User talk:DESiegel/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

msgs copied from User talk:205.210.232.62[edit]

the above IP seems to have been used only by me. It geenrally means that my log-in cookie has expired during an edit. Thus these msgs seem to ahve been address to me. DES (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


I have reverted First Amendment to the United States Constitution back to the compromise version posted by DESiegel at 16:56, Feb 24, 2005. I have placed a discussion regarding the differing views regarding the content that should appear on this page on the article's talk page. Please view this page and the discussion there prior to making any substantive changes to this page. I am attempting to resolve this dispute with DESiegel's compromise version, and hopefully avoid formal dispute resolution (ie. page protection, mediation, arbitration, etc.). (sent to all users editing the article since Feb 10, 2005: user_talk:DESiegel, user_talk:Pythagoras, user_talk:Kenj0418, user_talk:66.169.84.88, user_talk:68.209.177.180, user_talk:205.210.232.62) Kenj0418 07:08, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Anon. Please register. Then we can discuss your edits about Polish Constitution of 3rd May. FYI, I have written most of that article, as well as quite a few others on Polish history. It has been pointed out before that there is a common erroneus caption for this picture. Feel free to dicuss it in talk of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a close date specified for the copyvio vote - two weeks from now. It's at the top of the page. ~~ N (t/c) 00:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Zarius confirmed my action was correct[edit]

I received this note from Zarius indicating that the vote in the VfD for Apocolypse Pooh was faked. Thought you'd be interested. - Tεxτurε 14:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Strange fruit[edit]

Can you provide a source for your recent contribution? Sure would help! (I remember something like it, so I believe it and won't delete it, but ...) WAS 4.250 23:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

WindLegends[edit]

Check out the whole contribution history of Windlegends (talk · contribs) for spamming various regional pages and fiction categories. Tearlach 16:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that I care enough to bother -- it isn't really relevant for what happens to that page. DES (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

thanks for the tip on the signature - much appreciated :-)

User:Splintax

Ice-9[edit]

Just a note of thanks for finding that brilliant citation tying together scrapie and Ice-9. And here I thought I was making up that connection off the top of my head... Bunchofgrapes 17:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Time links[edit]

Why "rm pointless year links"? I thought [[ ]] around year and place of birth were correct (see François Franceschi-Losio)--J heisenberg 21:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death, dates without days are linked also, see Socrates (470–399 BC)--J heisenberg 22:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the above editor, your obsession with the "date preference" functionality as a style suggestion is strange, notice that the Manual of Style link posted by the above editor shows very clearly that lonely years generally ARE linked. The date preference functionality is the ability of wikipedia to automatically translate a 7 September and a September 7 to the same page. It has nothing to do with what should or should not be linked. Usrnme h8er 15:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
In fact, only half a page above the link you made on my talk page, instructions are given for how a lonely year should be linked... Usrnme h8er 15:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Interesting... But it still doesn't make sense to me... So I'm going to continue discussing it until a) it does, or b) I come to the conclusion that I simply don't agree. I hope I don't end up pissing you off, but I prefer this method to edit wars... First of all, can you explain the Manual of Style entry that contradicts you? Second, regardless of date preferences, if I follow the date links in George W. Bush (my favourite sample site because it bugs people... :P) I end up on equally usless sites as if I follow year links on Harry Charles Luke... It doesn't make any sense to me that the GWB dates should be links when the Sir Harry dates are not... Why the application of date references should matter if beyond me, and (normally at least) I don't fancy myself thick... Usrnme h8er 16:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed speedy tag from Mike Kinkella[edit]

You tagged Mike Kinkella as nn-bio, CSD A7. I do no think it fits that criterion. The article made multiple claims of notability, such as MVP, records, etc. There were for Arena Football, which is a minor sport, but I think it needs to go through AfD, maybe, but not speedy. Just wanted to let you know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of VFU[edit]

I edited the head of the VFU page so it accurately describes the purpose of VFU per the Undeletion policy. This policy isn't a rule of thumb, we're all expected to follow it. Please revert your removal of the accurate quotations from the undeletion policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting my revert of your undiscussed changes to a stable process page. The existing text already refers people to the undeltion policy, and reminds people that it is to be followed. Several other respected editors have commented, on the VfU talk page, that your recent changes were a bad idea. If you want the instruction section to be simply a quote from the undeletion policy page, or to incorporate more such quotes, why not discuss the matter on the talk page? I never said that the policy page is simply a rule of thumb, please stop distoring my comments in this way. You have not, as far as I am aware, responded to my statement that continued, long-term practice on a process page is one means of establishing consensus. Do you disagree with this statement? DES (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I certainly support your interpretation of the purpose of VfU, the proposal at Udneletion policy seems very similar to that already under discussion at VfU, no? Even if it's different, the two are so closely dependent on one another that keeping it all in one place would seem better. Fragmented discussion is hard to turn to a consensus. -Splashtalk 22:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, hmmmm. Now that I've had an enforced 20 minute cogitation period, I think I see that your wording on undel policy deals with the reasons that the possible new or existing scope of VfU might come into effect, so the two are somewhat decoupled. Not completely, mind. So perhaps we can let them run their own courses and they will be self-integrating. On a different note, I read a pretty clear consensus at VfU-talk (do you agree?) and would like to move forwards. Things seem a little mired; we haven't settled on a mechanics of the thing and we can't make the change until we have. What do you think would stir things up and move them forward? -Splashtalk 23:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for being slow, the Wiki has been slow and I ran out of time an patience. Anyway, please see User:Splash/Deletion Review. The phrasing could with some cleaning. Proposal 1 is the simple idea, with the margin set high in an attempt to pacify some of the opposition and recognise that most of those who talked numbers talked high numbers. Proposal 2 is Sjakkalle's idea, which might work, and Proposal 3 is Tony's suggestion prior to his 'AfD challenge' proposal. It seems only fair to include it. I dropped my 'purgatory' suggestion and worked the possibility of relisting into the various proposals directly. Note that I haven't bothered to simply import the current majoritarian system direct from VfU, although that was my original intention (in the name of changing as little as possible), since I don't think there would be support for that. Would be nice to present a simple package as in the original proposal, but this might not be sensibly possible. Let me know what you think. I would suggest moving a final version to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion Review proposal or something and snipping the text from VfU talk to the discussion page of that. I'm out of town until tomorrow night (UK time). -Splashtalk 15:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I've just got back, and am shattered, but I have read your reply. I should say that the original intent was not to change the operation at all; the majoritarian system works ok as it is. But I can see that it doesn't really work if we can review keep decisions since the deleters of e.g. schools would use their numerical weight on DR instead of AfD (and it would become impossible at some point to filter process-votes from content-votes). Anyway, if it's ok, I'll write a proper response tomorrow. However, one reason the core proposal was easily supported was its transparent simplicity; we should seek to retain that wherever possible: people will yell "creep" if the mechanics run to paragraphs of text. -Splashtalk 21:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

North Carolina Research Campus[edit]

  • Article Author User:Bradspry. This is not a scheduled or expected future event. This is a real event that happened on September 12, 2005. This is not extrapolation, speculation, and "future history". It is happening now. This is not crystal ball. Come to Kannapolis, North Carolina, and see for yourself.
  • Article Author User:Bradspry. I am an employee of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and a citizen of Kannapolis, North Carolina. My university address book entry. I attended the launch event this past Monday September 12, 2005, and was provided a Media Kit. The license I stated was press release photos, which are believed to be fair use under wikipedia. This is an historical event for Kannapolis, the site of the greatest lay-off in North Carolina history, with over 4000 jobs lost in one day. This is documenting history, not an ad.
  • Article Author User:Bradspry. Added "Future building" tag to match Freedom Tower legitimacy reasoning.

Brad Spry 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

I made it 2 weeks as per previous proposals. btw thanks a lot for your help on that proposal, it looks like it will pass as things stand. Martin 22:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

VfU mechanics (aka I'm about to take up a lot of space on your talk page.)[edit]

DESiegel,
I'm going to put a lot of material here, hope you don't mind. But as it was your proposal I butchered, I reckon you deserve an explanation of my reasoning. (I also have to admit, calling it "watered down" seemed to me a bit rough. In some areas, my re-write is stronger, e.g. recursion.)

Tedious point-by-point bit[edit]

  • In the deletion review discussion, users may opt to either overturn or endorse the previous deletion decision. Those opting to overturn should also specify whether the page should be relisted, kept, merged, redirected, or deleted. (Note, a "merge" result may mean no more than approperiate merge tags being applied to the article and any sugested merge target, plus a note referencing the DR discusion on the appropriate talk page. After that the merge can be performed via normal editing. No closer is ever required to actually do a merge.)
1. In the deletion review discussion, users may opt to either Overturn or Endorse the previous deletion decision. The default action associated with an Overturn vote is to list on XfD. A user who supports an alternative action should thus state Overturn and (action) per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
Commentary - I didn't feel this changed the intent in any way.
Yes this is just a rewording. I felt that the explicit list of possible actions was valuabel, to make is cleare beyond arguement what kinds of results could come out of DR. Your version leaves this to implication, and considering the kind of wikilawyering Tony and some others are doing, I wante to avoid that as much as possible. But I don't have major objections to this change. Making explicit that a bare "overturn" is the same as "overturn and relist" was a good idea, IMO. DES (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If a majority, but less than a strong consensus, favor overturing the deletion decision, then the article will be relisted (or initallly listed, if it was initally speedy-deleted) for discusion on the proper XfD page, with links to the DR discusion and any previous XfD discusion.
  • If there is a clear consensus (say 70% or more) then the decision may be overturned directly, and the consensus result applied. However, the consensus may be to relist, in which case that will be done. If there is consensus to overturn a previous decision, but not on what the result will be, the item in question will be relisted as above.
3. If there is rough consensus then the decision may be overturned directly, and the consensus result applied. If there is consensus to overturn a previous decision, but not on what the result will be, the item in question will be listed on XfD as above.
Commentary - Again, I think I'm saying the same thing you are, with the only change being "rough" in place of both "majority" and "clear".
Well, my version made it very explicit that if thre was a majority to overturn, some action would be taken. Your does not, and indeed implies that no action will be taken unless a "rough consensus" to overtun is reached. i consider that a major change of intent, and a major defect in yuour text. That is the major diference as I see it. All else is wording. DES (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone expressing an opnion should also provide reasoning, at least in the form of a shorthand expression. Opnions that rely primarily on the contnet of the item, rather than the process being reviewed, will be ignored. However, a claim that valid resons were simply ignored during the deletion discussion is about process. So is a claim that the deletion policy was ignored or improperly applied durign the deltion process.
  • Exception: users stating that they were not aware of the deletion discussion may indicate that they had valid reasons which they would have expressed at that discussion. Such users should normally opt for Overturn and relist so that their reasons can be more fully evaluated in a proper deletion discussion. (obviously users who commented in the previosu deletion discussion cannot honestly claim to have been unaware of that discuussion.
2. The presentation of new information should be prefaced by Overturn. This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.
Commentary - I think I'm mostly saying the same thing you are, with the proviso that content be ignored removed. Here's where "that train never existed" comes in, and I felt that your version would disallow that argument. Your version also seems to allow an influx of "I would have opted for foo had I seen the first discussion" which should be avoided as DR is not to be XfD all over again.
The key phrase in my version was "rely primarily" on a content-based argument. It was not intended to cut off all references to content. It should probably be reworded, but I think soem form of it is very important. The "missed the debate" provision is because this is specifically given as a reason for undeeltion in the current undeletion policy, and i see the reasons for it. Note that any such claims could only result in a relisting in my draft. DES (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
4. It should also be noted that Deletion Review's mandate of "any deletion debate" extends recursively to Deletion Review itself.
Commentary - I just made this one up. I think it greatly strengthens the entire structure of the proposal.-
I think this is simply an invitation to endless debates, and I think it will do more harm than good. I think it weakens the proposal, rather than strengthening it. DCR debates should be more final than this implies. DES (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What do we actually "not" agree on?[edit]

After reading your comments on the talk page (no, not the "watered down" one, the others!) it seems the only part we actually disagree on is where to put the zone of discretion - your "50/75" method or my "rough" one. I'd made some further text-filler here on that, but I liked it so much I've moved it to the main discussion.

