Good essay. If you start to work on getting the WP:NPA policy changed, of work to change this in other ways, let me know and consider me on board. --DavidShankbone 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to say I enjoyed this essay very much. I am very disturbed by the clear conditions of censorship by the community here, in particular with regards to admins citing arbitrary pages as policy, i.e. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests, and using that to close down discussions. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is in response to your statement that Slim Virgin is "a powerful clique member".
There is a Clique, yes - a Conspiracy, a Cabal, a Hidden Cluster of Admins Communicating With Each Other Out Of The Public Eye Ooh Spooky Scary.
And you know what?
Slim isn't one of us.
Oh, she is an old-timer, I'll admit (and oh god, "three years ago" is "old times"?), and she's dropped by once or twice. But I'm a regular - I'm there almost daily - and in all that time I don't think I've seen her more than once. DS 02:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing about cliques is that there can be more than one of them. You're obviously in a different clique from hers. *Dan T.* 02:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, and I thought all we regulars knew about Slim, SqueakBox 02:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, guess, it involves SV, alternate accounts, and lots more at AN/I ![edit]
Um... if we are going to play "Good Cop/Bad Cop" couldn't you at least have told me? I might have wanted to be "bad cop"! nb. I hereby confirm that this is (intended as) a humourous edit! ;~) LessHeard vanU 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the Michael Moore thing then you should understand that this is a different case. Michael Moore didn't go around demanding personal information and the address of Ted Frank. Don Murphy goes around asking for those very things. I'm not worried about what Murphy will do, I'm worried about his fans, who may do anything to please him. You may say that that does nothing to damage Wikipedians, the information is already available to these fans; but you should understand that by allowing such a link, we are almost condoning the actions taken by Murphy. I won't remove it, but I'm certainly not happy it is there. SaturdayContribs 00:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also, WP: NPA External Links. On second thought, per that part of policy, I will remove the link. If you wish to put it back we can start a discussion on the talk page with a third party. SaturdayContribs 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put this on WP:VPP as I am tired of seeing this issue come up over and over. Mangoe 13:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Childrensdigest-1950-10.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
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. ~Wikihermit 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Afgnic.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Afnic.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Seven-deadly-enemies-of-man.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Seven-deadly-enemies-of-man.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. BetacommandBot 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image source problem with Image:Aub-logo.gif[edit]
Image Copyright problem
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Aub-logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aub-logo.gif)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Aub-logo.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 06:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dtobias. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
Your concerns are understandable but this was totally out of line. If I'd wanted a diagnosis on my mental conditions, I would've asked! Please don't do this ever again!
He is right, you know. We aren't a hospital, and we aren't a therapy center. Maybe you should talk to him. If you can't, find someone who can get in contact with him. You might have driven him off. --The Wiki Loner (Let's chat!) 10:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments were in response to this, where that user objected to me using "Obsessive-compulsiveness" as the headline of a comment where I criticized his behavior. I didn't "drive him off", however; he was soon banned. *Dan T.* 12:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you didn't? Why does it say then, and I quote "This user left Wikipedia" on his talk page? And please paste your response onto my talk page so I know you've responded; I will not watch your page. --The Wiki Loner (Let's chat!) 17:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Brunet.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT 19:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Btnic.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT 19:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use disputed for Image:Tiffany ITWAN 80s Hits CD.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Tiffany ITWAN 80s Hits CD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hey, I removed your Rutabaga comment because I worry it might be accused of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point / might otherwise hurt your case. But it's totally up to you-- please feel free to add it back in if you're sure you want it. Alecmconroy 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (ps, it did make me chuckle)[reply]
No, you're right... it's a shame it's gotta go. *Dan T.* 21:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But "the other side" went and replaced the section, so they could use it as a launching point for attacks against me. *Dan T.* 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotws.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 16:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up on Wikitruth. If you know of any others that are notable, let me know. P-J is close, but it probably skirts the definition of "anti-wiikipedia attack site" enough that it would probably just muddy the waters to include it in the list. --Alecmconroy 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there is no consensus for including these sleazy sites and even Fred Bauder has stated it. Can you show me the consensus? For example Wikitruth has articles on notable topics like David GerardKelly Martin and FCYTravis do we want to make it easy for people to find this crap? This is not complicated, Dan. 61.60.74.118 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either the above user is a troll, or someone who's worldview is so far removed from reality that they should be confined for their own good. Zurishaddai 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad... though, if it were policy, it still would likely not stop all the fighting over so-called "attack sites" as there's still plenty of room for debate and wikilawyering over just what constitutes "harrassment" (some people seem to have a very expansionist concept of this that encompasses fairly mild unwanted criticism), and what is a "not generally known" real life identity (is everybody still expected to try to squeeze toothpaste back in a tube when somebody's been outed a long time ago, if they are still "officially" anonymous? Does the New York Times have to print the real name in question before anybody else is allowed to say it on any web forum on pain of it being declared an "attack site"?), and what constitutes "routine engagement" in these practices (if it's a web forum, do they have to do heavyhanded censorship of anything that anybody might think is outing or harrassment in order not to be considered an "attack site", even if such things are still a very small fraction of the content?) As usual, it's all in how it's interpreted and enforced, rather than in the rule itself. *Dan T.* 12:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that - could I ask you what your best conceivable outcome from this controversy / debacle would be? Do we require any such policy? How can we reduce the wasted effort from the community on this issue?
