less amicable way.
But I guess it will no longer be necessary. -- 我♥中國 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's not an excuse. -- 我♥中國 04:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to talk policy with you, if only you weren't so rude! And you see, I'm not trying to pressure you: You pressured yourself. By tagging those pictures with that tag you consigned them to seven days until death, and I'm trying to have the tags removed in less than seven days. I hope you understand the urgency I'm feeling when the work which I put many hours into is endangered by an arbitrary decision and several mouseclicks. -- 我♥中國 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have ANY idea how much trouble one has to go through to bring a picture back from deletion? Not just the miles and miles of red tape, but also the navigation through myriads of mouseclicks, pages of disclaimers and rules to read through, so no, they can NOT be restored at any time willy-nilly. I wish I could, but it just doesn't work that way. And are you aware that an article/picture that has been deleted before automatically has about as much as a probability of 1 of being deleted again? I know these, because I'm an admin and I have dealt with all of these things before, so please, don't patronize me. And like I have already explained, it's not the policy that I'm questioning, but your interpretation of it and your belief that your interpretation is the only right one. -- 我♥中國 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard? When you have 70 of them to upload, you'll want to eat your words. And since you obviously never bothered to actually READ THE ARTICLE to find out what the pictures were used for, the pictures show the actual medals that the article is about, and there is a grand total of one picture for every medal, for about the top 70 items in the list. They are obviously not decoration, or are you just confusing pretty-looking decoration with military decorations? And since you didn't read the article, there IS a body of text next to each and every one of the pictures, explaining the name, grades, and award criteria for each medal. #8 of the policy states that galleries in lists are "normally regarded" as decorative and therefore unacceptable, not "always". That is ambiguous and leaves room for interpretation, and I think I have already established that they are NOT decorative and are highly significant. In this case, they should warrant an extended investigation. -- 我♥中國 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A change that took place scant days ago (5 June, currently 7 June WP-time) and is apparently already causing much distress and discontent. You can hardly prove a "historical precedent" with an event that occurred 2 days ago. Even if those removals were justified, album covers are fundamentally different from images of military medals. Album covers can be printed and used in commercial ventures and copyright owners would lose revenue. But images of military decorations? Right, I'm gonna print these off and sell them as 1-inch stickers and deprive the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China of millions of dollars' worth of revenue from sticker sales! -- 我♥中國 06:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long time, friend...
Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road;
Every life must have its burden, every heart its load.
Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup?
As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup.
Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet;
Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet.
Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face;
Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place.
Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves.
Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years,
Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears!
Thank you for getting back to me. I really appreciate it! Do not worry as I will not ignore your warnings! Regards! xx ˉˉDuranDuran╦╩ 10:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
welcome back!!!!
ive been on a smal wikki break and i am just cecking and i noticed that your back!!! welcomeRazor romance 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The next time you make notifications can you please make sure you notify a user on all the images you've tagged, and not just some? I checked through your edit history and discovered you've tagged an image I uploaded, but for that one I wasn't notified. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 14:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You notified me on 3 Godflesh album covers I uploaded, but tagged four. The one you forgot to notify me on is Selfless (album) - it's an easy mistake to make, so that's fine. LuciferMorgan 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Make sure not to overboard though with tagging certain images that a single user has uploaded - User:Alcuin had 90+ image notifications on his page and waved bye to Wikipedia, while BetaCommandbot got blocked for a few days. I suppose though that such a problem can only occur when a bot is doing the work. Anyway, all the best. LuciferMorgan 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colscott
While it's a true statement that he is blocked, there is nothing whatsoever good that can come from having that message there. --BigDT 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it satisfies the speedy deletion criteria. But why were you trying to delete it? I thought you weren't an admin. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I was confused for a bit when you said you were trying to delete it ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of fair use image
Hi. I see you're good with images. I wonder if I could ask for a little help? I inserted Image:Capa%2C_D-Day2.jpg in the article Omaha Beach#Initial_assault. I found it on the Robert Capa article. It is obviously directly relevant to the Omaha Beach article but it's tagged as Fair Use. Have I done anything wrong here? Thanks --FactotEm 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping. I'll have a go at writing a fair use rationale, but I'm struggling to get to grips with the rules. I'll keep going but if it's possible to point me in the direction of a picture that has an acceptable rationale I should be able to figure it out from there. Also, in the article the quote that precedes the picture is referenced and I think appropriate so I can presumably relocate the image a few lines up? Appreciate your help. --FactotEm 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last question then I promise I'll stop bugging you. I understand now what's required in the rationale. I note that one of the requirements is that the image should not be more than 300px wide. I've downloaded a copy, reduced the size to comply, and now I'm trying to upload it. However, there does not appear to be any option under the list of fair use options that applies. It's not a logo, music sample, smithsonian image etc. etc. Can you tell me if there is another option that I should be choosing or should I not be uploading it at all? Thanks. --FactotEm 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a star. Thank you very much. If you confirm that the rationale supplied for the picture in the Omaha Beach article is acceptable I'll have a go at those in the Capa article. Cheers. --FactotEm 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daddy Kindsoul & ArbCom case
