User talk:B/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Image

Hello, The reason that I changed it is because I don't know where to get the proper tags so I got one from another Image and I did not notice that it said that. I did make the Image. I made the map and typed the information. Please Respond and tell me where to get the proper tags.--Chad (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

With rare exception, Wikipedia only accepts images that are either not copyrighted or where the copyright holder has explicitly stated that anyone may use the image for any purpose. The vast majority of images found on the internet, this one included, are NOT acceptable for use on Wikipedia. No amount of tagging the image will resolve the problem. --B (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Image For NC DOC was not found on the internet, I made it. I have the file where i made it in PowerPoint. --Chad (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if you put together the constituent parts of the image, the logo is copyrighted. The map came from somewhere. Did you draw the map or did you find the map on the internet? When you incorporate copyrighted elements together, you are creating a "derivative work". If you use a public domain blank map of North Carolina and don't incorporate any copyrighted elements (such as logos) then we can use the map. --B (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, your image looks suspiciously similar to http://www.doc.state.nc.us/DOP/list/OfficialDOPRegionMap.pdf - the colors are different, but the formatting is nearly identical. --B (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well since you are trying to help me understand unlike some others, I'll tell you what I did I got a Free for download map typed all the counties in and colored the counties. I used the the NC DOC logo, and the information from the website you listed but I typed it in myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad01 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did the free map come from? The word "free" can mean different things. Wikipedia's requirement for "free" media is that, not only are we allowed to use it without charge, but also, that permission is viral, meaning we can distribute it to someone else, who can distribute it to someone else, etc. Most of the time, when there is a resource on the internet that is free to download, they are not giving you any permission to redistribute it - you can download it yourself for your own use, but you cannot legally send it to someone else. The map on Wikimedia Commons is a "public domain" resource, meaning that the author(s) have explicitly released all rights to it, so you can redistribute it, sublicense it, anything. --B (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I never thought to use the one on Wikipedia. I got the map from here: http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/support/graphics/templates.htm --Chad (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it needs to be re-done with original elements. Any time you incorporate someone else's work into your own, you are making what is called a "derivative work". Only the copyright holder can authorize a "derivative work" to be created from their intellectual property and so your derivative is a copyright violation. If you remake the image using the Commons blank map and don't include any copyrighted elements like the logo, you should be fine. --B (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Is their a list of copyright tags I can look at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad01 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CAT:ICT has a long list of them. If you are only incorporating public domain resources (like the blank map from Commons) and you have no preference otherwise, using either {{PD-self}} to release your work into the public domain or {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} to multi-license your work under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses is generally suggested. If, on the other hand, you incorporate the work of someone else, you normally have to use the same license they used. So, for example, if you wanted to incorporate this photograph from a football game into your image, you would need to release your work under the GFDL v1.2. --B (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You removed a picture of Carolinas Medical Center. What was the reason. Also some pictures i just use other licenses that the same type of pictures have like, I used the tags from UCLA Medical Center for CMC-Main. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad01 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the article? I have deleted tons of images. --B (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that haha! It was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolinas_Medical_Center-Main It was the Hospital at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad01 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? That wasn't me - that image was removed by a bot after it was deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs). The problem is that you said on the description page, "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted". Wikipedia does not permit images that contain such a restriction. --B (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, All I know is they said it could be used for Journalists working on stories involving CMC.--Chad (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ... limited permissions like that are not sufficient for Wikipedia. http://freedomdefined.org/Definition gives a good explanation of what Wikipedia means by "free license" and foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy gives the official Wikimedia Foundation policy. --B (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So by that I'm guessing just about all work has to be "free". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad01 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Every image or component that you incorporate into the image needs to be "free" by the freedomdefined.org definition - no restrictions on modification, redistribution, or sublicensing. --B (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I mean. Thanks for the help I mean I don't intentionally put images that don't have proper license, but some of the restrictions just seem exteme but I guess they have to be. I always enjoy making Wikipedia better for other people but It seems hard at times. Thanks for your help maybe the List of Image tags will help me a little as well. --Chad (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

ചിപ്പിപാറെയ്

You deleted the page ചിപ്പിപാറെയ് under WP:CSD#A2, which applies to foreign-language articles which exist on another project. A quick Google search and a check on the Malayalam Wikipedia (the langauge the page was in) reveals that the article is not on another Wikipedia. Was this a mistake on your part, or was there a different reason behind the deletion? It is my personal understanding that such pages are usually tagged with {{notenglish}}, and are not deleted. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The user said in his edit summary and in the article that it was about Chippiparai. Since that article already exists here, translating it would be redundant. The article text is identical to [1]. The user's name matches the name of the blog's owner. Whether he is submitting his translation of our Chippiparai article or his own blog about Chippiparai dogs is anyone's guess. Either way, this is not the place for it. --B (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 13:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What have you been doing. You have deleted Category:American neoconservatives?

You write this in the deletion log: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. You got to realise that this Category was created for the first time ever on Wikipedia by me on the 20th of July 2009. Never has this particular Category existed before, - not with this name, not with this description, and not with this sub-category: Category:American people by political orientation. Whereas other attempts to categorise neoconservatives have focused on neoconservatives all over the world, this Category focuses on neoconservatives in America, where it all started and therefore is the appropriate place to focus. For the first time ever on Wikipedia, American neoconservatives are subcategorised with people with similar utopian philosophies, such as American socialists, American pacifists, American white nationalists, American monarchists, American libertarians, American fascists, American anti-communists and American anarchists. This is unique. So any previous discussions have no relevance, because they deal with another matter, and anyway had very few participants. What is more, these discussions used as argument, that Category:Conservatives doesn't exist, and so [[:Category:Neoconservatives shouldn't exist. This premise is false, since as any enlightenent individual knows, American conservatives are adequately covered by Category: Republicans (United States). I hope you realise then that your deletion was a mistake, and I expect an apology, before I shortly shall re-create this Category for the third time this week!. An admin is supposed to be constructive and welcoming to all categorisation efforts, not destructive, going about deleting, based on hear-say from others, without him having investigated thoroughly the background for the creation of this Category. Michelle Bentley (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think the category should be created, you are welcome to bring it up to WP:DRV. I don't care one way or the other whether it exists. I think there is potential for abuse since a lot of times, the label "neoconservative" is used as a pejorative, not a self-identified label, but that's no reason not to have the category. Regardless of any of that, though, you even said here that you were creating it with the intention of getting around the CFD. If you want this category to exist, your recourse is WP:DRV. --B (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please add this to the front page?

* - FBI andIRS agents arrests 44 people, including five rabbis, two New Jersey state legislators, and three mayors in Operation Bid Rig.

If the latest example of the all to frequent air-crashes in Iran are worthy of inclusion on the front page, so this should be. Naturally.Michelle Bentley (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Main_Page for the process for submitting suggestions for the main page. I have nothing to do with that process. --B (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Alcholic business

How was I saying YOU were an alcholic? I was saying the QUEEN was an alcholic because she is getting near a pawn's territory and I didn't notice the bishop could pin the king. Chevy Impala 2009 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tags

See WP:ANI#Tyciol's redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For example, Daiki is a common given name in Japan and should not be a redirect to a random fictional character named "Daiki".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this has been brought up, I thought I should explain the idea to B: This is not an implausible redirect. Unfortunately since this was hastefully deleted, I can't even tell you where that was directed to. Since, as an administrator you have the power to view deleted articles (and recall looking at this yourself) could you please tell me where? I am pretty sure there was a notable character of the name Daiki (possibly with a surname) whom was on the target of that redirect. If Daiki is a common surname then surely this should be edited into a disambiguation page, not just deleted. This will help people find the way to various Daiki articles. If one takes the effort to establish notability of the name, one already has the bricks needed to build that page, so I don't see why they should be used to smash the foundation. It stands out to me which of these are potentially bad because the majority are R3s. I am glad you noticed D.Gray, however as above Daiki and also "Canonizado"/"Crownship", can these be explained further in edit summaries? As for D'Orazio, if he's not the only one, again, I ask: why are we just deleting it and not creating a disambiguation. This is seriously done in good faith: the name looked odd so one assumes it's unique, and if people can correct, they can contribute. For example, check out the first-ever edit to William Smith right here. Gasp: a redirect. Now check out the third edit (2nd fixed the spacing) here. Someone created a redirect page! That's the way to do it! Why are people just deleting these instead of following JeLuF's example? I'm not the only person with this idea! Tyciol (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this on ANI - it doesn't need to be argued out on my talk page. Crownship was a ridiculous portmanteau - we don't make up words here. Canonizado was the last name of a laundry list of winners and makes no sense whatsoever as a redirect. The only one I have looked at that I left not deleted was D.Gray and that's only because it doesn't meet R3, not because I think it should be a redirect. If you persist in creating junk redirects, it is only going to result in you being blocked indefinitely. --B (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Allsop Inc.

I see that you have deleted Allsop Inc., and article I had just written. I understand that you consider it to be advertising. I do not believe it is, since the article does not contain any discussion about their current products other than to mention the product category they fall in.

My intention was to describe some ski technology that this company famously introduced to skiing forty years ago. I would be pleased to know how to shape this article so that it does not conflict with Wikipedia standards. However, I do feel this article does provide useful information.

Thank you.

Theodulf 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodulf (talk • contribs)

Please see the general notability criterion. Unless a topic has been covered by reliable sources external to the subject itself, and those sources are given in the article, it is unlikely to survive very long. --B (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

If you care to follow up, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_to_revoke_sanction. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines changes

Please let me know where "No fair use images in lists" is listed as a Wikipedia policy.Naraht (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:FAIR#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. Obviously, none of these apply to logos. --B (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the section that you are pointing to is part of a content guideline, not a policy, at least that's what the information near the top says. I do agree that the section Wikipedia:FAIR#Other_Wikimedia_projects might make some people believe the entire article is a policy.

"It's just a guideline" doesn't make it ok to ignore. Galleries of fair use images are not permitted and fair use logos in lists are not permitted period. Whether you can find that spelled out to your liking or not doesn't change the fact that it is a non-negotiable policy. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (which does have the policy tag) #8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." --B (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So NFC would only be satisfied if readers of the list would be more likely to recognize the organizations by their crests than by their names, right?15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. This has been discussed and debated plenty of times. Virtually every TV show used to have screenshots for each episode. You can look back at the history of List of South Park episodes, List of Voyager episodes, List of Lost episodes, etc, and find where they used to be there an then removed. There are plenty of discussions about this, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes or Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images. The bottom line is this: it is policy, it isn't going to change, and there is no way that having a non-free logo or other non-free image for every entry in a list is ever going to be acceptable. --B (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review speedy

I'm very sorry about the inconvenience. It's a good thing you were alert and fixed my mistake. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have no idea what is traditionally done with clearly out of order peer review requests - whether they are deleted or archived. I just removed the tag to take WP:Peer review out of CAT:CSD. ;) --B (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would have been a bit troublesome :) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kongtsa

Thanks for saving me some time; I followed this guy around earlier today and reverted some of what he did, and knew he was a returning sock of somebody, but didn't know who, and was sure I'd get accused of assuming bad faith if I just up and called him a sock. I was all set to write up an ANI thread, and it was going to be tough to prove anything, when I saw you'd nuked him. Thx. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Q

What do you think of my semi-rebuttal to Jayron32's analysis I've posted to his talkpage here: User talk:Jayron32#Was the tripwire tripped? ? (Not a rebuttal to his analysis per se but questioning whether Viriditias had pushed the Gatesgate page into the threshold where O-probation could be tripped.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If your reason for wanting probation is to then turn around and say, "ah ha, Viriditas has violated rule 1, section 27, subparagraph 5(d)", then you are looking at the wrong remedy. Has one person been disruptive? (Note: I looked at Viriditas's article edits and I do NOT think they are disruptive - just playing probation's advocate. Viriditas is wrong about the lack of appropriateness of "beer summit" as a name for the event, but being wrong isn't a capital offense.) If yes, then block. Only if disruption is from multiple sources or the sock drawer keeps showing up is probation needed. --B (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, guess you've nailed my rationale -- to a tee! (And the "multiple disrupters/socks" threshold for special heavy duty oversight status to an article does sound pretty strong, too. Meaning, it both sounds very reasonable and is a rule of thumb that would be very easy to apply; no rule No. 1, section 27, subparagraph 5, line d, as you sedd.) ↜Just M E here , now 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You can fill out the idea more here: Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_incident#User:B_has_proposed_a_pretty_reasonable_sounding_rule_of_thumb_on_his_talkpage -- if you'd like. ^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 22:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Farah

I was going to go to RFPP if he reverted it again. He did, so this saves me the trouble. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammer Horde

Hello. I was trying to understand how my article on the band Hammer Horde was deleted. I'm assuming that the A7 labeling is stating it as a notability issue. I'm having difficulty understanding this. The reviews alone from popular magazine's such as Decibel are proof that it is an established band. And being mastered by Mika Jussila of Finnvox Studios makes them notable for simply being amongst the many metal bands mastered there. If it is a reference issue, links to their websites, reviews, and other archival databases were originally provided. If more references need to be listed, please let me know what steps I need to take to revive this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.203.139 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC gives the notability criterion for musical groups, composers, etc. There was nothing in the article itself that provided external references (a key component) or made any claim of significance. If there are reviews in a magazine, they were not mentioned in the article. --B (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The reviews were most likely listed from the article on the band's album, which was also deleted. Almost everything was taken from the band's biography which was listed under external sources. I'm new to wikipedia. I guess it's just easier to delete an article than for somebody to help correct it before it is removed. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.203.139 (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrt article deletion

Hi, you deleted the article "Stay LDS / Mormon with the rationale provided being that the article didn't demonstrate notability. This action should have been instead an AfD since the article included links to the news sources the article was based on. Furthermore, I, as the recent author of the new article, was not notified of its being up for speedy deletion, in order for me to dispute the appropriateness of this action. (News coverage of the site includes: [2], [3], and [4].) Would there be a way to reverse the deletion and do an RfD instead or is the deleted article gone forever?

(Latter Day Saint movement denominations (predominantly the LDS Church hq'd in SLC Utah, of course) are not a major percentage of, say, the population of the US, but the number does compare favorably to that of American Jewry, and each of these American subgroups outnumber US Muslims. Yet would scholarly websites providing a place for discussion of liberal versus conservative interpretations of either Jewish or Muslim orthodoxy and praxis automatically be considered too obscure?