My energy is directed towards encouraging a broad consensus before we test the limits - I support Newyorkbrad's work thus far, and Alec has completed some interesting analysis of specific cases previously (ED = remove, DonMurphy = keep, MichaelMoore = keep, WR = keep in context). Privatemusings 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bothered by the "harassment" issue as well. The business of digging up some comment weeks after the fact and using it as justification for a link pogrom sounds like harassment; a a few cranky remarks in a blog that you aren't reading isn't harassment.
Right now I think we should work from the NewYorkBrad proposal; it seems to hit most of the main points clearly, and it at least is a rational starting point, rather than an act of dogma. Mangoe 13:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading your contributions to various discussions across Wikipedia for some time now. I just wanted to throw in some support for your (apparently) unpopular stances on a variety of issues. Large portions of the vocal community here are surprisingly intolerant to rational discussion and I commend you rising above the masses. HydroMagi 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit a user page to include such content again and you'll be blocked. One warning only. Neilム 12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I do appreciate the "I don't agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it" comment you made, Wikipedia is neither a democracy, nor is it a forum for unfettered and glorious free speech. It's an encyclopaedia, and soapboxing tirades do not help construct an encyclopaedia (in fact, they actively harm it by driving people away). Neilム 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Nato-logo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm tired of you having all the fun of having a dedicated essay to the BADSITES issue. I've written my own little manifesto, User:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES. I've also posted it to the mailing list.
The gist of it is that the ANTI-BADSITES people aren't Pro-Harassment, immoral, or trolls, and people should stop implying that they are. What do you want to bet that within 48 hours, someone will have responded to my claim that ANTI-BADSITES people aren't pro-harassment, immoral, or trolls by accusing me of being pro-harassment, immoral, or a troll? <sigh>
For tirelessly defending the project against those who would enable the suppression of information from external sources and let fraudsters to run amok among us. Nice work! -- 146.115.58.152 02:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Puntcat.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 15:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Nicit.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost. Thank you. J 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Logosvnet.gif. 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. PxMa 23:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nicma.gif. 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. Ρх₥α 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nicmc.gif. 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. Ρх₥α 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nicmt.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. Ρх₥α 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nicpe.gif. 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. Ρх₥α 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nicvi.png. 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. Ρх₥α 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re this comment - the answer is "for some values of anyone". We have had a blocking and banning policy for a good long time, there is no significant dissent from the view that "anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can use as a forum for foolishness". We block people for consistently unproductive behaviour, and we ban them for consistently disruptive behaviour, and we have pretty much always done so. Incidentally, I think you are skating on very thin ice right now, and it's showing signs of melting. Do take care. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dtobias, please take that as a friendly warning from Guy. For months now you have been "fighting the good fight" but in a way that is annoying to almost everyone, even those of us who agree with you. You are nagging. No one likes to be nagged. So don't be a nag. For example there might be some inane discussion on a mail list and you steal the thread by trying to make it about something else, something we have all heard you opine about (bloviate?) for what seems like a million times. Please be aware that we are all human. People react poorly to being nagged. WAS 4.250 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've been annoying sometimes, but have I done any of it recently, like in the last week or so? I've lately been making a great effort to "turn a new leaf" and be more reasonable and civil than I had been. I haven't recently labeled anybody as being part of a "clique" or "cabal", made insinuations about their motives or other ad-hominem attacks, haven't hijacked any discussions into unrelated points, and haven't even posted to the mailing list in over a week. I've also expressed agreement with several proposed wordings of the various attack-related policies, even ones proposed and supported by people I've fought with in the past, because I found them reasonable and it has never been my position that harrassment must be legalized. Has any of my current activity still been too annoying? What should I try to tone down some more? *Dan T.* 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit that Guy links to you say
"Isn't this supposed to be the "Free encyclopedia anyone can edit"," Free here means no cost and copy-left. Anyone who can get to a public library can edit most any page. This is not a free speech zone and was never intended to be that.