I saw that you struck your comment about his revert parole. I looked over the ArbCom case and didn't see any such lifting of the parole. Of course, I probably missed it. I, um, already blocked him (ha ha?), but that can be lifted if it turns out I did screw up. -- Merope 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merciful Zeus. I've asked another admin to look into the situation. If I continue dealing with him, he'll end up blocked forever with his page protected and then I'll get desysopped and it'll be bad. -- Merope 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I hate that box! ;) -- Merope 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - your page is acting all wonky in my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.4) -- the table of contents is all squished to the right-hand side and I have to side-scroll to see it. Not a big deal, but you might want to look into it. Cheers! -- Merope 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! It's a little unsightly, but so is my own talk page. I don't know how to make the table of contents and archive box line up neatly. As Riana! She's nice and knowledgeable about such things. -- Merope 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psst, Moe.
I'm a female. Don't make me break out my fake signature! Merope 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, conveniently, your explanation about what I meant by that statement was removed before the user placed his unblock notice. I'm terribly amused by this whole situation, but I feel I should back away. And yet, I cannot. Can't wait to see what the reviewing admin says. -- Merope 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I'm laughing out loud -- your picking up on Joy Division and then thanking him for it is just too awesome. -- Merope 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it seems one of the musicians on my watchlist had a similar violation. Fixed now. I'm going to go home soon. I'll have a beer for you, too, if you want. :) -- Merope 20:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats OK it was LOL thats all!!! I've done it already -the other two I have to create the articles for ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you appreciate my work on Randall and Hopkirk. I love cult British TV I have the box set - I watched them as I was growing up in the 1990s along with the Avengers and The Saint ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey even my first reply I was laughing. Why should I be mad with you? -it was quite bulky thats all. Your're doing a great job with tagging -if this site is to be taken seriously and professionally then this will need doing for every image on wikipedia. I was considering removing the excess images on the episode list anyway -looks better I think without it anyway. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs 15:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well its the fact that you have the decency to inform people about their images. Some imagers don't even bother and start putting images and articles up for speedy deletion without acknowledging the creator showing a complete lack of disrespect -this I would be less than ameniable with and have lost my temper with such people in the past who have later apologized personally to me saying "I didn't realize it was you". Regards. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete any rationales for the Beatles samples, just the debate template. If current Wikipedia practice requires specific non-template rationales, I'll be happy to provide them, but that seems overly pedantic. I know the template is boilerplate, but text it contains is spot-on accurate in describing the fair use of the samples. Why have such a template if it's not useful? --LDC 01:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missing rationales
Hey Moe, thanks for the note you left me, and for sparing me the standardised template warning of doom :) Sorry for the late response, I've been having some computer problems of late. Anyway, I've been working my way slowly through all my fair use image uploads, adding rationales and fixing image tags where necessary. You just got to these ones before me. I see that FactotEm has added the necessary info, but if you come across any more of mine in need of fixing, just drop me a line. Best wishes. --Cactus.man✍ 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles infobox
You should be informed that discussions about band infoboxes at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Defunct musical groups had determined that defunct group infoboxes can list as 'current members' the group members at the time the group disbanded. It was also determined that only individual members names be listed and nothing else which include not listing years the individuals were members and if a member is still living. Steelbeard1 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New messages
You know, I changed my monobook settings and it didn't work -- the fake bars are the new color, too. MFD might open up a big ol' can of worms, but I'll be there should you decide to go through with it. -- Merope 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Torch
Not sure it passes WP:RS, but since there's already another ref to it, I'll leave it in. SirFozzie 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current feeling over at WT:BLP is that BLP can also apply to the recently deceased. SirFozzie 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was on RC patrol and put this section back in. It looked like a conflict of interest, since you were the only disagreeing editor and some other users wanted to bring it to the attention of the office. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any comments, thanks! east.718 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't divulge any IP addresses, the editor was an anon. east.718 06:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing that the WP:RFCU was way out of line or that WP:AN would be a better place to bring it up, but that doesn't mean that discussions should be summarily closed and deleted. In my opinion, archiving it and leaving a polite note to take it to AN would have been the best course of action. east.718 06:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey Moe, I just wanted to apologize about last night. It was a heated and simply stupid disscussion about nothing, and it got out of hand. Just wanted to say sorry for my actions and raising my voice. BigCoop 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Page
You should just leave it redirected permanently. It is so much easier than maintaining it ;). Peace, The Hybrid 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oookay....
