Coelacan is a living fossil. I assume that whilst I was between strata, Wikipedia successfully went on without me, and whatever issues have graced my talk page are now resolved. If I am mistaken, you'll have to alert me again.
Is it true?? Are you really back??? Wheeeeee!!!! :) - Alison❤ 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (missed ya)[reply]
every word of it. *hugs* =) ··coelacan 07:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yay!! We all missed you! Pick up your bucket and mop and let's go :) - Alison❤ 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting there. I have to wring out all this seawater... ··coelacan 07:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
zOMG! It was hard to keep quite the last coupla days. I have been a bad, bad girl. >{ I'm so thrilled to 'see' you again! Welcome back, my Old Fish! ~Jeeny(talk) 07:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where've you been man?? It's good to see you back! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan. =) Stressed to the gills is where I've been. I've no good excuse for it, but yeah, it's good to be back. ··coelacan 18:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you back! I've made a suggestion for a change to your sig that may appease the signing Bot below - or you could just opt out of it... WjBscribe 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They made me start substing user:coelacan/botsig at RFA. I'm finicky and I won't hand over any more whitespace to the hellbots. Opt-out is probably my last recourse. Thank you!! for the welcome and the general housekeeping while I was gone. =) ··coelacan 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's nice to have another admin to harass, and for your perky comment in the last Ani discussion tangentially related to me. Jeffpw 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the abstract, I would always gladly speak up for freedom and absurdity. You manage to make these abstracts concrete. ;) ··coelacan 08:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a backhanded compliment if ever I heard one!:-s. I notice you're not a subscriber to our glorious newsletter. Sorry Miss Julie forgot to mention your return, but on the other hand, it seems you're a bit publicity shy, so maybe it's better this way. Happy reading. Jeffpw 09:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! I consider it a compliment of the highest sort! Absurdity is one of our planet's most precious resources, dear. Indeed, I am not a subscriber, nor a member, and never have been. I read it when I wrote it, and now when it shows up on everybody else's pages. I will go poke about at WT:LGBT though, and make the mixed blessing of my scurrilous presence known. =p ··coelacan 09:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; thank you for the e-mail. Also thank you for answering two questions from inexperienced editors which dropped into my talkpage. I have just formed a new relationship following the death of my wife at the beginning of this year, just got engaged, and my available time on wiki is presently therefore limited (hopefully understandably) - though I will be here most days. Therefore, thanks again. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome of course. And I wish you the very best in your burgeoning romance, Anthony. =D Be well! ··coelacan 08:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, where were you? :-D It's so good to have you back. You don't write, you don't call, tsk tsk... Anyway, it's great to see you around again. ;-) Raystorm(¿Sí?) 17:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Raystorm! Uh... where was I... chilling in my underwater fortress, plotting the extinction of all terrestrial life? ··coelacan 08:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! How's the plan coming along? :) Glad to see you back!!!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Satyr =) *hugs* The plot is long since sealed and prepared. It's now just a matter of waiting until the stars are right. ··coelacan 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I still think of you often. I hope you're doing well. I missed you so much. Can I still be known as your guppy (baby)? ~Jeeny(talk) 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shan't object, but I must warn you, I am notorious for eating my young. ··coelacan 09:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on David Gerard's talk page. Just to give you a summary, it was deleted after discussion on the m:Communications Committee mailing list, where we found it to be extremely inappropriate for an image to portray the foundation as demanding people's money. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. Thanks for the tip. ··coelacan 10:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I feel that I must have given the wrong impression at WP:AN/I. I've replied there to your thoughtful, considered post, and I hope my response clarifies where I'm coming from. I'm sorry that what I've said has rubbed you the wrong way, as I suspect that our beliefs are in fact rather similar. If you don't wish to continue the conversation at ANI, please feel free to reply further either here or at my talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are kowtowing to superstition, because there are only superstitious reasons to stigmatize sexuality. The word "fuck" is only offensive to people who think there's something shameful about the act of fucking. The word is not vulgarity, except to these vulgar people. And this whole business about refraining from uttering certain power words in the presence of certain groups is practically the dictionary definition of taboo. There are ways to use the word, like "fuck you", that express contempt, but it is the contempt that is offensive, not the syllable.
You're asking me to put myself in the shoes of people who walk all over women, cultivate a lifelong disgust for the female body, and justify it with proclamations from a bronze age priesthood. I genuinely cannot do this. Moreover, I am glad that I cannot. I do not believe it is decorous to defer to this mindset; I believe it is scandalous.
