/archive 1 /archive 2

For hard work at the help desk. Molotov (talk)
22:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence for work on the Bahá'í Pages

For services rendered to the Bahá'í pages (and there are a bewildering array of very obscure ones) I, MARussellPESE, present Geni the Barnstar of Diligence which is awarded here in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. These pages are the better for your services.

Also awarded to, in no particular order: PaulHammond, Occamy, Geni, Rboatright, and Tomhab.

Hey Geni :)

I'm gonna put it for ALL readers, not just the watchlist notice.

1) it's something I feel everyone should know

2) It was at Slashdot, where a majority of people don't care about Wikipedia, and I think even readers should care more than Slashdot crawlers...

3) some people don't check their watchlists (such as bumm13, who has never used it)

4) Jimbo never objected

5) Profit.

Cheers :) Redwolf24 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a banner ad, it's news. If CNN says Microsoft and Apple merge, it's not advertising anything. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they're interested, how do you know the readers won't be? This isn't pro-advertising and it isn't anti-advertising. It's an NPOV paragraph to increase awareness. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The community can't decide if they don't know about it ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, alright, the summary (for George W. Bush) may have been out of line. But it was a useful (albiet minor) post (which I'll be putting back in, with a different summary ideally), and I thought it was funny, at least. ;) Still (being serious for a second), it was probably a bad idea. Sorry. Matt Yeager 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, it's already back.

Alright, gotcha. Sorry. Matt Yeager 23:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your reversion of the accurate information in the Prussian Blue article (which I understand was done in completly good faith - you doubted the accuracy, so I sourced it) is being used by wikipedians of dubious motiviation to argue for the exclusion of the entirety of the information regarding the band's belief in holocaust denial. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 11 years old can engange in something which can accurately be described as "holocaust denial" by others than POV pushers with extremely dubious motivation like User:Hipocrite. ThompsJohn 18:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, did I do the self-important, getting all excited, over-stating a problem and jumping the gun thing? I hate it when other people do that, so now I'm embarrassed :(

Fox1 (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't revert my work at Animal testing. Yesterday you deleted a whole section on the LD50 test, even though it was completely factual. Today, you're reverting in support of an anon, who uses more than one IP address, won't sign up for a user name, and who posts only to this article, so he's here as a single-issue editor. His edits are pro-testing POV, and he doesn't understand our polices. He feels we should insert what he believes to be true, even if it hasn't been published anywhere and even if it contradicts what all the sources say.

I'm in the middle of rewriting this article, so please bear in mind that it's a work in progress, and will improve. However, I feel that the intro as it stands is very NPOV. It doesn't give the pro or anti side, but simply lists facts in the first three paragraphs, then in the fourth, it gives a broad overview of the basic dilemma that's at issue. To insert (as the anon wants to, and as you support) in the intro that animal testing has, as a matter of fact, made positive contributions in that particular list of diseases, is to take one side of the debate in the second sentence. The details of the debate should take place in the body of the article, in my view, after the facts of animal testing have been explained (numbers, what types of tests, conducted mainly by which countries).

This is an article that has needed to be improved ever since I started editing here, so now that it's finally being done, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't revert my efforts in the middle of the process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

00:56, 18 September 2005 Geni (→History - rm deleted image)

Do you by any chance know why this image was deleted? Source was stated as being myself and I didn't put a copyright on the picture (public domain).

Thanks --Tom Lasswell 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your help. SlimVirgin is editing numerous animal rights-related topics in the name of NPOV but is actually pushing an insidiuous POV in the pretence of making things neutral.

He actually has some extreme views. See e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barry_Horne

I can't help but wonder whether ARM is British intelligence; though to be honest, I can't see a bunch of MI5 officers digging up bodies, but then I can't see anyone doing that. In the Barry Horne case, ARM popped up just at the point where people realized Horne might actually die, and the public mood shifted just very slightly in his favor, and then bang! 24 hours later, the top item on Newsnight is that, if Horne dies, a bunch of scientists (bravely fighting cancer) are going to be killed, and whoosh, public mood shifts straight back again. If it's not MI5, it's a bunch of activists who badly need some training in PR.

Bizarre conspiracy theory. The death threat was made by a well-known animal rights militant. Any suggestion of a conspiracy theory is just weird

I haven't kept up with Gladys Hammond (that might be worth an article, you know), but the latest I heard is that ARM claims to have buried one-sixth of her body in a place it can found, is that right? That doesn't sound to me like the animal rights movement

He is clearly sympathetic towards the aims of the animal rights movement. He is editing articles removing the most blatant POV claims in pursuit of a semblance of NPOV but actually weaving a path towards a conclusion by the way facts and AR opinions are presented.

He is dead-set that a picture of a caged monkey should appear on SHAC, even though it is a blatantly POV-pushing image. He reverted content to that page that explained about Huntingdon Life Sciences in a more balanced way. They are NOT an animal testing firm; they are a contract research laboratory that conducts no more than half of its experiments on animals.