I never once said you were making it up. I said to cite a source, so that others could know about it. Like I said, not everyone knows about Daniel having Fragile X Syndrome. Also, I didn't go into a "long tirade", unless you consider two sentences being a "long tirade". Finally, I said "I know the AP made it", meaning the source. So, just calm down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMReese (talk • contribs)
Just a suggestion
More light, less heat. I know you're frustrated with what's going on, and your discussions over at Alkivar's page.. but it does no good to get into an edit war. SirFozzie 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. Was just trying to make a suggestion. I'll leave ya alone. SirFozzie 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL
I was just looking at your intro on your page, and I have to laugh at you being able to spell Intercontinental in kindergarten :). That's priceless, The Hybrid 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I bet that your teacher could barely speak when you asked her that. My kindergarten teacher tried to hold me back a grade for not being able to color well 0_o. She failed, of course. Peace, The Hybrid 23:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll follow the link provided (pre-revert), you'll see on the right hand side of the image that image's creator said GDFL was OK. If you still find some defect in this, then it would be useful to point it out to the uploader. Clearly the uploader is trying to get this right, and saying its wrong without providing guideance might end up with discouraging him. Rklawton 20:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: NFL images
Removing the logo parameter is a great idea. I wish I'd thought of it. I'll take a look at those other images too... you're right that this is a pretty significant problem. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Fair use removal from New England Patriots/Cleveland Browns seasons
It's a catch-22 as far as the gallery images go. There are already smaller versions of the main logos on the main page with the truncated version of the L+U article in its section on the main page. So essentially two of those logos (but separate, smaller versions) are already there. The others are specific to eras or information presented only in the separate L+U article, so those can't be added to the main page either. I think the best option at this point would be to add text them to them in the L+U article. Pats1 01:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMS Seal/My Apologizes
I wasn't aware that the AMS seals were under fair-use under I seen a change by User:Wcquidditch and spoke to him. I only added these to the WJLA and [{TV3 Winchester]] pages. I have removed them from the WJLA page and you beat me to the TV3 Winchester page. I also removed them from several other pages. My apologizes for adding them in the first place, had I known, I wouldn't have. I am sorry. - NeutralHomerT:C 03:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extra note: I had removed these images (and others which have already been deleted), but my edits - which included a complete copyedit and comments left on the talk page - were reverted by RMANCIL. He had given me problems for the duration of the copyedit, and so I would be breaking 3RR if I was to revert his edits. All of the images above were either from San Diego Chargers or 2006 San Diego Chargers season, in which both cases this user reverted most or all of my edits in favor of ones which do not follow WP guidelines. Thank you again. Pats1 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for the first-edit wishes. It definitely brought a smile to my face. Cheers. Orane(talk) 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Benoit
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your unbiased opinions on the Benoit article. From everything I've seen, you've been the calming voice on that page. You've done a good job. --SGTTex 01:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I know you've taken a lot of heat, but I just thought you should know your efforts are appreciated.--SGTTex 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Question
It was directed at Wesly. You just happened to post before I did. No worries. Jezebel Parks 04:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Thanks for the info, Mo. :)Hexrei 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was looking at this list and noticed that you deleted all of the redlinked bands on the list as non-notable. I thought the purpose of this list was to provide a listing of any band that fell under that category, even those which do not yet or never will survive notability concerns. Otherwise, of what use is the list at all - if the list is just bluelinked bands, it does nothing, since there's already a category for post-grunge groups. Chubbles 00:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page would be useful if redlinks were permitted, as in the roster of a record label (which should show all of the bands on the label's roster, notable or not, and all of them linked, to show which bands do and which do not have articles). If not, what is the point of having the list at all? In other words, I'm considering AfD'ing that list. Chubbles 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's your opinion? Do you think it was reasonable for me to reintroduce fair use images of the eight main characters of the two games, especially since all those character articles are likely to be merged soon? — Deckiller 03:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing is that the topics covered in 9-10 articles before are being more concicely compressed into one (or two); visual aides allow readers to see what the main characters look like instead of spending a paragraph discussing it (and making the article even longer). — Deckiller 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pages moves