As admins we hear an endless parade of complaints about borderline breaches of etiquette. We inevitably evaluate whether the complainant should have been offended, or whether they should buck up and grow a thicker skin. My view is that people offended by the utterance in question are wrong to be offended, and I cannot muster any sympathy for them. These people have a long way to go toward modernity, and they probably need their own culture's Lenny Bruce to drag them along. Provincial of me it may be, but I do believe that it is a toxic and pitiable culture that cannot speak frankly about sex. Not all cultural differences are wrong, but I hold that this one is. Its inevitable fruit, the oppression of women, is poisonous.
Whether a banner on a few Wikipedians' user pages is acceptable is quite a different question, and a fine use for IFD or MFD. I'm just stating that if anyone's goal is to change my mind, it won't be done by calls for sensitivity toward taboos that are grossly wrong. I don't hold any of this against you; I think it is merely indicative of our different styles. You are welcome to your opinion and I know the sentiment is mutual. ··coelacan 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy if we had some kind of understanding on this issue... I'm thinking quite seriously about your position, and as I indicated at AN/I, I think that taboos are extremely harmful, and I oppose them regularly - you could ask my real-life friends about this. It's kind of a hobby-horse of mine. Thus, I would be quite upset if I were working to reinforce the very mindset that I abhor.
However... I'm not convinced that you've chosen the right hill on which to fight this battle. The best way to challenge people's superstitious ideas is in the articles. It is vitally important that we have frank, direct, unapologetic articles about such topics as female genital cutting and other forms of sexual oppression and violence. There can be no compromise on that point. Casual use of vulgar language, however, isn't going to set things right in the world. What it might do is alienate someone whom it would be better to keep as an audience, because they're the ones who really need to learn. "Give us your fucking money" isn't combating superstition or helping any oppressed person. It's not ending sexual violence. Our articles have the potential to do precisely that.
My attitude is that we must be absolutely neutral and uncensored in our articles, and absolutely kind, inclusive and respectful when it comes to how we maintain the "atmosphere" at Wikipedia. "Give us your fucking money" is kind of cute, in a fairly sophomoric way. It doesn't set the scene for actually helping teach superstitious people to be more open-minded. We should display the most class we possibly can, and thus reflect as respectably as possible onto the encyclopedia, and thus help convince people of the seriousness and nobility of our mission here.
So, you see, my goal is not to kowtow to a taboo; it's to create an atmosphere in which someone will stick around and learn something that directly and intelligently challenges their taboos. A dignified article about the word "fuck" will do that. Crassness won't. I'm not refraining from saying "fuck"; I just find that I can get the job done better with other words. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replying later. I just had a big meal and I'm feeling dumb and slow at the moment. ··coelacan 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SKIP- Students for Kids International Projects[edit]
Hi,
You've just deleted a page that has taken both myself and the original writer ages to create (I might cry!!)
The reason cited for speedy deletion is that the goals and objectives are a direct copy from the website www.skipkids.org.uk
You are both correct and mistaken: the goals listed on this website are those of the charity that the wiki page is about. Yes, they appear on the website (as placed there by us in the first place) but the copyright is on the original documents that the lady who created this wiki page co-wrote. The point of having them on the wiki page is to inform those who wish to be educated about our charity, what our main aims are.
PLEASE re-instate this page. We haven't violated any copyright whatsoever: our problem is merely that we are in the process of describing an entire charity and are currently working to ensure that the article is as well referenced as possible (difficult, since the charity began in 2003 and web documentation and documentation on how it formed is limited: the history of SKIP is current and word of mouth).
Furthermore, we are regulated by the UK Charities Commission, have the registered charity number (as listed on the wiki page) of 1099804 and our Patron is Professor the Baroness Finlay of Llandaff.
Fair point regarding these two articles. Articles have been published about us in local papers on behalf of SKIP volunteers looking for funding but these are in print and I cannot provide you with a copy of this.
Does the registration of our charity not count though?
Our intention was not promotion in the sense of aiming to recruit (which is free to all volunteers anyway) or even to sell merchandise (money for which goes straight back into our projects). It is simply that we exist. I don't quite understand how I am supposed to define our existence, as a small organisation under the constraints that have been placed. I was quite careful to ensure that no merchandise information would be included so as to keep with your guidelines.
Your notability article states that you wish to include the underdog but who will write for the underdog other than those themselves? And if they do, they are then labelled as promotional and therefore cannot be placed on the site?? It seems a little paradoxical.