I always respect your input, and hope that I haven't stuck it up you with either my dilution of your input or my inundation of you talk page. ^_^
brenneman(t)(c) 00:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply, both on my talk page and above. I hadn't realized that our ideas for how it should work were so far apart! Your points on my page are crisp and clear, and might serve as useful sub-sub-headings on the main talk page to see what directions everyone agrees on. (I've already used them to provoke Tony into coming back to the discussion.) I'm assimilating and considering them now.
brenneman(t)(c) 04:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin?[edit]

I noticed you have been tagging articles for speedy deletion, this surprised me as I assumed you were already an admin, Would you like me to nominate you for adminship? Martin 08:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Part of the reason I thought of nomiating you was after our discussions on speedying blatant copyvio stuff, you were very calm/rational (like an admin should be), I dont think you are controversial, from what I have seen I feel sure you would pass with ease. However it is really up to you, I would feel terribly guilty if I nominated you then it failed due to some "heated" debate you may have had in the past. Martin 15:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DESiegel - good luck! Martin

Hey David. Sorry, but I've changed my mind and have written a suitably nasty exposé of your irredeemable evil on the RfA. I'm hoping it fails. Regards—encephalonεγκέφαλον 19:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I am sure you will be doomed for all eternity to fight alone against a WoW wave for such shameless inconstancy, and i love to see people doomed for all eternity. (P.S. Thanks for your very nice comments. ) DES (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I couldn't resist.;) Did I have you worried? Heheh. Saw your comments on Martin's. Don't worry dude, I'm sure you'll get through handily.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 20:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I had actually seen yuour commetns on the RfA page before i saw this, but I think I would have spotted the joke anyway. I do have a sense of humor, albiet a low one (A staight line is the shortest distance between two puns) (Incorrigable punster: Do not incorriage.) :) DES (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're obviously too controversial for adminship. --fvw* 07:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Boy Ryan[edit]

Why did you revert comments on this? They did express a positive opnion of the article. granted they were unsigned and by an anon, and so might well have been discounted, but why not let thm stay? am i missing soemthing here? DES (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering the IP's other edits, it seemed to me it was done purely to be disruptive and contrary to the opinion of the community and not to actually express an opinion. If you feel otherwise feel free to put it back though. --fvw* 22:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll check out the other edits before taking any other action. I just always wonder when i see a revert on an Afd page, and i'm trying to get extra pointers against the time i may be doing closes. Thanks for the prompt response DES (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya (and the likes)[edit]

Since you've made a lot of comments in support of Gadugi's view without actually discussing the merits of them, would you please help out by answering my comments? In the AfD you stated that you couldn't accept that the language info wasn't merged, yet I tried explaining that this info already exists in Cherokee language (where it belongs). Now the AfD is closed and your comment is just sitting there without me being able to respond to it. You also made a post at talk:Cherokee where you claim that the article "about the word" should be kept, despite that this would make the article a dicdef. I would appreciate if you didn't leave obviously non-sensical comments like these hanging. Especially not when Gadugi is acting as if the final word on any Cherokee-related article belongs to those of Cherokee heritage only (in this case Gadugi himself).

Please try to conclude the discussions you engage in before stating exactly what you support or object to.

Peter Isotalo 02:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

AOL IP block[edit]

I apologize if you've been having troubles due to that block. The user you are referring to is a vandal and needed to be contained, even if that will probably not hold him enough. Judging by the time I'm posting this message, the IP 152.163.100.70 would be unblocked in less than 3 hours, but I will unblock it now for you. I'll just hope we won't have vandalism from that address anymore. By the way, I remember having my email for contact on, but somehow, it's now off. I'll fix that. Thanks for the heads-up.

Needing help again, just ask.--Kaonashi 00:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


Re: Lyrics Links Deleted[edit]

Hi DES,

You responsed to my dilemna on the HelpDesk page. Extraordinary Machine has deleted many of my links. Is it possible to ask him to put them back? At a minimum, I'd like to get a list of pages that he has removed my link from.

He has also threatened to block my IP. Is there any way to avoid this and still post my links? Note that on the Avril Lavigne page, he deleted my lyrics link and left my Music Videos link.

Again, I am not selling anything and do not have a "commercial site". I would just be repeating me previous arguments if I were to continue.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jkjazz 16:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkjazz[edit]

Hi DES. I think he genuinely wants to contribute, he just fell into the linkspam trap at his first attempt. I added a rather long comment to his talk page detailing how I felt it was best for him to proceeded if he wants WP to link to his site. Feel free to check it out and make any corrections/additions you feel necessary. --GraemeL (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder Arbitration case[edit]

Hello,

The Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

nn-bios[edit]

Recently a user posted to the help desk inquirign about what happened to Svitlana Azarova. The logs revealed that you deelted it as an nn-bio (no doubt correctly). This note is to suggest that you consider notifing the creators of articles deleted under A7, as s number of them don't understand what has happened. I have created {{nn-warn}} for this purpose, and i am encouraging others to use it, hoping they will dind it worthwhile. This is, of course, merely a suggestion. DES (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind; I don't expect to use it on all speedied articles but it should come in very useful for good-faith efforts like Svitlana Azarova appeared to be. --fvw* 20:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You're promoted[edit]

Hi DESiegel, consensus being reached you will now be a sysop. However we seem to have a bug in the system that is preventing us from promoting you. You'd have to wait till the bug is sorted before we can technically promote you. I'll keep you informed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As of this moment the situation isn't resolved. The other b'crats know about this and the developers have been informed. Special:makesysop is used by bureaucrats to create sysops. You too can check if the function is back. If you click on that link now, you'll get an page missing error. If it is up, you'll get a message "don't have permission" or something like that. If you notice that it is up, you can contact any b'crat to upgrade your status.
Pointers... well adminship is no big deal; the first month might be exciting, but you'll grow out of it and you'll wonder how u managed without the deletes and rollbacks. I believe you've read the wikipedia:administrators' reading list so you'll know what I'm talking about. I'd suggest you'd start with something light, which can be rolled back by other admins. Page protections/unprotections, carrying out speedy deletions (ie mostly patent nonsense), tracking and hunting vandalism. Once you get the hang of things & gain confidence, move on to ipblocks and AFD article deletions. The final step is the graduation to the deletion of images & merging of page histories, and as these things cannot be undone, you'll have to be extra careful. I'd also suggest you'd go slow with the blocks, first blocking ips who indulge in petty vandalism before graduating to blocking registered users. I've also noticed that some long time users tend to snap at overenthusiatic newbie admins, so keep that in mind. I personally am not much on the administrative side, preferring to stick to the editing side. But I do carry out my admin tasks if I come across something that needs to be fixed/deleted/merged/protected/blocked. And alway be patient with newbie's queries, since you have the statis of an experienced user. (I'm currently helping out an 83yr old wikipedian to tag and categorise his images :) Doesn't get better than this!). Hope this was something useful to you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't you ask a steward to fix it? I'm sure they'd be happy to help considering the circumstances, and it seems kind of cruel to leave DESiegel waiting once he's finally been awarded his shiny rollback button. --fvw* 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the bug is in the system. In the WP hierachy, developers are placed higher than stewards. It goes roughly like this: Jimbo>Boardvote>Developer>Checkuser>Steward>Bureaucrat>Admin>Normal user>Anon user. See also Special:Listusers =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Yup, I'm aware of that, I just thought that perhaps Special:Userlevels was still around for the stewards to use. I didn't check or anything, so perhaps it's affected too. --fvw* 18:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Thanks Amigo[edit]

Thank you for showing me how to mark a stub, and for going right on ahead and doing it for me It's always great when nice and polite people take the time to help those of us that are clueless on certian things so again ty. KnowledgeOfSelf 00:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool[edit]

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:DESiegel/archive2/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

DR[edit]

I'm sorry about that, I hadn't seen your suggestion on VfU talk until it was too late and I went there to post a message of my own. I hope I didn't mess up. My main concern is taking the discussion to a page on no-ones watchlist. Hopefully the VP will help out there. -Splashtalk 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, more eyes are better. I'm thinking about spamming the talk pages of those involved in the original discussion if they haven't done their duty, one way or another, by the time I wake up. Or we can do it now. I add a note to TfD, CfD, AfD and the VfU main page. It's already at VP/P and RfC. I think that's fair community notice. (PS I made some changes to address your immediate concerns to the proposal; although I'm hopeful people may remember the similar statements previously.)-Splashtalk 01:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Homelander Generation[edit]

You tagged Homelander Generation for speedy deletion, but neither "Neologism" nor "Original research" is a reason for speedy deltion under the speedy deletion criteria. I have removed the speedy tag and placed this on WP:AFD. DES (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! You're absolutely right, time to re-review. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY () 15:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
You are welcome. Thanks for doing RC or new page patrol. By the way, when tagging a non-notable bio with {{nn-bio}} you can now notify the creator with {{nn-warn}}. I think it can be a good educational tool. Also, please take a look at the current proposal to add a CSD for blatent copyvios. It is linked to from WP:CSD. DES (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the tips! - CHAIRBOY () 16:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject_WheelOfTime[edit]

Would you be interested in joining in a WikiProject_WheelOfTime if such a beast were to arise? You can answer here or on my talk page... of course, if your new duties as an admin conflict/swamp you, I totally understand. nae'blis (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Reza Mashayekhi[edit]

Thanks for tagging this page, I only saw the nn-bio criteria after placing the AfD, by which point I wasn't sure what the correct action to take was. Again, thank you. Mallocks 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

About the nothanks-sd template[edit]

Given that there's a snowball's chance in hell of the CSD proposal failing (unless 20 oppose votes appear out of nowhere in a few hours), I'm going to move your subpage to the template namespace. Any objections? Titoxd 21:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I just moved it myself, you are right. DES (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Gaaah, I wanted to move it, it would have been my first page move! :P Titoxd 22:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the CSD needs closing now. It's after midnight UTC. Titoxd 00:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, it's closed now. I congratulate you for your work on that! Now, I've created {{db-copyvio}} to deal with the new CSD. Tell me what you think about it. Titoxd 02:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

getting commends on SD of NN companies[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your advice regarding speedy deletion of non-notable corporate articles. Rather than jump straight to a formal proposal, I've opted to ask for comments at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_new_speedy_delete_criterion_-_non-notable_companies. However, that page says the discussion should be referred somewhere else if it's a policy change, and I'm not sure where that place would be. Can you help? Thanks, SCZenz 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved my request for comments to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Possible_new_speedy_delete_criterion_-_non-notable_companies. I'm still not sure if it's in the right place, so I could still use some help. -- SCZenz 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


signing your comments[edit]

Actually, you had signed that comment, above the endorsements line. I'm not sure if it makes more sense to sign or endorse your comment, but you've done both now. --fvw* 16:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Titoxd(?!?) 02:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is the trouble with boilerplating people! But at least know you know we did it. Keep an eye on your watchlist! -Splashtalk 02:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

152.163.100.70[edit]

Hello.