All pages he maintains are unbalanced and do nothing to explain what HLS actually do and that it might actually be positive. There are dozens of links to animal rights websites, and little or nothing on respected, mainstream scientists like internationally renowned Robert Winston who said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1283048.stm)

"They operate in a way which leads one to consider that is very close to a fascist way of acting if you can't get what you personally want as a minority you are going to try to go to any kind of lengths at the limit of the law or just beyond it."

None of this is reported.

It's just:

in 1997 HLS was found abusing animals ALF activitists filmed more abuse

there is nothing in between, no pro-HLS line, no justification, just animal rights propaganda

The conclusion is implied: HLS abuses animals. There is nothing close to balance.

Compare a neutral organisation like the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4295706.stm

'Huntingdon Life Sciences carries out cancer and other medical research on animals, which the government has described as vital, but have come under fire from campaign groups. '

Or a balanced article on animal testing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/index.shtml

Contents

Key points  
Does animal testing work?  
Is it morally right?  
What are the alternatives?  
Protests and pickets  
How many animals are used in experiments? 

You see nothing in support of HLS, even though there is a consensus from the government (SlimVirgin deleted a link from former Prime Minister John Major in support of HLS, and also one from Tony Blair describing their works as vital).

Jack Straw said:

"The work here is critical to humankind and we need to applaud the people who work here rather than abuse them.

They are undertaking medical and other research which is essential for the benefit of us all and it is vital that this work continues."

These are serious heavyweight figures who aren't give any say; meanwhile SlimVirgin is busy editing articles in favour of Barry Horne, imprisoned several times, including one episode where he tried to kidnap a dolphin using a Mini Metro, who firebombed Boots stores causing millions of damage.

It is all sympathetic. None of it looks like http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.politics.animals/browse_frm/thread/1a0341dafc6ad572/e9041b84bdcb79b9, a Sunday Times article on Horne.

On HLS there is little on the bombs sent to staff, the tampon said to be infected with AIDS, the beatings of Brian Cass (whose work was supported by the Prince of Wales when he gave him the CBE), but fulsome detail on every alleged transgression of HLS.

He also put something in the talk page about SHAC stating that criminal actions of SHAC members shouldn't be added. Highly bizarre, given that every wrongdoing by HLS is covered. See e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/stories/200212/21/animal_rights.shtml,

"50 year old Rae Schilling from Station Road in Otford was jailed for four and a half years in April after pleading guilty to three counts of putting people in fear of their lives.

Schilling was a member of the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, which threatened shareholders in Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd to abandon their investments."

Other SHAC activists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1425980,00.html

What an HLS article should look like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1124524.stm

Andrew Blake of the campaign group Seriously Ill for Medical Research:

'Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is the UK's largest contract research organisation (CRO) and does more than just preclinical animal safety testing (see box). In fact, the majority of CRO employees are analysts who analyse soil, plants, water, human blood samples and, yes, some animals .... CROs are helping to develop therapeutic proteins in sheep's milk, animal organs for human transplants (xenotransplantion), cancer treatments, antibiotics, anti-rheumatics, vaccines, anti-epileptics, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's treatments and many more besides ... These "animal rights terrorists" hold a fanatical belief that animal research does not work.

But most disturbing is the arrogant attitude that because they have an obscure view of life, then everyone else, including patients, should be forced to live life according to their opinions.

For fit and healthy people, which most anti-vivisectionists are, animal research may not seem so important but for seriously ill people, it is a matter of life or death. ' followed by contradicting view from AR proponents.

But you won't get anything like balance here, not while SlimVirgin is doing the rounds.

Hope you can help.

14:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is nonsense. This person or persons has been editing using several IP addresses, and reverting on sight, deleting material from pages including several images (e.g. the HLS logo and an image of the managing director), rather than making considered additions. What additions he has made are a mix of good and bad material: some of it appropriate and well-referenced, while other material has added too much information about SHAC to HLS, even though we have an article on SHAC. For example, he wanted to add a SHAC campaign timeline to HLS, and it's a good idea to have one, but it needs to be on the SHAC page, not the HLS page. I therefore moved it to SHAC instead.