I appreciate the sentiments, but honestly, I don't want to move any of them. I mean I want them moved, I just don't want to do it - as it seems that my rollback doesn't rollback moves. If rollback worked, I probably would have just done them all by now. Anyhow, I've warned him about such moves on his page; if you look at his talk page, the last 5 or 6 topics all deal with moves he botched. I suppose I'll help in the moving back, but, I'm with you, I'm trying to get him to understand not to do such moves without consensus or actually knowing what he is doing. Pepsidrinka 18:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I don't have a problem, and I see that my rollback does in fact work with page moves too, but only if I click the rollback from the log page, not if I do it from the most recent change. Anyhow, the thing is, for example, the NFL pages, one editor, after seeing all these moves, decided to fix all the redirects and templates and such, (well not all of them, but a good chunk of them) and now if we revert back, all his work will go to waste (though I don't see how there is any way out of it because the original moves were wrong and without consensus). Also, some of his moves were done properly, like fixing words that shouldn't be capitalized, though he botched a bunch of those too. So ideally, one would have to go through each move to see if they were done properly. However, I'm inclined to say just do a revert on all his changes and the ones that were correct can be corrected later (as I'd venture to say that more than half his moves were improper). Your thoughts? (I hate it when people are this bold.) Pepsidrinka 19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, makes sense, I guess. Revert away. Pepsidrinka 19:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I would agree. However, I don't know enough about the person to suggest that the way it is, is wrong. For example J.R. Chandler is one he moved, yet the space doesn't belong. Also, if it is correct to move the one you mentioned, are you willing to go and edit (atleast all the instances in that article) to reflect the new title because, naming conventions may be important, but IMO, uniformity on the page takes precedence. It looks very bad for the wiki if the title is "A. B. Smith" and every instance in the article, including the first sentence, reads "A.B. Smith".
Also, I'm suprised your not an admin. I was looking through some past RfAs, and you haven't had one in over a year? I'm sure you could use the tools. Pepsidrinka 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Ah, sorry, I looked over the 'revert' part. — thesublime514 • talk • 20:44, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
EDIT 2: Perhaps you were reverting against consensus, but who disagrees with the guidelines? They say there should be a space, and IMO, it just looks better. — thesublime514 • talk • 20:47, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
Haha, it's okay. We should set up a discussion somewhere, maybe in the controversial page moves section or something. — thesublime514 • talk • 20:49, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
I set up a thing here. Maybe there's a better place to put it (where it could have its own discussion page/area or something). If so, feel free to move it. — thesublime514 • talk • 21:01, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
Did the AFL-NFL article. You seem to be really busy doing these moves. I got tired after a half an hour. Anyhow, count me in as another admin who endorses you being an admin. When/If you have an RfA, let me know, as I'm only semi-active now and I usually don't check RfA anymore (and it wouldn't be canvassing, as I'm asking for you to tell me). Pepsidrinka 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the user who was fixing a chunk of redirects, templates and etc... I also was the first (and still the only) to bring up these page moves in the project discussion group. I Also appear to be the first to point out the severity of these moves to User_talk:Koavf#Renaming_of_NFL_Draft. After a few days of waiting with no reply in the project discussion, and the moves seemed harmless enough and limited to the NFL Draft series of pages. So I began the task of cleaning those up as I've been working on the series for over 3 months. This lead to templates, category, and other edits which revealed the severity of the situation. AFC, NFC, CFL, Etc... My solution was to fix the majority of redirects by editing the templates, then create a list of find and replace search terms for use with AWB and after 3 days of deciding deciphering and reviewing my past edits I loaded AWB and was about to start that process, First page load and well I'm sure glad I discovered that a roll back was underway. I almost created another probable 5000+ redirects throughout category NFL Football. I'll again do my part to clean up my possibly hastily post move edited pages as time permits, starting with the templates. I only wish someone had stopped me earlier from accommodating the moves, my frustration obviously blinded me. Slysplace | talk 12:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
one more thought, I Suppose I should have also posted my concerns in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League but a quick look shows no one has, I believe I've been working within the scope of the aforementioned projects but is there possibly a deeper seeded parent project (other than the wiki itself) I've not noticed? Slysplace | talk 12:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your reply: There is no need to feel sorry, often it takes many to edit a good article, and often times it takes many to really screw things up even if in good faith. Then there are the situations where one can really screw things or possibly forget it's the Quality of the edits, not the quantity that matters. Either way there is a mess to cleanup indeed, and I'm sure there will as always be more people cleaning up than messing up, and the task lies upon not one (you nor I) but all of us who strive to make good faith bold