"not just the encyclopedia where anyone who meets very subjective standards for having personalities compatible with the "in crowd" will be permitted to edit?" Please tell me you are smart enough to know that is uncalled for.
"Does the tagline need to change now to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?"" The mission of the WikiMedia Foundation is to provide as much educational information to as many people as it can. Its mission is not as a publishing service for the opinions of people. Our opinions are only useful to the project to the extent that they help with the mission. No one has the right to use WikiMedia Foundation resources in ways that do not support the mission. The foundation has delegated much of the responsibility to decide that question to the community. The community has a decision making structure that is close to anarchy and needs to be improved. But free speech for free speech sake has never been part of the mission. By the way, the WikiMedia Foundation is legally obligated to limit its resources to educational purposes as per its charter. WAS 4.250 01:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just yesterday you made the just quoted edit that refers to "the "in crowd"" and now you wish to claim "I haven't recently labeled anybody as being part of a "clique" or "cabal"". Please tell me you understand that this is a difference that makes no difference and that you will review your edits for tone with greater discrimination in the future. About half the time, after I have typed a reply, I don't send it. Writing it helps get out the emotion. Not sending it saves me the trouble of replying to its replies. Re-re-re-read anything you write. It's all saved for the rest of your life online. WAS 4.250 01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I don't always live up to my stated principles, and I'll strive to improve. I still feel that JzG's statement went beyond a "friendly warning", though. What would be a more tactful, less inflammatory, way to say that I think the standard applied in the case of the block being discussed was subjective in nature and seemed to amount to people finding the person annoying, without any more specific rule violation? *Dan T.* 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want people to give you a break based on "Point taken. I don't always live up to my stated principles, and I'll strive to improve." but insist on not giving Guy a break. Drop the "JzG's statement went beyond a "friendly warning"" thing. Give him a break. He has been under a lot of pressure lately and we are lucky to have kept him as a contributor at all. WAS 4.250 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "What would be a more tactful, less inflammatory, way to say that I think the standard applied in the case of the block being discussed was subjective in nature and seemed to amount to people finding the person annoying, without any more specific rule violation?" How about "I think the standard applied in the case of the block being discussed was subjective in nature and seemed to amount to people finding the person annoying." I find that to be an accurate and acceptable statement of your personal evaluation of the situation. Others made pretty much the same statement. However if the person who commented at WR by that name is him, I think we are well rid of him. WAS 4.250 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, my comment was meant to be taken at face value. I think that you are skating on thin ice (my opinion). There are a lot of people who think your drama to contribution ratio is way too high, and it is my personal view, speaking for nobody else, that you need to take care. Don't read any more into it than my personal view, stated as such. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuo mentioned that someone had left an edit summary of "Reverted trolling from ED and WR partisans." Could you provide the diff, please? ·:· Will Beback·:· 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some edit summaries along those lines: [2][3][4]*Dan T.* 01:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't see any mention of "trolling". The reverts appear to be to edits made by user:Miltopia, who was apparently well-known as an ED editor (and has now been banned for, um, trolling). Even so, I can't endorse using edit summaries like that. However unless you want to make a formal complaint it doesn't help matters to keep bringing up old issues. ·:· Will Beback·:· 05:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Veronica 167.png. 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. 1 != 2 06:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Katy keene special.png. 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. 1 != 2 06:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023talk 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Potter-bus.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Potter-bus.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotsco.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain to what you meant by this oppose on Elonka's RfA? I am not sure what you meant with it, and if you don't mind, I'd like some clarification please. Thanks! Acalamari 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A problem I've been fighting against is the increasing hatefulness and intolerance of certain elite cliques of powerful Wikipedians, who are so obsessed with fighting against trolls and harassers that they find them under every bed. This leads to a very unpleasant atmosphere. See my response to JzG's essay for more discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. Acalamari 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dtobias, for the record, thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nicpa.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Nicpa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nicpy.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Nicpy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article FanFiction.Net, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I posted the suggestion that we should have a London Wikipedia meetup next week here. Would be cool if we could get some people together. I was thinking either a social meet or maybe a collaboration meetup where we bring a selected London article up to GA or even FA status. Poeloq (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I was just there for 10 days or so this past July and have no current plans to return... too bad there weren't any meetups while I was there. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Logouvg.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) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Educause.gif)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Educause.gif. 