Please note that I am not trying to confront Wikipedia!! I am just trying to defend the article itself and sincerely hope I don't cause any trouble!
Yes, please do provide me with a copy of the page. What is Wikia?
Also, how do I reply to your messages? I'm having to loop round on myself to reply to you which is getting difficult! Do I just edit my previous messages?
PS: Thankyou for your advice regarding putting our goals on a wiki anyway- you're right, it isn't prudent. It was done in an attempt to state who we are and what we do.
I've checked what Wikia is and would be happy to have SKIP featured on that site.
Hi, I noticed you're the admin who deleted a vodcast screenshot I marked as "non-permitted fair use" (thanks!) - it strikes me that virtually all vodcast images are going to be of people for whom free replacement images are either available or possible to create. This template text explains that it is for non-free media only (so I think its name should strictly be change to "Non-free vodcast screenshot" for consistency with other similar entries in Category:Non-free image copyright tags) but it seems likely that most images it's used on will be non-permitted. I'm a bit wary of suggesting the template for deletion (since I guess it's conceivable that some non-free media of this type might be permitted on Wikipedia, so should have an appropriate tag - on the other hand, its mere existence may well encourage inappropriate uploads), not quite sure how or where to propose a renaming for consistency (I am sure there was a debate somewhere about appending "Non-free" in front of non-free media templates but not sure where or when) and I do think that most instances listed in "Whatlinkshere" will tend to replaceable so it'd be a good idea for people to keep an eye on its use. Since you seem to be at least mildly interested, I wonder if you've got any brighter ideas than me or could just give me some advice? I'll cross-post this to the template talk page where it's probably best to reply, but I suspect if I didn't contact a couple of people directly I wouldn't get any replies! Purgatorio 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I truly hope you enjoyed your wikibreak. I sincerely hope that my request for assistance didn't inadvertently lead to the absence. If it did, I apologize profusely. Ramsquire(throw me a line) 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, heck no. That was one of the more fun things I was doing before I left. It did generate some "interesting" blowback, though. =P
Thanks for the welcoming. I hope you've been keeping well in the meantime? ··coelacan 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan -
You deleted the SMART Recovery page without cause. The Alcoholics Anonymous article is just as promotional and self-promoting (and do to its wide reknown less needed) but continues to be displayed with the AA logo and other marketing tools.
Why is it OK to have a Wikipedia article that covers a spiritual organization that helps addicted people, and an article (Rational Recovery) that covers a FOR PROFIT organization that does not even provide help for addicted people except for a fee (which is propriatary and definitely should not be in Wikipedia, but the science-based and secular organization and program called SMART Recovery is deleted within minutes of posting?? You need to explain this to all concerned.
It is not fair for you to delete whole pages based on zealous dislike for a secular program that you feel competes with AA. Indeed the evidence is that there is no competion at all. Most people who know about SMART Recovery attend both types of meetings, each for different reasons and some people who can not or will not attend AA go to SMART and are found (according the the Walsh Group Survey that I'm trying to add to the SMART Recovery page under Supporting Research) people benefit from either group, but people low in "religiosity" will not attend AA just as those high in religiosity may prefer AA.
See apology noted below. Sorry for flaming and for not signing. I think my comments below describe what I'd consider a helpful resolution of my beef. Thanks for your attention to my gripe.Henrysteinberger 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+ SMART Recovery. Coelacan - I apologize and put my flame out. You can certainly understand then how I inferred bias when I see a multi page ad for AA AND for RR (which has been questioned) but can't keep a SMART Recovery page up for five minutes. Perhaps rather than deleting it, it might get constructive criticism and allow for revision - remaining up while construction continues.
Also, as there are WikiProjects on Business and Economics and on Food and Drink, why can't we have a WikiProject on mutual-aid Self-help groups and include all of the non-profits; the 12-Step groups and the secular groups and the secular and science-based groups (SMART Recovery and Moderation Management both meet that criterion). That would be encyclopedic. Your comment? Henrysteinberger 06:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked if SMART Recovery (and please note that SMART is an ancronym and so should always be capitalized) has been cited independently of the SR web site. The following comes from the Dept of Health:
Cc: Westbrook, Michele (SAMHSA/CSAT); Plavsic, Kim M. (SAMHSA/CSAT); Currier, Christina (SAMHSA/CSAT)
Subject: E-mail to Recovery Month
Dear Dr. Steinberger:
The e-mail that you submitted to the Recovery Month website was forwarded to me for response. I am the project officer of the Knowledge Application Program (KAP) under which the DHHS Publication Faces of Change was developed.