Some time ago, you messaged me telling that the 152.163.100.70 IP address I had blocked also belongs to you (AOL range), and it was preventing you from editing parts of Wikipedia. The problem here is that the user I had blocked won't stop vandalizing. He was blocked countless times already, and he needs to be blocked again. I just posted another warning message at his talk page, when I realized that... well, I can't block him anymore.

I honestly don't know what to do now. Since you have become an admin yourself now, you could as well take a look at this issue. It's turning into a big problem now. He won't listen to anybody and keeps reverting a certain page to his favored version (containing unproved information), not to mention all the user page vandalism he's been pulling off lately.--Kaonashi 03:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com[edit]

Hi. Can I get your opinion of Tony's latest recreation and relisting of a valid VfD deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Thanks. - Tεxτurε 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


  • I am divided on this one. The rule is, and long has been, that a previous deeltion is no bar to the creation of a different article on the asme subject. In the curreht state of things, I don't seem able to see both the previously deleted version and the verion that Tony wrote. He said that this was a completely independant creation, and i have no reason to think he lied. Since other said that it closely echoed the previous version, i presme that he worked from the same online sources as diod those who created the previosu version. In any case, the main reasson for the inital deletion was non-notability, and there seems at best limited reason to belive that this has increased substantiually since the previous deletion debate -- but particuwlrly in the case of soemthing like a web forum, whose notability can increase significantly in a fairly short time, I suppose that an editor must be allowed to repropose an article for discussion in light of alleged increase in notability (or usage and other such factors which go to indicate notability for such a forum) or in the light of allgedly new information abouth the subject generally. I don't approve of thsi action, and it smells of WP:POINT to me, but if Tony honestly thought he had new info on the subject, I don't see that he did anything wrong. DES (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is WP:POINT and don't agree that Tony honestly thought he had new info. What Tony did wrong is once again try to circumvent a VfU in progress. He undeleted his own article (a conflict of interest that should be addressed) while it was being discussed on VfU with overwhelming support to keep deleted. This violates process and consensus. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I quite agree that a unilateral undeltion of a speedy-delted article while on VfU, particularly by the original author of the article is poor practice and a conflict of interest. If not strictly aganst policy, is is very poor form IMO. I was addressign mostly the issues of Tony's creation of a version of the articel, and the 2nd AfD debate. DES (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The second point may be more academic (and I believe not this case). Is a recreation speediable if it is innocently a recreation of deleted content? The answer according to policy is, yes, it is a recreation of content deleted under a valid vote and an innocent source does not change the fact. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree, a duplicte or effective duplicate of validly deleted content is speediable, no matter what the creator's intentions. But the creator cannot legitimately be criticised in such a case, merely adviased of the previous deletion, and invited to erite an article that will not have the same reasons for deletion, if this is possible. In the case where an article is deleted for non-notability and there is evidence of increased notability (or evidence of previous notability not considered in the original AfD) I think a new article that includes such evidence but is otherwise identical to the previous articel should not be considered as "substantially similar" and so subject to speedy deletion, becaue it is different on a key issue -- whether the subject is notable or not. Whither this article fit that case might be debated, but soem people so argued at the 2nd AfD, and the increased alexa score does indicate soem degree of increased notability, although whether it is enbough to cross the threshold is another matter DES (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok. I think we only differ on intent. I think in light of Tony's other actions (in this case and others) it is clearly WP:POINT but I respect to your view of WP:AGF. - Tεxτurε 15:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Sterling[edit]

not sure sure about "nothing" but I did indeed first have it has a merge but the reason went away from that is that what the writer did was extract original material away from the main subject (without discusssion) so it's really like a revert to me. But your point is well taken.

I see your point, but you could revert the main article and convert the seperate one to a redirect if you wish, or if the talk page consensus supports that. That is the more common way to revert splitting out an article, IMO. You could also put the split out page uup for deelteion on WP:AFD. The rules on the speedy delets are pretty specific, because speedys are done with no consensus, just one taggger and one admin. DES (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you have nomination for admin, thats terrific. I would recommend adopting a more gracious style in your delivery of what some people would find challenging their moves, altho, for myself I am not challenged by your move, but did find it lacking in some graciousness which avoids some folks then taking on a war footing. Your writing could be taken as an asssertion of power...Kyle Andrew Brown 01:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you founmd my comment less than gracious. I was trying to be simply factual ("Just the facts, Ma'am :)") in explaining what action i had taken and why. FYI I was very recently made an admin -- i still need to update my user page to show this. I do want to be gracious and not hostile to others here. My apoligies for a lack of this in my tone. DES (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Db-spam...[edit]

...was on TfD, but there was evidently a feeling it should be retained, especially after it was rewritten. You came up with the most substantive idea for what to do with it, since the present name is going to haemorrehage misuse. I'm also not quite sure of the construction of the other speedy templates so that they don't appear in CAT:CSD. I wonder if you could work out what to do? -Splashtalk 02:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, good question. I don't think the TfD log need mind, since a note can be added to it. But when an article is moved, we hang onto the redirect, so I guess we should here too. If we don't mention the template anywhere at all (per WP:BEANS), then it shouldn't find its way into usage. I don't think I noticed it get used yet. Did you? If you did, then it can probably be deleted as a safety measure. There's also {{spam}} (lowercase) which should probably just be nobbled per the tfd, now you've done the move thing. -Splashtalk 02:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok but If I see it used, i'll put it on WP:RFD. DES (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder[edit]

I was beyond offended by Tony Sidaway's comments there, and i'm glad that i'm not alone. Maoririder seems to be in good faith, but he needs to live up to community standards. Karmafist 14:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Alert!!![edit]

The thanks blurb that you're posting to people that voted on your RfA has a spelling mistake. "I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me." --GraemeL (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

ARRGH. That's what you get for trusting a spell-checker. Thanks. DES (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mass signing up of accounts from the same people[edit]

I removed it because I relised that the person and all there accounts had been removed a little later. --Adam1213 16:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Congrats on your adminship... even if it is only a mop! ;-) -- BD2412 talk 17:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

re: Thanks for your support[edit]

Congratulations! You're very welcome, I'm sure you'll do fine. Good luck, you deserve it. --Blackcap | talk 17:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Congrats from me, too. And no problem with the support - you'll be great. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sterling[edit]

actually I am softly encouraging him to do the deep research required of an article. The notice you and I gave is a heads up kinda thing. And also a little bit of disapproval that content that many worked on was just sliced out of a main article without going to discussion.

I told him today that there is more content now but it is anecdotal and pointed him in some research directions. And I think I have made my point not to touch the material that is on the main page.

I dont know if you have any awareness of the Sterling Bombing, but as you can tell I do and I am very protective of how it is presented. Regards,Kyle Andrew Brown 02:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandal[edit]

24.11.97.3 is vandalising http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.11.97.3 --Adam1213 00:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikify tag[edit]

Hello, DESiegel. I was wondering if you could modify your page, User:DESiegel/monobook.js/addons, so that it won't show up in the "articles that need to be wikified" category. Except for Raylu's page, all the user pages have been removed from the category. There's instructions at the bottom of User talk:Raylu. Thanks -- Kjkolb 05:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion[edit]

Hey D ->
I'm sure you're aware, so I won't give you the {{subst:subst}} lecture everyone else get. Keep on squashing 'em.
brenneman(t)(c) 12:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It was here, but this was more of a "form letter" than anything. Oh, and I hear you've been imbued with mighty powers, now. Does it really make you 10% taller and 5% sexier like they say, or is it no big deal?
brenneman(t)(c) 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I see both your points. I'm familiar enough with the templates to know what level they've gotten, but ok. Of course, by going in and changing it to {{subst:foo}} I'm taking up some extra disk space as well...
brenneman(t)(c) 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

AVICINE[edit]

Hi thanks for the heads up. Just wanted to let you know I'm the writer who wrote the description for AVI on AVICINE. Mary Hope --I think that makes a good deal of sense. I was being lazy, wasn't I? I'll keep more attention to those sorts of things in the future.Mary Hope

Adminship[edit]

Congratulations on your successful RfA. I want to let you know that my vote isn't anything personal against you. I hope that you feel proud that there is a wide range of support for you in the community. Regards, JYolkowski // talk 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Steezy[edit]

Excellent. Thanks for the clairification :) --Irixman 01:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mahmud of Ghazni[edit]

Thank you! But I am still of the opinion that the proper title is "Mahmud of Ghazna." (Ghazni is the modern name, in his time it was "Ghazna.") Haiduc 01:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Caschera[edit]

The article on the Caschera demonstrates one of the faults of Wikipedia - if things are sufficiently obscure they are kept even if they are not so. The disputed parts were written by the same anonymous person at Georgetown University that also brought us Nonnacris, Ancas Foreign Auto Parts, the Urbano crime family, and Pianopoli in its first incarnation.

AfD isn't really the way to deal with such material (it works well to decide what kind of material ought to be kept but is awful to deal with factual inaccuracy). Pilatus 02:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Now we have the same at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceraphite: Two "keep" votes saying "it's mentioned on the web", two "delete" votes saying "poorly attested", and a pointer to the review literature that calls the allotrope "the carbon analog of polywater". Pilatus 15:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

'Paul Patty' Entry Deletion[edit]

There has been some speculation that the identity of Paul Patty is false. As his son, I can assure you that this is incorrect. The United Immigrants is an active but somewhat cash poor small time political party in Australia. This is the reason for their 'freehosting' web page. It should also be noted that there are some discrepencies in parts of said website, this is due to the fact a party member constructed the website over a short period of time and included some of the policies as a private joke. I trust that with this new information, you will keep the 'Paul Patty' entry in your database.

regarding article for team liddell et al[edit]

please forgive my delay in responding to above comments by the various reviewers on the Team Liddell et al article.