Here's an example (one of many) of an article about a blog with approximately the same amount of media coverage: Brainhell.) ↜Just M E here , now 11:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If it was just that I did not make mention of the site's significance, then could I have a copy of the work I'd already done to post to my user space in order to improve it? ↜Just M E here , now 12:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PS If you have your heart set on deleting a superfluous article about a blog, consider speedying this one which I also created (but which I did not use any news references for that are specific to it): "By Common Consent." I sincerely think that would be fair. Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Template: Kamma (caste)

Dear B, You have deleted the pictures of well-known Kamma persons all of whom have Wiki articles written about them. Please restore the pictures.Kumarrao (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Kamma People.jpg was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_2#File:Kamma_People.jpg. The issue is not whether the people are well-known. The issue is that you combined a bunch of images together that you did not create without providing source information. If you make a derivative work consisting of other people's works and upload it to Wikipedia, ALL OF the constituent works must be either licensed under the same permissive license, (GFDL, CC-BY-SA-3.0, etc) or be public domain. You can't just download a bunch of pictures from the internet and call them your own. --B (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

An FFD you closed

Howdy. I was wondering if maybe you missed my logic in my keep statement in this FFD?--Rockfang (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time I deleted the image, it was not being used in any articles. If you want to use this one and upload a reduced version, that's fine, I can restore it and then you can reduce it, replace the other image with this one, and I'll delete the other one. --B (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will do exactly as you suggest. :) Please respond here when you undelete the image. Thank you. --Rockfang (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's undeleted ... once you have uploaded a reduced version and replaced the image in the article, let me know and I'll delete the other one and delete the oversized image from this one's history. --B (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Done--Rockfang (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:RNZAF P3.jpg.jpg

Hi there. You closed the discussion about File:RNZAF P3.jpg stating that consensus cannot replace policy and that the image fails NFCC #8. While I agree completely with the first statement, I do not agree at all with the second. Several arguments were made in the discussion that supported the contention that the image satisfies this condition and none of the proponents, nor indeed yourself, have addressed any of these arguments and explained why they fail. Simply repeating the contention that the image fails the condition is not an argument and it risks the perception that the deletion process is arbitrary and driven by a coterie of editors who consider themselves to be above needing to explain their actions. You state that you cannot find reference to the events depicted in the image, I respectfully submit that you need to re-read the article, there is an entire paragraph devoted to the subject of the operation of the P3 by New Zealand out of Antarctica, the photo is entirely relevant to that section (being the subject of it). Please review your decision and pay particular attention to the arguments that were presented that the image does in fact meet the requirements of NFCC #8. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my explanation was pretty straight forward. This image does not meet our standards. Any other admin would tell you the same thing. --B (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that answer is disengenuous in the extreme. Your explanation is not at all clear. Exactly where did you (or for that matter any of the other proponents for deletion) refute the arguments for the image's retention. You have already demonstrated that your reading comprehension leaves a certain amount to be desired since you cannot even find a whole paragraph in the article which refers to the event depicted in the photo. You have an opinion that the image does not "meet our standards". Well, unless you provide actual argument superior to those put in favour of the image on these issues simply expressing that opinion is irrelevant at best, OTOH acting on that, unsupported, opinion is bordering on an abuse of power. Saying "any other admin would say the same" is a logical fallacy - appeal to the experts. It does you no credit to use such a poor "argument" and casts doubt upon everything else you say. Once again I ask you to either reconsider your deletion or provide substantive arguments to counter those put in favour of the image. I should not need to remind you - an admin - that Wikipedia is not your private fifedom, you do not get to make up your own rules or decide arbitrarily how to apply the community's rules. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As both an admin and the photo's uploader, I don't agree with that. NFCC #8 is subjective, so a consensus that the photo *is* important to the article seems enough - otherwise it's just your opinion and admins aren't given extra 'voting' rights. Your statement that "I couldn't find this photo or the particular occasion it depicts even mentioned in the text" is simply wrong as there's been a paragraph on the event it depicts in the article for months. Could you please this review this decision? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I looked and found the paragraph you are referring to. It's an element of a bulleted list, not a paragraph, so it wasn't where I was looking; not a problem - I see it now. "In January 2006 a Royal New Zealand Air Force ... ." How exactly is your understanding of this passage impaired by not not seeing a photo? With some images, like a screenshot of an important element in a TV show or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, a reader will potentially have trouble conceptualizing the topic without a visual aid. That's the standard of NFCC #8. Nick-D, in your "keep" argument, you stated that the photo was significant because it depicts "a historically significant military operation". Three of the other four keeps were some variation of "keep per Nick-D" and AustralianRupert said that it is "dipicting [sic] a rare event". But that argument concerns criterion #1 - replaceability. It does not address whether or not the reader's understanding is impaired by not seeing a photo. Nick Thorne, you did argue "The photo clearly places the aircraft in the shadow of Mt Erebus and shows just how hostile an environment it was being operated in", which does, correctly, address the issue of significance. I went back and looked at it and I honestly can't see, though, how you can see from this photo that the environment is hostile. Besides, even if it did, everything else that you stated in that paragraph ("Just how many people really have any understanding of what it is like in the Antarctic", "a picture being worth a thousand words and all that", etc) is shown just as well by the free photo. So if there's nothing critical to a user's understanding of the topic that can't be shown in the free photo, NFCC #8 is not met and, as I said, consensus can't override policy. --B (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so now you finally condescend to address the issues. Fine. Basically what has transpired is that in the original debate the proposer for deletion and his supporters, apparently including yourself, chose to ignore everything that was said in support of the specific issues about NFCC, particulalry #8 and simply kept restating their assertion without reasoning or by discussing irrelevant points. Now it transpires that your opinion is different to that of myself and a number of other editors who discussed the issue. Please point me to the policy that states that your opinion trumps mine and that of the majority of editor who posted on the deletion discussion, I would really like to know. NFCC #8 does not require the image to be "critical to a user's understanding" as you (incorrectly) put it, rather it states that the image should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - this is not an objective test and thus it is a question of opinion. How you can suggest that a photo of a highly unusual, historic event does not satisfy NFCC #8 beggars belief, but in any case once again I ask you why does your opinion on this trump everyone else's? It seems to me that where there is actual discussion on the subtantive issue of NFCC #8 - and note that only the keep side made any such arguments in the original discussion - then the decision should reflect the consensus reached. True, consensus does not over-ride policy, but in this case the policy is entirely dependent upon an opinion about the image in question and thus, when using NFCC #8 to justify deletion or not, it is entirely appropriate to go with the consensus. Indeed, I would strongly assert that it is close to obligatory. To simply decide on your own that you know best shows lack of respect for the comunity and a gross misunderstanding of what the policy you are seeking to apply actually says. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(B, I hope you don't mind me interjecting here.) Nick, with all due respect, you're showing that you have a rather poor understanding of our non-free content criteria here. "How you can suggest that a photo of a highly unusual, historic event does not satisfy NFCC #8 beggars belief" illustrates this point exactly- we do not use non-free images just because they display something interesting or important, but rather, we show them because what they show needs to be seen to understand the article. Let me give you an example. John Smith becomes president of a minor nation- his presidency is extremely important, and the whole reason for his notability. However, we do not need an image of him sitting in the presedential office in his article, as what he looks like sitting in the office if of no importance. Naturally, we should discuss his presidency. On the other hand, his sister, Jane Smith, is a noted artist, most famous for painting a picture of a bee. This picture is worth discussing in the article- we include discussions of artistic influence, the opinions of critics and of techniques used to produce said painting. Showing an image of the painting in this case is a good idea, as what the painting looks like is discussed and of importance. Going back to the discussion at hand, what the plane looks like sitting in the middle of some snow is of no importance whatsoever. Yes, the expedition is important, and so should be discussed. No one is disputing that. However, the fact it is worth discussing does not mean it suddenly has to be illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got to break this up here:

the proposer for deletion and his supporters, apparently including yourself
- No, I don't really care. This isn't a political issue. I support Bob McDonnell - I don't "support" someone who nominates an image at IFD. My sole motivation was to process a bunch of IFDs that have been sitting there for a month. There's a reason that they are all sitting there - nobody wants to touch them because someone is going to be ticked off at the close and have their talk page filled with arguments. --B (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
chose to ignore everything that was said in support of the specific issues about NFCC, particulalry #8 and simply kept restating their assertion without reasoning or by discussing irrelevant points.
- I didn't ignore anything. The reasons for keeping didn't even address #8 for the most part.
Now it transpires that your opinion is different to that of myself and a number of other editors who discussed the issue.
- The image indisputably does not meet our standards. If you don't understand that, that's not my problem.
Please point me to the policy that states that your opinion trumps mine and that of the majority of editor who posted on the deletion discussion, I would really like to know.
- Sure, please see Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Consensus can't override policy.
NFCC #8 does not require the image to be "critical to a user's understanding" as you (incorrectly) put it, rather it states that the image should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - this is not an objective test and thus it is a question of opinion.
- No, you're leaving out the second half of #8. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. "Its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" and the image is "critical to a user's understanding" are synonyms.
How you can suggest that a photo of a highly unusual, historic event does not satisfy NFCC #8 beggars belief,
- Lots of events are significant. The question is NOT whether or not the event should be mentioned, it is whether or not we should use someone else's photo of that event without permission. An event can be significant without making it appropriate to use a photo of it. By the standard you are proposing, news photographers might as well go home because anyone can steal their photos and claim "fair use". It's an unworkable standard.
It seems to me that where there is actual discussion on the subtantive issue of NFCC #8 - and note that only the keep side made any such arguments in the original discussion - then the decision should reflect the consensus reached.
- I don't even know what you are talking about. You're the only one from the "keep" side that even attempted to argue #8. --B (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

File:BCStore.jpg

Hello, Could you please provide a reason for deletion of the above image. It was shown not to be replaceable , and that was the only reason for its nomination or reason given to delete the image as far as I can tell. I can't tell if you think it is replaceable (and if so how) or had some other reason to delete. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, anything that existed in the digital camera age and wasn't secluded (eg, Osama bin Laden) is potentially replaceable. Just because we don't have a photo right now today doesn't mean that we can't reasonably expect to obtain one. For instance, have you tried contacting them and asking if they would provide us a photo of the store licensed under a Creative Commons attribution license? The internet archiver has a photo of the store on an old version of their website. It can't hurt to ask. Commons:User:UserB/Formerly_non-free_images has some images where I contacted copyright holders and asked them to release images under a permissive license. Dr. Falwell's ministry, for instance, gave us a professional quality image of him licensed under the GFDL and allowed us to replace a trashy photo of him taken at a football game. Basically every photo in Virginia Tech massacre is there because I called or emailed copyright holders and asked them. If an image is something like a logo or a news photo, no we have no reasonable expectation of a GFDL release, but for a photo of a recently defunct store where the owner is still in business, we most certainly do.

But more than that, the article is not about the television show. You can't just take some random third party's photo (or video) of an object you want to depict, and slap a fair use tag on it. If you're using a screenshot of a TV show to offer critical commentary about the show, that's a legitimate fair use. But "he took a photo of something I'm writing an article about" is not. Think about it - no newspaper would ever pay license fees to photographers if they could just claim fair use. --B (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 17 if you are interested in commenting further

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Unlike with articles, with non-free content, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to keep them, rather than those wishing to delete them. As such, no consensus defaults to delete, rather than keep. Could you please reconsider your close? J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"No consensus" defaulting to delete isn't spelled out in that policy. Is it spelled out somewhere else? I'm not disputing that it is ... that's just new since the last time I had closed an IFD ... well, IFD isn't even called IFD any more. ;) If it is spelled out somewhere, I'll delete the image. (I don't particularly agree with deleting the image in this case, but if that's the rule, that's the rule.) --B (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason we keep articles on a "no consensus" is because the burden of proof lies with those wishing to delete the article to demonstrate that it does not meet our policies- thus, it it cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated, it should be kept. However, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to keep the images to demonstrate that they are required- thus, if it cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated, it should be deleted. I don't know if it is spelt out anywhere, but it seems pretty clear from the wording of the NFCC to me- it's something used an awful lot with regards to removing/deleting images. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok ... switched. --B (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is spelt out in plain English otherwise, it defaults to "Keep"; please undelete the images. Radiopathy •talk• 14:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

Erm, why? It's interesting that you demand that, yet provide no link to that statement spelt out in plain English. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, you'll do anything to get non-free images deleted, but you can't sneak around behind people's backs on Wikipedia. Radiopathy •talk• 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you want me to say to that. There was no sneaking, and you're just avoiding the question. J Milburn (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You placed a message on the talk page of the admin who closed the discussion. Very sneaky. LOL. --B (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you see the humour in this, but since you have no stated policy to go by, please undelete the image. Thank you! Radiopathy •talk• 14:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The non-free content criteria are policy, and are pretty clear regarding where the burden of proof lies. To quote burden of proof- "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position." As the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content, the "assumed conclusion" is that of deletion. This isn't particularly difficult to follow. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ...still waiting for a link to the exact words that you're alluding to. Meantime, B, please undelete the image. Radiopathy •talk• 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, we have provided the proof demanded under this burden, despite what some may say. Answers to direct questions about what is wrong with the rationales have not been answered, as you can see from the IfD discussion and Talk:List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh. Additionally, G7 was an inappropriate speedy criteria to use for the talk page, you probably should have used G8. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

G7 and G8 were both applicable. I had created the talk page to add {{oldifdfull}}. I was the only editor. G7 applies. G8 also applies. The combo box only allows one selection and G7 is closer to the top. --B (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. It just puzzled me. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The FfD was closed as no consensus, meaning that the burden of proof had not been sucessfully shifted from the assumed outcome. Radiopathy, I'm assuming you do not understand the meaning of the term burden of proof if you believe there is no policy explicitly in support of my position, and I'd like to point out, again, that, as far as I know, there's definitely no policy in support of the idea that "unless it is spelt out in plain English otherwise, it defaults to "Keep"". J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

B, can I request you either reverse, re-open, or relist this discussion?

WP:FFDs are supposed to be closed on the weight of the arguments produced. WP:NFC says the burden of proof is for those seeking to keep an image to make out a rationale for it. That was done. Having been produced, no argument was made to dispute the rationale, or in any way question its validity.

The image selection has manifestly been made in accordance with the WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles policy. Not even the slightest attempt has been made to dispute that.