and correct edits. Thank you for your kind and understanding reply. Slysplace | talk 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Koavf moved this page twice within a few minutes on July 1st. You reverted the second of his moves, claiming no consensus, but not the first. Where should it, in fact, be? I have no opinion but the current location seems not to be ideal. Currently there are double redirects that need to be fixed; I'll leave them, if it's not through floating about. Chick Bowen 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mass page moves are bad, and reverting them is standard practice, so you're certainly right about that. Personally I prefer to see thoughtful moves, but also thoughtful reversions if possible. Looking through the logs, it seems like some of them are actually consistent with the MOS and might just as well stay, while others obviously need discussion--so I think you were absolutely right to revert Lost At Sea (Craig's Brother album), for example, if that's the way the album is spelled. The initial-spacing ones might be reasonable (in fact, it's possible Koavf could have gotten bot approval for those if he'd asked). But I understand that in a case like this the default is going to be for a revert, and perhaps the sheer numbers involved won't allow for the thoughtfulness I'd ideally like to see. Chick Bowen 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moves
Is there anyway that I can help reverting the moves made by User:Koavf? If so, please let me know, I would be glad to help. Take Care....NeutralHomerT:C 09:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem:) I figured you were, each time I looked at the "recent changes" section, you were there. Am glad to help. Take Care....NeutralHomerT:C 09:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response about this case and the anonymous editor. I checked the vandalism protocol page. It looks like they first have to be reported for 3RR violations. I am thinking that it the first violation that he'd be reported for would be 3RR, since he did that, then he almost entirely blanked out the article. Dogru144 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice re User:208.104.45.20. I put in a second request for a block, per 3RR violations. You can see additional comments I've put on the 3RR appeal for block page. Regards, Dogru144 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check out 2007 San Diego Chargers season? User:RMANCIL seems to have a serious problem with people disagreeing with his edits. He has also disregarded my comments, your comments, and Zzyzx11's comments. I'm sick of reverting what he keeps doing, I'm sick of trying to reason with him, and (thankfully) because of 3RR, I can't take any action. Pats1 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pats1
Pat has broken the 3 revert rule already what action have you taken with him? You also did a revert and duplicated several paragraphs of the articule why don't you read the content before you revert? You should invest in a spell checker as well. It is clear that he is your friend and that you are not a neutral party perhaps you should sit this one out or try a even handed approach. I see that you failed to warn him on his talk page just what rational are you applying ? One set of rules for me and another for him? RMANCIL 10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Telling an old friend hi
Its been a while. Just telling you that I haven't died. Sad to say that my grandparents are. All in horrible health. Life is good. Don't suck at school anymore. Gators National Champs, I'm slightly happy. Just checking in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipknot222 (talk • contribs)
First Edit Day
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Moe Epsilon! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! ~~~~
You are WELCOME!!! I'm just here doing my job!!! I see that we have Wrestling in common!!! Enjoy the rest of the week!!! -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Party and have a great day! Cheers from Canada --RobNS 01:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive and forget
Thanks for your message.--Konstable 11:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D.A. Waite
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article D.A. Waite, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust my colleague's comments assisted you. Please feel free to ask me directly if you have any problem with my admin work. Doing so is probably more polite also. As you will see each of the articles you mentioned had Proposed Deletion tags on them for at least 5 days and I was just undertaking my volunteer admin duties. However can I suggest that you put any articles that you are particularly interested in, into your watchlist so that you do not miss out on seeing speedy or prod delete requests in the future. Once again any time that you need to ask me anything please do so directly - you'll find that I do not bite. Best wishes.--VStalk 15:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HIM
Don't worry, i'm sure you'll grow out of it.--Manboobies 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HIM. I mean, they are pretty bad aren't they? What about a nice bit of Slayer instead?--Manboobies 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent them an email, too. :) Corvus cornix 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Still not quite GFDL compliant, but it will do. And I note they added something at the bottom about being a fan site. Which means links to it are not reliable, anyway. Corvus cornix 19:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging
Moe, just a note. You seem to be a month off (it's July, not June anymore).[1] -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
How do you catch all those double redirects? I can help with that, if there's a certain method you are using. RobJ1981 05:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGF
