Thank you for uploading Image:659 hornet.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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FinnishDefenceForce template obviously lacks enough information to stand on its own, as there is no indication that modification of these works is allowed. All of these images therefore need a fair use tag and a fair use rationale. "Sheesh." — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I'll IFD them, then. We don't assume we have certain rights to images, though. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:659 hornet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm interested to know why you reverted my edit to Hennessey. Are you going to create a page about Hennessey Performance Engineering? Deiz talk 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet as. Deiz talk 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You screwed up the archiving on WT:A, hiding two pages and half a month of comments. In the future, make sure that you don't lose links when you change between schemes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I must have forgotten that two of the archives were named differently. Not sure how that happened. Sorry – Qxz 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(x-posted) Actually, that wasn't the link I intended. I've added the link I'd meant to provide, this one. I think it provides insight into the mind of someone who engaged in this type of credential fraud. -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night Gyr, I noticed that you removed the link to the current revision of an article in MediaWiki:Revision-info. I liked it; it's unfortunate it did not work outside of the article namespace. I think, however, that you could change the text to This is an archived version of this page as of $1, last edited by $2. It may contain inaccuracies or errors not present in the <a href="/wiki/{{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">current version</a>.. It should then work outside of the article namespace. --Iamunknown 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a helpful comment at all. If you want to explain why you think the old caption is not NPOV, then we could have a reasonable discussion. But simply to point me to NPOV, when I'm obviously aware of the poliy already, is just a way of saying "it's not NPOV because I say so, dammit, and if you disagree that must be because you just haven't read it." It's very condescending. Next time you leave me a message, please assume I'm aware of Wikipedia policies and simply have an honest disagreement with you about how they should be applied in this instance, and proceed from there. —Chowbok ☠ 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whose arguments you're talking about, but my arguments certainly aren't that policies should be ignored, simply that nobody has pointed to a policy that applies in this instance. In your case, I certainly don't see why it's not NPOV to say a cow is a potential victim of cow tipping any more than it would be to say that a person is a potential victim of pickpocketing. —Chowbok ☠ 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just my opinion that a cow doesn't suspect it may be tipped? Isn't that taking verifiability a little far? You're really reaching. —Chowbok ☠ 01:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Wikipedia community article. After thinking it over, it is redundant and is already in the Wikipedia article. I suggest nominate it to merge or just delete it. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to start an AFD. Please start the AFD to delete and redirect. After careful consideration, I understand it is redundant information that does not need to be repeated twice. There already is a Wikipedia article. Also, we don't need to write a self-promo ad about the community. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I recommend to delete the histroy or it will be reverted someday in the future. Some people just wanted an article about us. I was one of them. I wrote a promo ad but that was not my intension. I apologize. I am still learning. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like permission to start an AFD and have a link provided for instructions on starting an AFD. I do know how to do this. Or you could go forward with the AFD process. Redundancy articles do not help our mission. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the AFD a lot of people crossd out their votes. I did not know why. I did a some searching. The article survived because of vote canvassing.Take a look at the date of March 8.Here is an example of canvassing for votes. This may be grounds to open a deletion review or re-nominate for the deletion to get an accurate measure of true consensus. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are somehow being pulled into this and don't know the full history, you might want to review this. - Denny 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that post (or it slipped by my watchlist radar) on the Wikipedia article, since it wasn't posted also to the Wikipedia Community article... I posted this here to help address this. - Denny 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abridged 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So could that be described as Delete article, move necessary content into article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A Featured Picture Candidate you commented on, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf, is now in the section for "Older nominations requiring additional input from voters." Contributors have tried to improve it after you commented, and your opinion is welcome as to whether any one of the available versions deserves promotion. I am sending this message to everyone who participated in the FPC. Thanks! Kla'quot 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Night Gyr, I was just wondering what promted you to say {{Obnoxious}} was inflamatory and hostile - just caught me a bit off gaurd there.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

I'm not sure what you mean about the tone - but I agree with you on the template name. I originally used obnoxious meaning essentially the same thing as over the top - or overwhelming - but I wasn't thinking about how negative the word was - which is why I changed the text (I mean - who cares what the template NAME is - although should it survive the tfd I would move it)Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's impossible to please everyone all the time, but gee... Could you expand upon your objection to User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle? I started it for several reasons:

• To help motivate good editors. I've gotten responses along the lines of I already have a DYK and two FAs...yeah let me get back to you after I polish up a page to GA. If that results in more quality content for the site, so much the better.

• To help identify quality contributors as potential sysop candidates. My hunch is that a lot of the people who could make good administrators are out there writing articles and we don't know their names yet. This may should bring some of them out of the woodwork.

• To motivate problem editors to come back from the brink. What really inspired this was one editor who took up a standing offer of mine: I'll give the Resilient Barnstar to anyone who's been sanctioned at ArbCom (short of sitebanning) and creates a new article that gets highlighted at DYK. A few days ago I handed out one of those barnstars and offered the editor a second one if he raises a page to GA. He thanked me for the challenge and was delighted when I followed up with a special user award that he could aim for. This is someone who's been an editor for over a year but spent most of that time in one terrible editing dispute. For a few months now he's been branching out and becoming more Wikipedian.

