User talk:Conti/Archive3

Fair use rationale for Image:Total Annihilation.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Total Annihilation.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of retcons

I have nominated List of retcons, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retcons. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Dmoz

Hello. I see your vote at the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Template:Dmoz. I agree with you.

Best regards, nejron (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand 2 arbitration case - evidence

You have said (about Betacommand's opt-out list) "restored again by another admin who disagreed with the deletion" - technically that is incorrect. Arthur Rubin speedily deleted it, Betacommand recreated it, and BlackKite restored the history (then Betacommand reverted to an earlier point in the history). Whether he disagreed with the deletion isn't clear from the history restoration. Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I must've missed that. Thanks for the correction! --Conti|✉ 13:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

blp afd

Nice catch! I've edited something, can you comment? Thanks! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just did so. :) --Conti|✉ 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ian Richardson

Oops, made a mistake there. Was meant to remove him from the Colour of Magic article. Rehevkor (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: SUL usurpation request

Hello Conti. No need to apologize. Please leave your usurpation request on this page it:Wikipedia:Cambiare il nome utente/Riassegnazione and allow about a week for the request to be fulfilled. The username to be usurped should have no edit at all, nevertheless it's up to the local bureaucrats to decide every single case. Bye. --Paginazero (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Donaldson

Thanks for making the fixes to the Stephen Donaldson (activist) page. I don't understand one, however. You removed the forced line breaks in a blockquote, the result being that two separate paragraphs in the source document run together on the wikipedia page. Why is that? Thanks. Espertus (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

I thought the idea was to keep everything together - feel free to revert if you want though. --Random832 (contribs) 16:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fritzl case

Please wait until consensus is achieved before making changes that are under discussion. Your edit has been reverted for now. HtD (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Username blacklist

You're not sure what's wrong with usernames like User:BANGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Seriously? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, that regex would also prevent User:BANGO!!! from being created, and I don't see what's wrong with that username. --Conti|✉ 02:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should up the number a bit, eh? But removing it entirely seems kinda silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I'm really not sure which number we should use instead. If I'm not mistaken, the regex would also prevent all kinds of variations from being created, right? So if I'd raise the number to, say, 6, it would prevent User:BANGO!?!?!? from being created, too, and while I agree that that's not the best username in the world, I don't think we should prevent it from being created, either. The usernameblacklist should only be used for the most obvious cases where we expect no or next to no false-positives, IMHO. We don't want to scare away good faith newbies. --Conti|✉ 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.

Sorry, saw it in my watchlist... someone should take off that notice: "There is an ongoing discussion about how the new "special enforcement measures" granted to admins by ArbCom should be utilised. Interested editors are invited to comment here." Thank you, cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, happens to all of us. :) The message should probably be changed, at least, to make Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement more prominent (where the actual discussion occurs). --Conti|✉ 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that watched in see what direction the discussion takes in a few days (apparently, a few people share my opinion, so I might as well go back to writing). · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey Request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fauna of [country]" categories

What aboute them? Tigermighty (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, right now I'm too busy to really deal with that, since sorting these categories out is a massive amount of work if done right. I'd propose to upmerge most of them into categories that make more sense ("Fauna of Europe", for example), tho. I'll try to get back to that eventually, tho, if no on else has in the meantime. --Conti|✉ 20:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help, you are more then wellcom to turn to me. Tigermighty (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Total Annihilation screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Total Annihilation screenshot.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) 05:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move cleanup

Thanks for the note. I *have* been unchecking the "fix redirects" box when I do the pagemoves -- apparently the redirect bot changes the redirects anyway. Probably I should make sure to leave the box checked when I restore the page, just in case. I've fixed all the busted redirects. And the semiprotects are because this particular vandal has in the last few days been revisiting all the repaired pages and re-adding the same "moved page to HAGGER" edit summaries, even though he can no longer move the page. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

I have removed the off-topic chat from the ANI page. If you would like to continue discussion of the merits of the Pearl necklace (sexuality) article, please do so by email or on talk pages. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, I would have preferred if you would've simply added another header to show where the discussion changed its focus. Then again, the discussion wasn't the most worthwhile in the first place, so I'm fine with its removal. --Conti|✉ 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Date format within link

Oh, sorry about that. Running that script requires attentiont to detail, and I was tired. Glad you spotted it; thanks. Tony (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Title list

No, I wanted it to be more inclusive (and I can't think of any titles like those you mentioned that would be legitimate). Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Title blacklist

Sorry, was trying to include punctuation and messed up. Fixed now. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing

Hey there...

I am going through a number of images that have some minor licensing issues. I came across Image:Conti-sig.png which you uploaded. The licensing on this image is not complete as it was uploaded many years ago. I wonder if you could follow the link to the image page and correct the licensing with a GFDL license (or other free license). If you have any questions or issues, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Conti-sig.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Conti-sig.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Female protagonists in Disney animated films

An article that you have been involved in editing, Female protagonists in Disney animated films, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female protagonists in Disney animated films (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? (you had nominated the article for deletion previously, but it passed. This was back in 2005 and there has not been any substantial additions to it since then. Thought you'd want to share your opinion again, whether it has changed or not. SpikeJones (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam cleanup in telecom articles

I was glad to see your spam cleanup Advanced Telecommunications Computing Architecture. A while ago I came across a classic spammer [1] who was working articles that were already loaded with way too many external links. I didn't feel that I had the technical knowledge to clean them up. Any chance you'd be interested? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 21:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let me have a look at it. --Conti|✉ 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great-- they look much better now! Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