None of the animal-rights related articles can have as their default position the pro-testing position. But nor should they veer too far in the other direction. My aim with these pages is to try to produce articles that state the relevant facts and nothing else, which isn't easy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what several IP addresses has to do with it; it is beyond my control and is simply the way I connect to th the internet. The images were removed inadvertently when you removed substantial material I had added. I have reverted only what you deleted of my edits. 87.74.10.201 21:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted a lot of material, moved stuff that you don't like around, included far too much information about SHAC on the HLS page, deleted images (not all of which you restored) just because you don't like them, and of course it's within your control not to edit as several IP addresses. All you have to do is sign up for an account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop whining about the IP addresses on every single page. I have explained that while this site allows it, I don't want an account. Once again, if you look at diffs between the pages you have edited, you have deleted a substantial amount of material, which you show no interest in adding to the narrow POV that you promulgate. Only one image was deleted, one which has had a POV dispute over it for a very long time, but which you ignored because it suits your POV. You have been told probably half-a-dozen times that a random collection of attacks on HLS does not belong on SHAC, because the SHAC website at www.shac.net specifically disclaims violence, and it is therefore a contentious decision to associate all acts against HLS with SHAC members without specific attempts to address it. You have deleted *far* material than I, as I have repeatedly explained. I came here to edit an article. I added content and made some attempt at balance. You showed no interest in accepting any alternative viewpoints, and simply reverted on site, including all content. I moved the content because I believe that the introduction at the very least should be balanced and non-contentious. If people want to read your propaganda about monkeys, they can do so just centimetres down the page. 87.74.10.201 08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the right page to have this discussion, so I'll make this brief, and this is my last response here. We are not here to defend SHAC or HLS. Even though SHAC say they are non-violent, they have no existence as a legal entity, which means that when people associated with the campaign carry out assaults, SHAC has plausible deniability. We're not going to parrot their view; nor are we going to attack it. We report events as others have reported them, and that's all we do. As for the image, there has been no dispute over it. And please stop being so rude. I'm not "whining" about your use of multiple IP addresses. I'm simply saying it means I have no idea who I'm dealing with, or whether you're more than one person, and that isn't adding to your credibility. SlimVirgin

(talk) 08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you need to establish that they are associated with SHAC. This has not been done, and is non-trivial to prove. Secondly, you have whined on and on on every single response about IP addresses. I have told you already that I am one person who connects to the internet in whatever way is appropriate. This does not need any more discussion, you are manufacturing a dispute about IP addresses when the issue has been explained. I cannot engage in discussion when you still have an obsession with IPs, looking up IPs, and manufacturing disputes that are not related to the content of the article. You are claiming there is no dispute about the image, whereas in fact it says several times on the talk page that there is. 147.114.226.175 09:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also disagreed with the external links in question. This has now gone for RFC, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman and kindly offer your views. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comments you have made about the moon landing hoax were rather vague and not led by evidence. Most of the sentences can be either defined as "no, it is not true" or "I'm attacking your claims just to make you mad." The lack of seriousness also concerns me whether you are starting a pointless war or just act foolish.

Geni, if you have a chance would you mind taking a look at this: WP:AN/3RR#User:FuelWagon. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Wbfl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours. He has been editwarring with Geni (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia talk:Administrative probation, see [1]. I am putting this notice up as I was the target of the original attack. Fred Bauder 02:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use email. Regarding blocks, the reason always gets truncated to around 240 characters, so if it's an autoblock of the underlying IP of a very very long username, it will get truncated before the username itself finishes printing out. -- Curps 07:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I´m wondering: in the edit summaries: how do you get the link to the users contributions? I´ve tried, (see Bogdanov Affair) but I have just messed it up. Regards, Huldra 13:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR complaint was plainly done in a mean spirit. It was obvious that you knew I was strictly dealing with a request for assistance with vandalism, not editing the article. What is your real issue here? FeloniousMonk 15:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see you didn't file the complaint and that I owe you an apology. It appeared to me you had, though I see now I was mistaken. I'm sorry I wrongly accused you of filing the complaint and implying it was a misuse of the process, and I hope that you'll accept my apology. FeloniousMonk 15:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I think there is something odd with the block you applied to User talk:I Hate My Ex! - in the block log, it shows that you have blocked the user, yet the username link does not link to the correct userpage. Just to let you know, I have reapplied your block. --HappyCamper 03:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

are you kidding, in the picture it was shown that the picture was taken by me, uploaded by me, etc...

agh, just guess i'll have to readd it

--Tom Lasswell 04:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I noticed the licensing has changed recently, i'll fix it up though =)

Durin has a point actually - although she says she won't sue him, she still calls it libel, in other words, she says that he has commited a crime against her. She follows it up with demands that he change his behaviour. I would see that as menacing if I were in his shoes - Guettarda 04:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realise, and I agree with what you said on the talk page. My point is, I don't think it's that easy to reassure Durin; if you look at it through his eyes, I don't think that simply saying so is likely to convince him. But maybe I just don't have a point. This whole thing is a toxic mess, and it makes me very sad. Guettarda 04:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talked to kelly on irc and she explained the distinction between libel and actionable libel. So she is technically correct in her usage, since she interprets Durin's words as defamatory; on the other hand, I had no clue that such a difference existed, and I suspect most people, when they read "libel" interpret is as actionable libel. You're still right, she's just less wrong than I thought she was. Guettarda 05:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I only figured out what you meant by "language codes" when I wrote that bit above there. I understand what you mean though - some days my wife comes home from work, starting talking and I'm like "what language are you speaking?" - and I know I'm worse sometimes...when I realise someone doesn't understand the word "parsimony", and I'm too busy being baffled by the concept to do anything but stare, speechless, at the person. Guettarda 05:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Yoism is on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Edwardian 18:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if this is your territory, but I see you've done good work on alt med articles previously. Check out the Gerson links at Wikipedia:Cleanup#November 11, 2005: these pages need a POV and factual check, as they're currently written entirely by a proponent. Tearlach 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Radiant_>|< 10:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geni - your latest reversion on thimerosal is baseless on facts and appear only to be made to spite the subject matter. It is vandalism, pure and simple. --Leifern 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you to WP:VIP as a moderate vandalism with the appropriate documentation. I will continue to do this as long as you persist in wholesale reversions. If you find reason to object to single points, edit these. Wholesale reversions are unacceptable. BTW, your version of "magic cream" is shameful. --Leifern 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your objection that you would have to protect more pages if WP:PWDS was implemented. I include the text below. If you have any further thoughts or concerns on this, I'd really like to hear them, as it will help improve the proposal(and hey, maybe it'll change my mind about it ;-) ). Thanks!