Please note, KAP has mentioned SMART Recovery® in the following documents.
TIP 30, Continuity of Offender Treatment for Substance Use Disorders from Institution to Community
TIP 34, Brief Interventions and Brief Therapies for Substance Abuse
TIP 40, Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction
TIP 43, Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in Opioid Treatment Programs
TIP 44, Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System
TIP 47, Substance Abuse: Clinical Issues in Intensive Outpatient Treatment
What is Substance Abuse Treatment? A Booklet For Families and the Spanish version, ¿Qué es el Tratamiento para el Abuso de Sustancias? Un Folleto para las Familias.
Therapeutic Community Training Curriculum
Many of our documents are based on research manuals from studies of specific interventions or approaches, such as the Matrix treatment manuals. If the original researchers or authors did not include SMART Recovery® in their manuscript, we cannot add it. In addition, if consensus panelists do not think enough evidence supports the efficacy of a group, it is not included. Little research has been done on SMART Recovery®; the evidence base for 12-step groups is larger and growing.
The availability of groups is also a factor. Alcoholics Anonymous has over 106,000 groups worldwide and over 1.8 million members. According to the SMART Recovery®’s Web site, they offer about 250 weekly groups.
In the future, when consensus panelists or authors agree or research strongly supports SMART Recovery®, we will mention it in our documents.
PLESAE NOTE THAT SINCE THAT CORRESPONDENCE THERE WAS RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING THAT SECULAR GROUPS ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP PEOPLE WITH LOW RELIGIOSITY ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN MUTUAL SUPPORT GROUPS (which the same research showed to be effective for both the 12-step and secular groups IF there was particiaption with didn't happen when the basic religious preferences were ignored.
That research was announced in a peer reviewed journal and here is that announcement:
October 2007
Media Announcement Media Contact:
Randolph Atkins, Jr., Ph.D.
For Immediate Release The Walsh Group
(301) 571-9494
randy.atkins@walshgroup.org
Religiosity and participation in mutual-aid support groups for addiction
Randolph G. Atkins, Jr., Ph.D. and James E. Hawdon, Ph.D.
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Volume 33, Issue 3, October 2007, Pages 321-331
Mutual-aid support groups play a vital role in substance abuse treatment in the United States. In 2005, The Walsh Group conducted a national survey of participants in mutual-aid support groups for addiction to identify key differences between participants in various recovery groups. This research was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (Grant # 1 R43 DA016517-01A1). The survey was conducted with the assistance of The Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia, Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS), SMART Recovery, and Women for Sobriety (WFS). Extensive data was collected from survey respondents on many aspects of recovery. This paper, the first in a planned series of papers based on this survey data, focuses on the impact of survey respondents’ level of religiosity on their recovery and their participation in mutual-aid support groups.
Key findings from the survey on mutual-aid support groups discussed in this paper include:
• Active involvement in groups significantly improves the chances of remaining clean and sober, regardless of the group (SOS, SMART, WFS, 12-step) in which one participates.
• Respondents whose individual beliefs better matched those of their primary support groups showed greater levels of group participation, resulting in better outcomes as measured by increased number of days clean and sober.
• Religious respondents were more likely to actively participate in 12-Step groups and WFS, both of which have spiritual components in their programs.
• Non-religious respondents were significantly less likely to participate in 12-Step groups.
• Respondents with low levels of religiosity were more likely to actively participate in groups with secular programs, such as SOS and SMART Recovery.
This study provides more evidence that in recovery “one size does not fit all.” These results have important implications for treatment planning and implementation, indicating that matching clients to appropriate support groups according to their individual beliefs can have a positive impact on their program involvement and, ultimately, on their treatment outcomes. When participants in recovery groups feel more comfortable with the philosophies of the groups they attend, they are more likely to become actively involved in these groups, which often results in longer periods of remaining abstinent from the use of alcohol and other drugs.
Our special thanks go out to all of those people in recovery who shared their experiences and beliefs with us through participation in the survey.
The article is now available on-line at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
[Go to the Science Direct website, type in the first few words of article title in the search & click on go]
WITH THIS Ms. C. agreed to cite SMART Recovery whenever the 12-Step groups are cited in SAMHSA publications. NIDA and NIAAA will soon be on board for the same. And SMART Recovery has been recognized by 5 major health organizations referenced in our sandbox copy currently for your perusal. SMART Recovery is also listed in numberous textbooks along with the 12-Step programs and other secular program.