FFD is not a vote. Weak unspecific WP:POLICYWAVEs can be considered, but they should not be given great weight in the face of a detailed, uncontested discussion of the significance of the image as used and its relation to policy.

Can I therefore humbly suggest that the right close here is to dismiss the WP:POLICYWAVEs, and close this as a keep? Jheald (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no reason to re-open or relist - the determination is pretty clearly "no consensus" and that's not in dispute. The only question is what "no consensus" means for a non-free image when the question is compliance with the NFCC. So I don't see that reopening it or relisting it is going to answer that question. You are welcome to take it to WP:DRV, but with the understanding that DRV is not "FFD part duex" - the only question there is whether procedure was appropriate. It could answer the question of "does no consensus in a NFCC discussion result in a delete or a keep". --B (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that the correct determination was "no consensus", because the delete !votes amounted to no more than WP:POLICYWAVEs. FFD is supposed to be decided on the basis of the weight of argument about the image's significance and conformance to policy, and only one side actually discussed that, with none of the points made even responded to by the other. Jheald (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's count delete !votes:

"Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding" - PhilKnight
"appearance of character is not massively significant ..." - J Milburn
"... If the character was notable enough to justify using a non-free image to aid understanding, he would have his own article" - Stifle

Sorry, but I don't see any policy waves there. --B (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Stifle's !vote should be ignored because (as pointed out) it simply doesn't reflect policy.

As for PhilKnight and J Milburn, these blanket dismissals with no engagement at all in the discussion about why the image might be significant, really do amount to no more than a policy wave "fails NFCC#8" without any detailed engagement or consideration or discussion or argumentation on the point. Jheald (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it does cite policy, it's a policy wave; if it doesn't, it should be ignored for not citing policy? Good grief, that should cut down on the size of our deletion discussions. (That's not a bad thing, mind you.) --B (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

:smile:

Not quite. I'm not complaining that Stifle didn't cite policy; I'm claiming that his reason flies in the face of policy. WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles sets out a completely different line; that is why Stifle's !vote should be ignored.

As for the other two, they cite policy but they do no more. They don't engage at all with the question of when (per policy) an image might or might not be considered significant, and what factors specifically about this image weigh either way.

Have you read WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles? It's very hard to think what more an image could possibly do to be compliant than these ones. They have been carefully pared down to include only the four most significant out of nineteen. (And note the "minor characters" article has no images at all). They all display the most outlandish makeup - indeed the most outlandish concepts, which are indeed not really fully put over in words - and, all played by the same actor, there's no chance of a group shot. This is why this nom has got under my skin so much, because I was there at WT:NFC when the list use policy was thrashed out and adopted, and I simply cannot imagine a more appropriate following of it to the letter than this. Jheald (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will also say, for anyone who cares, this is why there is a months' worth of backlog at FFD and PUF — nobody wants to close the things and have their talk pages lit up with complaints from the non-prevailing side. In basically all of these outstanding ones that are sitting there, someone is going to be upset. Unless someone can cite chapter and verse that no consensus discussions on a NFCC issue result in a keep, I'm inclined to accept the word of J Milburn that this is the standard practice now. Deletion review is the appropriate recourse for a deletion where procedure was not followed. I have never had a deletion overturned at DRV (which kinda surprises me actually), but you're welcome to make this one the first. --B (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also confused as to why you didn't close the following 3 discussions, all of which have exactly the same arguments. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate this template ... it's silly that it refers to the DRV requester in the third person. --B (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

File:RADIOPic3.jpg

Regarding [5]... I did tag the image in the article here. Maybe it was removed in a later edit? That having been said, I agree that further discussion is needed, although I don't quite see your reasoning with the specific reason for relisting. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be worth relisting because of the other user's speculation that it might be PD - relisting it with the notice there gives an opportunity for any interested party to find an original source and offer evidence that it was published without a copyright notice. I did not see that the ifdc tag had been removed (I see now where an IP removed it). I don't see any particular harm in a "last chance" to find the copyright info. Had I done nothing, it probably sits there for more than a week marinating before someone processes it anyway. So I don't know that there's any harm in giving that notice + week. ;) --B (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a relist was appropriate; I had just been wondering about the reason that you gave. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The book covers

Good close; I think that you did a good job of determining consensus. Thanks for taking the time to look at it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Schedule?

Why did you delete my schedule I uploaded for a reference: [[6]] - Alec2011 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia does not accept images licensed under a "by permission only", "Wikipedia only", or "non-profit use only" license. That license is actually just a "trap" license in the selector that helps identify copyright violations being uploaded. You should link to this document (or some equivalent), not upload it locally. --B (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Varolii

Hi. I didn't delete it. I nominated it for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varolii. --B (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned userboxen

These probably meet T3... –xeno^talk 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not by my reading ... "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, and are either: substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days." That "and" is a killer. They are not employed in any useful fashion, but they are not hardcoded instances of another template. I suppose that the {{userbox}} template could be used to produce them ... but I take this to mean something more like having a template that wraps the infobox template for a particular person. --B (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... well I don't think anyone would miss them. IAR and shoehorn it ;p –xeno^talk 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Files for deletion and Flickr and images

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion is not the venue to argue whether Wikipedia:Nonfree and its associated policies and guidelines are legal according to U.S. copyright law. Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content and/or send Mike Godwin an inquiry e-mail. For right now people on Files for deletion will use our nonfree guidelines as the standard bearer for copyright disputes. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you see a Flickr photo that could be relicensed to replace a copyrighted photo:

Make sure that the people who uploaded the pictures are the copyrighted holders. If the Flickr image is already licensed as Creative Commons or Creative Commons ShareAlike, upload it and remove all instances of the copyrighted image from the article. If the image is NOT Creative Commons or Creative Commons ShareAlike, then ask the photographer to have it relicensed.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm ... ok. This has nothing to do with removing a photo that's a flagrant copyright violation. --B (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It has everything to do with Nonfree. If no free equivalent exists, we use a non-free photo. If a free photo exists, we delete the non-free. On Flickr you can ask the photographer to change the license of his or her photos to a free license, so you can "get" a free photo from Flickr. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

False. See foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy #3, "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose ... ." We can reasonably expect someone to upload a free photo even if that free photo does not exist right now, today. It is not my job to produce a free photo in order to get rid of a non-free one. Nor is it ever my job to produce a free photo in order to get id of one that is a flagrant copyright violation and for which nobody in the real world (ie, adults outside of Wikipedia) would ever even dream of using under a claim of fair use. I deal with this stuff on a daily basis in real life - to call these photos fair use is utter nonsense. --B (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, we can reasonably expect a free photo out of a living person, but we cannot reasonably expect a free photo from a dead person. Wikipedia:Nonfree#Images_2 lists images of living people as an unacceptable usage of a copyrighted/nonfree image. Also, Wikipedia is very much a real world thing. Also, until a free image is "created," technically the fair usage of the File:Kay_Yow.jpg is valid and will remain valid. Once a free image comes, then File:Kay_Yow.jpg can no longer be used. Because Kay Yow is dead, we have a presumption that no free photos exist. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were a presumption that no free photo exists, there is still cause reasonably expect that we could receive one. Unlike most dead people, Kay yow was a public figure. She coached in hundreds of basketball games throughout her career. Thousands of people have taken pictures of her over the years with no intention of exploiting them commercially. While we can't reasonably expect a commercial content provider to ever give us a free image, we can reasonably expect a fan to. Again, I don't need to show that it exists, only that it can reasonably be expected to exist at some point in the future. Actually, I don't even need to show that - WP:NFCC says "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof." The burden is on you to show that it is not possible to obtain one and I have suggested a very simple way - email everyone on flickr who has uploaded a photo of her and ask them to provide one to us under the GFDL or another acceptable license. --B (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On Flickr images are relicensed to "Creative Commons" or "Creative Commons ShareAlike." - I found http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynesutton/543054894/ - Lemme see if Mr. Sutton is willing to relicense this photo. If he is, then this is going to be the photo used on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that Mr. Sutton is likely to relicense his image, so I sent him a Flickr mail message. I am hoping he decides to relicense his photo. If a dead person is likely to have a free image of himself/herself, then one can be found or "created" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I know that flickr uses CC licenses, but that doesn't mean we're restricted to that. The author doesn't have to use flickr's licensing system. They have the option of uploading it to Wikipedia (or Commons) themselves with the GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.0 multilicense tag or use any other acceptable license. My personal opinion (not policy, not guideline, not accepted by most people here, not legal advice, not anything of use to anyone but me, just my personal opinion) is that I despise the CC licenses because they don't provide the same level of protection that the GFDL does. The CC licenses make it too easy to separate content and say "this image is CC-licensed, but nothing else in my book/article/whatever is". That doesn't promote free content and so I've never been thrilled with it. --B (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The user relicensed it to Creative Commons ShareAlike NonCommercial - In other words I can't upload it to Commons. I asked to see if he could drop the NonCommercial part. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good ... usually, if they're open to changing their licensing terms, they will change it to whatever we need ... so hopefully he will drop the non-commercial. --B (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping so too. He quickly changed the license to Creative Commons with the non-commercial, but he hasn't responded so far about editing out the non-commercial bit... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." - So now there is no dispute that WP:NONFREE or its related policies are not compliant with U.S. copyright/fair use law, yes? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed it wasn't compliant with our laws - only that your interpretation (and the interpretation of others arguing this point) is deeply flawed. I said "If our NFCC don't make that clear, the problem is with our NFCC." The only problem is if the NFCC doesn't make it clear enough that there is no misunderstanding - using press photos is clearly out of bounds under the law, the NFCC, or anywhere that people don't just plagiarize to their heart's content (blogs, message boards). --B (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were meaning that Wikipedia's body of NFCC had a fundamental problem. I don't work on copyright policy that often and I hadn't seen any file deletion requests that had disputed the "press agency" attribute until now. Anyway, if you had started each deletion nomination with 'Wikipedia:FAIR#Unacceptable_use 6. "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."' there would have been no dispute. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Using a press photo is still a copyright violation whether it's in our guideline or not. I had actually forgotten it was in there ... I'm sure I knew it at one time ... in fact, I think it used to be #5 a long time ago because now that I think about it I remember using it in previous IFDs. Several years ago (late 06 maybe?) we debated on WT:CSD adding a speedy deletion criterion for press photos and the only reason we didn't wasn't because it wasn't universally accepted that they were copyright violations - nobody doubted that any more than they doubted that the sky is blue - it was because we couldn't come up with appropriate language that would exclude legitimate fair use press photos like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Kent State shootings. --B (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There are scenarios where regular newspaper photos are kept, even if the newspaper normally charges for usage of the image, i.e. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg. Because AP/UPI are news agencies, we normally cannot use their images. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, except in that case, it's not a news media photo. See [7], which cites it as "FILE COURTESY PHOTO". In other words, the family probably gave them the photo to use, as opposed to the news organization actually owning the copyright. --B (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_20#File:JocelyneCoutureNowak.jpg - The AP description here credits it to the Nova Scotia Agricultural College via AP - Doesn't this mean it is also a file courtesy photo? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: The Kay Yow pic on Flickr has been relicensed. It is now here: File:KayYowSutton.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work! --B (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo displayed at Vaughan Pratt is not the latest version of the Commons image

Hello B. Since you know about images, could you view User talk:EdJohnston#Photo strangeness and see if you see sunlight at the upper left corner of that image? The text of the post explains what the issue is. Any feedback however terse would be helpful. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a tool that can be used to forcibly regenerate images. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=2005PoinsettaBowl-Navy-LOS.jpg&w=NNN ... obviously, replace the name of the image with the correct image and NNN with the thumbnail width you want to regenerate. Then clear your browser's cache and it should work. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=VaughanPratt.JPG&w=180 --B (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... it didn't work. --B (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok ... fixed ... I reverted to a previous version, then reverted to his new version again and that fixed it. You may have to clear your browser's cache or hit shift+reload in order to see the new image, but it's fixed. --UserB (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that did it! EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've given up trying to figure out why MediaWiki has quirks like this sometimes. --B (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Grace

Grace was my great-aunt. Thanks for the head's up MrMarmite (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WOOO

GO HOKIES!!!! ALABAMA GOT NOTHIN!!! Jwalte04 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going? That should be an exciting game. --B (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mail

Ck mail. Eagle Scout issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Man.

Expecting something to happen doesn't make it much better. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's time to get rid of some of the offensive staff. The O-line has just gone downhill every year since 03. 2000 and 2003 had great O-lines. Other than that, they've been pretty pathetic. When the entire Alabama front is in the backfield on every play, we could have the best quarterback in the world there and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.--B (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The U

How woud you suggest we go from here? The footnotes do not match the text. And the claim in the text is not limited to athletics? Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to fork the conversation and have it multiple places. Let's keep it at ANI or move it to the article talk page. --B (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming SBC resurge/takeover article

Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An earlier straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at: Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2 (once this thread is archived, see here.)