I can add nothing to the statements I've made at your help desk which until now has been the only place that I could find to leave a message. As someone commented, I DO, indeed, have no idea at all of how to use your system with an assurance that a message is going to someone specifically.

I honestly don't know how to respond to your requirements for "news" coverage or any other items of this nature. The science of genealogy genetics (on which you have nothing of any nature whatsoever) was developed ONLY in 2000 at the Max Planck Institute in a landmark study and became a commerical activity that genealogy groups could use ONLY in 2002-03. The industry and the science are BOTH still in formulative stages. There has been only one news article of ANY type of which I am aware and that in a British newspaper about four to five months ago and shot through with misunderstandings by the reporter and editor as well as outright errors.

The Team was the author of an article in the Lanarkshire Family History Journal in December 2004 at the invitation of that society's president, which served to introduce genealogy genetics to his group's worldwide membership and to Scotland in particular. So, you see, this whole thing is so new that there are no standard references or news coverage for us to refer you to.

In very truth, we (the Team) are at the leading edge of this matter and what we are doing is defining this brand new field for others. By the nature of your challenges to what we are presenting as factual history, process reportage and model creation for others to copy and benefit therefrom, Albert Einstein would not stand any better change of getting an article on the Theory of General Relatiity as well. There is NEVER any framework of existing reference material of the nature you are seeking for things with these innovative natures.

As a retired newspaper editor with national awards (USA civilian and military, both), and one who had to test the news submissions of entire news rooms of reporters of every degree of development, I fully understand your concerns and issues about documentation and citations. As a man with two masters degrees in hand (Journalism MA and Demography MS) and most of a doctorate (Communication) completed, I probably better understand these things that you actually do. And if I could have provided these things you want, I would have done so at the beginning of this affair as a matter of professional courtesy.

But news stories and independent references pertaining to Team Liddell et al simply do not exist. In fact, any news story or magazine article would have to originate with us anyhow and if we can't write accurately about all this, it hardly stands that an outside reporter can do any better--and much more likely, far worse because of the evidence of that one news story I know of.

Frankly, I am bemused by all this flap. You accepted an article by a professional kick-boxer/wrestler--Chuck Liddell--and even run his wresting bout schedule and carry all the citations his handlers provided you to the other professional kick-boxer/wrestlers in his so-called "league" and all this amounts to is free advertising for him and them and all those citations are self-referencial because all of the articles refer to each other. I see no citations of news stories for any of them and I see no intellectual furtherment of the knowledge of humankind as a result. But you carry that!

And the article you have on the mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, is so shot-through with error as to be laughable. In fact, you even had a ending sentence for a brief while that he was election president of the United States in 2008. I have the documentation for that, please! And as far as his being an excutive in Cox Communication? That is a total falsehood. Where's the documentation, please? Nagin was a regional sales manager in Louisiana for CoxCableTV, a part of Cox Communication that is headquartered in Atlanta and has no field officials outside of Atlanta.

I grant that it is unfair of me to cast these things back at you--Chuck Liddell, the kick-boxer/wrestler whose article is purely self-promotional and with no intellectual content at all, and a nearly instaneous article on the embattled mayor of a ruined city who was being slaughtered in the national news media--but I cannot resist calling you attention to the inconsistencies at play here.

The only thing about the article I more properly should be discussing here is the length. That's only shortcoming I see, given the other items I have covered above. But we are having to cover so much closely-related and interdependent subjects that I professionally do not see any other way to do it.

As far as opening the door to other genealogy groups, I can only reply to that possibility by stating that no one else has done what we have done and is not likely to more rapidly without using us as a blueprint for action.

We reveal no genealogy material in and of itself unless it is germane to the development of the article and the history of our group. And I want to make this point very, very clear: We are dealing with a unique part of the Scotland border with England, one with military importance that actually predates the Romans on Hadrian's Wall, and with an economic importance to that area even today. And, we are dealing with not one but nearly 100 possibly related surnames, all of which are presently believed to be derived from the place-name for this region--Liddesdale.

In my postings at the Help Desk, I have discussed our academic relationships, which are all in a formulative stage but growing in importance as we progress. That's all the information I care to provide at this point because many of these things are still of a sensitive nature as well as a still-maturing one with unknown paths yet to be mapped out.

This is the best I can provide you. If it is insufficent, then kill the article. At this point, I am only repeating myself as I already have done to an uncomfortable degree in this message.

Thank you for your attention.

Again, I thank somebody who took the time to read our caption for that piece of self-generated and Team-owned artwork as I have checked off all the boxes that I could find and have no idea how to generate certificates for our own creation. Many thanks.

Jim Liddell Jim Liddell 21:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

One Last Thought Here At Nearly Midnight (My Time)[edit]

I can add one other bit of insight which I hope you will see and pass on as I really doubt that at this point in time I can again find where I posted a slightly expanded verison of what appears below.

There was one other "unnotable" comment that I can respond to meaningfully, and that is the size of our group.

Yes, Team Liddell et al is small and shall always be small. Liddell and any of the other nearly 100 variants we know of today are rare surnames. A telephone survey of Australia by one of our members there that was done within the past year shows a grand total of 800 Liddell phonelistings with an estimate that about 60 percent of them represent adult males. New Zealand apparently is even smaller, about 60 total--widows and adult males.

Here in the United States, there were 800 Liddell-surname families out of a 1920 population of about 120 million according to a recent survey of the U.S. Census records, which according to federal law are the most recent that can be released that show surnames.

Certainly, one can amass huge numbers of Smiths, Joneses, MacDonalds and Kennedys in all the possible variants, but the sorting mechanisms to make research sense of these vast numbers simply do not exist.

On the other hand, the rareness of our surnames, the far-ranging dispersion across the globe of our surname-bearers and the neatness with which the past and present members of the Liddell et al surname cluster are involved in signal epochs of history makes us an ideal population to use in: (1) deriving conclusions regarding demographic migration over time and space in a manner that encompasses the entire globe and the entirety of civilization and prehistoric societies, (2) measuring the nature of how a genetically related group(s) of people(s) turn out as members of society under vastly varying cultures and socio-politic-economic environments and climates of nature, and (3) establishing research models for far-larger groups to use in better understanding their own outcomes as distinct groups.

It is basic to all research that a small but successful experiment of any type then defines the rules to be followed in a larger one.

I have no doubt that our "experiment" will be successful. We already have a wealth of material and measureable results in hand even though we have been in existance for only two formal years and these results already are defining the greater application of what we've already been doing.

What we present in the article is already useful to others. The blueprint is there, now. But because of the variances of human nature, this model likely will undergo refinement and specificity by the key individuals in other surname groups. This is only human nature. Even though there is no fundatmental differences between the various brands of automobiles, there is a great deal of difference between a Rolls-Royce and a Honda. Yet both begin from the same set of basic engineering principles.

I am tired at this point and shall close simply by repeating myself in that a small group makes the study we are attempting feasible and useful. If your co-worker wants big numbers simply for the sake of having big numbers, then Team Liddell et al will not fit his purpose. But since those large groups cannot conduct the type of basic research we are doing, then there is no benefit from discussing them. They are commonplace as he points out and there is no advantage to singling any of them out.

I think I have responded to all the postings now. Goodnight.

Jim Liddell 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Help Desk[edit]

Thanks for answering my help desk inquiry. Appreciate it. Deadsalmon 04:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

many thanks[edit]

the reason I've been so slow in posting during the controversy is that the Team is building a do-all/be-all one-address website to bring all of our resources from our non-public sites into one public site. only the genealogy material will be held back from public exposure as befitting our obsession with honoring the members' identities and privacy.

the site will contain nearly 5,000 individual files containing about 18,000 pages of worthwhile data and include three public reference libraries: genetics, genealogy and digital gear. Much of our unique New Zealand collection will be publically available for the first time and we expect this to eventually become a major research center for historians, both professional and academic.

you can only guess at the incredible time this new site is consuming. the wikipedia article was just a mind-relaxer to work on while things were gelling here or there during the site work.

And all this in fewer than 24 formal months of existance.

now that this has been nailed down (and thank you for that) I'll begin submitting articles to answer all the red links in the article. you can expect about two dozen more articles including some I believe I can tease from FamilyTreeDNA, our testing service. They have a major reference library as well but since they accumulated it as a marketing tool to bring people to their site, I won't tap that but rather, some other things I know about.

Please understand that genealogy is the world's largest leisure time/hobby activity and that genealogy genetics will give it an authenticity it has never had before.

thanks. I'll go read those other messages now. someday i perhaps will understand all these links you folks have.

12.44.67.45 18:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Search Box does not reveal the article[edit]

that's the only question I have at this point. I entered Team Liddell and Team Liddell et al in the opening page (navigation?) search window and got a "does not exist" response. Based on your statement that the article now is the same as any other in Wikipedia, I have to ask why the function doesn't work for me.

Additional, I used the link to Team Liddell et al in your reply and obtained a copy with a negative stamp at the top. Should that not be removed? I certainly would not like for that to be pubically revealed if we have finished the mustering process and that is the image to be provider to users.

Any suggestions or comments?

Jim Liddell 12.44.67.45 19:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

hate to take up your time to any further degree as you have been very helpful in shepherding me through this maze. I read your description of the various ways of leaving msgs and my eyes blurred. sorry but I'll try to find my way through that, but not today. our "super site" is heating up again for several days as we are still hammering on the home page. I have a design that I created in a most excellent Brit program (WebPlus from Serif) but regretfully, its website products (in .ppg format) appear to be useable only in one and perhaps two Brit web hosting companies. I can't understand this but in any case, the design I created in WebPlus is now our model to try to force MS Frontpage (in .html or .htm format, I think) to produce and we are almost to the point of killing each other over the complex scripting and coding that will achieve this.

(The idea is that the home page will literally be the reception desk in a library complete with several means of searching the site by both treed-menus, by major topics and by keyword search. Nothing else like the systems we are attempting to create presently exists. Again, we are blazing a trail, but this type in website design.

the funny thing is that the rest of the project will fall almost automatically into place--even with 5,000 files--once the home page is completed, and that part probably take no more time to create and assemble than the home page by itself.

if anyone tells you that the web is now a standardized product, please tell on my behalf that I think them a fool.