In the presence of evidence to the contrary, AGF is no longer assumed. While Misou's wording is stronger than I would use, that is his style. Based on the other editor's edit history and comments, I'd submit that Misou is no longer required to AGF with him. Does that mean Misou is innocent? Nope. But it does suggest that your response came with a lack of insight into the situation. Best Regards. Peace.Lsijohn 16:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite lack of caring about anything about that Scientology-related, or having dealt with the editor before, I looked at all the diffs provided at WP:AN and nothing suggested there was correct. It was not vandalism, as defined by WP:V nor was there a WP:3RR violation as provided by the diffs. I read the diffs and the seemed like legit comments and citations he was trying to insert into an article, and that doesn't require someone running to this editors talk page and shouting "You're destroying Wikipedia"-like comments. Content disputes aren't vandalism. While this editor has been blocked before, nothing suggests that this is a pure vandal account nor someone seeking to destroy Wikipedia, thus assuming the good faith. — Moeε 21:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify.. I agree that it wasn't vandalism. I agree that his choice of wording is poor. My comment related only to your referring to AGF. I'm not defending his wording. Peace.Lsijohn 22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, AGF is in everyones different personal choice how much to assume, lacking it completely with a, what I think, well-intentioned user, is where it needs to be called for, and thats what I did. — Moeε 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The only reason I said anything at all, was to make you aware of POV issues and long term history which have caused 'both sides' to long abandon AGF with each other (with no judgment implied about guilt or innocence on either side, btw). Peace.Lsijohn 23:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moe, one snack later, which gave RZ too much time for nonsense. Added 4RR (or 5RR) to the count for one article and 4RR for the other at AN/I now. Can you stop this silly game? I am turning to more productive things now but will check in again later. Misou 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another one. You know, I hereby declare the WP Admin system as utterly ineffective. I know you all are volunteers and enthusiasts but spending your spare time on things like WP does not relieve you from fully and rightfully applying Wikipedia Policy. Misou 03:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And David, if you are still awake there in Florida, check this out, please. 6RR in my counting, at least 4RR in yours. Misou 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've worked on music genre pages before (got two through FAR and working on a third). While I do feel genre articles need illustrative soundclips, I do try to assure that they fit fair use guidleines. Thus I was starting to work on adding commentary and fair use rationales yesterday. However, I do not feel your comment "Don't readd copyright violations to this article again. Next time I see WP:NONFREE being abused as much as it was there I'll start handing out warnings" was made in good faith. Please reconsider you words. I definitely intend to readd sounclips to the article in the future, but in acceptable form, so please understand that any sort of further work with soundclips on the page is not a flagrant intentional violation of copyright. Thanks. WesleyDodds 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you were coming from, just found the message unduly harsh, ie. "Next time I see WP:NONFREE being abused as much as it was there I'll start handing out warnings". Whatever, don't sweat about it. Nonetheless, I understand commentary in the sample box is sufficient as I've had no problems with those and fair use at the FARs I've worked at. With music genres, it's a bit hard to go into individual songs in the prose, but the clips are representaive of particular styles and movements. The same thing goes for soundclips in regional music articles (ie. "Music of _____" article"); it doesn't quite work to mention a particular Brazilian death metal song by name in the prose in Music of Brazil (it would make the prose awkward), but commentary in the caption box works fine. This genre in particular is stylistically broad, so commentary is best suited for the caption boxes. Once again, I've worked with a number of editors familiar with fair use and they have found no problem with this. Obviously the gallery in alternative rock will stay gone, I was just messing around with what was available before I got sidetracked and then you reverted. Once again, no harm meant, big misunderstanding, and so forth. Thanks for the prompt feedback. WesleyDodds 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists - an agony in eight fits
Howdy! Based on your recent page moves to most of the pages in {{Contents pages (header bar)}}, and my exhaustion today, I present you with the conundrum of what to do next:
You're first task is to figure out where to even discuss it. Good luck! (I'll check back when my head stops pounding... :) --Quiddity 02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a new list namespace has been thoroughly rejected on many occasions, so that's not an option. (more details as I remember them!) --Quiddity 06:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here I present the answers:
List of topics - I already requested this once specifically on an admins talk page, so I don't understand why this was denied, he didn't even reply to me, which is weird. I'll make another request.
Category:Lists of lists - Everything else should be located in the article namespace as they are topics which are, probably, searched for, and provide a disambiguation to. Likewise, Lists of topics is maintained like a WikiProject, not an article that provides disambiguation, and thus should have been moved to the Wikipedia namespace.