If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse says you are the guy to talk to...

if we need useful images undeleted. Is this true? The images I find that are needed but deleted are originally someone else's, mistagged, and once they are restored, I fix the tagging. Can you do this? Do you take requests? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure ... just list anything here you want me to look at. As long as they are not something plainly unacceptable to use under any circumstances (like recent news media photos) I will restore them and reset the maintenance tags so you will have another 7 days to fix whatever problem caused their deletion. --B (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't

Don't try and hide things away. Giacomo 20:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of "Requestor consents to closing thread, nothing good is going to come out of this" is inflammatory, but the passive–aggressive behavior is wearing thin. ANI isn't a forum for razzing your opponents or some such thing - it's a forum for bringing a specific problem for a specific solution. You seem only interested in prolonging attacks on TreasuryTag and on anyone who doesn't agree with you. Most of us don't give a flip about him, you, or any other Wikidrama, but you want to personalize the whole thing and make it all about Giano. --B (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply about ANI discussion

I am going to explain to you why I did what I did, but (Sigh) I don't even know why I bother. Up until May 14th I did not know that non-free files could not be placed on userspace. Afterward I stopped. Two days ago I update the Wikipedia Project Star Trek portal. Considering that all Star Trek images are in some way, copyrighted, and I noticed that other television portals have copyrighted images I added several Star Trek images. Two days later Hammersoft reverted my edits claiming that copyrighted images cannot be placed in portals. Since portals are supposed to have best work displayed, and since they link to articles I though use of images in portals was fine. Hammersoft rudely told me it was not. Forgive me for being blunt, but I do not particularly care for this user. He does not edit pages, except to remove images. He keeps statistics of the number of users he has made angry on his userpage and he is stalking my edits. I checked his edits, on May 31 the only edits he made where to revert mine and to yell at me. When he told me that adding items to portals was against policy I disagreed. I still do not see how files cannot be used in portals. Until you told me otherwise I didn't believe him. The reason I added the nobots template to the page is because I figure Hammersoft changed Dashbot so that it would remove images with certain tags from the portal. The images I had posted in the portal had remained in place until Hammersoft removed them. Then Dashbot all of a sudden started reverting. I felt that this was odd and that is why I added the template. I guess I just won't touch a image again. I won't upload, I won't add image, and I won't remove images. If they are wrong so be it. I don't plan to use them anymore. I would also like Hammersoft to leave me alone. He has been watching me, waiting for me to make another image related mistake. I have made alot of other edits other than adding images. I don't like being jumped on by him every time I make a mistake. I am not perfect and neither is he. I don't like having to worry about getting yelled at by him every time I make a mistake. One of the guidelines is don't worry about making mistakes. If he continues to harass me every time I make a mistake I won't need to be blocked for making mistakes, I will simply leave wikipedia, for good. I very much enjoy editing wikipedia, but having the stress of worrying is not worth it. I am sorry I ranted on your userpage over what I am upset about. I am not angry at you or anyone, I am just upset that Hammersoft won't leave me alone. I have written my response here rather than ANI because I do not want to be further yelled at by Hammersoft. Apologies, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry your experience has not been positive. If there are other TV-related portals that have copyrighted images, please let me know and I will remove them. I briefly scanned Category:Television portals and didn't see any, but if there are, let me know. --B (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant, I was very patient and polite with you, even when you became quite insulting towards me [8]. Despite this, you continued to willfully violate our policies. People can and will over time lose patience with a person when they continually violate our policies, despite having them explained to the person committing the violations many times. Between May 14 and June 1, you committed no less than 14 violations of this policy, despite being told so many times that you were in error. Then you treat the person warning you as a vandal [9]. I am not here to yell at you, but to point out why patience was being lost with you. I have no desire to follow you, and didn't have reason to do so until today when I put together the WP:AN/I thread. Your violations were appearing on this list, which I routinely patrol on a daily basis. If you don't commit violations of WP:NFCC, it's likely you won't see me on your talk page ever again. As to your extreme distaste for my editing, as I mentioned before, I'm sorry you don't like it [10]. However, I'm not seeking your approval or disapproval of my work here. I frankly don't care about your opinion of me, and that attitude on my part is why my userpage exists as it does. I'm not keeping "statistics of the number of users (I have) made angry". Rather, my userpage serves to dissuade people from insulting me. Personally, I think it's worked for the most part.
B, thanks again for your time and attention to this matter. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

epic name is epic.

don't you agree? Rohedin ^TALK 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about --B (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

for this catch. That had slipped right past me :P EyeSerene^talk 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem ... I don't know if you were working off of WP:AN3 or if you had just so happened to notice the users, but when I hit the block button, you had beaten me by one minute. ;) --B (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's on my watchlist due to past problems... Thanks again :) EyeSerene^talk 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Direktor disruption and break of 3RR on Flag of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Hello. I see the article has been corrected by another user, and having the article in right way is my only purpose here. But, unfortunatelly, I also saw that you declined taking action on that case against a disruptive user that has intensively and purposly reverted all changes 3 times in couple of hours. I also noteced that you decided to warn me about edit-warring (???), giving me same treatment as the disruptive user... Where did I edit warred? You conclude I edit warred because I decided to report another user edit-warring? I did take as offensive the warning that you gave me because I have been very cooperative on that, and associated articles, I had been editing all with prior accordance of the project, I have been completely agreed with another 5 editors of the article, and I have been taking action against disruption on those articles. Also, regarding the disruptive editor, I have been discussing with him on the article talk page for months now, I gave him entire freedom to let him compose the article in the right way and I had asked him politely to make some changes that are supported by all I already mentioned. I honestly hope the disruptive user will change his behavior from now on, because if he doesn´t, I will remind this failure of taking action by your side. I will also remove your comment from my talk page since I consider it completely inadequate and unfortunate for the situation, and it follows a comment by a user that was already several times forbiten to edit my talk page, so the entire section will be deleted. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that I warned you about anything - I replied to a comment that DIREKTOR left on your talk page in which he bragged that he only reverted exactly three times. The context and the indentation should make it clear that DIREKTOR was the party I was addressing. --B (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise than. I missunderstood it, but I removed it anyway, so any further missinterpretation is avoided. I have been a litlle bit of "traumatised" by the ammount of bad faith and disruption by that user, so I may act jumpy when it comes about (not) dealing with him. Please ignore my entire previous comment than, and I honestly hope that the situation there is clear and no further action would be needed there (althouth I doubt because that user does take all edits as competition and doesn´t rest when something like this happends). But, I´ll WP:AGF and hope we can all have as good articles as possible here. I apologise for taking you time on this. FkpCascais (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem --B (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, B. It seems your warning wasn't understood at all.

Take a look what the user is doing at Josip Broz Tito's article: [11].

At the same time, when I tried to change no more than 2 lines in another article, (changing "a collaborating force" into "a force seemed to be collaborating that time")see the diff] I was immediately reverted by another user, and in the talk page User:DIREKTOR start harassing me way and this way (look at the third point, just after your warning).

I actually renounced to give my contributions to those pages since the user approach me that way, and since int could seem I am involved in an editwar (for two lines??). But I don't think that's right. Thanks in advance for your help, and please accept my apologies for bothering you with this not fun issue. - Theirrulez (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The user seems to be talking it out on the talk page, which is what he should do. I don't see a problem. --B (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thnx, i understand now...

I was not trying to hide/block the referances. I was trying to remove clutter just like the article of Adolf Hitler, but now i know that neither collapsible tables/scroll boxes should be used for citations.^[1] I understand it is impossible to remove as much cluter as far as organizing by columns. :D

Thnx again, i learned my [damn] lesson. :D 序名三　「Jyonasan」 ^Talk 23:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The scrolling list in Adolph Hitler was incorrect, too. Nothing that mangles the plain rendering of references is permissible. --B (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hot ice pun

Heh..."creates a chilling effect" on the Global Warming RFARB...I like it....;) Dreadstar ☥ 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I try. Maybe if we have more article probation measures, we can stop global warming completely. ;) --B (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Special Order 191

You earlier gave a 24 hour hard block to IP 72.87.183.32 (see [12]) -- I am the one who made the original referral. I had also alleged that the IP was a sock puppet of USER:Lostorder. The block has expired and the IP resumed by making the same type of edit he/she was blocked for (see [13]). There was no discussion by the IP even though I originated a discussion on the article's discussion page. Any help would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. --B (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

PD ?

Pls look at this thread: User_talk:Rlevse#Jerome_Tiger_DYK which refers to this image: File:Jerome tiger stomp dance.jpg on commons. Can you advise here? If it's free license I want to use it in a DYK set with the image. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) and File:HOR Philippines Session Hall.jpg, facebook is a PD source? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See latest posts on my talk page. Ck your mail too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Falcon Crest

Did you get it? Thanks, --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded as File:Falcon Crest.svg. Please edit the page to include appropriate attribution and fair use information. --B (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my undeletion request.

Hi, B

You seem to have been very busy when you were attending to this undeletion request, since you mistakenly tagged it with "Fixed"! Of course, I do understand that such errors occur when people are busy.

I took the liberty of undoing your change. Please read the request carefully before tagging it. Note that the undeletion request pertains to a previous version.

Fleet Command (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your request now. Please see my comments there. --B (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- The new version that you have uploaded is in blatant violation of Copyright Laws as it is a misrepresentation of a proprietary product. I am tagging it for speedy-deletion. In the mean time, I advise you to study copyright laws. Besides, there was nothing promotional about a freeware media player showing a video that is as free and open-source as Wikipedia itself. Fleet Command (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

J. K. Ralston

I just created this article and listed at DYK. Any realistic chance of one of his paintings being free? Is a FUR possible? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything he published before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain. Anything after that is possibly public domain, if it was published before 1963 and the copyright was not renewed or before 1978 without a copyright notice, though both of these are likely to be difficult to prove unless someone else (like the Library of Congress) has already done the legwork on it. Anything else would still be copyrighted and could only be used under a claim of fair use. To use it under a claim of fair use, it would need to greatly enhance the article such that not having it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. For example, if one or two of his paintings are useful for showing his style, they could be included ... just make sure that their inclusion has some transformative effect on the text and that they aren't just for decoration. --B (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, see File:Sacajawea At The Portage.jpg. please improve FUR and I'm not sure I used the right nonfree license. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me --B (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I guess we could put up an image of him too but there's none I've found that I really like. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bachir Attar

When you restored this at REFUND I suspect you hadn't seen that this had already been refused twice before. It appears that JzG was acting on behalf of OTRS when he took that out of mainspace. Obviously you can do as you like but I referred the requester back to OTRS and wouldn't have restored it without discussing privately with Guy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In what forum was it refused before? If the action was an OTRS action that should not be reverted without consulting an OTRS member, then he needs to say that in the move log - we're not mind readers. When I said something to JzG at his talk page, he said nothing about it being an OTRS action. I obviously must have failed the admin mind reading test. ;) If he doesn't say somewhere along the line that it's an OTRS action, then it's an editorial decision subject to WP:BRD, which, incidentally, is what I did. He didn't protect the mainspace title or delete anything, so any person on the face of the earth could have moved it back - moving it back wasn't an exercise of the admin tools. If you want to move it back to userspace, just do it, but please indicate in the move log a reason for it beyond "userfy". "Userfy" doesn't provide any information to anyone. --B (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the very top of REFUND I rejected as part of dual request with Claire Nutting and there was one a few days before that that was also refused. I agree about the edit summary by the way but OTRS volunteers can sometimes prefer not to advertise the nature of actions as that can attract attention just because some editors disapprove of OTRS. Since I don't have OTRS access myself any more I can't see what it was about. JzG is very experienced at OTRS so I'm sure he knows what he is doing. oh well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see it now. But it doesn't look like the request was rejected unless he blanked the comment in question. It looks like the request is still pending. While I recognize that stating OTRS can invite unwanted attention, there are ways around that. He could just say "see me for more info" or if it were really necessary to not advertise that it was an OTRS decision (eg, a serious privacy concern or something), then he could use the cool new revision hiding function to hide the move summary from public view, but leave it visible to admins. The bottom line is that, though I have disagreed with JzG on certain things in the past, I wouldn't dream of reverting an OTRS action. If it's an OTRS action, he needs to indicate in some way, "this isn't a normal editorial decision - don't reverse it". He didn't. --B (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that point and I wasn't suggesting for a minute that you were acting unreasonably, just that you clearly hadn't picked up this was a multiple request that had previously been refused. I agree by the way that OTRS actions need to be clearly labeled, Its just that they are not always labelled for good reasons and its sometimes impossible to read how much an editor is action independantly or for OTRS without looking up the tickets. Its probably nothing more then I suspect that I am just slighty more cautions having been an OTRS volunteer in the past. Still, no harm done except wasting your time as I see Guy is aware of the change and no doubt can contact you privately about this if he feels it necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I am avoiding making any comments on AE because the user who filed the report has a long history with me and has been banned and warned before for battling in the Israeli-Arab topic on Wikipedia, so rather than getting involved arguing over the frivolous report I'd rather it end quietly. I just wanted to ask you, where exactly did I cross the line of civility in that edit summary? I have seen many users in the past tell other editors not to comment on their talk pages, including admins. The user who left me that comment was previously involved with me and he knew very well that I didn't want to hear from him. I had already deleted other comments of his and asked him not to comment on my talk page, but he persisted. The fact that he was a desysoped admin is totally true, and the only other thing I said was that he was harassing me... which I don't really see being a civility problem. So can you please help me understand where I went wrong? Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That he has been desysopped has nothing to do with the appropriateness or lack thereof of his advice. Removing his post without comment is the best alternative. Little good is going to come from referring to something as harassment unless it really is harassment. --B (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Granted. Like I said, it was quite a harassing thing to do after I made it clear to him previously that I didn't appreciate his advice, and more specifically, him following me around to find ways to pick on me. Anyway, that's a different story. Basically, to classify that edit summary as a violation of WP:CIVIL... doesn't seem appropriate in my opinion. Maybe my understanding of the line people can safely cross in civility has been skewed because of the great amount of animosity found between editors in the I-A conflict on Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: B, when I asked you to comment about some things, you did not answer about the canvassing part. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Breein1007

Re " unless the user is so irredeemably biased/disruptive/whatever "