Quoting from the page:

• We would have to protect lots more pages than we do now.
  • Pages are protected because they are recreated often, or are targets of high-speed edit wars or vandalism. If a PWDS page is unblanked(i.e. recreated), it should be listed on AfD(as being at least somewhat contested, rather than being re-blanked, or protected). The number of pages recreated after a deletion via AfD would be no higher(and probably even lower) than it is today. So no more protection due to recreations. While PWDS might lead to more edit wars (although they all could be redirected to AfD, as is the case now), they are no more likely to be high-speed(requiring protection) than edit wars or vandalism is today.

The "Edit this Article" tab definitely works, try it again. If you were refering to the tab above, remember that it will only say "view source" to non-admins(most readers). Non-admins, if they dont already know about this kind of thing when they look at it, will easily figure it out.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you have a link like "Edit this Article", that edits the template, but it is at the bottom of the page? Classic is not the default, but I have come accross it, I tried it and didn't like it. Anyway, how can I get the link on top for that skin? Why does Classic put it on bottom anyway?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 07:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have loaded the classic skin, and I kind of see what you mean, but it is not that bad. Also, the the other edit links for the sections are the same. Quite frankly, this monobook is set up poorly in that categories should be on bottom.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 07:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

put the stuff back at Flaus page-im not experimenting-IVE GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THEN WASTE MY TIME REDITING THAT PAGE-YOU VANDAL-YOU MUST BE PROUD OF YOURSELF-WIKIPEDIA HAS LESS INFO BECAUSE OF YOU 128.250.99.135 03:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah ok I made an error. I've reverted myself.Geni 03:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Alex McDowell as a stub and it got labeled with db-bio in 30 minutes. I've left a message on the user talk page, of the user who marked it for speedy deletes and then I've noticed his/hers contribs. Any ideas? +MATIA ☎ 14:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to help with all this and for deleting all the images I've linked for you so far. I'll have another clear out soon. Keep you posted. Thanks! Wikiwoohoo 17:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, I mistook that for another policy page thus this edit. That being said though I feel the need to point out to you that since this was not vandalism just an honest mistake it was innapropriate for you to use your administrator rollback function. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, why did you revert my questions to the arbcom candidates?--Silverback 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I see, they go on a different page. I edited the outer section. Apologies.--Silverback 13:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Geni. If you're still willing to delete my images for me, here is the latest batch. Thanks again! Wikiwoohoo 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Skating-ident.jpg-Removed from remaining article
• Image:Tai-chi-ident.jpg-Removed from remaining article
• Image:UK-flag.png-Not actually in any articles but displays those it was in until image removed from UK retail stub template
• Image:Uk_flag_large.png-Not actually in any articles but displays those it was in until image removed from UK banks template

Not entirely sure why the UK flag images are still listing as being in articles, they aren't! They are still showing the articles they were in as stubs, either for the UK retail stub or the UK bank template. They are orphans though. If you check some of the articles they are meant to be in, they aren't. Confusing! :) Thanks for all your help though. Wikiwoohoo 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It must be great to be so comfortable with ignorance. As I predicted, you simply reverted the introduction to the homeopathy article, just like you've reverted every single attempt at making it anything less than a polemic against homeopathy. Your conduct is a disgrace to the Wikipedia community and the scientific community you think you belong to. Oh, and unless you revert to my version and edit it rather than doing a wholesale reversion, I am reporting you for vandalism. And I'll insist that you as an admin get blocked for some significant period of time. --Leifern 01:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for vandalism as a result of repeated wholesale reversions to your POV. I will continue to report such offenses by you where I find them. --Leifern 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you reverted Trojanpony's edit to George W. Bush. It was legitimate, I have restored it. Please don't revert edits just because they are made by a new user. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, but in your revert, you changed "a" back to "the", making it incorrect again. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, If you have time could you look at this image for speedy delete. (desc) Photo 1.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg . . 90,069 bytes . . Carajou . . 23:46, December 6, 2005 (Salman Pak facility, courtesy Space Imaging (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photos_prove_connection_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_terrorists.guest.html)) It seems like it should go, but the uploader didn't have a User page. If it can be speedied could you do it and then explain the steps. I want to learn, but if you don't have time that okay.--FloNight 05:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, I have now reported you for the third time in just a few days for wholesale reversions, again on the Homeopathy article. Please consult WP:Vandalism, where such wholesale reversions are described and clearly defined as vandalism. The fact that you are doing it to promote your point of view actually aggrevates the offense. --Leifern 03:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a movie screenshot.