Ok, sounds good. Other people had battled over it (the namespace used) in the past, but I can't find it in the archives, and they don't appear to be making a fuss now, so I guess we can safely ignore/be bold.
(Your userpage looks fine in firefox. Good quotes, too :) --Quiddity 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and an addendum to your answers: Wikipedia talk:Contents isn't a great place to discuss it, because not many people watchlist there yet. One of the Vpumps or MoStyle pages would probably be better, if it needs to be discussed by more people... Thanks again :) --Quiddity 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Quiddity's request, I am replying here (but I will not be checking Wikipedia frequently for a while, so please accept my apology if a reply is slow in coming). I can't quite understand why you thought List of academic disciplines belonged in the Wikipedia namespace any more than, say, List of Star Wars characters. It's not an article, true, but it is a list, something of which there are thousands in the main article namespace. This one also serves as a redirect target for potential article topics like academic discipline and field of study, and so for now is Wikipedia's best stab at documenting the disciplines themselves and the arrangement of academia. Why would that project (substantial and encyclopedic, as far as I can see) be better served by removing it from the encyclopedia proper? -- Rbellin|Talk 03:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of academic disciplines has some intricate wiki syntax for an 'article' don't you think? If "list of.."'s are going to be in the article namespace they should be formatted like everyother article, not like WikiProject type headings and the like. Despite whether or not it's a list or not, something in the article namespace is considered an article. Clearly "List of topics" and the others are not something widely searched for, and it's a general directory to help you find everything easily. Unlike List of Star Wars characters which you are clearly looking for characters on Star Wars. You wouldn't go to 'List of topics' to search for a list of anything, would you? Most answers would probably come back as no. Searching for characters is one thing, which is what list articles are for. A directory for a general scope of such things like glossaries, topics, and overviews are much too broad to have a list on. That page also has internal links to the Wikipedia namespace, which is another reason for moving it. Generally articles style tend to leave out mentions of the "behind-the-scenes" work of the Wikipedia namespace (with exception to the Main Page), and this kind of flip-flopping between namespaces is confusing. Hopefully we can work something out with this. Cheers! — Moeε 03:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the colourful styling of the "Contents" pages - I'm not particularly supportive of it, and it was only hashed out by 3 editors (including myself). I much prefer the simple and minimal styling of regular articles. (Also, I've never been particularly happy with the state-of-readiness of these pages for sidebar prominence, or the low levels of participation. The bold folks were more persuasive than I though.) The colouring could all hypothetically be removed, if someone wanted to put the time into arguing it and editing them.
They currently look more like a portal-namespace set, to me. (I forget if that's been suggested/rejected already...)
I still believe these (contents) pages need more eyeballs, more thought, more discussion, and more editing. If you can figure out how/where to drum up some intelligent/experienced volunteers and feedback, do so. --Quiddity 19:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to do whatever it takes to sort out the problem. Whether it be keeping those pages in the Wikipedia namespace and the self-references are removed, or, I can remove the color from it, standardize the list and move it to the article namespace again. Which ever you want. I'll wait til I get a response from Rbellin, but I'll take the time to do either, so it's not a problem. — Moeε 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a reasonable and patient approach here. I'm in agreement with Quiddity about the formatting and the self-references being entirely disposable. Just to be clear, also, I don't think a move to the Wikipedia namespace is a bad idea for most of the list-of-topics/contents lists that you moved (none of which I edit actively). But the list of academic disciplines, which I do put some effort into maintaining, is not a mere list of topics. It is more encyclopedic than a table of contents or list of subjects with nothing in common -- in fact, it is a completely topical, focussed list of one carefully delimited kind of thing, and still, to me, does not seem so different from something like List of Star Wars characters (in this regard only). I can recall several times that treating this as though it were one of Wikipedia's contents lists has led to problems maintaining it in the form the title implies; perhaps it would be better to make it more clearly distinct from the contents lists and turn it back into an article-like list instead. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think something like List of topics should be listed? Do you think this is better left in the Wikipedia namespace, or reformatted and avoiding the self-references? — Moeε 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You answered that :p Ok, then I will get started on list of academic disciplines getting rid of self references and reformatting. — Moeε 22:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, i moved the list you requested. (coincidentally right when you removed the message, haha) Wizardman 00:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article back to its original title. The subject has written to OTRS asking that we omit his real name, as he wishes to keep his professional and personal lives separate. I think this is a reasonable request, which probably falls under WP:BLP as well. Cheers.--§hanel 22:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting free content