I think a quick run through this user's contrib history would reveal this to be true. NickCT (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that NickCT was recently blocked for personal attacks (ie:calling me a bigot), so I would take that with a grain of salt. But please do feel free to look through my contribution history and determine whether or not my edits warrant a topic ban, which I personally think is a ridiculous notion. Especially when the user requesting it is the one who was already topic banned for 30 days for extreme battleground mentality, and is continuing that behaviour with this report of things that I have mostly already been sanctioned for, combined with other laughable accusations like canvassing when someone else asked me to help them. Breein1007 (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein - I've made continued efforts to work constructively with you for a long long time. Your attitude is intractable. The "bigot" comment came out of exasperation for this attitude, which, frankly, I still think could be defined as "bigoted". If you would make any attempt to reach out, any attempt to compromise/apologise I've always stood ready to change my opinion. Perhap you will now? NickCT (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi B, sorry for all the trouble, but I noticed you cited WP:AGF at AE. Is there not a problem with bad faith in the report itself? For example, is stating that I "secretly" conversed in Hebrew with another editor in order to hide what I was talking about consistent with WP:AGF? Was it not possible that I realized the other user was struggling with English so I switched to Hebrew to make it easier for him? is this not something that the reporting user should consider? I empathize with Shuki calling the report frivolous because he knows Supreme Deliciousness from past encounters, as do I, and this is not the first time he has done something like this. WP:AGF only goes so far. When Supreme Deliciousness just came off of a topic ban for battleground behaviour such as repeatedly stating that Jewish/Israeli sources are unreliable simply for being Jewish/Israeli, and then submits a report like this requesting a topic ban for things such as speaking Hebrew, it really is quite clear that something is very very wrong and that his 30 day topic ban didn't lead to a change in attitude. Breein1007 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's true that some of the report could be interpreted as an assumption of bad faith. WP:TPG#YES says that if you are speaking in a talk page to another user in a non-English language, you should provide an English translation, but the characterization wasn't necessary unless there was something direct that was objectionable in the text - just because someone speaks in a language you don't understand doesn't mean that they are plotting murder and mayhem. Perhaps I overreacted, but frivolous litigation is a legal term (and words mean things) and accusing someone of a frivolous report is going beyond "I don't agree with you". --B (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The TPG#YES link didn't work, but okay - I will keep that in mind in the future and if I encounter a situation where I'm speaking another language, I'll provide a translation. In terms of over-reacting, I don't think that you are the one over-reacting at all. On the contrary, I appreciate everything you have said so far and you come across as a very good admin who is analyzing things fairly and objectively. The problem is that the editor who filed the report went way overboard and over-reacted, it seems desperate even... trying to come up with every possible thing to make me look bad and get admins who don't do a good job of investigating to quickly come to the conclusion that I should be topic banned. I mean, it's even slightly funny to be honest... asking for sanctions against me because someone tried to canvass me, because I spoke another language... after the laughter wears off though it is quite sad to realize that this is what we are dealing with, and that previous sanctions against the editor in question for this exact behaviour did not lead to any improvement. Anyway, I guess all I'm saying is that I think it would be very unfortunate if the result of this case is sanctions against me, because the effect is that Supreme Deliciousness will be rewarded for his actions and convinced that what he is doing is the right thing to do on Wikipedia. In the long run, it will only serve to make tensions worse in the Israeli-Arab area on Wikipedia. In terms of your suggestion for civility parole, maybe that's fair - there were some situations in the past when I should have bitten my tongue. But I don't think 1RR is fair here; I lost control at the Gaza Flotilla article and was banned for it. Since then I haven't done anything close to edit warring. All the other diffs that Supreme Deliciousness provided are months old, I was already sanctioned for them, or worse: he was the other party involved in the edit war. But I do appreciate your time and fairness here, thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ... left out the WP: --B (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

B, I don't think it is alright that this conversation is held here instead of the AE, It is inappropriate. It really needs to be noted that all the people who have defended Breein there, including Shuki, are people who edit in the same side as him in these conflict article. They are not neutral in what they say. There was no bad faith from me and Im sorry if it was misinterpreted. If you look at that entire section, a user had contacted Breein to edit war with him, and then while Breein went to the article and started edit warring as the otehr had requested they started to speak hebrew with each other, adn if you run this comment through google translate [14] although Google translate is not perfect, you can clearly see that they are speaking with each other about they're edits to the article. I just felt that it was important that this was mentioned because I'm sure it is inappropriate to have a conversation in another language specially involving canvassing, It was not in bad faith from me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement decisions don't come with a gag order - anyone is free to discuss the issue or opine on it in other locations (with the normal rules of civil discourse, talk page guidelines, etc). You yourself posted about the issue on WP:AN, which makes it rather odd to complain about a conversation being held about it on my talk page. If you look at the topic headers on my talk page, most of that's here is where someone brought an issue from another forum for one reason or another.. Regarding the passage in question, unless I'm missing something, it's rather innocuous. Google says, Good to know you can write in Hebrew rather than break his head with the English ... In any case: very stubborn overwhelmed when they realize that "Justin" is the name of the country, so as we add "Transjordan" with "down" or "Syrian Desert" instead of "Syria" .... (For one thing, this comment is from another user, so punishing Breein1007 for what someone else said doesn't make much sense.) If that is an accurate translation, it seems extremely innocuous - someone doesn't understand English very well so they were speaking in Hebrew for his benefit. That sounds like a rather thoughtful thing to do. --B (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything I have said at the AN I have said at the AE. And the AN was first to direct active admins to the AE as I explained there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And there were two comments in hebrew from Breein as you can see in the AE. Lets keep the discussion there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins with an interest in arbcom enforcement will see your request without a notice at WP:AN. Your request there was not a neutral request ("please see page xyz"), but, rather, you arguing your case there. Just on a quick glance at your contributions, I count three users on whose talk pages you have left a message in which you argued part of your case (in other words, more than a neutral "I have updated XYZ, please offer your thoughts" statement) - [15], [16], [17]. Personally, I don't care and as I said before, so long as you aren't canvassing (eg, trying to bring people to the discussion that you believe will support your position), I don't see it as a problem ... but if you're going to say ex parte conversations are a problem when Breein1007 has one, you shouldn't have them either (not that this is either an ex parte conversation or a private forum - anyone in the world can see my talk page should they so desire.) Any admin who is not a party to the dispute is empowered to make a decision in this matter and issue a sanction. Certainly if I am empowered to make a decision, I am also empowered to not make any decision and just talk about it. --B (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the AN post was I wanted them to go to the main page. At the time of the notice there, one admin had looked at it and he said that all the edits were before his block, and when I pointed that this want true to him on his talkpage (and AE), he didn't answer. So I wanted someone who was more active to take a look at it. Here I am notifying an admin about what I believe was an incorrect statement from him and I said the exact same thing as I said at the AE so everyone can see. Here I notified him about a question, and that AN post was linked from the main AE page. And you cant really compare open AN to individual talkpages. This comment was a result of Breein opening long discussions at admins talkpages instead of the AE, I replied to Breeins claims he had made there. And concerning the "so long as you aren't canvassing (eg, trying to bring people to the discussion that you believe will support your position" - Did you see this?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He notified a user that he had left comments concerning the user here. I'm not seeing a problem. Seriously, this is starting to get old. This has moved from a legitimate request to a game of gotcha. --B (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He notified a user who edits on the same side of him in I/P articles and who supported him at AE about a conversation here where he claims he hasn't done anything wrong.. But I agree with you this whole conversation now is old and off-topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ki Whang

Hi, B. At the above AfD, you asked: Is there a reliable source that is actually about him, not just mentioning him in passing?—and I rather think I'd linked one during the debate above. Did you miss it, or do you just disagree that it's reliable?—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh ... maybe borderline in terms of establishing notability. There are plenty of human interest stories about random people off the street that we don't create Wikipedia articles on. When I was a kid, there was an article about me in the local newspaper for winning a scholastic chess tournament - I don't think anyone would claim I'm notable though. Also, please note that WP:N says (and elaborates on) "sources" (plural). (Really, it seems to me that it's to keep out just this kind of thing, where a profile was done on someone one time.) --B (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. I think notability's there to keep out the marketing spam, and I think this wasn't spam. Personally, I'm satisfied that Kim really was a pioneer of Taekwondo in the US in the 1970s, that he really did chair the US olympic taekwondo team in 1988, that he really was awarded a 10th dan black belt on his deathbed (making him one of the tiny handful people ever to get that award in Taekwondo while still alive), and that he really did learn from Kanken Tōyama and go on to train Sang Kee Paik, Mitchell Bobrow, John Critzos II and Chuck Norris. I'm also quite satisfied that he was a very big fish in the small pond of early US taekwondo. He seems to have been not just influential, but revered and respected and loved. I can see the sources for all these things, and there are lots of them... I just can't bring myself to call them "reliable sources" with a straight face. Only the Black Belt Magazine source might pass muster.

I also think the Black Belt magazine back-issues, taken as a whole, amount to a whole lot more than just a profile that was done on someone one time—but I can see your side of it too, and I do respect what you say. It's a tough one.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted SHAYTARDS

SHAYTARDS is one of the most popular users on youtube. Shay Carl definitly a YoutTube celebrity. If CTFxC aka Internet Killed Television has a wikipedia page I would think that SHAYTARDS HAS to definitly have a wikipedia page. I'm shocked that they didnt already. So, then I created one but it got deleted instantly. SHAYTARDS is even more popular than CTFxC and somehow they get a wikipedia page. CTFxC's total upload views is 76,205,601 and SHAYTARDS total upload views is 123,970,318. Shay carl also isnt on the youtube celebrities list and charles trippy and alli speed are. If you look up the definetion of celebrity on wikipedia this is it: a person who is easily recognized in a society or culture. If you were to ever watch the SHAYTARDS then you would know hat they ALWAYS get pointed out while they are out vlogging. I Highly suggest listen to both my suggestions. And if you let me create a SHAYTARDS page I will take the time to make it as best as possible. Thanks. Falcons8455 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you would like to appeal the decision, please see WP:Deletion review. --B (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You know the List of YouTube personalities page? Well the definition of a celebrity on wikipedia is "a person who is easily recognized in a society or culture." well Shaycarl is always being recognized in his vlogs by random people on the street. That shows how famous he actually is. Do you have any power over getting him up on that list? I see the last time someone tried to put his name up there was like october 2009 or something and he has got much more famous now. Him and some other youtubers on that list actually work together on a channel called TheStation. One of the most popular channels on youtube.Falcons8455 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- In general, only people with articles should be on that list. If the deletion review approves creation of the article, then he could be listed. --B (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  - Ok cool thanks for the help. Falcons8455 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Louise Mandrell at Jamboree.jpg

Is this, with an "attribution" license free and ok for commons? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. No project is allowed to use "free" licenses that are "less free" than what Commons accepts. So in terms of licensing, all images fall into one of three categories: (1) free and ok for commons, (2) unlicensed and being used under a claim of fair use, or (3) using an improper license and should be deleted. (There are images that, for one reason or another, we don't upload to Commons for reasons other than licensing. For example, some users prefer that their user page photos only be locally and not uploaded to Commons and we generally respect those wishes.) --B (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, so this is in the first group and ok for commons. Thanks. I'll be working this over the weekend. I have other photos of that guy. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:StrikeSignalFlags.jpg

Please review this FUR and use in James G. Howes. May want to look at thread on WT:SCOUT too. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but from looking at the article, how do you know the cartoon is lampooning him? Something like that needs to be verified. --B (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He's the one that sent it to me. He was manager of the airport (see dates) and heavily involved in Scouts. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mail call. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Move of iOS (Apple)

When you move an article with a talk history, please also check the archiving templates on the talk page and adapt them. They have the talk page name in their configs. I already fixed Talk:iOS (Apple).--Oneiros (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The ANI

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your civil and helpful comments on our dispute. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Tag-prod removed-description

Hi. Your input is requested. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Closure of AFD for that Antarctica micronation hoax article

B, is it just me or is there something different about {{at}} from previous? Or is it hte format change that WP went through recently? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks all right to me, but it's probably been over a year since I've closed an AFD. If there is something I didn't do right, please feel free to fix it. --B (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like all you changed was to eliminate some whitespace. --B (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, B, I hope you are doing well. :) Thanks for your comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). FYI, someone has replied to you, at the AFD page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with another editor

Hi B, You recently warned an editor about incivility (here). Because I saw that this editor was giving another editor a similar hard time and making similar edit war threats (here), I posted this to the third editor's talk page. Unfortunately, this set-off the warned editor. He has made nearly a dozen edits to the other editors talk page, so far (here) and has pasted the same edits to my talk page in several edits (here). Would you mind send along another word to him asking that he tone things down. I'd welcome any other suggestion, too. Thank you! Novaseminary (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

to B:...

thank you for your concern and consideration to this matter. And I agree largely with your assessments and points, but I have to say too, that it's not always so black and white, and while I understand your point about "personal attacks" sometimes life has it where things need to be stated bluntly and tell what's really going on. Especially if there's been a pattern of border-line harassment, second-guessing just about EVERYTHING, and other things. (I've tried to be civil and polite with him a number of times, but to no avail.) Also, there's the point that Nova does personally attack but on a way more SUBTLE AND SLY way that is hidden better, and tends to maybe fool people on the surface. The guy now is stalking me, and "watching" over me, with matters with other editors that are not even his business. Borderline harassment now. So it's not always easy to talk "solely" about the edit matters, when this guy is NOT just about that, but IS about personal issues.

look at what he did here just today as an example, to get me in more trouble. He wrote to you complaining about me writing on his talk page today BECAUSE HE CHIMED IN ON A MATTER THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM, with this other editor on the Christopher Columbus article, about a disagreement about a photo removal. If he can write junk about me on someone's talk page where there's an issue between me and another editor, then I have a right to put on Nova's talk page that it's wrong and how I feel. I was re-editing what I wrote, because there were other things that I left out that I wanted to say that he never read. (I try to contribute effectively and professionally and boldly to Wikipedia, and I have, for quite a while now...in various ways....on HUNDREDS of articles, and I've created a few. My goal is to bring good info, remove vandalism, remove POV, and contribute something meaningful. People like Nova sometimes make things demoralizing and discouraging.) But the point is that my thing with MG (which was NO violation, but simply telling him that I think it was spiteful of him to try to get a photo deleted from WP simply cuz he didn't want it on a specific article), was not really Nova's business. It's like the guy won't leave me alone. He wrote negative stuff on Mg's talk to simply HURT ME. It becomes apparent now that Nova is GOADING me to provoke to me go off to get me in trouble. (if you can't see that, at least to some degree, then I seriously question the reliability of the whole process, and those who oversee it....to be honest. Even though I know that nothing is perfect every second.)

He meddled in on a matter with an editor that has ZERO to do with anything with Nova, AT ALL. But because I'm on Nova's watchlist, and he's basically stalking me now (whether you agree with that word or not, it is what it is), he wants to find ANYTHING to chime in on to get me in some kind of trouble or build matters up worse, and stir things. Columbus picture dispute. No business of Nova's, yet Nova put his two cents and brought up my issues with "edit war" or "blocks". The guy is STALKING me and what I do, and is making things difficult, and it's bordering on harassment, which is against WP policy. It's getting CREEPY what he's doing with me now. Having me on his watchlist no doubt, and butting in on business that is not really his. The photo dispute with MG is between HIM AND ME, not Nova.