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) 05:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Orglogo.gif. 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) 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo-dotname-35h.gif)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-dotname-35h.gif. 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) 05:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dotmuseum.gif)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotmuseum.gif. 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) 05:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotaero.gif. 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) 05:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotpro.gif. 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) 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotjobs.gif. 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) 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Icmregistry.gif)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Icmregistry.gif. 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) 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotweb.gif. 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) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dotgeo.gif. 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) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zamnet.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Zamnet.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for the support and I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Softdisk27.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Softdisk27.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Is a swipe at someone as being your "worst enemy" your idea of comforting them when their parent is critically ill?[5] That's really lower than low. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was intended to be taken entirely at face value as a sincere expression of sympathy. It's well known that he and I don't get along, so I'm not going to pretend to be friends or anything, but I wish his father well nevertheless. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Republic-of-texas.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Republic-of-texas.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spamhaus.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Spamhaus.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Would you like rollback? I think you'd make good use of it. From your edits, I have no reason to think that you'd revert-war or revert good-faith edits with it. Acalamari 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... I wouldn't misuse it any more than I would misuse any other tool. Thanks. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You're showing more signs of self-awareness lately; keep acting this way instead of how you used to behave, and you might just win your next RFA. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I agree with your analysis of the living category inclusion for this article as being POV but other editors there, the regulars strongly disagree. I made the same aurgument before reading all the history and came to the same conclusion that the artilce belong in the disappeared persons category and that category says not to include people in the that category in the living category. Thank you.--24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Dan, I agree with your sentiments at this checkuser, but I think your tone was too polemical. It shifts the focus from the evidence and the immediate problem to larger more contentious issues. By pushing some hot buttons it makes it harder to move that case forward, which I know you want to do. You will only shift the less functional, less transparent elements Wikipedia's culture with an accumulation of hard evidence; this checkuser potentially may yield one more piece -- if it doesn't get squelched.
That's my two cents. --A. B.(talk) 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This episode was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I've started drafting an RfC here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:University of botswana coa.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:University of botswana coa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ucyprus.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Ucyprus.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tiffany - Tiffany.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Tiffany - Tiffany.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tiffany-danny.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Tiffany-danny.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Uninett.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Uninett.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Uol header.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Uol header.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Una logo.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Una logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zispa.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Zispa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Did you see my comment on the RFC talk? The decision for moving forward this way wasn't based on attack sites issues at all. There was a precedent a year ago that dealt with BLP issues. DurovaCharge! 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Etc.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Etc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
I believe the admin behavior in this case, given that the editor had yet to make an article space edit and was attempting to seek help in good faith, fails WP:BITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Iana1.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Iana1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Launch-35.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Launch-35.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Tcj-115.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) 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And could have written the thing myself. God. The thing about paranoid people is that they are dangerous. It's not schizophrenics per se that are dangerous, but the paranoid variety (especially if young and male and able) very certainly can be. A person who feels threated has no ethics, no morals, and not much judgement. They just shoot on sight and it might be the old guy with the shotgun who thinks the electric-meter reader is a backyard prowler. There's only one thing you can do with the thin-skinned (other than medication and reassurrance and nice quite surroundings), and that's DON'T give them power! If you do, you get Stalin (diagnosed clinically paranoid by a doctor long before he took power). And Stalinesque purges.