I'd thought this award was a warm fuzzy little thing that honors people who deserve our collective thanks. If I've missed an angle please set me straight. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to first point out when you put the merge template, you forgot to put one up on Israeli new sheqel currency as well. Second $, €, and ₪ are indeed Punctuation marks, see Template:Punctuation marks. Also for instance, Euro sign and Euro currency are two different pages.

Thirdly, I removed the merge template later not because of that but because Sheqel sign will now also include the oringal sheqel currency (1980-1985) (Israeli New Sheqel and Israeli sheqel) as it had a different symbol as well as the current currency (since 1986). Epson291 13:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Something Awful post cannot be a reliable source for an article about a living person. Period. Please read our biographies of living persons policy. This is not negotiable. We have to reliably source it. If you don't like that wording, then the whole thing has to go, because the forum post can't be a source. Thanks. FCYTravis 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you don't understand that it's not negotiable. Forum posts are not reliable sources for biographies of living people, nor are blogs or anything else which is self-published and not edited. This is established policy on Wikipedia, and you can't ignore it because you don't like it. We have a reliable secondary source which is reporting on the controversy, and thus we can and must attribute the reporting to that reliable source - rather than to a forum or blog. Again, read our biographies of living persons policy. Just because he might be a plagiarist and that he's involved in OMGWEBDRAMA doesn't mean we ignore our basic principles. Thank you. FCYTravis 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Night Gyr. I want congratulate you for you changes on the Kalasha page. It's a perfect example how to make an article worse, - and, at the end, to discredit the Wikipedia. I'm sure, you intention was "to improve", but unfortunately you make the opposite.

What I talk about? It seems, that there is some fundamental mistake in your definition of an ethnicity and how this concerns to the term Nuristani.

Please note, don’t understand the term Nuristani as a homogeny ethnic group. It’s much more a collective term, a language family, but not a clean 100% purely ethnicity. Therefore it’s not correct to describe the Nuristan Kalash(a) only as Nuristani; it is alike wrongly and inaccurate to explain the Chitral Kalash(a) just as Dards.

Regards --lorn10 16:20, 13. April 2007 (CET)

There are references and I feel that you added the notability template simply because you feel the game is not "popular" or you just don't like it. As an article identified for inclusion in WikiProject RPG, I have followed their guidelines on creating articles as defined for their purpose. I noticed that your edit summary for adding the template said "no third party sources", which I feel is a conclusion that you can only come to if you didn't actually read the article. Bear Eagleson 13:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry buddy I forgot that it's ok to be a jerk as long as you don't say dirty words like "ISP" :p -Rebent 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Night Gyr,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:5-54-Mark-45-firing edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 20, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-20. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited references, so are sources now better? Problem of those are that there weren't really good sources. Lot of blog and such coverage though, mostly spanish and italian, but with those it is hard to say if they are "credible" and most notable like comstock, fleshbot and some russian magazine, but they didn't really said anything usable as reference. That was the reason why i orginally sticked with first hand information from Lust Films site. --Zache 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting is constructive if the section is useless. This is a user edited encylcopedia. You don't like my edits, you improve the section. My opinion is the article is best without the section. That's a constructive edit, because it makes the article better. Your method will result only in a glut of useless information. Inutero22222 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see requested edit on Talk:Glock 19. PubliusFL 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those images. Modernist 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing these guidance suggestions to me: Wikipedia:Non-free content, I'll study them and if there are some images that I can retain, then I will put them back. Thanks again. Modernist 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you'll notice several of the same people doing the same thing here at

[3]

Read here for some information about the 4 users that were doing this on the glock page as well as the w22 page. You'll see attitude with them in no problem and SwatJester left a few of them warnings in which they just gave him a "yawn"

[4]

Maybe that will shed some light on what's going on with these 4 users that just basically terrorized the Glock_19 article and have now moved on to the w22 article. CINEGroup 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, When you have time, can you copyedit Zile article and remove the tag? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 09:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer (Birnbaum) gave clear permission to use the low-res photo on Wikipedia. His note is incorporated in the file.

If I specified the wrong category of permission, please state that.

I don't know what you want.

Do you want the photo taken down?

Don't send me another robotic message. It is not understandable. Plain English works for me.