Jim Liddell Jim Liddell 00:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Departments of Senegal[edit]

That article now has content. I understand why you voted delete (it was content-free), but maybe this is the time to, as you said, rethink your view? Here's a link to the vfd :) Punkmorten 21:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm, it appears you have done so already. Punkmorten 21:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed I did, evne as you were posting this (AfD pages i vote on stay in my watch list). I really think this table is worth-while content, but see no need for a separate article for it. Put it in the main Senegal article. DES (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: COPYVIO Tags- What's the procedure[edit]

Thanks DES, the user was claiming that the links go to copyvio sites. I actually reverted the changes before I realized what the page was and who was likely making the changes. I've read some of the history and don't particularly want to get drawn into it. ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


digital-Losers Deletion[edit]

Sorry about the article, I know there's probably better things to do than VFD a vanity page. For the record, it was created by a rogue member, without any consent from us. Probably goes against the ideals of Wikipedia; I've VFD'd it myself. Again, I apologize on behalf of the small crew (yes, we're very small).

-- zer0render Talk 00:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

How to describe the fringe[edit]

You wrote elsewhere:

You are correct that we should not dismiss someone simply because that person is not accepted by mainstream science. What we should do is report the views of those who support and those who oppose any such person, and attempt to indicate both the numbers and the credentials of those who support and oppose, as well as attrributing specific comments to specific individuals whenever possible, and not express as absolute truth any side of any such controversy

This is an excellent set of general rules. I agree wholeheartedly. You are to be commended for being able to express these principles, and to advocate our adherence to them considering how much trouble has, er, arisen in our dealings with user:JackSarfatti.

Rest assured, he will remain blocked unless and until he withdraws his legal threats and gives at least the glimmer of a hope that he'll stop being so abusive to Wikipedians. Note that I do not say "other Wikipedians", because if he can't abide by our civility rules, he cannot become a Wikipedian. Uncle Ed 20:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Vw* templates[edit]

On WP:TFD You meantioned that you liked the -n variants since they let you specify the vandalized article and that's why you voted KEEP. However there are standard templates for that (which these also duplicate) namely Template:Test-n and all the others. I just comment you in case you watn to review your vote. -- (drini's page|) 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

User still uploading images with no source[edit]

Hi! you left a note on User talk:Polon's page on the 7th, they continued to upload photos with no source and license Special:Contributions&target=Polon and readd photos to pages when I have labelled them copyvios could you give them a admin warning or something? Thanks Arniep 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, I note that the images you listed on their talkpage now qualify for speedy deletion (7 day rule) Arniep 22:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Correct. I'm now going though his contribs. DES (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing high-resolution images[edit]

Thank you for your kind attention. The problem is that when I click on the name of an older version of the image, only the image itself is shown--it is not part of a page which can be edited to include the deletion request. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Muriwai_Beach_02.jpg Clicking on any but the latest (reverted) version shows just the image. There is no way to attach a deletion request that I can find. All I want is to be able to click on the (del) next to the image name and have it be deleted.

In every case, all I want is for the newest (latest date) version of the 1504x1000 image to be used. I want all previous versions to be deleted.

(Some of the images have been uploaded several times. These are just minor tweaks to the image contrast, luminance etc.)

If someone has reverted the image to the high-resolution version of the image (2000 x 3008), I want it to be restored to the newest lower-resolution image, and all others deleted.

That's all I want. I am not trying to vandalise articles. I am NOT asking that images IN USE be deleted. Only older images that are NOT BEING USED BY ANY ARTICLE. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

The images would not have to be renamed since they all use the same file name. I just overwrote the high-res image with the newest low-res version, and they show up in the article fine. If I can get it so that there is only one image--the low res image--per file name there should be no need to rename any files. It's just a matter of deleting files that are either high-resolution or effectively redundant due to minor edits.

Since I cannot attach a deletion request to the older files, how can I mark them for deletion? If I follow your suggestion and replace the existing images with versions with different names, won't that just throw the exiting image's page into an unlinked-to limbo, but still with the problem that the older images won't have dedicated pages to mark for deletion?

It all seems so complicated when all I need is to be able to delete images directly using the (del) thing next to every image name. (I have already reverted the Muriwai Beach image to its lower-resoultion version using (rev)--but for how long?)

JShook 00:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


(Later...) OK, now I get it. Duh.

"Orphan" the existing image page by uploading a copy of the same image with a different name, and point the reference in the article to the image with the new name. Once that is done, the current image will be pointing to no pages. I can then mark the image for deletion as redundant, and--I'm making a big guess here--all of the previous versions of the image will be deleted at the same time. I.e., all images listed on a graphics page will be deleted when the page itself is deleted.

Yes?

How do I guarantee that The Powers That Be will consent to having the (now old) image deleted?

JShook 02:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Godfrey[edit]

Thank you for your help with this. -Walter Siegmund 06:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Henry T. Yang[edit]

Thanks for catching that. I'm glad that you know the rules around here better than I. I'm still a newbie...--Gaff talk 09:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

JShook--Image deletion trial balloon[edit]

I have renamed an image and changed the link to it in the article in which it is used. I then marked the page with the older images for deletion. (At least I think I did--Wikipedia's help pages need help pages.) Now I suppose it's just a matter of waiting to see if I can get enough votes to get those old versions deleted. If this works it's going to be a lot of work to get things right.

I have been using PCs for about 30 years. Whenever I save a file with a name which is the same as an existing file, all OSs with which I am familiar warn me that I will overwrite the file. When uploading a file with the same name as an already-uploaded file to Wikipedia, I get a page that asks if I really want to overwrite the existing file. I say yes, and conclude that the previous file is now gone and the new one has replaced it. Not true in Wikipedia. If W behaved like all other computer systems I have dealt with I wouldn't have this problem, which I may not be able to fix (a problem due in part due to some bad advice I got early on from some Wikipedians early re: licenses.)

Thank you for your understanding and patience in this matter. You present a refreshing counterpoint to the condescending sniftiness I have received over the past few months from other Wikipedians.

I'll see how this test deletion works. I have about 300 or so additional photographs that could possibly be used as illustrations for various articles. I am, however, reluctant to contribute any more until I see how the Wikipedia community responds to my requests for the deletions that I think represent a fair compromise between the educational goals of Wikipedia and my own interests as a content creator.

JShook 17:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. How long/how many votes does it take until there is a concensus that a concensus has been reached?

Help system issues[edit]

The problems I have with the help system is that information that is needed to learn how to perform a task seems to be distributed across more than one document, it is not clear from the document titles whether a particular piece of information may be in them, and information seems to be in more than one place.

For example, in order to learn how properly to list an image for deletion, I head to have three different documents open at the same time (thank god for tabbed browsing!) and even so I got part of it wrong (the format for the links to the two image pages, which I made simply by copying the format of an existing link and then plugging in my own info, since at that point I simply didn't have the heart to go haring off in search of yet another document that might explain this.)

Today I was looking for a document which referred to copyright (or other legal issues) with respect to showing recognisable individuals in photographs, and I found two PDFs quite quickly, but I have no confidence that this is all there is on this topic, since the two PDFs deal with the UK and US only, and this seems like a topic W would have created a policy statement about.

In addition, some of the documentation is unclear. A few days ago I tried to create the sig you see below with a "Talk" link. I read the help file on this and it assumes a knowledge of standard W mark-up which I do not possess. As a result I spent about 30 minutes trying to get both my name page and talk page as clickable links into my sig, and never succeeded. I tried again today with my fallback which is to find someone who's figured it out and just copy what they did. But it still took several tries.

I know that a lot of this becomes second nature to people who have used this system a lot (and presumably I won't have to figure out the sig format ever again), but to people new to the systrem--well, all right--to me, it seems cumbersome, cryptic and hostile. The answers to the simplest questions that a new user might have may take minutes on end to find, or not be found at all. And there might be questions that someone has that are not answered anywhere, but you can never reach a point where you can say "It's just not here. Stop looking." I am not a naive computer user--I have been working with PCs since the mid-1980s. I work with different OSs and can usually find my way about without too much trouble. But in W I feel like I am entering a long-standing community which has its own conventions and rules and regulations. I want to fit in by doing things correctly, but I find the help system is not as helpful as it could be in allowing me to appear in public without committing the sort of errors whose avoidance is second-nature to people who have been here for a while.

Has it ever been suggested that the help pages have their own "Search within Help" facility? If there was one and it was working, I could at least feeel that I had exhausted the documentation available and that I really am in untrodden territory. Not to mention find answers that do exist. Somewhere.

JShook | Talk 14:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Albert M. Wolters[edit]

I have removed the delete tag on this one. I am a bit torn here, on one hand the undeletion was out of process, it should definitely have waited until the VFU had run its course. On the other hand, a second AFD is under way and it has garnered several keep votes. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I am in all likelihood biased here. I voted "undelete" on the VFU and "keep" on the AFD. Nonetheless, my view is that closing that debate now as a speedy delete with a majority of keep votes will definitely not lessen tensions. Interest in avoiding these arguments is a good reason to follow process, interest in keeping what I conisider a good article on a good subject motivated my votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Help pages redux[edit]

Thank you for your comments.

If I search on, for example, "Copyrights" I do not see the "Advanced search" link to which you refer. A text search of that page does not find the phrase, so it's not a layout issue. Nor do I see one if I follow the link at the bottom in the "See Also" section to "Copyright_issues."

If I go explicitly to the "Help" section ("Help: Contents") at the bottom of this page, buried in a huge block of links is a "Search" link. If I click on it, I go to a page about how to search. Still no sign of a search facility within the Help section. Obviously I'm missing something.

By the way, W "name space" is an utterly foreign concept to me, and I suspect many new users. I think I have perhaps strayed from one name space to another in the journey I describe above. It is not helpful to make this a key concept that must be understood to use Help (or anything else.)

Yours sincerely in confusion, JShook | Talk 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio[edit]

Yeah, I know about the commercial content provider restriction. From what I've seen, very few people have been following the restriction and are deleting any recent copyvio. I raised on this on CSD and CP talk. Nobody responded on CP and the feeling on CSD, except for me and one other user, was that any blatant copyvio should be speedily deleted, regardless of whether it came from a commercial content provider or not. I still followed the rule for a while, I've probably sent hundreds of copyvios to CP, but I eventually began using the shortcut on copyvios that have been uploaded recently. Can this be raised somewhere else? I'd hate to be the only one taking the long way around again. -- Kjkolb 18:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Searching....[edit]

I enter "test" in the search box. I get this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test (sorry, I could not Wikify the link with any success.) I do not see the additional search box that you predict I will see. I suspect there is some fundamental misalignment between our spheres of assumptions here, since your experience of Wikipedia is so different from mine.

The reference I found about signatures is: Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature which you suggest.

Yes, I find it confusing. It is unclear whether the string fragment in the second paragraph should be placed in your name field as is, or in addition to something that is/may be already there as a result of "changing the field 'Nickname'" which is mentioned in the first paragraph.(I can't even remember what I did to "change" this field initially. The instructions are certainly no help in trying to remember. "Change" is not a very specific word to descibe an action that is surely more specific. Wish I could remember what it was....) This string is syntactically incomplete as is (or so I have inferrred from looking at Wikipedia-specific mark-up), so the promise that this will be wrapped automatically by characters so as to form a well-formed string makes sense. Except it didn't work that way. I tried every syntactical variation that seemed to me plausible and none worked. I decided 30 minutes was enough time to devote to this task. I tried again today by copying someone else's sig and editing it and now it seems to work.