And as you point out, the US has been through exactly the same thing on 9/11 as a hive of bees that has been kicked. We stung everybody available and close, without good info. Turns out we had no frigging idea what Sadaam's motives were (he did tell the FBI before being hanged), and it was certainly the case that he was no danger to us. But HEEEERE we are. In the case of WP, we're in the same place, for about the same reason. We need to replace some mentally unstable. Jimbo, who seems to be one of those high-serotonin "I'm okay, you're okay" types, never will do it on his own. I'm not even sure he SEES paranoia. We project that which we are. He edits under his own name. He trusts too much. He's got other things to do. I really don't think that in this case the fish rots from the head down, unless the heads' problem is not bothering to figure out why things smell worse and worse as time goes on, when you just passively let people have power who want it. Powerseeking people are quite often paranoid as hell. Bush. Chaney. Wolfowitz. SBHarris 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you will be interested in this one - keep a cool head but :P ViridaeTalk 11:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo onatel.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Logo onatel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
[7] I've certainly noticed, and long been impressed by your efforts to support the hoi polloi around here. It's amazing more people don't realize what an important check and benefit for the project that's been. Mackan79 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snide accusations, smears and personal attacks[edit]
Please remember where you are and don't make personal attacks [8] or accuse others gratuitously of trolling. [9] I also note that you have recently made very snide and nasty accusations about "Slim and her clique of friends" [10]. Please stop that too. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I failed to heed the fact that your side has a legally enforced franchise monopoly on making snide and nasty accusations. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to defend yourself by finger-pointing. I am not on SlimVirgin's side, as far as far as I know I never edit the articles she edits, my views are different from hers, and I'm not a member of her clique or anybody else's and I seldom even notice her existence.
I'm asking you as a fellow Wikipedian to stop acting in a way that is obviously deleterious to the community and the encyclopedia. Present any legitimate concerns with dignity and do not excuse your bad behavior by snide accusations against others. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry... excusing one's own bad behavior by snide accusations against others is another franchise monopoly held by people other than myself, who may have even managed to obtain a U.S. patent on it. Have you obtained a license to use this patented technique? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing this deliberately, aren't you? Everything you do you accuse others of doing, and excuse your doing it on the basis of that false accusation. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are, but what am I? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Tony knew he was losing this argument, because he suddenly tried to take it to the ArbCom. They don't appear to be helping him out so far. Cla68 (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took it to arbitration when, asked to try to avoid SlimVirgin, Mackan79 repeated his attacks in trying to justify his conduct. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, please stop referring to my comments as "attacks," which they were not. If you want to invoke WP:NPA in regard to something I said, then do, but going from page to page and accusing me of "attacks" is itself a violation of that policy. Mackan79 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mackan isn't the one in the wrong here, but if the entire issue is to be explored more fully, there's probably a more appropriate forum than the ArbCom request page or here on DanT's talk page. SlimV's talk page probably was the best place to get it resolved, but that avenue appears to be, unfortunately, closed. Cla68 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you may have noticed I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked; if I had, I would have needed to make a stronger case. However, my understanding is that on Wikipedia we discuss disruptions or disputes civilly where they arise. I recall very few situation where discussing an editing relationship has been cause to go from page to page accusing the person of making attacks, and I don't think those situations have been good ones. Discussion of problems needs to be open, not closed. Beyond that, I'm not sure why you're still pursuing the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the interesting dichotomies of Wikipedia is that the dispute resolution procedures require that we discuss editing conflicts on the users in question talk pages, but, if anyone tries to raise an objection to SlimVirgin's behavior on her talk page, the post is usually quickly deleted by her or curiously, someone else like Crum375, and in some cases even admin deleted. If not admin deleted, Slim then usually archives her talk page without leaving a link to the archive. At the same time, another editor usually has already gone to the userpage of the editor who left the question and "warned" them to stop the "harrassment" of SlimVirgin. This has happened here, and it's happened to me too and needs to stop. In fact, this needs to be brought to SlimVirgin's attention so she can respond, so I'll repost this thread to her talk page. Cla68 (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And they do all of that in a tag-team way, then get cranky when anybody raises the thought that there might just be some sort of a clique involved. