Freqently Asked Questions (FAQ)
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.

Archives

Sorted by date: All archives Archive of other project talk pages Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 9 Archive 11 Archive 13 Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 19 Archive 21 Archive 23 Archive 25 Archive 27 Archive 29 Archive 31 Archive 33 Archive 2 Archive 4 Archive 6 Archive 8 Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 14 Archive 16 Archive 18 Archive 20 Archive 22 Archive 24 Archive 26 Archive 28 Archive 30 Archive 32 Archive 34

Hi Moe - why the revert on the APY redirect? There is a specific page on Annual Percentage Yeild. G.hartig 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching the dumps, so enwiki-20041104-stub-meta-history is downloading, currently at 21%, with 65 hours remaining. For some reason it's transferring at 10k, perhaps the server has been throttled. Rich Farmbrough, 12:43 6 November 2006 (GMT).

Looks good Moe. I like it. I think I should be brought up to the WikiProject first though, just so there won't be any headaches after implimenting the table. --James Duggan 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to be sure, when proposing an article for deletion using {{prod}} to include a reason in the tag, by adding {{subst:prod|[REASON]}}. Also, please make sure the reason you give is explicit about your concern regarding the article. Thanks! Kavadi carrier 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your removal of text from your talk page is disruptive, it is forbidden. But that aside, I recognize your concern, which is why I didn't revert lttp's text back the second time, instead leaving a message explaining why I thought he should respond to the text he kept removing. Further, as it is not your talk page, you had no right whatsoever to remove my message from Inshanee's page. Have a nice day. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Additionally, this link shows that he is only concerned about keeping comments that he dislikes off of his talk page, rather than believing people should be able to do so. If he doesn't think it's okay to remove comments from another person's talk page, he shouldn't do it on his own.

Additionally, sorry for starting a fight over Danny Phantom characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are going to wait until you get huge support, but IMO if you ran now it would be unanimous decision to let you become an administrator, take care Moe and Semper Fi.--Arjun 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well than, good luck.--Arjun 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw this edit. George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. One of the shorthand ways to distinguish between him and his father is to say "Bush 41" and "Bush 43". But it's way too informal to use like that in an article; you were right to change it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a note to the owner of the broken bot that just reinstated "Bush(43)". -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The bot must have been fixing the links the same time I changes the link and it must have reverted me."

If the edits were only a minute apart, sure...but you changed that "Bush(43)" reference 9 minutes before the bot bumbled through the article. Also, if you read through the bot owner's talk page, you can see several other complaints that the bot edited the wrong version of a page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for signing that post for me. I didn't want to use ~~~~ because that just added my IP address. I didn't know about the en:User:Jim Douglas trick. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(if I could rudely butt in) That bot might need to get shut off. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Administrator shutoff button. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; I thought it was making lots of errors; this one wasn't too bad. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a quick scan, I didn't see any other errors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

en:Saddam Hussein is semi-protected. When pywikipediabot tries to update protected pages, it first tries to get "edit page" to find out the permission. Web caching could make it worse. I don't know about the time lag. If it happens again, please fill bug report in the pywikipedia program. Other bot operators also use the program. -- ChongDae 06:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your post: [2] I think everyone is fully aware he can be banned in any area he disrupts and that any admin can impose this. I think the issue now is: should he be banned throughout the entire community of Wikipedia. Can I ask, has the ArbCom made any decision regarding a indef block if he is persistantly disruptive? It's becoming increasingly obvious that he is only here to disrupt now. While I would like to see him continue editing positively, he hasn't done so in the last month without getting a block for his edits. (I stand corrected he just made two edits without getting blocked). I would start and RFAr on this, but I'm not sure it would be accepted, or that it would just be an extention of the previous RFAr on SPUI/highways. Another issue regarding any block SPUI recieves is that he has so many followers and friends that anything he does, even ArbCom violations, admins unblock because it's SPUI. As I quote on admin from the above discussion I linked

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time.

This is becoming an increasing strain on everyone as it seems that he could get away with anything and eventually get unblocked because of his mass of friends. As you can see by his block log there has been many times where editors have attempted to give him long (maybe a week or so) blocks and they end up being 5 hours because of an AN or AN/i discussion saying that SPUI deserves a shorter block, in spite of him deserving the block. Admins now are not willing to give SPUI a long block, simply because they know it will get overturned shortly. Is there no policy regarding admins unblocking because of this, because this seems highly unfair. As I stated on WP:AN/I, I am willing to give SPUI another chance and am willing to work with him outside Wikipedia to improve his behavior, but what if it never improves? SPUI will never get indefblocked because of his seemingly invincible status. semper fi — Moe 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator, acting under an arbitration remedy, bans or blocks someone, that should not be overturned by another administrator. If they do, it is serious offense, wheelwarring at the least. But someone needs to call them on it. Fred Bauder 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moe Epsilon, I am very thankful to you for supporting my succesful RfA. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moe, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that this is a good template; I think the wording on the current one could just be tweaked a bit. Current sprotected:

Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this user talk page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

My proposed version:

Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this user talk page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Editing of this page is restricted to user accounts over 4 days old. Any user may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

What do you think of this proposed change?? Let me know on my talk page. --SunStar Net 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moe, this is Konstable. We've met, I've undeleted all your user and talk pages after you've returned, remember? Your RfAr statement is lacking a lot of accuracy, apart from the magical autoblock that you've striken already. I suggest you keep out of an issue you know nothing about. If you do want to continue, go ahead, but I just find it rather bizare that someone lodges such accusations against me when everything on Wikipedia is logged and can be proven false. I won't bother correcting all of them as that would mean I have to look for diffs and people are already screaming disruption for every edit I make (Regarding you and others telling me to leave, would you just drop and leave if people spit you in the face and told you that you were a vandal and a troll? Even if you had no intention of returning, would you allow people to tarnish your image and make your 000s of contribs seem worthless because of something that has never happened? )--Konst.able^Talk 12:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh the easiest accusation: Meanwhile he made non-sense edits on his userspace like typing "ZOMG FUCK SEX FUCK SEX" (diffs deleted) - this simply has never happened)

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the necessary changes to Sprotected template here:

• User:SunStar Net/Templates/Sprotect2

It looks a lot better than the original does! --SunStar Net 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]