He DOES have personal issues against me, and his sole pattern and goal with me is to have me kicked off of WP. For real or imagined infractions, big or small. Conveniently leaving things out, being petty, bringing up things to simply get a person in trouble, exaggerating things, omitting other things, and never admitting his own flaws one iota. He made it personal first, not me. Believe that. thanks for your attention though to this matter. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, both of you need to disengage. Novaseminary, don't go to Special:Contributions/Sweetpoet and don't provoke him by "informing" other users about him. Mgiganteus1 has been here since 2006 and is capable of researching Sweetpoet's history or responding to him as needed without your assistance. Sweetpoet, stop flying off the handle every time Novaseminary interacts with you. It takes two to tango. Either one of you could choose right now that you are going to end it. Both of you, in this case, were in the wrong - Novaseminary for butting in and Sweetpoet for responding as you did - and both of you need to stop it. You're going to come into contact with each other on articles from time to time, but you can keep discussions off of each other's talk pages, keep them on article talk pages, and keep them focused on the articles themselves, not on personalities. If both of you don't choose to disengage and tone it down, it's only going to escalate to the point where both of you are banned. --B (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Mea culpa: for some reason, I forgot to do this, even though you'll notice that I added the result to the automatically generated part of the edit summary so that anyone clicking on the section link of the edit summary in a watchlist would get straight to the "retitled" (or not) section. That's what comes of trying to be too clever, you forget to take the initial basic step! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 15:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --B (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment by Taric25

User:Taric25 is currently harrassing me. It started when I simply disagreed with his edit warring complaint regarding Active Banana. You denied the complaint, which you correctly did. On that same complaint page, he fights back by complaining that I don't write summaries in any of my edits. I replied back saying basically that hardly anyone makes summaries on very simple edits, and I did make one snard remark to make things even. He writes on my Talk page asking for an apology, and I told him he drew first blood. Now, he's editing my user page, saying that it is an attack page. It is not an attack page. One, both users have been banned from Wikipedia for the things I mentioned on my page. And two, it serves a examples for me of confrontations I've faced in the past. I want this user to stop bothering me, and to go on and attend to other issues that need attention. This guy is extremely over-sensative. I don't want to file this report and that report just yet. I just need and admin like yourself to tell this user to stop stalking me. Groink (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Wetcloth20

His block has been lifted, and it looks like Wetcloth20 (talk · contribs) is continuing to ignore the manual of style and already starting to edit war again over my his undoing his inappropriate use of a table format for a cast list at The King and the Clown and changing a heading at Im Su-jeong. I left him a warning and pointed him to WP:MOSFILM on his talk page, but he is continuing his reverting and claiming he will "report me" for cleaning up behind him. Can you take a look? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use rollback for anything other than simple vandalism or other permitted purposes. Regarding this particular change, where in MOSFILM is it addressed? --B (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, where is it addressed? I originally saw that "Im a Cyborg but thats OK" had tables so I thought "King and the clown" ought to have it too. Wetcloth20 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of the film project is very clear that tables should not be used for cast lists. If it can't be written as a proper prose casting section, it should be a simple list, and more ideally just merged into the plot section. I've fixed WP:FILMCAST to better clarify this per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(film)/Archive_6#Tables, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines/Archive_2#Cast_lists, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_20#Cast_section, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_26#Tables_in_casts. And frankly, from this and his AIV report, it seems like Wetcloth20 just wants to avoid scrutiny after his previous disruptions and dismissal of our manuals of style and the words of experienced editors. And you were told in my first revert that it was not correct, but rather than accept the correction, you just reverted and continued to argue. As a note, you mentioned to him to ask editors from Project Films, which I AM, I am even a coordinator for the project. I am one of several editors who wrote the current Manual of Style, so I do speak as someone who knows how a film article should be formatted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you freaking kidding me? All I did was remove the word "nominations"? Wetcloth20 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is repeatedly doing it. Please see WP:BRD. When an edit you make is reverted, the proper course of action is to discuss it, not to make it again. --B (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The section is not limited to awards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yodel Australia

Hello B, Thanks very much for the review. I have really tried hard to make the sources for this article as reliable as possible.

There are many sources that are completely about the company in the newspapers. fulfilNET is the parent company of Yodel. See the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th & 11th sources. They are primarily about fulfilNET or Yodel. Also I have had other reviews by Qwerp, see User_talk:QwerpQwertus#Yodel_Australia. He would like it to be put live. Please let me know what you think. I have really really tried to make this information as reliable as possible. This is my first Wikipedia article and I appreciate any help that you can offer me. Thanks - Natkolk (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Please try to keep the discussion in one place. --B (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No Easter Bunny?

Dude, that's harsh. Of course there's an Easter bunny; Santa told me so. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fiction written as reality is one of my annoyances on Wikipedia. Pictures don't show a fictional character - they show the actor portraying the fictional character. The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and Captain Kirk do not exist. --B (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fort Weaver Road

Whoops; pardon my mistake. However, would you object to the page being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickm93 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference one way or the other. If you would like to have it deleted, you can use the {{subst:prod}} tag, which will open a one-week period during which users can object to its removal. If a user objects, you can nominate it at Articles for deletion. --B (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No-star barnstar

(for editors too lazy to subst in the template)...

I found this[18] very funny, as well as helpful. Thanks for bringing some good cheer to the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

your recent block.

You recently blocked User:Hkwon for violating the 3RR on a talk page, with a few hours of the block expiring, the user is straight back to edit warring on an article that he is been damn close to breaking 3RR on a number of occasions. As I type this message, he has not broken 3RR (he is currently on 3 reverts within 24 hours) - perhaps as the blocking admin, it might be a good idea to give a damn stern warning, before this results in another 3RR report and a longer block for the user.

the article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimchi&action=history

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a different page than he was blocked for and he hasn't reverted since early this morning (14 hours ago). I'm not inclined to reblock unless it resumes. The dish looks delicious, though. Also, unless there is something that requires specialized knowledge that any admin looking at it couldn't determine, it's best to keep the request on WP:AN3 so that it will preclude any accusation that one admin "has it out" for him. --B (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think he should be blocked - while the edits could be considered to be edit warring, they are in good faith - I was hoping an admin could give a warning to this user and stop this pattern of behaviour, before a block becomes necessary. I am a strong believer in blocks only being given as a last resort to protect Wikipedia, and not as a punishment. I did give the user a friendly warning, stating that coming straight off a block, he should be careful - but whenever a non admin tries to warn this editor, we are generally told "you're not an admin, you can't do anything about it" by Hkwon [[19]] . I guess I should stop caring, and just let him edit war himself into another block. Oh, and yes Kimchi is delicoius - but my favourite Korean food is Bibimbap - try it sometime. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User UnclePaco

Hello, B.

You were involved in the investigation of the user UnclePaco two years ago. I've recently accused him of operating a sockpuppet, user CashRules. But an admin expressed doubt about the way the UnclePaco case was resolved. Would you comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco, please? Thank you. SamEV (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. --B (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. SamEV (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good case. But what more should I do to strengthen it, if anything? SamEV (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The new checkuser process makes no sense whatsoever to me. With the old one, you added your diffs and the checkuser was done. There was no debate. There was no defense. Either the checkuser confirmed the suspicion or they didn't. There might have been a backlog just because there were only one or two active checkusers, particularly after Essjay left since he was doing a lionshare of the work, but there wasn't a lengthy debate. Just a cursory glance at their contributions makes it obvious they are the same. They both use lower case "3rr" [20][21]. Neither of them knows how to make an internal link in an edit summary. [22][23]. The user began his editing history by reverting back to a [version of the article from August 2007 very similar to this August 2007 one by self-identified UnclePaco IP 64.131.205.111 (talk · contribs). The IP user admits at [24] that he is UnclePaco. CashRules is either very unlucky to have picked that version out of a hat to revert to or he is UnclePaco. The contributions alone more than confirm it. I have no idea what in the world more needs to be done to get a checkuser to bless it. --B (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this is part of the checkuser process? Elockid told me that "Unfortunately, the socks of UnclePaco seem to have gone stale, so checkuser won't really be helpful unless you suspect that CashRules as other socks around. For now, I'd recommend filing an SPI case without checkuser." So that's what I did. That means the're won't be a checkuser in this case?

Those diffs are excellent. They'll be part of the new evidence I'll add tonight or tomorrow.

And that's right! Their DDP versions are identical with the sole difference being the image, which is not in the second version (diff of the two versions).

So not only does CashRules return to a favorite article of user UnclePaco's, but to the same starting version of UnclePaco's! SamEV (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't really know or understand the process now. The process used to be straight forward - make your prima facia case, get an answer, then go block them or whatever you needed to do. Now it's way too complicated. As to whether Checkuser would work, if UnclePaco had never been checkusered before, yes he would be stale, but they would still have a record of the IPs UnclePaco was using two years ago or any socks since then. CashRules could be checked against those IPs. 64.131.205.111 (talk · contribs) was caught in an autoblock of a MyKungFu sock [25] in February 2007. That sock, Freakin Fool (talk · contribs) (and I had forgotten about this) was interested both in MyKungFu's fraternities and UnclePaco's Dominicans Don't Play. At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mykungfu, a checkuser confirmed that Freakin Fool (talk · contribs) = Mykungfu (talk · contribs). So using that daisy chain, MyKungFu = Freakin Fool = 64.131.205.111 = UnclePaco. So at the very least, they can check and see if CashRules is using 64.131.205.111. Then again, it's been nearly 2.5 years since we know that he had that IP, so it's always possible that his IP has changed since then. If he has moved, for example, in the last 2.5 years, it will be 100% impossible for a checkuser to confirm anything. Really, though, it's just a formality - it's more than obvious that the two of them match. As I said on the SSP page, I have no problem extending him the WP:Standard offer, but that offer does mean that he needs to stop socking and respect the ban for some period of time (like 6 months) after which he can be allowed back. --B (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it now takes a confession, they're going to catch very few evaders.

It's a bit eerie. Reading that info gives me a sense of deja vu, as I remember reading it 2.5 years ago.

As you can see from the 3rd RFCU on UnclePaco (the one I filed), he kept attacking the DR page after his block (with various IPs and new accounts). He never really stopped, until Elockid took pity and semi-protected it a couple of months ago. It's amazing the depth of hatred that UnclePaco has for Dominicans.

Regarding the Standard offer, I'm with you on that, too. If he comes clean (receiving the offer should definitely should involve a confession; otherwise what's the point?), admits he's a sock, and stays away for a significant amount of time, half a year minimum, I'd say 'let the guy back, and reevaluate him'. But the high road is an alien concept to him, apparently. SamEV (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to SamEV. PLEASE and I MEAN PLEASE Checkuser those IP's on the DR page over the past 14 months against this account or show any type of similarities. It will show that I have never edited the DR page during that time. So if Elockid did a semi-protection, it was not a result of me. You're blaming me for things I have never ever done! If you can prove via some sort of edit from me on the DR page during this time I will BAN myself from this site! You are accusing me in bad faith and for that I am sick and tired of it! CashRules (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See my response below. SamEV (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I read that you couldn't reference wikipedia as a source. So that is why I placed it in the edit summary. [26] SamEV reverts everything I place in. I didn't want to give him another reason to revert it. He found one anyway. [27] As you can see here I know how to place in references (this was the previous edit) [28]. CashRules (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is not the correctness of your edits. It's that if you are not UnclePaco/MykungFu/ArmyGuy11/etc, then you are the most unlucky person alive. You just so happen to revert to UnclePaco's version of an article as your first action and just so happen to sound just like him in your edit summaries? I'm sorry, but that's too much of a coincidence. --B (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Checkuser has no way of knowing if, for instance, you edited logged out at somebody else's house. But that's largely irrelevant, though. Some of the IPs - 68.199.235.190 (talk · contribs), 24.239.190.219 (talk · contribs) - are quite obviously not you. The case largely hinges on you = UnclePaco. The rest is a sideshow. So I will ask you directly: are you the same person who previously edited under the user name UnclePaco (talk · contribs)?

CashRules, I promise you that I will advocate for leniency for you if you admit the truth. SamEV (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want to thank you, B. I've been unable to edit as much as I wanted to today. I'll go through my watchlish for the next hour or two, and then turn my attention to the SPI after that. SamEV (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You had previously participated in an Admin recall petition for Herostratus, at the user's talk page. This process has now started. It is ongoing as an RFA page, for admin recall, at: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You are guilty of KNOWINGLY gaming the System

Just because 3 different LIBERALS work together to VANDALIZE my edit, it doesn't make ME guilty of violating the 3r rule. I know the games you guys play backwards and forwards. Seen it 1000 times. Liberal Cabal 101. Blame and Block the conservative. Without exception.

And this is all being documented so others will know WHO is really pushing a political bias. Thanks for your contributions. Who knows, you may be famous some day! haha68.41.55.171 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a well-known liberal operative. Voting for Alan Keyes and Mike Huckabee in the 2000 and 2008 primaries, respectively, was all a cover. --B (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Way to blow your cover, B! All those years of hard work down the drain. As long as I'm being completely facetious, I would like to add that I am glad the anon has learned his/her lesson from the recent block. It looks like we can expect nothing but constructive edits from this anon in the future. --Brendan19 (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

2004?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In 2004, there was no Republican primary. Bush was unopposed. Had the choice been available, I would have voted for anyone else other than Giuliani. --B (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, voting for Giuliani would be tough. Hey, I hope you're doing well B. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a reflection on the quality of your edits. I'm a card-carrying Wobbly and a hetero, left-wing Quaker; but as an admin, I'm routinely accused of corporate bias, reactionary ideology, homosexuality (not that they use such a polite term for it), jewishness, etc. I figure it's a Matthew 5:10 thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of transformice

Sorry but notability trumps A7. Plus, you didn't follow proper delete review procedures. You just trashed the article. A7 specifically states to improve if possible. Sorry that you don't like the game. I don't necessarily like it either, but information on the origins, the development, founder, and why it became a localized media sensation should be freely available without people having to scrape multiple web sites for the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpower101 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article failed to demonstrate its significance. If it is significant, you need to demonstrate that in the article text or it will be deleted. If you would like for me to move it to your userspace where you can work on it, then resubmit it when you are ready, I would be happy to do so. --B (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How can I see what was previously there? I don't really want to start from scratch if it was decent material. Willpower101 (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied it at User:Willpower101/Transformice. You can work on it there. --B (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment

Dear B,

As you may recall, I was blocked for breaking the 3RR on WP. The discussion I am having with the other editors on the page is breaking down again, and I am being harassed and insulted by User: Justa_Punk, who has been going bonkers lately. I want this issue settled by an impartial administrator, and I want your help.