SO MY REMAINING QUESTIONS IS, WHY ARE ALMOST ALL OF THE 12-STEP GROUPS ALLOWED FULL ADVERTISING LIKE ARTICLES WITH THERE LOGOS AND LOTS OF SELF-REFERENTIAL MATERIALS, BUT THE ONLY SECULAR ORGANIZATION GIVEN SPACE IS RATIONAL RECOVERY WHICH IS A FOR PROFIT WHICH TOTALLY REJECTS SELF-HELP GROUPS BUT IS LISTED UNDER (SORRY i FORGET THE TITLE, BUT i'LL RETURN WITH IT.) KBUT MM, SMART Recovery, SOS, AND LifeRing ARE NOT --- NOT -- GIVEN ARTICLES. WHY IS THAT?????
AS YOU CAN GUESS, I'M A BIT DISTURBED BY WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BIAS, WHICH YOU TOTAL AND KINDLY DENY,BUT DON'T REALLY EXPLAIN.Henrysteinberger (talk) AND can we change the title of this to something other than Zealous dislike for secular program please? How about: Inclusion of Secular programs in the Wikipedia????Henrysteinberger (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely,
Chris Currier
Christina Currier
Public Health Analyst
Project Officer, Knowledge Application Program
CSAT, Division of Services Improvement
Practice Improvement Branch
240-276-1572
fax: 240-276-2970
christina.currier@samhsa.hhs.gov
C -
The article or wiki listing was "Addiction Recovery Programs" and if you go there you will see that most 12-Step programs are given wiki space articles and no secular ADDICTION RECOVERY PROGRAM, other than RR (which is not actually an addiction recovery program in the sense of AA or NA or SMART Recovery, but is a money maker like Hazelden, Betty Ford and other propritories seeking advertising), is allowed an article, though at least one can link to web sites there if one guesses how.Henrysteinberger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. I probably didn't need to highlight things the way I did - I don't need the account, best keep it blocked :-) You didn't do the wrong thing there!
However, that signature is truly misleading. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for the message you left on my talk page regarding the COI / hoaxing / spurious credits from Santa Barbara and Santa Rosa that have been plaguing certain pages. I do have a user account, but i wanted my name left out of it, for social reasons. (The man applied for a job with my company and cited those pages as job references, not knowing that i am a Notable Wikipedian with a proclivity for detection.) The pages are on my watchlist, and if the trouble comes up again, i will let you know so that further actions can be taken. Yours in solidarity, "feline ferroustimber" 64.142.90.32 11:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hunh. I wondered. But it looked like it had been placed there by a non-admin? Or at least it looked that way, since Nick (talk·contribs) doesn't have a user-page. Now that I look at it, sie actually is an admin. Well - learn something new every day! :) Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I saw your edit, and thought I'd comment. I read through the ref's when I changed the tag, and I wasn't really convinced that it was a non-trivial mention (basically, the articles are more about the Army's goof, and the site in question happens to be Glee). That said though, it did get discussed in a few major news sources, so it's not a clear cut trivial case either. I'm happy enough to leave it as it is. Cheers, --Bfigura(talk) 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. The template you mentioned, would have been more appropriate. So them falsely using templates, like he used, doesn't constitute vandalism? Ctjf83 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol, ok thanks! :) Ctjf83 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your continued advice...i'm gonna apply for an admin sometime in the near future, and need all the advice i can get! Ctjf83 15:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, sometimes in the contributions section it says (top) what does that mean? Ctjf83 15:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i can see where it is all thankless...plus i spend way too much time on wiki as it is now...but i'll prob. still try for it in a while...so i can make a bigger diff to wiki...although, like u said, it is thankless Ctjf83 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No hard feelings. I was originally thinking it was about time to accept one of these, but in retrospect, I guess I need a bit more time in between some recent (and rather lame, on my part) incidents. I'll probably give it another shot sometime in the spring, after I've had a bit more time. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused about RfCs but know they are serious and not to be taken lightly. Re: "Users certify the basis", and/or "those who endorse this statement". I believe I certify the basis, but not all of the statement. So do I sign under the "certify the basis" even though I did not try to resolve the dispute (only made a comment on AN/I, and on the RfC talk page), nor was I involved with the article before or the editors? I did take the time (more then 3 hours!) researching the complaint though. ~Jeeny(talk) 08:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's a good question, and I don't really know that I have the right answer. I've hardly ever participated in user conduct RfCs. Well, you shouldn't sign at "certify the basis" if you didn't try resolving the dispute with the editor in question. And if you don't agree with the full statement, it might be best instead to write your own "outside view from" and sign that. ··coelacan 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think I'm going to sit this one out. I'm in enough conflict as it is. Just because I have strong opinions on something, doesn't mean I need to express them everywhere. Right? Who the hell do I think I am, anyway. Sheesh. lol ~Jeeny(talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be wise. ··coelacan 09:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is an ongoing problem - Andre Douzet is a recognised hoaxer and charlatan in France in relation to Rennes-le-Chateau and writer of pseudohistorical books - his supporters in the UK who have websites promoting him are the ones responsible for placing the article on Wikipedia - meaning that it cannot be written from an unbiased and neutral POV. Does Wikipedia have its article on L. Ron Hubbard arguing that Dianetics was a "scientific fact"? The same difference applies to Douzet.Wfgh66 (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the POV Banner again for the Douzet article because his followers are on a permanent agenda promoting Douzrt on Wikipedia - if I keep adding that he is an author of pseudohistorical books to the article that addition will forever become deleted by his UK supporters. This is all about principles. Are we going to allow the believers in pseudo-history to run the show on Wikipedia? Wfgh66 (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.
