Archives

October 2004–December 2005 January 2006–December 2006 January 2007–December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 Discussions older than a week are archived every Monday.

Sure. Fair use images need at least one article to use them in order to be valid. However, you do need to add a fair use rationale explaining its purpose in the article as well as other tidbits (use {{Non-free fair use rationale}}, also means that you need to have a fair use rationale for every article the image is used in) or the image probably will be tagged for deletion. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm asking because the image does not have a fair use rationale; although, the image has been around for nearly 3 years, so I would imagine that someone must have come across it by now and would have tagged it if it wasn't allowed. Gary King (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standards change. That said, not all content necessarily needs to be sourced, and I believe the sources in the "Influence" section validate those statements. Despite this, you should generally try to source everything. Anyhow, g'night. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but redirects to user space from article space are not allowed. I think the only exemption is WP:JIMBO which is a somewhat special case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright, I wasn't aware. Go ahead and delete them then :) Gary King (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your question regarding List of billionaires (2007). If it's whether you can't source other Wikipedia articles, that's certainly correct per WP:SELF, although I don't see where that is used in the article. As for your rant, it's certainly a sad fact that many key articles one would think indispensable to an encyclopedia aren't getting the attention they deserve, but we're all volunteers, and we each choose to devote our time in our own way. As for List of tallest buildings in Toronto, I'll decline to comment until comments arise, as it's not my area of expertise. If the nomination is lacking for comments for a while, then I'll look back at some previous featured lists of the same type and make my assessment. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For List of billionaires (2007), I'm talking about the Source column. All the links in that column are Wikipedia articles; would that be acceptable as a minimum to consider as references for each entry in the list? Gary King (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see. I would think a reference linking the person and how he's acquiring the money is necessary. Shouldn't be that difficult. Also note you can make a "General" section in your references if you have a long laundry list that can serve as a citation for all of them, which would mean separating the in-line cites into a "Specific" section. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've seen that done. I've never done that, but I'll probably end up doing that for the first time for this article. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding the volunteer part, yep of course I totally understand that. But, I have seen top-level articles that are Featured Articles, so it's not impossible. I'm guessing those are one in a blue moon, though. I wouldn't have posted the rant in the first place if there wasn't any hope ;) Maybe I'll find the time to spearhead something in that area soon... Gary King (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please start using the edit summary "nominating _____" rather than "clean up". Also, you currently have several nominations, so could you please wait until some of them close before you nominate any more? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will do that. Gary King (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given how busy that page has been in terms of repeated deletion, I would prefer you had a finished draft before I unprotect the page, as vandalism has apparently been pretty rampant there. Just type it up at User:Gary King/List of billionaires (2008), show me your draft, and I'll unprotect the page. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind per below. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, everyone is quick on their feet in the evening... Gary King (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. --Allen3 ^talk 02:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of billionaires (2008), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of billionaires (2007). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's indeed very similar. Creepy... Gary King (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gary King,

Thanks for your welcome message.

Are you the holder of "The Nightingale" section, which I have just edited?

Jean de Beaumont

Nope, just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia! Welcome! Gary King (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! PeterSymonds | talk 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FL process is different that the FA process because we don't have a director so the task of closing FLs falls to those that want to do it. Basically one day I just started closing FLs and nobody said I can't, so I kept at it. Right now there are two active closers, and two semi-active so it's not just a one person thing.

And which school do you go to, the prestigious one, or that other one that split off from the prestigious one and nobody has ever heard of? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, ouch. I think I'm talking about the latter then, if the former is the one you're attending ;) Also, could you take a look at the following to see if they are eligible for a promotion? I think they are, but of course, I'd like someone else to take a look and if they feel, promote them: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries without armed forces (5 supports, 0 opposes, 7 days ago) and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unrecognized countries (3 supports, 0 opposes, 6 days ago). Neither have had significant opposition; although, I will understand if you feel that they still need to gestate a big longer. Actually, none of my FLCs have any Opposes, but they have longer discussions, so I'm willing to wait longer for them to be promoted, but these two have nearly no issues and the ones that have been brought up have already been resolved. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FLC minimum waiting period is 10 days, so they still have a few days left. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, forgot about that. Alright, I'll wait. Gary King (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, excellent news! Well done.

		The Original Barnstar
		For your concerted efforts at WP:FLC and on your first successful promotion, I, TRM, award you this shiny barnstar! Keep up the great work....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added that to my wall. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Keep it going and don't hesitate to call on me if you need any help. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Gary. It was my pleasure to support your list because you responded to all the comments and suggestions raised on the nomination page promptly and attentively. This is how Wikipedia should work. I wish you a lot of featured content! Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your first featured list. You'll have plenty more in very short order =)

In any case, onto you and acquiring a mop. We've basically established your credentials as an editor, considering that you've cranked out more potential featured lists in less than a month than I did in like three, so great work. By all means, keep on going. As for other activities, you participate in anti-vandal work and a fair amount of CSD tagigng, although more of the latter would be nice. You don't have to be constantly tagging - visiting Special:Newpages once in a while is all I ask, although you can certainly do more if you wish. Just remember to read up on WP:CSD, and don't do things such as tagging fictional characters for A7 or inappropriately using A1 or A3. However, what I would like to see is more AfD participation. Similar to the CSD tagging situation, you don't need to go to a list of AfDs at WP:AFD and comment on every single one. Read through them, and comment on the ones you feel comfortable on. My biggest recommendation here is to formulate a concise response that demonstrates your knowledge of policy. Comments such as "per nom" or "per above" show a corresponding lack of understanding of policy. Saying "Delete per WP:WEB. Fails to assert any notability through reliable secondary sources" is far better than merely "Delete per nom." Feel free to take it at your own pace though.