Dwaipayanc

this user is not a sockpuppet and I keep getting banned. Very unfair.

Thanks for the advice Geni. I'm worried about him coming out of this block with this mindset, but i'm sure we'll be ready. karmafist 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geni,

I was wondering if we could get your point of view on a revert war on Baha'i persecution. Thanks -- Jeff3000 02:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the user signature only. It was getting kind-of old. -- Fplay 14:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted the article IEEE P1901 I've done. I have clearly written that I'm authorized to use the text from http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1901/ in Wikipedia. The permission was given to me by Jim Mollenkopf (IEEE P1901 Co-Chair). If you don't believe me you can email to him. I loose time in making it and in asking permissions, so please restore the article or tell me what other should I do. -- Armando82 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. A user you blocked indefinitely has made a request to be unblocked. Would you mind stating your opinion of this request on their talk page? Thanks. // Pathoschild 05:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings;

I recently saw a page on a company that was marked as for deletion due to copyvio. According to the instructions at the time I made a new page as “/Temp” that is new content and not copyvio per instructions was on the orgional location. The original page has since been purged. The /Temp which is (appears to be) clear of copyvio is still there and could probably be moved in to place now that the copyvio page is gone. The original page was Avanade the new rewrite is Avanade/Temp or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanade/Temp Thanks Bdelisle 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind - I thought the "Move" command would only mark the article to be moved from /Temp to / and an administrator would take care of it. It appears that the "Move" command actually moved the article from Avanade/Temp to Avanade. Sorry if that was a problem. OOPS! Bdelisle 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be able to see the deleted Pugly page, which you deleted and described as "patent nonsense." It most certainly was nonsense, but it was created by a friend of mine and I am interested in seeing the page he created. I am not an administrator and I am not eminent enough in Wikipedia to be nominated (or nominate myself) with any hope of success. I have no intention to repost the page or anything like that. I simply wish to chuckle at the utter flimflam my friend mankind716 attempted to slip into the site. Please reply on my discussion page. Thank you. arevolvingonob(talk) 19:52 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. arevolvingonob(talk) 20:03 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves#December 17, 2005? I see that the requested moves of three asteroids to add diacritics were made once before, and seem to have been reverted by you, but I can find nothing on any of the six talk pages to say why... in fact, there's nothing on the talk pages at all. Andrewa 10:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:657 Gunlod. Andrewa 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Minor planets --Philip Baird Shearer 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the bugzilla report I put in here: bugzilla:4411. Also, WP:VP (tech)#MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages' diff link doesn't work in Classic skin. Blackcap (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Blackcap (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But why would this be ironic? - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm just pretty jack of all admins right now... we seem to have two groups: those behaving badly and those turning a blind eye. Please take any broadside that comes across your bow with a grain of salt. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a problem, this is the first I've heard of it. You have something particular in mind? I'll take 'em down.

Hi,

There's a debate on Wikipedia right now as to the fair use of images on user pages. I'd please prefer not to delete the image until the debate is settled. --CJ Marsicano 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

The fair use clause, the way I understand it (and I've been aware of it since Negativland :had their battles with U2's record company almost 15 years ago) would indeed cover the :use of the image in the userbox. Again, until the debate is settled, I don't want to cut the :image and hide. --CJ Marsicano 21:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi one final time,

Debate is currently going on regarding fair use in wikiboxes. I stand firm on my position until then. --CJ Marsicano 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi absolutely one last time.

Debate over fair use in userboxes is at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes. Any other comments on this matter would be a rerun of what I've already said. Please don't bother me about it again until that debate is settled. --CJ Marsicano 22:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Trekphiler has removed our comments about his User page from his Talk page without comment. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you and I looking at the same User page? The one with the Kari Wuehrer and Mariah Carey images? However, I see that Fred Bauder has removed them all. That should cause an uproar. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Kari Wuehrer image? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the military images, but the Wuehrer image has got to go. There isn't even an FU claim, and even if there were, it can't go on a User page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page USS Nautilus (SS-168): Maybe I misunderstood something. I wasn't aware lifting directly & exactly from DAFS was OK, yet that's exactly what the article is doing. I pulled this from the DAFS site:

"At 0755, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet, she continued observation. At 0800, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: 1 battleship and 3 cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

And this from the article:

"At 07:55, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway Island, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet (30 m), she continued observation. At 08:00, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: one battleship and three cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

Hmmm... I think Leno calls this "Eerie Similarity". I'd call it plagairism. Trekphiler 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for your message re fair use image in one of my userboxes. I have removed the image. However, I have a page been deleted notice on my userpage now. Could you add more light on this for me please? Many thanks Funky Monkey 03:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you're well. Thanks for helping to move things forward regarding the ArbComm elections. While we all can't agree all of the time, and acknowledge and appreciate different points of view, there's a time for debate and a time for action ... and I believe we've long since moved passed the former.