Guess what - my comments on the Talk Page for Andre Douzet do get blanked out by his UK supporters. See for yourself, and please read the criticism of Douzet by the French on the Talk Page. There are three major players making the contribution on Douzet - Corjan de Raaf, Filip Coppens and Andrew Gough - and a couple of others who are their associates. These are the people making the contributions and nobody else. I am filling in the details about the unreliability of Andre Douzet and that his supporters are merely believers in the myth of RLC.Wfgh66 (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
194.73.124.83 is currently deleting my addition to the Douzet article that he is a writer of pseudohistorical books and my comments on the Talk Page. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left messages about what is going on at the Andre Douzet Wikipedia article on the WP:AIV and WP:COI/N pages.Wfgh66 (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is being contributed by followers of a recognised hoaxer and charlatan. This issue was dealt with yesterday by Wikipedia. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to [1] and [2], sorry for creating those two categories. I must not understand how categories work, and I also hoped that people would expand on them.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it done before – images that I would think are okay but they are deleted anyway. See, for instance, how Gianni Versace's picture was deleted. I have no objections to it being deleted; I just wanted to end the conflict in the most amicable way possible, which was adding the right tag and rationale. I was quite surprised to see Fresheneesz call me an "image nazi" even though I was nnly peripherally involved with that confilct. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Moreschi read it. That's one for three. Pretty good for Wikipedia. Page protection will come down soon enough. I've got breakfast and coffee to attend to, but if you can't get an audience, I'll see about talking to the mentioned editors later. ··coelacan 13:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was your breakfast good? I had cookies and a coke for breakfast and enjoyed it to no end. I'm having a pork roast for dinner, and can't wait to eat it. Good nutrition is highly important (speaking as a nurse). Jeffpw (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much in the house: peanut butter, oversweetened juice, leftover spinach. Very sad. ··coelacan 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I bet Gordon Ramsay could make a festive meal out of such ingredients, dear. Never say die! If you truly get desperate, almost everybody has a little tinned fish stashed away somewhere...or do you consider that cannibalism? Jeffpw (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I don't eat my cousins. I'm a bit surprised, but in retrospect I suspect the "wp:dr is that way" reflex was triggered by actually mentioning that there was content at the root of the problem. Maybe in the future a more sparse "could some admin leave a friendly reminder?" would get the desired response without triggering the wp:dr reflex. I really don't know. ··coelacan 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the involved administrators who had such difficulty comprehending my post could instead edit the Simple Wikipedia or take Barbara Bush up on her 1990's offer of help learning to read. Jeffpw (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why mine??? I'm not one of the nutters trying to get Andre Douzet's books and mags sold on Wikipedia. You should read themWfgh66 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're haranguing people! You're not listening to suggestions and trying to force others to do all your work for you. In short, you're being a pain in the ass. Go fix the article if that's what you want to do. Spend some of your seemingly inexhaustible energy in actually doing something productive. Jeffpw (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been deleted. I did do things to the article, and every time I did, it was deleted by those who created it. The article wasn't contributed by those folk dedicated to creating interesting articles to Wikipedia, but by those with books and magazines to sell in an area of pseudohistory. I do like contributing to Wikipedia wherever possible - but there is no middle-ground whatsoever between believers and sceptics in relation to something like Andre Douzet - that's why there was no discussion on the Talk Page (there never was going to be) and why everything was restricted to a series of contributions and deletions which would have gone on forever.Wfgh66 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now, problem solved. ··coelacan 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, second that barnstar. Your work is very helpful and appreciated. Side note, what is the second template here? The "you've been reported" one. ··coelacan 12:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the little notice! :) About the template: Its not a basic wikipedia template, but rather one that i made myself. Its not actually not even a template to be honest, its just a little HTML snippet that i cut and paste from my notepad after i give a final warning :) --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 12:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I wondered because I thought we had banished these templates into the abyss. ;) You're not, eh, prohibited from using it. But I'd ask you to take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 23#Template:Non-admin fwarn and reconsider it. My arguments there don't really apply to your usage, since you aren't making invalid AIV reports. But WJBscribe's and Wimt's arguments are still relevant, I think. ··coelacan 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that comment was rather informative, even if it would not apply to me. I found the template on a long time vandals page, and modified it a little bit to fit my own needs. Personally i kept running into one particular problem: I tend to give a level 1 warning, then a level 3, a level 4 and after that i was kind of stuck. Most times i conclude with a Vand4IM along with a report, but i kept thinking this was rather idiotic, since telling them that this was their only warning wasn't really the message i wanted to get trough.