Because you blocked me, and you are probably likely to do it again, I want you to see the discussion I am up against. I am facing deletion each time I place my material on the page, and the rationales I've been given (which have been rare) are weak, changing, and there is always a lengthy—and heated— component directed at me personally. I won't stand for the childish antics anymore—I want to take action and get this settled in a fair and civil manner.

--Screwball23 talk 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything over the top on his part. He sounds frustrated, but if there is anything that violates policy, please link to it, I'm not seeing it. As for your proposed additions, I looked at the sources you offered and I can't find them supported by reliable sources. I should note, for instance, that Bleacher Report is not an acceptable source of anything. They are nothing but community-generated content (like Wikipedia or WikiNews), not professionally created content (like CNN, FoxNews, ESPN, etc). Keep in mind, I know nothing whatsoever about wrestling, so there may be something obvious I'm missing, but if there is a "PG era" or something like that, then there should be reliable sources discussing it. If there are only references to "trying to be more family friendly" or some such thing, then that isn't really a separate era and Wikipedia shouldn't give a name to something that doesn't have a name. If you are at an impasse, you are welcome to use third opinion to attract a neutral third party to review the discussion or take other steps in the dispute resolution process. --B (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have outlined the material line-by-line and I want your help. I want to have a fair discussion of my material for once, and as an administrator well-familiar with this issue, I would like your help in maintaining some level of civility. The editors I have had to work with here have been going bonkers and have been using any means necessary to avoid an objective discussion on this issue. Please help. --Screwball23 talk 06:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

B, I respectfully recommend looking in to Screwball's general conduct. He has already got a fair hearing and his line by line rebuttal is full of holes as usual. He just doesn't understand that what he is doing is WP:OR and it has got to the point that I am considering taking this to ArbCom for disruptive behaviour. He is now canvassing you on the matter and if you look at his talk page you'll see this isn't the first time he's done this. Seven editors in total have backed the WP:PW consensus that the current edition of the article serves the purpose re the change in programming appropriately and that should be that. Screwball is placing undue weight on the issue, and his linking this to Linda McMahon's Senate run is a very good example of a lack of WP:NPOV. I'm addressing this to you here because I'm done on the subject on the WWE talk page per WP:IPAT. !! Justa Punk !! 06:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anon's edits to Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie

You wrote and I quote why don't you try leaving a personal message (not a template) at his/her talk page? The problem with that suggestion is that I've already did. Like I wrote in the edit warring noticeboard, I already did it here? The page was locked for a month because of the user's uncooperative behavior, which is why it has only one revert during the past month. Its getting to the point that I really don't know what to do. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The 209.x.x.x IP addresses are obviously dynamic (eg a dial-up connection). That message may never have been received. But 207.75.185.107 (talk · contribs) is static, or at least long-term, so a message left on that talk page would be more likely to be received. We can't block the 209.x.x.x IP addresses anyway without blocking all of 209.244.0.0/14, which is a pretty big range block for a problem like this. I would strongly suggest trying to reach out to the user at the 207 talk page. If he/she doesn't reply and keeps reverting, I can block that IP or s-protect the article, but there is no emergency need to block - you can try to contact him first. --B (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Will follow your advice. Thanks. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what else to do...

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, B... I appreciate your consideration and words a couple of weeks ago, to me and "Novaseminary". You were right on the mark. Both of us were not perfect, but I'm glad you see that Nova is obviously being spiteful and out-of-line with me.

He has not stopped. It has to do with this article "Separated brethren" that he never even wanted to be there to begin with. He second-guesses EVERYTHING I do, and starts edit wars and reverts. I put in simple modifications, NOT "reverts", but he'll run now to board pages CLAIMING they're "reverts", force-fitting it that way conveniently and dishonestly, SIMPLY TO GET ME BLOCKED. I can't deal with it anymore. I feel on edge every time I try to edit that article now. KNOWING that Nova will inevitably come in AND UNDO AND CHANGE EVERYTHING I PUT IN. For real.

The problem with Nova is that he WANTS me blocked no matter what.

I don't think I technically violated 3RR as those were basically (if you check carefully) UNRELATED edits, and just simple modifications. Not all were related "reverts" in that sense.

But here's the clincher....Nova requested on the Talk page that I remove the word "mainstream" and put something else, otherwise he'd notify the board....WELL I GRANTED HIS REQUEST BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HE WENT TO THE BOARD. He never gave me a chance.

Below is pasted the last two exchanges in the article Talk page...and see what's up here, please read it carefully.

This shouldn't be personal, Sweetpoet. We are only talking about a few imprecise words. I don't think any of the editors editing today actually disagree on substance. Please self-revert your edits so I do not have to report you, Sweetpoet. Some word other than "mainline" or "mainstream" should be used, per my edit history. "Mainstream" most often refers to specific Protestant denominations, per Mainline Protestant. More than just these groups are considered separated brethren, so limiting it in this way (which I don't think you mean to do anyway) is inaccurate. Further, Sweetpoet is the only editor who has inserted "officially". It was actually not me who removed it earlier today in the first instance. So as to not violate 3RR myself, I will not revert again. Novaseminary (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, to keep some semblance of peace and civility, I granted your request. I removed "mainstream" and put in the word "most." But to be honest, I'm not sure why you have this thing against the word "Mainstream" as I see you removed it also from the other part of the article. Why???? Your thing is that "evangelicals" are not considered "mainstream"? Well maybe, there's a case there, but sometimes it's in the eye of the beholder too, and not so black and white. My only point about "mainstream" is that per that paragraph, "Mormons" ARE CONSIDERED "PROTESTANT".....but NOT "mainstream Protestant." It was simply clearer and contextual to the paragraph.

As for "officially", I'm sorry, there's NO good reason at all to remove that one, because as I said, it should be made clear to the reader that it's actually an OFFICIAL Catholic view that "Mormons" are not "separated brethren" and are "polytheist" and "nontrinitarian", and is not just the view maybe of some individual Roman Catholic apologists. You MIGHT have a point about the word "mainstream" (maybe)......but the word "officially", I'm sorry, there's really no excuse or reason to remove that. Anyway, like I said, I don't think I actually violated 3RR per se, as they were mostly unrelated edits in a way, but to keep civility and respect and courtesy, I did what you asked. See how it looks now. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I granted his request, but he never gave a chance to even see it, but ran to this page (hastily and neurotically and spitefully) ANYWAY....

the Admin "B" knows about Nova's antics, and warned Novaseminary a couple of weeks ago to stop this with me, otherwise he'd be banished. He warned both of us......two to tango. But Nova continues doing this with me, STARTING EDIT WARS.....wanting me to get in trouble, manipulating things where I look bad, running to boards, and trying to have it where he comes out smelling like a rose, and just to hurt me...

(you should see the nonsense he did with me with something that had nothing to do with him, with another editor in the Columbus article, where it showed that Nova was STALKING me....on his watchlist.....just like how he even now makes biased references to what I do on other people's talk pages, assuming automatically that I must be in the wrong in those cases, where those other people must be totally perfect.....rank bias....Admin "B" told him he was out of line, and to stop bothering with me.....Nova does not stop.)

Anyway, if I did violate 3RR, it was TOTALLY UN-INTENTIONAL.....but in reality, I don't think I actually did in that sense, because for instance the changing of the word "orthodox" was not even related to the other edits before that, but was a new and separate edit, in a way. Also, the first one was not even a revert, but simply a modification because of incorrect grammar. Again, it becomes obvious that Nova WANTS me to violate 3RR to simply get me blocked.

And again too, even after I granted his request and pretty quickly I did too...he still goes to this board page. What does that say of him and his integrity and word? Nobody's perfect. I know I'm not. But Nova does not seem to think he does ANYTHING wrong or out of bounds. Admin "B" does not agree with Nova though. Anyway, sorry for the trouble here, and thanks for your patience. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway.....if you haven't already....see the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Per your direction...

Hi...yes, it should be on the Notice board. Sorry that it was so wordy here before. This is not the page to go that deeply into it, I agree. But I wanted to notify you what's been up. I really, like I said, am not sure what else to do. And since you were already aware of the issues between me and Nova, I wanted YOU to be the Admin to give consideration to this matter, regardless of what your ultimate decision or assessment would be. It's cool though.

as I said, Nova WANTS me blocked no matter what. I don't think I technically violated 3RR as those were basically (if you check carefully) UNRELATED edits, and just simple modifications. Not all were related "reverts" in that sense. But yes, please see the board page. And thanks for your time. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but it seems you didn't see certain parts of what I wrote in that page....

With all due respect, B, I think you didn't read everything I wrote.

You missed the part where I said:

"the Admin "B" knows about Nova's antics, and warned Novaseminary a couple of weeks ago to stop this with me, otherwise he'd be banished. He warned both of us......two to tango."

I never said that you thought it was just Nova and not me, and I made that clear. Or that just Nova was wrong, and I was totally right. I even said that I know I was not perfect. And that you warned both of us. Etc... But the point was that you DID find Nova out of line. Just to set the record straight. I'm curious, why didn't you read everything I wrote? It seems you just quickly hastily skimmed what I wrote, if you think I said that you said it was just Nova and not me at fault. (Hence why I worry about Admins judgments, cuz they're only human too, and can be hasty and surface reading...)

Again, I said clearly that you warned BOTH of us..."two to tango". Regardless...though, Nova is out of line, and I did not violate 3RR, with things like incorrect grammar or new unrelated edits or modifications. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is not WP:AN3. Let's keep it there, please. --B (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure you'd see it on the Notice board, as I don't know if you go there all the time. I'm sorry for writing it on here, but I really did not want that thing you said to go unresponded to, without you seeing it. I NEVER said that you thought it was only Nova at fault and not me. I said clearly in my comment on the board page that you warned both of us, and "two to tango", and that I was not perfect myself. Do you see why I worry about how Admin's might look at things? It's at a point now, where if I get blocked for arguably invalid reasons, because I have some insufferable stalker always on my back, twisting things around, I don't care much anymore......I don't need this stress. I'm only human. Yes, dial it down some notches, but Nova needs to seriously get lost, and leave me alone, like you told him to. Thanks.... Sweetpoet (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm attempting to be polite. I have asked several times that you confine this discussion to AN3 and not use my talk page as a alternate forum for the process. Alerting me with a simple one-line message linking to the AN3 request would be appropriate - attempting to argue the case here is not. Also, referring to another user as "some nutty neurotic insufferable stalker" is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. Please consider removing it. --B (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm understandably and justifiably upset. This guy IS insufferable and IS stalking me, and can't stop. And you DID NOT read everything I wrote on the board page, and said I said something I never said. Adding to my upset. (Also, you did not read everything I wrote in the article talk page either...as I DID also go into wording and language of the article, NOT just about Nova's personality.) And I was attempting to be "polite" too, not just you. (Can you look at it from my angle, for maybe a minute?) And I wanted to make sure that you saw what I wrote, as I told you I was not sure if you go to the board page all the time. Don't worry, I won't write to you on here again....(and I toned down the part that you didn't like...).... Sweetpoet (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I just closed the AN3 report related to this. As you seem to be already familiar with the situation, could you check my reasoning at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sweetpoet reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: protected, both warned)? Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine --B (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - always nice to get a second opinion from someone I respect. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comment to you on the Article Talk...

Hi, sorry to write here, but regarding your "Mormons are not considered Protestant" view, and also your use of the word "cult", which I don't agree with. Please see what I wrote....thanks. click: Talk:Separated brethren Sweetpoet (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's fine, about Mormons, I understand that they may not consider themselves "Protestant". And neither do JWs consider themselves as such either...

But it doesn't matter that JWs are called "cult" by biased types like "Ross". There is no set definition of the word "cult" anyway...as it is all subjective and biased and emotionalism. JWs are a "cult" simply cuz you don't like them or their beliefs. Like no literal hell-fire, no co-equal trinity, abstain from blood, and associating mainly only with fellow believers, etc.

Meanwhile the word "cult" conjures up in people's minds long-robed bald people giving out flowers in airports, or poison drinkers looking for Haley's Comet, or David Koresh burning his people in some compound. UPC and JWs AINT that at all. They're just some church that has somewhat different views from mainstream "Christianity". Though some of the views are similar. But "cult"? Well.... It's loaded, and hateful... And yes, a talk page is freer I know...I'm just saying in general though. And as I said, even if JWs or Oneness people are "cult" so what?

THE FIRST CHRISTIANS IN THE FIRST CENTURY WERE CONSIDERED THAT WAY TOO BY OFFICIAL "ORTHODOXY" AT THE TIME. ahhh, didn't mean anything. The first Christians had what was considered weird and annoying views and habits, by both Jewish Orthodoxy and Roman (and Greek) Pagans. It's all subjective.

Ross is not some infallible person, and is arguably out of his mind in some ways. A pathological and biased guy who is on a demented soap-box, and just goes by his own traditions and "historic positions", likes, dislikes, and personal tastes. Who's to say? It's whatever. peace out..... Sweetpoet (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: GoRight

On the SPI, you said the two users sound nothing like each other. Can you talk about the differences a bit more using actual examples? Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually reversing my opinion there ... upon looking at it in more detail, it's clearly him. --B (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hi,Please give the help at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_Jonathan_Kane:_The_Protector.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Done The infobox alone is at User:Themaxviwe/Jonathan Kane: The Protector. --B (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you very much for your help to restore the article Max Viwe \| Wanna chat with me? 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Crab Wizzard

Yea, i posted the Wizzard vessel for imediate deletion for copyright issues, fill me in on that. U know, the deadliest catch ship? how did it go?