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a member of any clique, and I certainly have no connections with SlimVirgin or anybody's "tag team" (whatever that might mean in this context). I've observed from the outside that she is attacked a lot, and I wonder why, and I'm quite surprised and dismayed when on looking closely there's not a lot of substance to the attacks. And even if there were, these are attacks. This one is by way of a smear, an insinuation of some kind of inappropriate relationship with another editor. And when I turn up to complain about it, guess what happens, I get attacked too. Surely you can see that there is something strange happening here, but SlimVirgin isn't the person responsible. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You accused Mackan of "harrassing" SlimVirgin. Now, I don't believe that SlimVirgin asked you to do that. But, you were wrong to make that accusation and several of us have called you on it, on your userpage. Then you went and tried to open an ArbCom case, perhaps hoping they would support your accusations? Well, they didn't. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "called you on it" means here. An expression of public disagreement? It is not in use in any form of English with which I'm familiar. Yes, several people disagreed with me, publicly. Whether the case is serious enough for arbitration (personal attacks usually aren't) is unrelated to that. The outcome of this case is in the hands of the principals. If they avoid one another (and to some extent if the supporters of Mackan79 will refrain from repeating his wild conspiracy theories as gospel) then nothing more need come of it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Called you on it" means you were asked to put up or shut up. You've yet to do either.--G-Dett (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of "put up or shut up" isn't evident in the context. I've outlined my concerns, tipped off the arbitration committee, and appear to have obtained a tacit resolution on all sides to cool it. There are eyes on the problem and the bizarre accusations seem to have become somewhat muted as a result of that. Seems like a decent result. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of "put up or shut up" is evident to all but one here. It means that you should substantiate your trash-talk about Mackan79, or you should stop talking trash about him. "Tipped off the arbitration committee" – Good G-d, man. Mackan has been in touch with the committee for months now about all this, and the committee and indeed no less a figure than Jimbo have evidently been in touch with Slim about it as well. What you've tipped us all off to is your irresponsibility and your Malvolio-esque meddlesomeness. This, I suppose, is a decent result, though I can't imagine Olivia is thanking you for it.--G-Dett (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on finding a Twelfth Night metaphor to substitute for the earlier playground language. Even Mackan79 has admitted that he's been told on two occasions that the arbitration committee does not consider any policy violation involving SlimVirgin and Crum375 to have taken place. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And well done to you, Malvolio, for revving up your engine and hunting down the reference! Your research skills are improving by the minute; at this rate you'll soon enough have ceased repeating rumors and hoaxes as if they were facts. In anticipation of the arrival of that happy moment, New Lover, I award you these yellow garters. Remember, if thou entertainest her love, let it appear in thy smiling; thy smiles become thee well: therefore in her presence still smile.--G-Dett (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly what I said. However, you may also have noticed I'm choosing not to discuss it further. If this is unfair, I can only remind you that I was not the one to bring it up, or the one who escalated it.[11] Nor would I have made my comments under normal circumstances. We can discuss further whether that was fair, but as others have said, I'm not sure that anyone benefits. Mackan79 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, most of the ones I looked at were BLP-related, some indirect. There's more to this than meets the eye. Incidentally, and totally off topic...care to support my comments over at WT:NPA about why vandalism shouldn't be included in that policy? Risker (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I normally agree with you on the BADSITES issue but you're taking it to a ridiculous extreme. JzG's edits in this case are not in any way suppressing discussion. —Random832 (contribs) 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Altering other people's past discussions in order to remove links to a site because it is somehow a bad one is something I just don't want to see any precedent at all established in its favor. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion that you guys are referring to? Cla68 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check JzGs AWB edits. ViridaeTalk 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm drafting a user-conduct RfC here. Please feel free to assist if would like to add anything to it. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... needs much more evidence. Do you have more to add to it? It's fairly sparse now. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just started posting evidence to it. Judging from what I've seen with some quick perusals around certain areas, there's a lot more to add and it's going to take awhile to add it all. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user by the name of 'dtobias' came to the Biographicon and created a short biography for Wikipedia editor Dan Tobias. This user previously vandalized an article about Wikipedia administrator Guy Chapman, in conjunction with a user named, 'Guy Chapman'.
Although the content of the new biography does not seem overtly negative, I am unfamiliar with the BADSITES initiative, and it seems likely this user is attempting to subtly malign you. I thought you might like to be made aware of this and approve or change what has been written about you: Dan Tobias
Thanks for uploading Image:Seven-deadly-enemies-of-man.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).
Thank you for the compliment. It's much appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