Still WJs comments are (as you say) valid. However, they are not fully applicable in the case of an IP block. IP blocks are never infinite, so the reminder to behave is valid in this case. Also, i think that there is not much of a different between a report and a vand4im warning. If your not banned after your last warning you also wont take things seriously.
The last thing i noted is that not every admin will place a blocked template on the user page. The level of my warning highly depends on previous warnings and blocks, so if those templates are not placed, i cant decide which level is appropriate. Actually this was one of the main reasons why i began to use this template, since i needed a reference to track long time vandals(Along with the fact that dual last warnings are just plain stupid :-) ). --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed by Calil's response to my request. I'm satisfied that due process was followed with regard to Anapaca. I'm particularly pleased to know that that process extends to the possibility of appeal, were Anapaca so inclined. "Wikilaw" is a work in process, like so much at Wiki, so it is encouraging to know how workable and reasonable things currently are, even if improvements are likely.
One recommendation any of us could make is that:
new editors should have easy access to old decisions when these become relevant (I shouldn't have needed to ask)
responsible editors shouldn't have to make ad hoc summaries in response to requests (Calil's work could be made easier)
those upholding bans on various users should also have access to an easy tool (Your work could be backed by up)
Sadly, more such cases may arise over time, a template of some kind, providing links to documentation in archives seems a very Wiki approach — i.e. encourage people to look, review and comment if deemed appropriate.
I don't know the frequency, so as easy as this might be, it still may not be worth it.
Personally, I disagree that Anapaca was off-topic, and certainly disagree that questioning talk page discussion deletion is off topic. Given other comments in talk, various editors are suspicious about Wiki process related to controversy, especially with regard to gender debate.
I don't feel particularly strongly, Anapaca's obvious frustration undermines the cogent sections of what he says, it's no great loss to lose those words. However, it occurs to me that Calil's detailed and respectful answer to my question does the greatest credit to Wiki, and gives me the opportunity to say I am satisfied that due process has been followed. That testimony is useful, especially in the context of several editors already alleging a foul has been committed in the main namespace.
Anyway, the cool thing about Wiki is, so long as policy reflects what people want anyway, or is a matter of indifference, it provides helpful structure. But as far as I can tell, most policies are open to being re-written. Why does Wiki have NPOV and RS policies? Because everyone knows these are the right policies to have, whatever we call them.
Don't worry, if there's a policy I don't like, I won't break it, I'll rewrite it! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[smile] Glad you're not chiding me, no problems. Not all questions have simple answers, as I know you know. Classifying things can be tricky in any context, "on topic" if adjectival is comparative, but how do we objectively measure distance? Nice to hear you show an appreciation of that, and no surprise really.
The main thing, I guess, is the harder question of whether talk contributions are likely to promote improvement. Inflamatory presentations of even on-topic material do not typically promote progress. So, all in all I'm content with your decision. I guess it's just I've worked in jobs that involve encouraging people to change, more than decisively constraining them. I just hate seeing people disappear. I like defending "lost" causes, especially when the "cause" is a person. Had I studied law, I'd have ended up taking defence briefs, not prosecuting ones.