Stuntman crow (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is your question? I gather you are talking about FV Wizard · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]. You tagged it for deletion as a copyright violation, I confirmed that you are correct, and deleted it. --B (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea thats the one, good, it all went good? allright, now how do we recreate the article using the copyrighted material as a source and not just drag and dropping? u knw, u know? Stuntman crow (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking how to create an article, see Wikipedia:Your first article for editing help. If you're asking how to write sentences that are not copied, what I find easiest is to write what you want to say, then go back and look up the sources. That way, you avoid the trap of simply rephrasing another's work (which is still plagiarism). If you're asking how to do the referencing, see Wikipedia:Citing sources for a tutorial on the reference tags. If you have some other question, please ask exactly what it is you need help with. --B (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah man, i do small time stuff, reverting libelous additions, grammer, making things sound more proffesional u know? Stuntman crow (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned editor returns to William Greer

The fringe conspiracy editor at William Greer has returned, I've reverted him at the talk page but he could use a quick block for violating his topic ban. Since you were the last one to handle the page, I thought I'd shoot you a line first and see if you'd check out 173.79.237.165 (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance! Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the talk page has been s-protected. I don't think blocking this IP will do anything ... I'm pretty sure it is in Verizon's cell phone range, in which case it will be something completely different the next time he resets his phone. --B (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's been semi'd, and the registered account the IP had began to use is now blocked, so I think this one is over. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPP

Thanks for blocking that disruptive editor. The Polish plane crash article has been a target ever since the accident happened. I requested page protection as it's been an ongoing issue. Would you review that request over at RPP for me? Thanks. N419 BH 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RPP requests are usually handled pretty quickly. For purposes of transparency, we usually don't cherry pick requests because it could be viewed as forum shopping. Actually as I was typing this, it was handled. --B (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that works. It's been my experience that as of late WP:RPP, WP:UAA, and WP:AIV tend to be backlogged. I've seen several instances where they aren't touched for over an hour. N419 BH 13:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

UAA is a little different - a lot of times, it's a case of just waiting for someone to edit. For example, a username might sound like a company name, but if they are editing unrelated topics, you don't want to block them prematurely. AIV, RPP, and AN3 can all either be very fast or very slow - it depends on whether or not the admins that usually patrol them are around - but of those, RPP is typically the fastest. --B (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings and request for clarification

Greetings B - and thanks for not speedy-deleting User:Kintetsubuffalo/Nitto Records. As per your header, I'd like to avoid any sort of drama and am desperately trying, against all odds, to AGF in this case and in others involving the same proposing editor, but I'd just like to know if an article that has been up since 2003, albeit unreferenced, is really a candidate for speedy, or whether it should instead be marked for AfD, thereby giving other editors a chance, however remote (given the time some of us spend trying to clear up real ****), to get a word in. In other words, what are the odds of another admin having deleted it if you hadn't saved it? Sorry to drag you into this, and I fully understand your wish/need as an admin to keep out of petty rows, but I'm concerned as to the number of unreferenced notable record labels might have been speedy deleted without anyone actually noticing and I don't yet want to stalk the concerned editor's contribs. page. Sorry for not being politically correct, and am willingly to accept a rap on the knuckle. This message will self-destruct the moment you have read it. And thanks for being out there. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, it was speedy deleted by Lexi Marie (talk · contribs) under criterion A7. At WP:REFUND#Nitto_Records, Chris asked that it be restored. Unless something was an unambiguous accidental deletion, we typically do not unilaterally restore an article to article space without discussing it with the deleting admin, but based on Chris's statement that it was notable, I restored it to his user space so that he could work on it there. As for your question as to whether old articles are "grandfathered" in and not subject to speedy deletion, there is currently no such rule. There have been discussions about it in the past. I proposed adding "recently created" to A7 at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_38#Proposal_to_add_a_.22recently_created.22_criterion_to_A7 less than a month ago, but my proposal did not gain consensus. I think that, even in the absence of a rule, users tagging articles and admins deleting them ought to be extra careful when deleting old articles. I think that many newer editors don't understand the purpose of speedy deletion. Its purpose is to allow completely non-controversial deletions to not waste everyone's time at AFD. Its purpose is not to create a hurdle for legitimate articles to have to jump over. Its goal is not to create work. If a user - admin or otherwise - is creating work just for the sake of creating work when no reasonable case could be made that the article should be deleted, then that's not a good thing. As for record labels in particular, I think to a lot of people (myself included), the music policy is difficult to understand. Personally, I just skip over any requests for deleting music articles unless they are flagrantly obvious (eg, garage bands that hope to play at a night club sometime). So I fully empathize with someone who is interpreting the policy wrongly regarding bands, but if someone is making obviously wrong decisions, it would probably be worth pointing out the articles politely. I spot checked Codf1977's deleted contributions and it looks like there are a lot of record labels he has nominated for speedy deletion (that have, in fact, been deleted) over the last month. Eyeballing it, I'd say there were about 100 or so. I clicked on a few of them and some of them were relatively old ones. What I could do if you would like is email you a list. You can research them and see which of them might be notable, then give me a list and I can restore them to your userspace so that you can add an assertion of notability. --B (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Many thanks for the response over and above the call of duty. Your explanation and offer to email me the "to-do" list is really useful. I suppose that as an admin. you have access to my email address. If not, what is the procedure in such cases? I presume there's no hurry in restoring any previously deleted article to user spaces, at least I hope not, as I'm a bit busy these days. Once again, thank you for your constructive response. --Technopat (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In order for me (or anyone else) to email you, you will need to go to your user preferences, add an email address, and enable email from other users. I can't see anything more about you than anyone else can. You can email any user that has email enabled using the Special:Emailuser page (eg Special:EmailUser/B, Special:EmailUser/Technopat, Special:EmailUser/Jimbo Wales, etc(. --B (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Received OK. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Name calling

Where do you get this? I was not abusing Eathb, he called me a retard and had been in a edit war with me. GuineaPigWarrior

Sorry, I misread your statement. --B (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, I gotta ask. How do you become a admidistrator? GW!

WP:RFA. I do have one suggestion, though, if that's something you are considering. Your use of edit summaries is rather inconsistent. When you make an edit to article space, you should make an effort to provide a meaningful edit summary that describes the change you made. You should not use the default "undo" edit summary unless the edit you are reverting is unquestionable vandalism, your own edit, your own user space, or one of the other approved purposes. --B (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well when somebody calls me a retard and doesn't won't to dicuss it, I asume it's vadalism, can you do anything about this user, he called me a retard. GW!

Have you considered talking with him on his user talk page to try and discuss the issues? If you just revert each other repeatedly, it's going to result only in one or both of you getting blocked. If you try talking it out, you may be able to resolve your dispute. Also, when you make a comment on a talk page, please sign it with four tildes - ~~~~. This will automatically turn into a stamp with your username and the date. --B (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Preciseaccuracy

Hello B, yesterday you did not block the user reported for edit warring on Art student scam. The user still continues to insert undue weight parts and controversial section names singling out Israel, the same sections names that were removed yesterday. This article was kept as no consensus after deletion request. It is a sensitive article that should be edited with care. Few users mentioned the article was fine as it was at the talk page of the article, yet user:Preciseaccuracy continues editing only this article, article's talk page, and talk pages of other users about this article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And now once again the user reverted me.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --B (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

Thanks for your note at WP:3RRN. The specific problem on the Irvington, New York article was that I had a bulleted list of points of interest, each with a short paragraph, and images that I wanted to alternate on the right and left sides of the section. The right side is no problem, but under IE8 when the image is on the left and the bullet falls within the vertical scope of the image, the bullet butts right up against the right edge of the image, instead of offsetting a small amount (about an em-space, I think) as it normally does, and this looks very sloppy to me and makes the text difficult to read. I attempted to fix the problem by adding offsets using a number of colons (just as one would do in a deeply indented talk page discussion), which pushed the bullet just off the image. I checked this out under Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari and it looked fine. Since Miami33139 has all along (I'm going back several years now) refused to tell me what browser it is that's giving him trouble with this stuff, I had no way of specifically checking what he's seeing, but I did my best to make sure it worked under all the most popular browsers. I solved the problem by elminating the indents, and putting the images into two galleries. It's not quite as good, since the images don't appear with the text, but it's something I can live with, no problem. Miami, of course, responded by bringing me to 3RR.

if you have thoughts about solving that specific problem (bullets not wrapping well around left side images) in another way, I'd love to hear them, I'm always open to ways to make our pages look better for everybody. The more general problem for me, as you probably gathered from my comment, is Miami cruisng though my contribs with no discussion, no willingness to compromise and find solutions we both can live with. With him, it appears, it's this way or nothing -- you can see that in his editing in general. I don't like the guy, but I have no interest in confronting him or having a dispute with him. I stay away, but he keeps coming after me, and there's apparently nothing Wikipedia policy can do about it, as people misunderstand transparency as a license for any editor to do whatever they want to another editor's contributions as long as they can make a (barely) credible good faith claim for the edits. But I don't think Miami is about that, he seems to be about hasseling people: he drove me off the project for a while, and he hasseled User:Tothwolf so much that the guy went off the deep end and wound up being banned by ArbCom for a while. In my opinion, Miami33139 is bad juju, but he's a kind of bad that WP doesn't deal with well.

Anyway, that's my problem. If he wants to spend an inordinate amount of time going through my contributions, I can't stop him. I just want to be able to ignore him and go about my business. I like to add content, and improve content, and he likes to delete shit -- that's life.

Sorry to ramble (and whine) - if you have thoughts about the specific formatting problem I mentioned, I'd love to hear them. I'm not asking you to do anything about the other stuff.

Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you using a beta version of IE8? When the IE8 beta first came out, it had some serious rendering problems that have long since been fixed. That particular problem sounds very familiar. I am using IE8 on Windows 7 and looked at the old version of the page before your formatting changes and it looked fine. As for the issue with the other user, if he is stalking you or engaging in prolonged bad behavior, that is something that will need dispute resolution. I can't see it just from a cursory glance at contributions, so you would need to provide diffs demonstrating stalking, or other bad behaviors. Keep in mind one thing though - people who edit similar topics will share multiple articles from time to time. If he is in fact harassing you, you could open a request for comment or take it to ANI, but again, you will need to provide diffs. --B (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I will check into the status of my IE8. As for the other, I am not by nature a litigious person, so I have no plans to proceed. If I did, the diffs would be conclusive (and we do not edit in the same topic area). But I'm not asking you to believe that without evidence. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Bowl Game template

I saw that you created the template for CFB team links:

{{cfb link|year=2010|team=Richmond Spiders|school=University of Richmond|title=Richmond}}

Could you further assist with the equivalent for Bowl Games? As the number of season-specific team pages grow, the references to particular season-specific Bowl Games is also increasing. It would be great to support a linking convention independent of whether the particular game page exists yet. Game and Year appear to be the only necessary parameters, but there might be a corner case for games which float between end of Dec and beginning of Jan resulting in some calendar years with two games (guessing the editor should handle that manually). Perhaps:

{{cfb link|year=20xx|game=Sun Bowl}}

Which would output either:
20xx Sun Bowl (if exists) or
Sun Bowl (by default)
Pasadena91 (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is down as {{bowl link}}. --B (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, I hope you and your family are in good health. Thank you for deleting that file of Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao. (Aerowikipedian (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

VPC

You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.

— raeky T 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Man-Faye

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). User:B (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) --Gwern (contribs) 11:11 4 August 2010 (GMT)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

YEC

I've restored your edit in Young Earth Creationism, it's better than what was there before. Editor2020 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny

I'm a little disturbed by your intervention on this. I've just read your 2nd post on Mindbunny's Talk (and posted a further comment). Although there's nothing inherently objectionable to anything you've said (although it could easily encourage Mindbunny to revert again) it seems a little strange for an admin that I've had a discussion with on another topic, making such comments as this. I'd appreciate a comment on that please. Thanks.DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than intending to cause him to revert again, my intention was that he understand that "being right" (or, believing that he is right) is not an excuse for edit warring. --B (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But why make the 'tangential' comment? That's not consistent with your stated intention. In view of our previous dealing, I suggest that sticking to the bare essentials of a reply to Mindbunny (assuming it was necessary at all) would have been more appropriate.DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just seen your new post. Ignore above. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

UU and abortion

Thanks for providing an edit summary in your removal of the UU section from Christianity and abortion. Would you be interested in helping with an article on UU and abortion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there enough to say for it to have its own article? There is a religion and abortion article that could have a UU section. --B (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There probably is enough for a small article, but you have a good point - I'll copy the content to Religion and abortion for now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Message from Sizzletimethree

Thanks for your message on my message board!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:NPz1

Hello, B. You blocked User:NPz1 for edit warring only, but I wonder, if you have noticed If you have noticed this edit summary? Honestly I doubt 2 weeks are enough. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice it, but if the behavior continues when he returns, resolving it is a few mouseclicks away. --B (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thesophical Society

You posted this on my talk page:

Your edits at Theosophical Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Rather than blocking you, I would like to ask you to modify your behavior and to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. All articles have a talk, or "discussion" page - the discussion page for this article is at Talk:Theosophical Society. On this page, you can explain the reasons for your opinion and you can see other users' reasons for their opinions. Continually reverting a page - even if over a period of days - is considered edit warring and is not permitted. You should also know that referring to good faith users as vandals is never acceptable. Please use the talk page and do not revert the page again without a consensus there. If you continue to revert, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have time to actually follow a page before making threats, isn't it better to spend your time as an administrator in better pursuits? I posted relevant, accurately sourced material from a reliable source. Somebody removed the sourced statement and the reference, claiming the appearance of bias without any proof the information posted was biased or unreliable. So I reverted the unjustified edit. Then he removed the reference again, and brought a friend. After a few back and forth, he basically accused me of starting it. So that's it. The statement in question accurately reflects the source. The source itself is considered reliable. Also, the statement is generic enough to be easily verifiable historically. Namely, the objectives of the organization in question have become commonplace in the last century, and its impetus in east-west relationships is pretty much undisputed. I am not going to "discuss" relevant, properly sourced material. If anyone needs to discuss their "behavior" are those who would remove said material without cause. No thanks for your involvement in this. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --B (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal

Just looking at your userboxes after your comment in Kenatipo's AfD. Jindal lost me when he criticized federal funding for volcano monitoring, while benefiting from federal funding for hurricane monitoring. Pity, I would have liked to have seen a Brown grad in the Oval Office.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the way our federal system works, it's like the Prisoner's dilemma - it's in everyone's best interest to grab as much federal funding as they can for their own state, even though collectively we all would do better off to cut a lot of it out. --B (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing tags

Is removing tags in an article considered okay while there is a discussion going on? This user just did that claiming I was misuing them while there was still discussion... [29] _WM^O 01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Different people feel differently - there's no one answer. I don't see a reason to have repetitive tags in the article ... if there's one npov tag at the top, that should suffice to alert readers as to the dispute - I don't think you need both the tag at the top AND the inline tags. My personal opinion is that I despise all inline tags EXCEPT {{fact}}. (This is my opinion and should not be construed as having any bearing on actual policy or how I would enforce a policy.) The article is getting a pretty decent number of hits [30] so there's a definite reason to keep it readable. --B (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoid_scrolling_lists

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoid_scrolling_lists

[1]