The instructions might say something like:

"To have your name (which will also function as a link to your personal page) accompanied by a link to your talk page appear when you use four tildes to sign a message, open your Preferences page and enter this into your Nickname field, substituting your nickname for "YourNameHere" wherever it appears in the example: (here an example of a complete sig string, using "YourNameHere" as a stand-in for the user nickname.)"

Don't rely on there already being something in the field and don't rely on something automatically happening. If the syntax of what the user enters is not exactly correct it all blows up. And for whom is this natural mark-up? I suspect my problems were due to W trying to "wrap" something around my string that was already syntactically complete, since I got a lot of double nickname links, visible square brackets, and other detritus that suggested the result of my entered string and what W did automatically produced un-well-formed strings which W parsed some sections literally and others as links.

JShook | Talk 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Chessie[edit]

Hmmm, I thought there was one - didn't realize it had to be unused for 7 days. Well I definitely won't remember in 7 days; I guess whoever goes through the database for orphans next will find them. --SPUI (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Well I guess in that case it can be substed, as these are temporary anyway. --SPUI (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Harold Haley (judge)[edit]

Thanks. I am sorry if I was too quick to CSD it; I decide to try my hand at catching the really short articles with little context, the patent nonsense, and other stuff on the special new articles page. At least the CSD got it a little attention. --Mm35173 22:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible unblocking of User:JackSarfatti[edit]

Hi DES.

It looks like User:JackSarfatti has agreed to refrain from legal threats and personal attacks, and to strike through any personal attacks of his that he can find: [1]. As far as I know, you've been the recipient of the largest share of his vitriol, and you've taken it with remarkable poise and good humour.

I'll tell Ed he can lift the block on two conditions:

  1. Your approval and agreement, along with Jack's agreement to any reasonable constraints you might suggest, and
  2. User:JackSarfatti will be on a very short personal attack leash. If he writes anything like that vicious screed he came up with a couple of days ago, I'll block him into the stone age.

Your input at User talk:Ed Poor is appreciated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Woodroffe Avenue[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Woodroffe_Avenue. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

a heads-up on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees[edit]

Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Survey[edit]

I will let you on a secret: I agree with you that this is just a proposal and far from ready - but waiting for comments since June got me a bit irked, and I thought that a threat 'talk or I'll replace it' may finally stirr some comments. Apparently I was right :) You are right that perhaps a new, temporary version of the survey page would better for final decision, I'll make one after the current discussion runs out of creative ideas. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

IAR[edit]

I can see that we're on very opposite sides of the fence here, but I'm curious if you'd have any thoughts on what I've written at User:Friday/XW. Feel free to edit, or comment on it if you wish. It's my attempt to explain why exactly following a rigid process is not the best way to build a good encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png

For working extremely hard at the Help desk. Molotov (talk) California state flag.png
22:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Update to "Searching..."[edit]

I just found out why I was having so many problems creating a signature according to the instructions in the Help pages: I was testing the sig by writing test messages on my own talk page. D'oh! W "delinkifies" a link if the link is to the page itself, so my "Talk" link wasn't working since I was already on the Talk page.

This morning, I just looked at something on my talk page and thought my sig broke all by itself overnight, and spent another 30 minutes or so trying to fix it. Finally I compared what W put on the page when I typed four tildes on my Talk page to another page where my (functional) sig appeared. They were the same. Then I finally realised that the automatic delinkification of the "Talk" link on my Talk page wasn't a problem with the format of my sig, but something W was doing.

Moral? Use the Sandbox for testing your sig, not your own Talk page. JShook | Talk 14:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

APL - Yeah, baby![edit]

Mr. Siegel:

It is nice to know that there remains a professional APL programmer. When I was 12 years of age, I had the very fortunate experience of living near an IBM beta test site (the Coast Community College District) which had a policy of providing to interested parties (we were known as squirrels) with access to their computer system (in 1972, a 270/155 with 1MByte of semiconductor RAM). At the time, they supported 256 terminals, running STSC APL*PLUS. John Clark was one of my teachers.

William R. Buckley 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dirty tricks [edit]

"Vandalism" was not my intent. That article has stayed in a posture of one sided screed/POV stasis for more than 6 months. This was my 1st attempt to use the "nonsense" tag - but it's obviously the wrong tag. What would you recommend? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(Responding here, since you deleted the msg from your talk page) The article is already tagged with {{npov}}. I presume the matter has been discussed on Talk:Dirty tricks to no effect. (if not, try that.) You could use WP:RFC to call attention to the dispute, in hopes that fresh viewpoints will make a difference. You culd also ask individuals who might be interested to look at it and help improve the article. ypu could try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution including mediation. I hope this answer helps. DES (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I did delete, but I kpet the link to my reply. Still, thanks for you help. PS: No futher reply needed - I am trying to archive to a clean page. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 06:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

CSD[edit]

You're right; I was hasty with that tag. It just seemed unfitting for something that hasn't been published (released) yet to have an article / stub. Anyway, I put a merge tag on it. I think it would serve better within the singer's main article. Cheers. PJM 06:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your info, thanks. PJM 06:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Forest Clay[edit]

Thanks for the tips on speedies. Tintin 12:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Personality Dimensions[edit]

Sorry I added a "db|advertisement" template if it was the wrong one. But I searched high and low for an appropriate predefined template along the lines of "advertisement", and didn't see one. In the future, if I encounter an article that is merely a blatant commercial advertisement, what template should I apply? BeteNoir 17:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Db-repost}}[edit]

You made a change to Template:Db-repost (talk · links · edit), makign the parameter be provided with "1=". Thjis is not needed, and is at best confusing. As I understand it, when a tempalte boyd includes {{{1}}} it is specifiing the first positional parameter, and the parameter should not be named in the invocation. Am I incorrect in this understanding? DES (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The "1=" is only needed if the contents of the parameter themselves include an equals sign. In that case, if it's not included, then everything up to the equals sign is parsed as the parameter name, so everything tagged {{db-repost}} looked like it was just tagged {{db}} - i.e., they said "The given reason is: {{{1}}}" instead of "The given reason is: it is reposted content that...Cryptic (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Woodroffe Avenue on DRV[edit]

I was somewhat unsure because I decided to be very precise in my reading of what I knew would be close vote, and a controversial one if it yielded a kd. My unsureness stemmed largely from your opening sentence, which seemed to say you thought this shouldn't be on DRV at all and that the bulk of your comment dealt with whether or not there was a G4 case rather than whether to overturn the AfD or not. I'm splitting hairs, but was pretty sure that if I was conservative I would cause less bloodshed. Anyway, now that you've written a crystal clear statement, there'll be no possibility of me misunderstanding again. -Splashtalk 21:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

I've replied to you on my talk page. Feel free to remove this notice comment once you've seen it. --Gmaxwell 22:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Responded on User Talk:Gmaxwell DES (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Responded on User Talk:Gmaxwell--Gmaxwell 23:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Responded on User Talk:Gmaxwell. I think this closes this sequence. DES (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Again. :) --Gmaxwell 00:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikilinking years[edit]

Please see my comment on Talk:Fagin the Jew. MosheZadka 12:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The Adventures of Captain Underpants[edit]

You tagged The Adventures of Captain Underpants as {{nonsense}}. This is in fact the first of a real series of published children's books, as the links and discussion page made fairly clear i would have thought. I have clarifeids this in the lead, and removed the speedy tag. DES (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies; it wasn't identified as being an article or synopsis on something real so I mistook it for being some story that had been mistakenly published on Wikipedia. I'm glad to see that it is marked as such now. Kenguest 12:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My Signature[edit]

I am [User:Screwball23]. I thought adding new colors to my signature would be cool, but now I am unable to have a simple and easy click to talk link on my signature. Other Wikipedians aren't able to click on my signature for immediate discussion, causing a problem. I would like to keep my signature as is, but I don't know how to add the link property to the signature. I hope you can help.--Screwball23 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed it as you told me. Thanks for the help. You fixed the problem I was having very well. I am a little curious, however. Nowhere do I see directions on how to make an alternate signature or subscript in Wikipedia. Is the code for a signature in HTML or is it a code that is given on wikipedia? Or rather, where'd you learn it?--Screwball23 talk 03:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

User signatures[edit]

Thanks for the tip (alhough I can't get it to work)! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki-thanks.png Oh! I had accidentally capitalised the s in "subst". Thanks for clearing that up! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I still can't get it right because the template just shows up as a link, but I'll forget about it. It's really no big deal. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Daniel[edit]

I'm sorry for blanking the Dear Daniel page, it was due to my own ignorance and lack of effort to find out how Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community handles deletion of pages. I thought that the Dear Daniel page ought not to redirect to Hello Kitty, because there is virtually no information on Dear Daniel on the Hello Kitty page. A brief description of the character and a link to the Hello Kitty page would be better than just having the page as a redirect to the Hello Kitty page which has barely any information on the character. I was naïvely attempting to delete that page, forcing someone else to contribute some information about Dear Daniel instead of having the page lazily redirect to a related page with virtually no information about Dear Daniel on it at all. I blanked the page because I thought a redirect to Hello Kitty was not the content the page should have, but of course, a redirect to Hello Kitty is better than nothing. I should have contributed Dear Daniel information to the Dear Daniel myself instead of dumping the task on somebody else, and I will attempt a proper rewrite of the Dear Daniel page in the near future. Moskvax 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

AFD on Clarecraft[edit]

I noticed you voted Delete in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clarecraft for the very valid reason that it was simply a copy-paste from the company's website. I was not the original creator of the entry, but I've rewritten it, and I would appreciate if you'd take a look at the new article for Clarecraft and consider changing your vote. Thanks! Polotet 03:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the suggestion. I added a couple of lines to the article mentioning the last manufacturer in England thing. --Polotet 17:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Limited Use[edit]

I have nominated your Template:Limited Use for deletion on the grounds it goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia to provide free and unrestricted content. Please comment at the TFD. Dragons flight 17:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

New LIcenses[edit]

Thank you for alerting me to your proposed new licenses. I'll also have a look at the discussion and see if I can contribute anything useful.

JShook | Talk 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"fair comment" is in need of a person that is interested in legal topics[edit]

Following an interesting exchange on another totally unrelated wikipedia article I created this article months ago. I thought of it as an usefull byproduct of an attempt to circumvent some stonewalling editors.

Unfortunatedly that means that the definition of "fair comment" has become a political issue.

Therefore it is very difficult for me make bold edits into the article without beeing accused of intentionally mischaracterising the meaning of "fair comment" to advance an totally unrelated issue on another Wikipedia article.

