User talk:East718

User talk:East718/PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE

Re: Request for arbitration

I've been wanting to, but I've been reluctant to do so since this whole thing blew up lest someone twist it into accusing me of breaking my agreement to refrain from engaging in the activity in question while this is sorted out. I realize that that's hardly what I'm doing at all--explaining a prior "vote" is by no means the same as casting a new one--but it wouldn't surprise me if certain individuals tried to claim that it is. I realize the vast majority of people will be sane enough to realize how absurd that claim is, but it's still something that might give them ammo. I'd rather not get sidetracked fighting that; I'd rather not give them the ammunition to throw at me.

And I thought about putting it on your talk page instead, but the argument then will be that I just did that to sidestep the letter of what I offered to do, while still violating the spirit of it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Rfa

By the way, good luck on your Rfa. I just noticed it. It looks like you will be promoted. Congrats in advanced. Have a nice day.--SJP 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations you are now an administrator! Secretlondon 01:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Daniel 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second that (or rather third that). Glad you passed your RFA with flying colors, best of luck in your admin duties.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! :) SQL ^{Query me!} 07:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous me

Yes, that was me at Haunted Angel's RFA. I had been auto-logged out and changed my mind halfway through about whether it was important to attach my username to my comments. It would be cool if you could sign on while doing edits, without losing your edits. Right, I don't do RFA's very much. Usually only if I run across a link to one of them while wasting time on something else. Matchups 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD of Image:Jonouchi Linework.jpg

Hi. I was wondering why you declined the CSD of Image:Jonouchi Linework.jpg when three other images from the same set were immediately CSD. They had invalid fair use rationals, and they also appear to be copyright violations being the reproduction and selling of printed works from the studio. Thanks :) Collectonian 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*grin* no worries. I would have grouped them together but I didn't notice the other three till after I sent in the first one. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 05:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent request

Could you please unblock Hesperian please? He was accidentally blocked by another admin. Thanks, Auroranorth (sign) 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted out ;) Thanks, Auroranorth (sign) 05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Image:DSC--Majlis5323.JPG

Dear East718, I noticed that you have removed the above-mentioned photograph. With reference to my earlier message to User_talk:BetacommandBot, just wish to let you know that on 26 October 2007 I wrote to an Office of the Majlis of Iran (mellat@majlis.ir), requesting them to inspect the photograph at issue. The following is part of my message:

26 October 2007

Dear Madam/Sir,

Hereby I should like to request you kindly to provide the Wikipedia page

pertaining to the English edition of Wikipedia with an appropriate

photograph of the Majlis; the present photograph has been marked for

deletion due to lack of an appropriate copyright statement. The

pertinent address is as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majlis_of_Iran

By clicking on the photograph at the top of the page, you will be led to the

photograph page where you can see that the present photograph has been

marked for deletion on Friday 2 November 2007.

...

Yours sincerely,

<My signature>.

In view of this, I should like to request you kindly to restore the photograph. Above all, they (i.e. the Majlis) cannot claim not to have known about this photograph. I have my original text sent to the Majlis, and should ever anyone claim that this photograph has been unlawfully on the Wikipedia page, I am prepared to make the full text of my e-mail to the Majlis available for proving the contrary (I have in addition a digital document showing that my e-mail to the Majlis has been received and read). With thanks in advance, Yours sincerely, --BF 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear East718, thank you for kindly restoring the photograph. As for the "one week" time to obtain the necessary permission, the onus rests now with Iran's Majlis — I have written to them once, and, to be frank with you, feel already affronted by not having received a response from them (and as I wrote earlier, I have a digital document indicating that they have both received my message and read it), either in the form of a written response to my e-mail, or in the form of the copyright statement being adjusted by them (that is what I asked them to do). Furthermore, I have not had anything to do with the photograph; my only involvement bagan on 26 October through my writing to the Majlis (see my previous message). The person who has uploaded the photograph is User:S_bashardoust2005; therefore if anybody has to do anything, that is the latter User not I. I shall now add a remark to the extant copyright statement, that on 26 October 2007 the Majlis has been forwarded a request to grant permission to use the photograph at issue on Wikipedia. Incidentally, this photograph is not very significant; if you inspect the website of the Majlis, you will find a host of similar photographs there and I have not been able to establish whether these photographs were copyrighted or not. Kind regards, --BF 18:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, but as I said before, I have had no involvement in uploading the photograph at issue; on 26 October I saw that it was marked for deletion, so tried to play the Good Samaritan and wrote to the Majlis. Now I am being chastised for that! (Not that is your fault!) Kind regards, --BF 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I have clarified my wordings on question 5 of my RfA. Please read my clarifications to see if you wish to switch your stance. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for switching. I will try my best when I become an admin. Let me know if I make an mistake, ok? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthopox 13

Hi. I also nominated two other character articles for deletion. I was wondering if you could make a decision on those (i.e. delete or tell me to AFD those in a separate disucssion). hbdragon88 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]