Moe, I drafted an essay/how-to on requesting free images from article subjects and others, feel free to pass it around to whoever may need help with replaceable images. Videmus OmniaTalk 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The White Cat - Ned Scott business
Thank you for saying that![2] It's most definitely tiring to keep on reading about this. Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sad day when I'm a voice of reason *rolls eyes* — Moeε 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Null edit
As much as I agree with you, I've been told that null edits to avoid redirection are at very least in violation of the spirit of previous arbcom rulings. The Evil Spartan 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hated to do so, it wasn't because I prefered a revision, I would have done so to whatever revision it stood at. Revert warring page moves is worse getting an admin to perform a page move over it. — Moeε 00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, then it would be appropriate to ask for protection then, as I've done at WP:RPP, right? I believe you could do the same, as you can't protect it for conflict of interest. The Evil Spartan 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. You're uninvolved. Perhaps you could lock the page then? The Evil Spartan 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think I just fully asserted myself in it, so maybe I shouldn't do anything else there. — Moeε 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after I read your post at ANI, I would tend to agree. :) The Evil Spartan 14:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spaces
I'm encountering moves by you, for example at R. B. McDowell, where I think you are taking too much on yourself, in reversing moves that bring spacing in line with conventions. It is not enough to say such a move is contentious, to reverse it. If you provide no evidence that your version is actually better, then I think you are out of order. Charles Matthews 11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not go jumping to conclusions. This was a part of a mass-page move by Koavf who made over 3,500 page moves or so, and that sheer fact alone was reason to revert him. At the time, for those page moves, he was blocked for a week (later unblocked so he could help revert them back or at least discuss them). While most cases the intial spacing is correct, it is clearly not the case every time, as some are distinctly without a space. It was not a wise move by Koavf to assume that that all of the spacing applied every time when clearly it doesn't. I have no opinion on where the final location is to be in regards to any of the articles, I simply responded to a series of controversial page moves. I also gave notification I was doing these series of page moves to many admins, who approved this action as well. — Moeε 11:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you say 'clearly it doesn't'. Clear to whom? Let's be absolutely clear that a space where (for some unusual reason) it doesn't belong between initials does little harm to Wikipedia while it is there. Really. I think, where there is no showbiz reason, reverting such moves is plain wrong. Charles Matthews 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear to whom, clear to every situation. There are articles that don't have the intial spacing and mass-page moving to reflect that change is wrong any which way you put it. Mass page moves are bad, and granted, reverting them isn't much better, but at least I was given permission by adminsitrators to make these moves. Koavf decided to make 3,500+ page moves, get a series of angry complaints about the page moves, is blocked for it, and your saying it's not controversial? — Moeε 12:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that. Thank you for giving me the context. I am saying that the antidote to a bunch of indiscriminate page moves isn't a bunch of indiscriminate page moves back. OK, you have courteously answered the point of my original query, which was to see what kind of war we have here over the spacing convention. I'd prefer to see a Talk page note for any case of a move back against convention. Charles Matthews 12:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like this [3] when I was making the page moves? — Moeε 12:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a message!!
Your have a message form me at th Professional Wrestling Wiki.--Hornetman16(talk) 02:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History merge
Oh, sure. I love doing history merges. In fact, I'll do it right now! Sr13 06:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
good day
hey buddy, no thanks for the threats. rogerd and later jpgordon removed my comments from user talk page, this is not allowed is it [4]
But the thing is that you don't need know who each one of them is. You yourself said you know its the Jackass crew, and just by looking at the pic thats all you need to know.-- bulletproof3:16 04:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying it’s unnecessary. If Jackass and Umaga are still involved at SummerSlam, then the links to their names on the results section will lead the reader to their respective articles. If Jackass is not involved then WWE will release a new poster and there will be no need for a "redundant description of what I can already see".-- bulletproof3:16 04:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't come on my talk page to criticize and antagonize me. Believe me I am all for making things as clear and direct as possible in articles. I am quite familiar with the WP:CK but I just don't see this as necessary. I don't know who isn't linking the words "Edge", "Kane", and such in articles, and quite frankly it's not my problem. If you know where it’s at and I haven't seen it, then why don't you go ahead and fix that link problem for me. Many thanks.-- bulletproof3:16 05:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
_-_A_Little_Coaxing_(1890).jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ARebel_%28John_Miles_album%29.jpg&diff=145085927&oldid=145085611){kind=link}