The more that others do the hard work of making the tough calls, the freer I am to indulge my protective instincts. Believe me, I know how hard it is to draw the line and follow through with it. Someone has to do it, and everyone benefits. Hope you continue to find pleasure serving at Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing Thomas Plantard to Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair[edit]
Hi, can it please be possible for you to change the title of the Wikipedia article here,
From Thomas Plantard to Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair? I am not an Admin and only Admins seem to be able to change the titles of articles. Also, the same thing should apply to the title of this Wikipedia article,
Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair is his real legal surname. And Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair was also a legal surname as its also found on the Death Certificate. I always thought that the additional surname of de Saint-Clair was just a hoot, but apparently not so. The additional part of the surname must have been added by French Deed Poll sometime during the mid-1970s but not before (see the article on Pierre Plantard that I contributed to). Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
My apologies to everyone. My home computer is broke to fuck. I'm enduring nerd harassment (get off the computer!) at some party right now =D I really don't know how long it will be before I can log in at some reasonable interval. Much love to mine peeps, and I'll speak with you again soonlike. -- coel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.92.133 (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're still currently involved with issues involving this user, but they've become rather disruptive. See User talk:Sox207 and rather specifically at User talk:The Big X for admissions of what they claim was/is going on. since then it's been a stream of IP addresses. See User talk:Gscshoyru for the most current set of disruptions. (Special:Contributions/Pagesock seems to be WP:DENY issues, and is probably the person as well.) I've been reading up on range blocking, as this may be what needs to be done as a "final" step. I'd appreciate your thoughts (and help). - jc37 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article DXN, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of DXN. Argyriou(talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic deletion of my contributions to Wikipedia[edit]
Hi, my contributions to Wikipedia are systematically being deleted by 77.49.252.57. And by Wikipedia Administrator Versageek. Is there any reason for this? Can anyone kindly please offer me an explanation? I would be most grateful. And all references to information and source material to the website that have been in the Wikipedia articles for a considerable period of time (ie, years) and were placed in those Wikipedia articles by former Wikipedia contributors as well as Wikipedia Administrators (ie, Loremaster, Paul Barlow, etc) are also being systematically culled and deleted. I admit that some references to the website were placed by me, but definitely not all of them. References to websites of a dubious and pseudo-historical nature, on the other hand, remain intact. Please can anyone here provide a rational explanation as to why myself, wfgh66, and material sources of information from the in relation to relevant Wikipedia articles are being targetted and deleted? The website concerned is hardly "spam" as described by 77.49.252.57, having being used as a source of material and reference for many books published throughout the world (I can back this up) and by numerous television satellite documentaries (I can back this up), bearing in mind it contains a large amount of unique primary source documentation not found in published books. Thank you for any reply. Wfgh66 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a friendly notice that a discussion is underway here regarding a topic in which you have previously expressed interest. You are invited to participate in this discussion in order to improve it. I apologize if you did not wish to receive such notices. Groupthink (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheocracyWatch logo.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:TheocracyWatch logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hirschfeld, Magnus (1868-1935) - 1933- reupload.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Hirschfeld, Magnus (1868-1935) - 1933- reupload.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:William Edgar Stafford - poet - lclark.edu collection.jpg[edit]
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Fruit machine.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Fruit machine.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Fruit machine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fruit machine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:International Council of Unitarians and Universalists logo.png)[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:International Council of Unitarians and Universalists logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is a friendly notice from me that a discussion is taking place here in which you might be interested. Groupthink (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity[edit]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Al lewis green party video 1.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Al lewis green party video 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Al lewis green party video 2.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Al lewis green party video 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanztalk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(delivered by mabdul 23:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
An AFD you participated in before is back for a second round[edit]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Alfredo Ormando portrait.png)[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Alfredo Ormando portrait.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire logo phrase.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire logo phrase.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire logo.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Kurt Vonnegut at CWRU.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Kurt Vonnegut at CWRU.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Sturmabteilung Gruppenführer Karl Ernst.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Sturmabteilung Gruppenführer Karl Ernst.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:August Derleth portrait in later life.png[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:August Derleth portrait in later life.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:August Derleth portrait in later life.png listed for deletion[edit]
Orphaned non-free image File:August Derleth in his office.jpeg[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:August Derleth in his office.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:August Derleth portrait in youth.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:August Derleth portrait in youth.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:William Flanagan in 1961.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:William Flanagan in 1961.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Walter Jenkins - aide to LBJ.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Walter Jenkins - aide to LBJ.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:People For the American Way logo 2007.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:People For the American Way logo 2007.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Zodiac Killer - first letter.jpg[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Zodiac Killer - first letter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading Image:TheocracyWatch logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
_-_1933-_reupload.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Alfredo Ormando portrait.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