Further to that, thanks for taking the initiative in starting to configure the ArbComm election pages. Moreover, I took the liberty to copy and tweak one vote page with some common sense/RfAdmin notions. Given recent discussions, I apologise for the delay. Some tweaks include:

• mild reorganisation
• format links to candidate history, comments/questions, and election rules
• question posed directly with Y/N options (with the hope of limiting comments, as per fiat)
• a direct 'VOTE HERE' section and link, w/ tally

What do you think? If you're OK with some or all of these changes, should you put them in place, should I, someone else, or not at all? Anyhow, thanks again for your feedback and help. E Pluribus Anthony 03:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there; thanks for the feedback. I've nixed the tally (agreed about manageability) but retained the VOTE HERE moniker/link a la RfAdmin (with the intention is to make things easier), but I'm not partial to that. I think it's clearer now yet succinct. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 08:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Et cetera

Hello; thanks again for your work on this. I want to reiterate that, while I agree with the vote limitation you've proposed, I do not agree with doing so at this juncture ... regardless of it being "right" or "wrong." It diverges from what Jimbo has laid out and has already been discussed. If any Admin can invoke that sort of reasoning – and potentially open a can of worms – then we can't possibly move forward. If I came across as curt, I apologise.

As well, the voting instructions require minor copy editing: I suggest any or all of:

The election instructions, extensively discussed, are as follows:

• In order to vote, you must have a Wikipedia account registered on or before 30 September 2005 with over 150 edits.
• You may vote in favour of or in opposition to any ArbCom candidate: click on the support or oppose link for the candidate you are voting for.
• If you have multiple accounts, you may only vote with one: voting with multiple accounts will result in your votes being declared void by an Administrator, and sock puppetry will be punishable through administrative sanctions. Anonymous votes shall be summarily removed.
• Voters are requested not to add extensive comments to their votes. An uninvolved party may move excessive comments to the talk page. Throughout the election, voters are free to ask questions of the candidate in the appropriate section.
• The election will run from 9 January 2006, 00:01 until 22 January 2006, 23:59 UTC

That's it for me. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I grant that but, given the tumult regarding the election, is this the time do this? I think I would be negligent if I let you "get away with it" without challenging it as I have, and I'd nix it if I had the ability to do so, but alas ... Anyhow, thanks again. E Pluribus Anthony 16:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think this problem was begging of the solution you arrived at (and challenged by fellow Admin Flcelloguy once mentioned), which has the potential to derail everything else. And remember: in space, noone can hear you scream. :) Ah well. E Pluribus Anthony 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a misreading of the voting procedure. Votes should be placed on the sub-pages containing the candidate statements. I think this is reasonable because people can then easily see who they're voting for or against and how that candidate answered questions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the pages have been moved, and we're in the process of changing the links. It's mainly copy and paste, and it's not a mess - the vote should be in a subpage of the elections, and votes for each candidate as subpages of that. It's going to be done sooner or later; why not before the election? Trust us. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done the table yet - Jtkiefer's doing that - but I've been doing the bottom part and fixing those links. The subpage is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Skyscrap27. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom part is all fixed; Jtkiefer's working on the table. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's fixed; thanks to Cryptic. More than 20 minutes to spare... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the oppose votes on Everyking, who I voted for even though I'll readily admit he's not the best behaved fellow on Wikipedia (one of our best editors, though) I see that it's getting very ugly already. Isn't there some general agreement that we avoid a repetition of the disendorsement thing? If so, do we have appointed tellers to delete campaigning messages from votes? Or am I just getting my silly head all worked up over nothing? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; it's gone now. --King of All the Franks 05:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Thanks for setting up my ArbCom page.

Okay, they're gone. If any more need to go, I'll be happy to remove them. --King of All the Franks 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the problem is with images in userboxes. If an image is already in use on wikipedia and is ok for the purpose of an article, why is using that same image in a userbox so problematic? I've been careful to use images already on the site, or (if an article lacked a photo) supplying one and using it too. Exceptions are pics that I don't intend to keep for long (photoshopped picture of Spock) or are made by me for the purpose of userboxes (File:Stars and swastikas (small).jpg "Stars and Swastikas") which other users are free to use (I've gotten a few requests by other contributors). If we could host a pic elsewhere and put an URL up on our Userpages it would save a lot of headaches all around. Isn't there a way this could be done? I'm still kinda new here and figuring things out.--

Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase the key part of fair use is use. We think we are ok useing the image in a certian way in a certian article. Useing it un a user page is unliekly to qualify under fair use rational.Geni 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I've seen other userpages with images from wikipedia in use on them. And, I've made contributions on Memory-Alpha and Uncyclopedia for some time and this issue hasn't come up on either site. If you look at my userpages on both sites, they are very similar. Since I cannot post the URLs of those pictures on wikipedia (some are hosted by Photobucket.com), I tried to improvise with the pics available here. As a musician, I'm pretty familiar with copyright law, and yes "fair use" law is kinda fuzzy. The extention of copyrights in the last several years have eroded fair use a lot. It's almost a joke. But, the images I've used should be OK, mostly promotional material already publicly available. Since the images are in use elsewhere on the site, in a non-profit manner, that gives Wikipedia a lot of coverage too.