On another note, I'll start to occasionally ask you questions that might come up at RfA, the first of which will be #1-3, the required questions for any prospective administrator. #1 has already been defined really by our first conversation - WP:AFD, CAT:CSD, and WP:AIV. #2 is all those pieces of featured content you're churning out. #3 is hopefully no significant conflicts and merely good shows of civility. Work out a formal response for each question and post it on my talk page. Naturally, it's at your leisure. Don't feel hurried or rushed - we have all the time in the world to formulate good answers to these questions. Feel free to peruse old RfAs for tips on how to construct them also.

Finally, I would recommend filing yourself at Wikipedia:Editor review. Just make sure that you clearly state you want to become an administrator, are being coached, and would like a third party opinion on how you're doing. Traffic there is practically nonexistent, so to garner responses, contacting editors and asking them to make a review is best.

Anyhow, that's it for now. Cheers and good night, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Acid3 on Firefox 3.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) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In each case that I had a draft, I c/p the text in the draft and placed it into the article. In each case, the articles had so little traffic and so few constructive edits that my rewrite was vastly superior to whatever it was replacing. As such, yes, it was more or less building the article "from scratch." If there were other users contributing to the article on a daily basis, then I would probably make the draft more limited - rewriting sections at a time for instance. Another solution would be simply to contact the regular users that edit the article and invite them to work on my draft. What decision you make largely rests on the number of regular edits. If there are one or two, you can invite them to work on the draft, but if there are more than five or so, then it becomes impractical. In all of my cases, there were practically no editors fixing up the article, so I was basically doing it on my own. Hope that answers your question. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that for this AfD you brought up, it is for a very new article. Generally, we allow these articles time to grow as to see whether they meet the relevant notability requirements. If the article isn't valid for CSD tagging or a legitimate prod, then it probably should stay. Feel free to keep tabs on it and nominate it in about 3-4 weeks if notability concerns still persist though. If you do have a concern, however, and there's no speedy criteria that applies, then prod it. An AfD after a contested prod tends to be more legitimate. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yeah, traffic tends to be a significant figure in the above decision on drafts. Best of luck on the article though. As for the AfD, I deleted it. Use WP:TWINKLE next time for AfD nominations, as it cleanly transcludes it on the relevant AfD list, adds the tag to the page, and simplifies the process. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, when I contacted you before about AfDs, I meant go comment in exiting nominations, not try to find articles to delete. The latter activity tends to lead to significant problems, especially with disruption, and there's a load of relevant stuff you should be aware of before you nominate an article for deletion. For the moment, however, feel free to peruse the lists of AfDs at WP:AFD and comment. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also, if a CSD tag is inappropriate, prod the article. WP:TWINKLE gives you the option. Be careful with prodding new articles though - only do it if the article has a blatant reason for being deleted but doesn't fall under any of the speedy deletion criteria. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELSORT is the place to go. Note that some WikiProjects may not sort AfDs for their topics, so there might not be any available for your interests. If this is the case, just keep on perusing the lists at WP:AFD until you find one that you are comfortable commenting on. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we're both interested in video games, you might want to peruse WP:VG/D. Recommended reading would be WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT#INFO. I can also help you out a lot more with these AfDs. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. To each their own. WP:WEB seems to be the relevant reading for your purposes. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. As a rule of thumb, you generally want to cite guidelines or policies when making your argument. For instance, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloob, you could have stated:

Delete per WP:WEB. Doubtful that Persian-language sources could be found to assert notability.

This naturally isn't always necessary, but it is good for reviewers at your RfA to know that you're constructing arguments with guidelines or policies in mind. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for asking me to peer-review Facebook, and also for naming me as a recommended editor for reviews. I actually have never peer-reviewed an article but since you asked, of course I will. Be forewarned, I actually know nothing about these social networking sites, so all I can help with is WP:MOS and such, and making sure everything is correct gramatically etc.

One of the reasons I haven't done PRs or FA reviews is because I feel that I'm not that knowledgeable on a lot of areas, and there's already enough editors who can do the MOS and English stuff fine without me. Lists is a different matter though because usually, these things are easily verifiable and so are simply right or wrong.

Also, I don't know if you were aware, but Wired Magazine had an article on Facebook a couple of months ago. It was all about the history and such. I still have it somewhere I think, so I'll read it, see if anything there is relevent to the article and include it, or you could see if it's at their website. I'll look over the article in an hour or so, unless real world takes over. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the article? Gary King (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Judge Judy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I reverted this vandalism to previous revision "Because Frank and kyle are awesome at DIMUN" - without looking that previous edit was also vandalism. So thanks for reminding. Best. Atabek (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Time 100.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave it open a few days because technically it has only been open for nine, and it has unstruck opposition. So a few more days may help in getting that struck. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Elton John.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Ben Croshaw.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yamla (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that the actual license is different from the one that's on the page, I don't get why you can't just change it? I added 3.0 license when it should have been 2.0 license; I've fixed it now, but again, I don't see why the whole tagging process has to be done when it can be easily fixed and you already spent the time to check the license. Gary King (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]