William S. Burroughs

For the sake of averting an edit war, please begin a discussion thread on the Burroughs talk page regarding the lengthy paragraph related to the "Queer Burroughs" book which you reinstated after it was removed (not by me). I happen to think it's an unncessary digression and supported the removal, and obviously others feel it doesn't belong. Since you have put out the challenge in your edit summary and with the reinstatement of the material, you should have the first word to explain why you feel it should be included. We should reach a consensus on this otherwise this is the type of thing that has the potential to become an edit war and end up with the article being locked down. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I might have missed an edit somewhere -- I was under the impression you were disputing the removal of the material from Q.B. If I misread things, pay me no mind. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Current change in status

As the creator of Template:Current change in status I wish you'd notified me of it before putting it up for deletion. My input probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but next time, please notify authors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I had already put up a link to /declined, but somehow it got removed in the edit where I removed Majorly's questions too... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:TodaysFinancialNews

As creator of the above template I wish you'd have notified me of it before putting it up for deletion. There is a very serious purpose for that template, and I think it is incumbent on you to suggest a way to achieve that purpose, if you think that the template does not fit in with the "template rules."

The specific situation was on Jan. 21, 2008 (Martin Luther King day) the European stock market had a fairly large drop and an article appeared calling it "Black Monday 2008" a world-wide stock market crash, etc. "In the News" on the main page linked to the article and it got (tens of?) thousands of hits per day. The only problem was that there was no stock market crash, see Talk:January_2008_stock_market_volatility#No_Black_Monday_in_reliable_sources. So Wikipedia was panic pushing and there appeared to be no way to stop it. Normal deletion proceeding take at least a week, speedy deletion won't touch this type of thing (they suggested a template). So how do you suggest dealing with this type of article. In case you are not familiar with financial markets, consider the following analogous type of article: "World wide Tsunami coming, run for the hills."

Your input would be appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the problem is (and it should be noted that I'm definitely not a financial expert). If it was the content of the article, adding Template:POV to it and using the talk page (as you did) seems to be the way to go. I'm sure there are more specific templates that could be used (Template:Disputed, maybe?). On the template itself.. the sentence "Wikipedia can not offer trading advice for financial markets, nor can it predict market movements." is covered by Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is linked from every page. "Articles of this type are strongly discouraged by the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT#NEWS" means to me that articles containing the template should be deleted (and therefore not contain the template in the first place). Ideally, we should never have an article containing the words "World wide Tsunami coming, run for the hills". --Conti|✉ 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Of course "Ideally, we never should have ... " is correct, but the question is how to stop it in practice. Part of the problem is that most Wikipedians (including myself) tend to look at one small area and don't tend to consider the overall situation. From my point of view an encyclopedia that allows one of this type of "The Sky is Falling" article is of dubious credibility, and one that can't figure out a method of stopping a second article of this type, has no credibility at all. Thus you can see why I'm taking this so seriously. BTW under three titles (Black Monday (2008), 2008 stock market downturn, and January 2008 stock market downturn)(there may have been more) the article had 67k hits over just a few days (that's right up there with Sex on a hit per day basis).

I'll probably take this further, if I can figure out where to take it. The problem is not so much the "template rules" but the "big picture" - the overall situation. Perhaps you'd be willing to explain in another venue how we might deal with this and why it can't be properly dealt with with a template? Thanks for any help. Smallbones (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong, of course, but the only problem article you mentioned so far has been worked on to everyone's satisfaction, right? Are there other articles that have similar problems? Using the talk page and requesting a move is the only thing that comes to my mind that could've been done in the "Black Monday" case. I'm honestly not sure what the template would (or did) achieve, especially if Template:POV could've been used in its place, as I said above. As for the big picture.. I'm not sure. I didn't nominate the template with the big picture in mind, admittedly, but it also wouldn't have changed my opinion. We have enough templates, and I think there are others that work just as well for your goals. If everything else fails, you could still use Template:Divbox for a custom message box. Still, I think a template/message box is not the answer to the general problem of misleading articles. Editing and discussing them, and requesting moves or deletions is, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Black Monday article didn't work out to anybody's satisfaction. It was up for a month saying "The market is crashing" (and on the main page for a week) when the market didn't crash (at least for another 6 months). The most recent similar article seems to be Stock market bottom (the Dow went up 400 points today, so a section is essentially trying to say that it will keep going up). I'd think the best solution is a speedy delete on these, but the folks over there essentially don't want to have anything to do with content that can be interpreted in different ways. By the way, if any readers take this seriously, it can cost them serious money. Vague boxes don't do too much good, and they do get deleted. I'll try the Disputed template on Market bottom and see what happens! Smallbones (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there have been discussions about similar situations, where it was proposed to add a template to medical articles stating that Wikipedia is not giving medical advice, but there was no consensus for that proposal. Anyhow, the place for making such proposals is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I think using the disputed template and starting a discussion on the article's talk page is the way to go, tho, since not too many articles are affected by this problem. --Conti|✉ 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

David J. Rust

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I removed the "proposed deletion" placed at David J. Rust. I did this because I noticed that it had already been proposed for deletion back in November of 2007 and that was contested; due to that, any further deletion nominations have to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Raven1977 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I didn't notice that the article was proposed for deletion before. Thanks for letting me know! AFD it is, then. --Conti|✉ 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal over at Template talk:Recent death

I have lent my support to your proposal, as has User:Flowerparty. I hope you make it happen. Cheers! Unschool 06:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) --Conti|✉ 15:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for "certify the basis for this dispute"

Hello. Thanks for your help. Would you either "certify the basis for this dispute" and/or "endorse this summary"? in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord? --Law Lord (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't certify the RFC, since I haven't really tried to resolve the dispute in the first place. I endorsed the view by Fred Bauder, tho, since he sums up my feelings on the issue quite nicely. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Everett

Thank you for removing this. --NE2 21:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For summing it up with precision in few words. Law Lord (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)