The images are being used by Wikipedia, regardless, keeping them off of Userpages won't give the site any additional protection. If the holders of the copyrights want to press the issue and force the removal of these pictures, they can pretty much get away with it wherever the images are posted. The only rationale to remove them from userboxes/userpages is censorship, plain as that. If I feel I'm being censored over this, I probably won't contibute any further and see no reason why anyone else should.--

Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: cen·sor·ship

Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship

Function: noun 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively 2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor

Main Entry: 2censor

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Censorship is not exclusive to governments. It is the suppression of free speech, an act which requires no government authority to do (only the power to do so). You should consult a lawyer on this, because blocking secondary use (on the SAME site) gives Wikipedia NO additional protection. Believe me, any pic on Wikipedia is vulnerable, wherever it is. Fair Use law doesn't really mean much anymore than what a copyright holder will allow. I've dealt with this stuff before. If believing somehow there is a "safe" way to use copyrighted pictures makes you feel better, go ahead. But it doesn't exist. There are lots of Star Trek-related fansites who got got shut down by Paramount who said the same thing you did.--

Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(from US Copyright Office)
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised December 2005

new history--◀Puck^talk▶ 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your logic for claiming this is public domain?Geni 02:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC

A satellite feed of a public figure (the President) about to give a speech isn't owned by anyone.--

Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can tell by the lame decor behind him, he is about to give a speech on public TV (possibly Texas' public access). Although I intend to dig further to confirm this, I don't have a solid confirmation on that yet.--

Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having more noticeable reminders for people to donate is part of a long term board-approved strategy to make sure Wikipedia continues to have enough money to stay online. Please don't remove the one line message. We can't afford to not greatly increase donations between fundraisers. :) --mav 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geni, I just was informed that you claimed as copyrighted images in article "Stauromedusae" in Ukrainian Wiki (http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauromedusae). Could I ask you please to indicate more precisely which exactly image(s) you meant? Sincerely --Shao 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. You can read my answer here.

Look, Geni, I put that comment there because seems to be a User:Farseer who is Special:Contributions/Farseer systematically removing categories and links that he disagrees with. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#[HelpDesk-l] would be appreciated. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-13t18:51z

Hello! I noticed your negative comments regarding the proposed redesign, and I'd like to invite you to review a radically revamped revision, and to post your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#Proposed_version. Thanks! —David Levy 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, why the deletion of an external link from Canals of the United Kingdom? I've asked this on the talk page, so best to reply there... Cheers JackyR 20:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artisson has a livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/son_of_art, and the email listed on his profile is howlet_dark@yahoo.com. I hope this will help to confirm the identity of whoever emailed you asking that those pictures be taken down. Madame Sosostris 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had created a page on the nosairi, only to find out that there is a page on the alawis. Someone else pointed this out and the page is up for deletion, can you delete it? Nygdan 1-20-2006

No, there is no information in nosairi that is not in alawite, i moved the information, and included more and some other sources. Nygdan

Sorry, I didn't realize that this image was fair use. I've removed it. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 01:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a number of fair use images on your userpage. I'm afaraid these are not allowed on userpages. Could you please remove them?Geni 12:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geni! I've removed the images for him, as the userpage is temporarily protected. Batzarro and Ferall have continuously uploaded fair use images, exclusively using them on their user pages. As you can see just simply by the length of my talk page, I've been having a lot of fun lately, watching a sockpuppet play. I find Booren to be an interesting character, but I feel Zanimum2 is a rather inaccurate portrayal of the character. -- user:zanimum

Okay, dude, I get it...So, I've changed the guinness drinker template to the following: Template:Guinness Drinker

Thanks for policing Wikipedia.

Rowlan 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been banned for one day for blanking the anonnotice page. If you agree not to do this again, I will unblock you ASAP. I've been told otherwise. WikiFanatic 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geni. I am currently revert-warring with someone on the Neal Chase page. Since you're not a Baha'i I think your input would be valuable. The issue is pretty simple and there is plenty of legal documents supporting it. Cuñado - Talk 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions about these edits? [3] [4] Now we're back to reverting and I'm pretty tired of it. Should I put in a request for arbitration maybe? Cuñado - Talk 09:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate Cunado for adminship. He's been here longer than most. KI 02:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the President of the Hermit Crab Association (hermitcrabassociation.com). The Hermit Crab Association was founded in March 2001 by a small group of land hermit crab lovers. In the past few years the membership has grown to over 1000 members and counting. Recently there has been an online "war" of sorts and as a result there are a few disgruntled former members trying to reroute traffic from the established communities of hermitcrabassociation.com (over 1000 members), landhermitcrabs.com (also more than 1000 members) and hermit-crabs.com (#1 on Google and averaging over 20,000 hits a day.)