That is the reason why i have not changed the Version of "fair comment" that is now on display.

Please take a look at this article. As it is right now it is a confusing resource to understanding the meaning of "fair comment".

As you can see I have posted my own views on this article onto its Talkpage. I hope those are helpfull. If you have any questions just ask away... --Zirkon 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Really annoying news[edit]

Remember that anon-contributed article on Brian Marren, the 9th Earl of Kensington that you helped wikify last month?

Turns out it's a hoax. Turns out almost everything that user contributed was a hoax. Over a period of several months. I've deleted most of the created articles and reverted most of the changes on general suspicion of untrustworthiness, and left a very annoyed message.

The House of Lords has an official web site with a very detailed directory, and not only is Brian Marren not the Ninth Earl of Kensington, neither is anyone else. DS 02:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Personal Info help re:[edit]

You're correct - it's the article on Judith Krug. The association between my user name, my real name and workplace was not known at all until he posted it in the edit summary. It is not published elsewhere, and I have taken pains to keep it that way. I originated and/or maintain two Wikipedia pages about a Star Trek actor and his character, and would like the association between my user name and my actual identity/workplace to remain private.

I'd be very grateful for any help in removing the personal info. Thanks so much!

Re: Personal Info/Editing Suggestions[edit]

Thanks again for your assistance with my difficulty, and your advice concerning the article's format, its content, and POV quotes, and the role of an editor. I've made changes in line with the advice offered on the discussion page for Judith Krug.

Compromise proposal on Template:Suicide[edit]

If you check Template talk:Suicide I proposed a compromise solution that satisfies most people's needs without providing an outright warning text. — Phil Welch 23:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Test templates[edit]

Some of your changes introducing comments to the source broke the templates when they were added to a page followed by a signature. See User talk:206.183.158.226 for an example. Some were fixed and others were rolloed back. You probably need to go through and check them all. :-/ --GraemeL (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eric Stern's page[edit]

Sorry... I thought by rewriting the page I could resolve the issue.

Re: Novus Consulting[edit]

Thanks for your imput. I made some quick changes, and would like to hear back from you on the issue. Pfizerman 23:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing the taglines is good, but adding info on why this buisness is notable or significant is vital. "Wherefore is this business more important than most other buisnesses" so to speak. I have made a pair of format edits, but they are minor. More news storeis, and/or more commetns on why they make this buisness important, will help a lot, IMO. Then when you have made some changs go to the AFD page and add a commetn sayign so, and ask people to look at the revised version. Don't expect them to check without being asked. Good luck DES (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

DESiegel, I saw your explanation of copyright, and I understand that court decisions are not covered by copyright. However, the website http://www.justia.us/ asserts a copyright, so I wonder if it would be proper to copy, say, large sections of the Roe v. Wade decision. Would that violate Justia's copyright? Or are they simply wrong to assert a copyright to this text?—GraemeMcRaetalk 20:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use images[edit]

Hello David, I notice you tagged Image:John Gotti Agnello.jpg, Image:John GottiAgnello.jpg,Image:Daniel Balavoine.jpg as fair use. I was under the impression that sources such as fan sites and celebrity sites are not acceptable in Wikipedia unless the creator and copyright holder are stated, also images taken by paparazzi, professional photographers or a photo agency are not fair use which these images may be. I would appreciate your comments on this as I see you are interested in legal topics. We are currently trying to refine fair use policy at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use. Thanks Arniep 15:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

re: your editing[edit]

Please stop removing my correct sourced material. If you have your own political views of mainstream, post them somewhere else. Until you have supportive evidence, as I have, you can not change the Income Tax article again.216.27.181.235 01:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)BB

The only texts I have removed are factually inaccurate conclusions which are eiterh compeltely unsourced, or for which you ahve cited sources that do not support the conclsions you assert. Andf I surely can continue to do so. If you think i am acting wrongly, try WP:RFC. DES (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Cite your "factually inaccurate conclusions which are not sourced".216.27.181.235 02:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)BB

Holden Gets A Pony[edit]

Yo, I'd like to have the Holden Gets A Pony article restored. Holden (of First Draft) put it up originally because so many newbies at Eschaton were asking about where the whole notion came from. Yeah, Athenae's comment was a bit off-the-wall, but that was just the start of something that was intended to track Bush's popularity AND Eschatonian slang.

If you really don't want to restore it, could I at least get a copy of the text so I can archive it and maybe add it to my own blog (or future wiki) later?

Thanks, ntodd (blog@pritsky.net)

Nash The Slash[edit]

I disagree with your comments. In the article's discussion page you say, quote, I note that if an editor was also the subject of an article, information about that editor which can be found in the public domain may be included if relevant and appropriate, and that my statemetn did not apply to editors who are the subjects of articels, within those articles - unquote. The info I included was both relevant and in the public domain, about the editor in question. This guy was a former friend who was launching a personal attack. User:Nashferatu

Fair use for coa[edit]

Thanks for your answer fair use for coa, but I am bringing this here. Hope you don't mind. I have uploaded all the coa's in List of cities in Lithuania and some more. But what I should do now? Redraw them? Most of them are from geraldika.ru, ngw.nl, litva.lt, or crwflags.com. Very few are from gov sites.

Note: I have no idea what is fair use (even though I have read the wiki article about it) and I hate law. So if you could just tell me what to do... :) Also my graphic abilities on scale from 0 to 10 are about 1. So redrawing them is not really an option for me. Renata3 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for such a long answer. But are coa's copyrighted? I mean, some family coa might be, but governmental? If I would redraw them, how somebody would say that I did not just copy paste it from somewhere, because they all are the same. There is one original, confirmed by a decrete by the president and then it is reproduced by others. How do I reproduce reproduction so it could be released to public domain?
I just read a copyright law by the Lithuanian government. Now it reads (official translation):
Article 5. Works not Attributed to the Subject Matter of Copyright
1. Copyright shall not apply to:
3) official state symbols and insignia (flags, coat-of-arms, anthems, banknote designs, and other state symbols and insignia);
Now the question is: are city, municipality and county coa's official state symbols?
Ah, I loved that template... Such a no-brainer... And I hate law. :) Renata3 03:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The current version of the law is here: [2]. Now it appears that I cited you the old version. The new version reads:
3) official State symbols and insignia (flags, coat-of-arms, anthems, banknote designs, and other State symbols and insignia) the protection of which is regulated by other legal acts;
But I guess by "protected" they mean that you cannot use them for say your own seal or money. Like for example [3] the law regarding municipality symbols just lists the ways those symbols can be used (sorry, no translation). So a company cannot decide to use municipality coa as their own.
Now this law says that:
Article 7. Use of an Image of the National Flag of Lithuania
2. An image of the national flag of Lithuania may be used for decorative purposes as an official symbol of the state in such a way that no disrespect would be shown to the national flag of Lithuania or the principles of the use of flags would not be otherwise violated.
So there must be a difference between using "an image of coa" and "coa."
And the last thing I found on coa is this law, article 42.
By the way, all these laws are from a law database. I am just afraid that it was not designed to be used by foreigners. I hope that's enough info :) Renata3 22:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
So what do ya think? Complicated, huh :) Renata3 03:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned2Tz[edit]

Hey, was Unsigned2Tz supposed to be a template? Why is this in the article namespace? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

oops. Thanks Yes I was starting a template. I will move it to the template namespace. DES (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote (on the template's talk page): This can be merged into {{Unsigned2}} without breaking its current functionality using the shiny new template default parameter feature - just replace the {{{3}}} with {{{3|}}}. —Cryptic (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware of this default feature, and do not knwo how it works -- where is it documented, plesae? I will merge the two if I can see how to do so. DES (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It was announced here, and is documented at m:Help:Template#Parameters. Short version: add a |defaultvalue inside the {{{parameter}}}, and if no parameter is supplied, it inserts the supplied default when the template is invoked. —Cryptic (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Font Problem[edit]

I think I actually beat you to the font problem. What the actual problem was was that there was no / on the close tag for the sup element (in three places). There was a notice that flashed up on the Help desk page about HTML tidy being disabled and likely to cause display problems, and I think that is why it wasn't obvious before; it was being automtically corrected.

--David Woolley 23:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Judith Krug[edit]

DES, I trust you based on your edits to the Judith Krug page being fair (as in reasoned and balanced) from a Wikipedia point of view. Then along comes another Wikipedian who, besides writing to the US Supreme Court on the side of the ALA and the ACLU, deletes certain information about the ALA that you yourself posted and changes other information, the totality of which makes it entirely inaccurate. I have been having a discussion with him on the Discussion page attempting to follow Wiki rules to discuss things before making changes, even though he did not seem to follow that ideal. I intend to revert his changes, leaving in only his cite to another Wiki page where, no coincidence, he is featured prominently. Would you please read the discussion then tell me, from your trusted point of view, what's what. Do you agree with me, him, why? Thank you very much. 24.149.135.182 04:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


OS2 World.Com[edit]

Re your comment about OS2 World.Com. I didn't leave a message on the creator's talk page since it was from an anon IP, and I usually only bother notifying registered users. I'll take your comments on board though, and I see you have subsequently left the message. As far as I understood the page did meet the speedy deletion criteria since it was just a blatant copyright from that URL, but feel free to correct me if my understanding is incorrect. Cheers UkPaolo 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

MMC[edit]

I tried to get the url into the tag, but for some reason it didn't show. So I put it below the tag, where at least it could be seen and clicked. But thanks for fixing it. --Janke | Talk 08:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to put in the url parameter, but it didn't show up in my preview. Thanks for the tip, though. I'll do a save next time, and see if it works then. --Janke | Talk 10:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish lists[edit]

Hi, Jewish people are a diaspora and ethnicity just like African Americans. If you do not think that African American lists should be deleted then please change your vote on these lists. Arniep 18:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - closing AFD discussion[edit]

When you speedy delete an articel that is listed at WP:AFD please close the AfD discussion also

Thanks for putting up with a newbie admin and setting me straight, will make sure to do in the future. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kiss-image.jpg[edit]

The permission notice that you quote is free text provided by the photographer, not the site owners, and, as I argue below it is actually a restriction notice that can only remove permissions. If you think about it, the business model for that site requires that everyone that uses the image on their web page get it from them. If you look at their terms and conditions, they say:

 By downloading material from this site you agree with the following:
 1.) You may use.....if you obey the specified restrictions.
 2.) Selling and redistribution of these photos...however you are not allowed to build 
     a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here. 
 4.) You are not allowed to use these images to promote adult .....