Skywriter 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that the article be deleted and protected from recreation because there are novice editors who are way too eager to start this over a film that is not guaranteed to be made. There's no director or cast yet, and no production start date set up. I don't think the redirect is necessary because there are already rumors going around for what villains are going to be in the next film, which is only in development. Take a look at the article's deletion log -- it's been deleted as recently as April 17, and there has not been any solid production news since then -- just reiterating that it was in development (which was already first indicated when they tapped David Koepp to write a script last January). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it to RfD. It's not a valid speedy, because a redirect is not an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that another admin superceded the consensus of that deletion review for Spider-Man 4, and opened the page back up. Their words were "UncleG's page looks beautiful, which makes this all moot". I personally don't believe this is fair, that an admin can ignore everyone just because their opinion of the matter differs, especially when in the hours that followed their unprotection of the page and move of information, there has been nothing but constant rumors, speculation, and vandalism to the page since.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for why I removed the howto tag you placed on the Lucid Dreaming article. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review the Rat article? The revision history is not visible to non-admins, and the page was moved by a vandal. The page has been moved back, but I cannot review the revision history, or the content. See also:

• WP:ANI#Rat

Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on that, learn something every day. Thanks for the heads up, I was trying to be bold and create the correct page. :) Wildthing61476 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

By way of explaination, Trendy's article has been previously nominated for deletion based on lack of notability. There have also been threats to renominate it. The phrase "He is notable for..." was originally added to the article to dissuade future nominations of that sort. As I'm sure you noticed, the article is protected because it has been repeatedly vandalized. I understand the point you're trying to make. Perhaps the defensive posture on his notability is no longer necessary. Best Regards, Cleo123 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming into this one way late, it seems. This is what, the fourth go-round for this? Does the meme have a better name than 'Little Fatty'? that we could move this to? I'm back to the AfD to see if I can be the hero and end this once and for all (yeah, right) :) DarkAudit 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched flickr, and couldn't seem to find any licensing information. I've said delete on Commons. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the history of this article, at least for now. I believe Thebainer's close was clear "This is a real no-brainer" on the subject of the unsuitability of the content in the history to Wikipedia. If you dispute this interpretation, please do me a favor and delete the history for now until you've had time to consult Bainer on his close. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is an editorial decision, if the content should go, take it to AfD. Unilateral action and surviving DRV are not the way to do it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that--remember that I was the person who turned the article into a redirect in the first place so we're back where we were when I started.

I'm just asking you to consult with Thebainer about whether he intended the history to be undeleted. It seems to me unusual in a BLP case. Usually that's the end of the content, for pretty obvious reasons. If you don't want to delete the history in the meantime, that's not an urgent problem. The important thing to do is to consult with Thebainer. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image is from the navy. I though this one was deleted already, since there was a discussion on this before. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've published a proposal to gauge the level of interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject, which I thought might be of interest to you based on your past contributions. Comments and suggestions are welcome: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Micronations --Gene_poole 02:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is mirrored on my site here. You can direct the family to view that, it's a copy of what Wikipedia used to have. Wjhonson 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

David Mestel(Talk) 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize I could just start another AFD fr Jurassic Park 4 since it was last discussed for deletion quite a while ago, because I didn't know there was a general time span for how long a decision stands in an AFD.To me it kind of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia:deletion review, unless you someone feel so strongly as to contest the decision right away. Rodrigue 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the BLP issues I raised - the material in the article still has the possibility of hurting the living, making it very much a BLP issue. Phil Sandifer 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about a barely-notable dead child. Keeping it is hurtful to surviving and innocent family and friends. There is no doubt an article to be written about, for instance, Jeffrey Baldwin incident or the name of the reforms passed in his name. But this article doesn't even support the claim of reforms, little yet focus on it. Phil Sandifer 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the original article I created? It's never worth doing the research over. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that's not a redlink any more. Nice start to a needed essay. When I get a chance, I'll see about lending some thoughts to the page. I'm happy to see it was created, though. I had considered doing it myself, but then concluded that I really wanted to wait for someone else to do so, and see what came of it. Thanks! Serpent's Choice 03:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the page was recreated, and then deleted. There can be no discussion if the page doesn't exist. What's going on? I have no way of doing anything about this, as I'm not an admin. Lampman 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the matter has to be brought before Wikipedia:Deletion review. I believe we're in agreement about the need for an AfD debate. Would you care to bring the matter up to review? As I understand you have administrative privileges, I think it would be better coming from you. Many thanks! Lampman 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fingers crossed! I'm more than willing to bow to consensus, but the abuse of power by certain admins angers me. Lampman 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a particularly inauspicious time to be undeleting things that were deleted for apparently valid BLP concerns. ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep conversations threaded per my talk page header,thanks. If you'd rather continue at my talk that is fine, let me know. But all BLP is by definition, urgent, once discovered. Undeletion is just not ever a good idea without first understanding the issues. Which I see no sign you did, all you apparently did was undelete. Not on. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop#Night_Gyr

I have submitted evidence, and raised a proposed finding of fact, concerning your recent actions in restoring histories and articles where the deleting admin had cited the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clue you in. Nobody outside our little community of a couple thousand people gives a whit about the piles of rules and guidelines and essays and junk that we've got piled up. It's all irrelevant. They care about what our content says about them. I invite you to e-mail Ms. Stokke and tell her that "we're sorry, but because of our process, it will take a week to remove from the Internet's most popular encyclopedia the tabloid trash about your picture being wanked off to by a bunch of sex-crazed bloggers." Please, send her that e-mail. FCYTravis 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing or threatening to provide the content of deleted articles to outside persons is a violation of policy, and you'll lose your sysop bit for doing it.[5] FCYTravis 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]