The attackers are trying to reroute people on the Wiki Hermit Crabs page to hermitcrabassociation.org, hermit-crabs.net and landhermitcrabs.net. Said sites ARE legitimate hermit crab sites and thus deserve a viewing. However the parties that are constantly changing the URLs need to stop doing so. There is enough room on the internet for everyone.

I'll admit, I deleted hermitcrabassociation.org once but that was it.

I'd appreciate if you keep an eye on this. I'd post a TALK page about it but these people are really malicious, they would edit it and it would get pretty darn gross.

Thanks! --Christa 05:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to WP:CP...also...what is the deal with Image:Phrygian cap.jpg?--MONGO 12:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I should have seen that for myself. Duh--MONGO 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I don't respond to every single talk page message.

Maybe it isn't common practice on Wikipedia. But I was backed up by several other users when I blocked, and I blocked for obvious reasons. Once again, I'm sorry. WikiFanatic 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=37946621&oldid=37946584 Am I a sockpuppet of you? Is the man reliable? Midgley 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Well, it's unorthodox, but actually it's a very good idea. I just hope that (if it passes) it doesn't set a precendent for sockpuppets... Jimbo Wales on wheels! for admin, anyone :-)? Good luck. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a nasty professional spammer yesterday and kept a watch on Talk:Internet and it seems to be one of the places where they have targeted their spambot. I've tried to list it on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress but I don't think that the best place, but WP:AIV is for users which are given the last warning, so that might not be the proper place either. The point is that these are the real spammers and not users adding their favorite own website and the IPs are mostlikely open proxies. What do you think is the best place to report stuff like this? Dr Debug (Talk) 14:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to let you know that I am asking for arbitration with JeffMichaud. I posted it here. Cuñado - Talk 01:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I went to arbitration prematurely. They rejected my request. Is there a formal way to ask for help? Or should I just ask an admin like you? the steps for resolving disputes is not very clear, so I would appreciate some advice. Cuñado - Talk 08:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to the Daniel Brandt article were perfectly valid

And indeed all other Brandt related articles

   " back to "the", making it incorrect again. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Speedy delete image

21:51, 11 February 2006 Geni deleted "Henneicke Colonne" (yep copyvio)

Can you explain why does this violates any copyright ? I would like to be able to see the deleted page, which you made disappear completely from Wikipedia without any chance of editing, copyright violation notice, or any comment on the reason why.--LanguageVirus 03:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This page was semi-automatically modified to sort links to Pathoschild in a meaningful way. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you restored that page. In the future, could you tell me before undoing my deletions? Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it would be controversial and immediately nominated my own action for review at WP:DRV. I've explained my actions there as well as I know how. I can not in good conscience reverse my action because I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch^(talk) 14:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metallica--C10005060.jpg is supposedly fair use and not allowed to be used. Well, don't posters and other advertising materials fall under free use? --MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. At least it shows I care. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image you removed from Turbo-folk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ceca_raznatovic_36.jpg is most definitely a newspaper page scan. The page was published in a teeny-bopper/celebrity type magazine (sort of like Tiger Beat in US, but targeted to audience that's little older) in Serbia some 14 years ago. Zvonko 05:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that as such it does not qualify as fair use even though it's a newpaper page scan or that different tag should be used? Zvonko 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "the way it was being used was not consistant with the claim of fair use" which I must be too stupid to understand because I fail to see anything distinct about the use of this photo in the turbo-folk article as opposed to other scanned pages throughout Wikipedia. Perhaps, you meant that fair use rationale as outlined in Wikipedia:Image_description_page wasn't listed, which I did just now. Anyway, check it out now click. Zvonko 08:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're saying that in this particular case the photo must be specifically referenced in the article to qualify for fair use?

If so, how specific is specific enough? Because the photo already illustrates one of the more important points in the article – the look and style of turbo-folk in the early 1990s. If needed, I can write a more specific image caption or expand one of the existing article sentences with something like "as can be seen in the photo below/above....". Would that be OK? Zvonko 08:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for conducting this edit. I'm not so sure that the other images in the article qualify as fair use either. However, there are several users placing non-fair use or free images in the article and I was wondering if you could participate in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Images in the Kelly Clarkson article (which is still relatively... empty). I'd really appreciate it. I really need to get User:HeyNow10029 to understand that the images she uploaded do not carry proper fair use rationale, which she has constantly denied in the edit summaries in the Kelly Clarkson article and on her talk page. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the images were reinserted. I am having difficulty coming to terms with this "fair use" justification. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are not responding but I would like to know if the image of Clarkson in the music video (with the caption "'Since U Been Gone' (2005)...") qualifies as fair use? —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I'm sorry for pestering you. Please refrain from removing the image for now, I am going to attempt to incorporate more aspects of the single's music video in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fair use stronger now? I've made changes to the appropriate section in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll keep you on alert if I ever require any image/screenshot help. Again, thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about your "clearly isn't fair use" of the image there, it does show all of the leaders of the respective parties and I think could fit. I'm not terribly familiar with the fair use though, could you explain why it isn't? Thanks! -- Tawker 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does past experience suggest that you respond to the official legal threats and therefore know why something was protected? Danny 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]