So:

  1. consideration of the likely business model would indicate that the images obtained via the site cannot be used in a way that would allow arbitrary re-use;
  2. they attempt to create a contract in a way that is fairly common on web sites, by making downloading constitute the acceptance element of a contract (that may not be valid, but an awful lot of web sites would have no viable business model otherwise);
  3. they don't grant any specific permisssions from the uploader, only allow the addition of additional restrictions;
  4. they impose restriction on uses in galleries, and I would argue that Image:* in Wikipedia constitutes a gallery for this purpose, if you take into account the obvious reasons for such a restriction;
  5. they impose restrictions on fields of endaavour which GFDL licensing would permit;
  6. they require a login for the full resolution image even though that would still be covered by the photographer's restrictions statement - I can think of two reasons for that:
    1. for advert serving and other marketing purpose - which would indicate they wouldn't want potential users to be able to bypass that;
    2. to prevent people serving the images from their site.

All in all, I would say that the site is sub-licensing the images and that sub-licence is GFDL incompatible even though a copy obtained from the photographer directly might well be usable. The site is a site whose business is providing iaages, even though the revenue must come from advertising. Even if a transitive licence exists, the site would probably argue a breach of contract, and whilst I supect there may be some doubt about the "consideration" element of the contract, the process is so well accepted that the Wiki Foundation would probably end up with a test case on its hands.

I'd therefore strongly suggest that you re-instate the deletion process on this image.

I've trimmed the T&Cs to try to keep within fair use. I've also skipped some restrictions on uses that would be allowed by the GFDL but might be discouraged by Wikipedia.

IANAL

--David Woolley 20:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed, I've made it PUIdisputed, but one other point occurred to me in that Wikipedia actually relies on this sort of contract formation process to obtain the GFDL licence grant on text contributions!
I've no personal interest in the particular image and the only objection I would have to its use when obtained through a properly licensed route is that it appears to be a picture of a closed mouth kiss in an article that is specifically about open mouthed ones. My interest is in seeing that the integrity of open licenses is maintained in a world in which most people don't understand how pervasive intellectual property rights are. The fact that people take the lazy way out with iaages is why you have to login to upload them, surely. --David Woolley 22:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

lithuania symbols[edit]

So here is the template. Any comments? Renata3 13:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Lithuania
According to the Republic of Lithuania Law on Copyright and Related Rights (passed on May 18, 1999 and ammended on March 5, 2003) Chapter II, Section 1, Article 5, case 3: "Copyright shall not apply to official State symbols and insignia (flags, coat-of-arms, anthems, banknote designs, and other State symbols and insignia) the protection of which is regulated by other legal acts."

Hence it is assumed that this image has been released into the public domain. However, in some instances the use of this image might be regulated by other laws.

Since I have received no comments, I have created {{PD-LithuaniaGov}}, put it on the image tags page and tagged 101 image files all neatly tucked into Category:State symbols of Lithuania. Renata3 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder case. Raul654 19:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Categorisation of protected template[edit]

As part of the Wikiproject on User Warnings, I'm categorising the current set of user warning templates to Category:User warning templates. However, you've apparently protected the template test-n. Would you mind either unprotecting it or replacing it with the following? Thanks.

This message is regarding the page [[:{{{1}}}]]. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia.  Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks.<!-- Test-n (first level warning) --><noinclude>[[Category:User warning templates]]</noinclude>

// Pathoschild 16:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Query on edit deletions[edit]

Much thanks for your earlier help with the J. Krug page and having edits that revealed my personal info removed... but when I visit the history page, there's a link asking "do you want to see 2 deleted pages?" which, if followed, still show that info. Is there any way to make that go away, period?

thanks, DCS47

There is no easy way to remove the edit summeries from view that I know of -- i have asked on WP:ANI if this can be done. Fortunately, this special page should not be indexed by google or other search engines, at least. I'm sorry not to be able to offer a better response. DES (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Teratophilia[edit]

Hi, I think that your article Teratophilia should be merged into Paraphilia, my reasons outlined on this page's talk page. If you have no objection, I will conduct the move as quickly as possible, as consensus seems to favour the move. If you have a valid reason to keep the abovementioned article, please voice it on the talk page. Thanks, Werdna648T/C\@ 11:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Status of Redcly???.jpg images[edit]

Thanks for your post. I have been informed that, although I sought and obtained permission (from Glasgow Digital Library) to use images from their web site on Wikipedia, they specified "non-commercial" use. I was under the impression that this would be OK, but have been informed that to meet GNFL, commercial rights must be awarded too. I will write again to the owners to see if they are willing to grant said rights, in the meantime, I leave it to the administrators to deal with these images as per Wikipedia policy.

Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svgtalk|contribs 22:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is true that we generaly require images to have a free license -- i have also emailed the addressed listed on the emails you quoted on the relevant talk pages. However, lack of a "free" license is not a reason for speedy deletion. i have listed these images at WP:PUI which is the proper venue for images with disputed or inadaquete license info. They generally aloow a 14-day window before images are deleted. Thank you for contributing. And by the way, that is the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License). DES (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, lack of a free license, and in particular the restriction to non-commercial use, is specifically listed as speedy deletion criteria I3 on WP:CSD. Furthermore, I was specifically instructed by an admin that "db|non-commercial image" was the appropriate response. -- Josh Triplett 08:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Further: I also would like to use images from the Bissett Collection and McFarlane Papers collection at Glasgow University (available from Glasgow Digital Library). I obtained permission for this use from GU, but may have to mail back to clarify if they will agree to the GFDL. Could you forward to me a copy of the emails you sent to GDL and the Gallagher Memorial Library so I get the wording just right? If you prefer, you can use the Wikipedia form to send a copy to my email address. Hope this is OK... Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svgtalk|contribs 23:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Responded by email as requested. DES (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again, Des - you're very helpful - I may have to send you a barnstar ;) Actually, I prefer the text of your email as it seems to be more clear about the GFDL policy than the suggested letter at WP:Confirmation of permission.
BTW, I was pretty impressed by the speed with which the images were flagged up - do administrators keep a constant watch on these things? Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svgtalk|contribs 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You are quite welcome. Many people use Special:Newpages and Special:Recentchanges to watch for additions to wikipedia and vet them. I don't know who these images were spotted, but that is a way. other peole lok at the image uplaod log (via Special:logs) and watch for new images. Far from all people doiong such things are admins -- i did new page patrol long before I was an admin. DES (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I did indeed happen to look at Special:Recentchanges, and I saw an image upload with the phrase "non-commercial use" in the summary, so I investigated further. -- Josh Triplett 08:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, please see [[4]]; there are two more images from this collection with this same permission statement. -- Josh Triplett 08:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Siegel,

Thank you for your assistance. Your comments are good ones, and I will try to be more careful when adding content in the future.

I am a neophyte and casual contributor to the Wikipedia-- and have much to learn yet.

I am grateful that you have taken an interest in the Fred Friendly article. Please feel free to correct any mistakes that you notice.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Livingston San Francisco

did I do this wrong too?[edit]

David,

When I first read the Blended Learning entry, here is what was provided in one of the sections about samples:

"The Macmillan English Campus was released in 2001. Its not an effective learning method and should never be used."

I thought the last sentence (even IF is was grammatically correct) was not appropriate, so I deleted it. BUT I did NOT go to the discussion page preclude that action. Is that accepted procedure? -- Millie (Msass) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msass (talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC-5)

ok (~ ~ ~ ~)[edit]

Silly me, I got this confused with an email message. You know, it IS very easy to inadvertantly click Save without getting a ~ (or two or three or four) in there. I guess there are some Best Practices posted somewhere that includes items like, always Show PREVIEW before Saving the page.

For the first entry that I made, I wondered about the name and date stamp. I jumped to the conclusion that wikis must KNOW who I am, so could automatically supply that information (like email). When I saw that the name and date stamp were not there, I was successful in locating the information about ~. Msass 17:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wang Sichao[edit]

I think in the interests of keeping the peace, why dont't we just let it sit on AFD and get it deleted that way. It looks like it's going to get deleted anyway. It's not a defamatory article or anything problematic, so there's not much harm in letting the author having a few more days to see if he can dredge something up. Enochlau 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have re-tagged and revertd to replace the tag onece. I hope another admin clsoes this as speedy-delte, which is what I would do if I came along and saw the cuirrent sazte of the amtter. But that is all that I am going to do. I do make a point of reacting to those who assume that any "objection" makes an A7 "disputed" and thus requires an AFD -- I think you should have stood your ground and not undeleted. Such a policy would make A7 useless, for the creator would almost always object. DES (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, sure, I'll keep that in mind for the future. I'll leave the matter as is, and let another admin sweep this up. Enochlau 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:XD issues[edit]

from Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion

comment If the XD project made it a project policy not to use this template on actual articles until and unless XD recieves community consensus support, I would not object to the existance of this template and similar oence for discussion and testing (although they might better live in project space). But it is being used on actual articels at the moment, and that amounts to blanking vandalism in effect if not in intent. See the histroy of Kathal, Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, Quelt, Selita Ebanks, Astonish, and Wind Blossom for recent exampels of use. DES (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the fact that the use of {{XD6}} in each of these cases saved significant work for wikipedians mean anything to you? What about the fact that absolutely no information was lost, but rather was easily kept and expanded? Furthermore, no admin interaction was at all necessary. Again, how is using xd6 different from removing a potentially disputed paragraph from an existing article? here 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Blanking an entire article is generally considerd an unacceptable form of edit, and this is what the use of {{XD6}} involved at least in all cases I saw. And it didn't save work, all it did was delay that work and push it off on others -- in this case on me, when i took the proper actions on 6 articles, listing a couple on AfD, expanding and fixing a couple, etc. Still looks like blanking vandalism to me, albiet propably well intentioned balnking. DES (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well intentioned indeed ;). I stand by application of {{XD6}} being as far from sin as well intentioned paragraph blanking. If warrented, further discussion moves to the talk page following revert. In my opinion, AfD is only necessary for highly contested cases (i.e. already XD'd and reverted). Articles found worthy of expansion are reverted (from {{XD6}}) and expanded. Articles unworthy are left correctly deleted with transparent histories for all to see, and possibly use far into the future.
  • Also, {{XD6}} provides plenty of information about what has happened to an article. Intentionally and quite different from plain old blanking, leaving nothing behind.
  • I would welcome graciously any comments on my collected thoughts regarding these matters at user:here/delete, focusing primarily on transparent histories, even following process-accepted deletion. here 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I disageee. I will continue to revert any use of {{XD6}} on sight, and to press for its deletion, and to reprort repeated use as blanking vandalism on WP:VIP. I am not convinced by the arguments that XD is a desireable system, but even if I were I do not belive that any such change in proceduee is reasoanble without previously gaining of consensus. I see nothing to discuss furhter on that point. DES (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • fair enough. thanks for your time ;) here 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    (multiple ec) I was going to create a new section, but I see there's already one. I came to ask if you think there's any chance of achieving some sort of compromise. Surely reverting an XD6 without considering the merits of the case is not helpful? Is there a way for our edits to complement, rather than cancel, each other? Friday (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It is my view that using XD on real articles before it gaisn approval as a method of deltion from the community at large is not helpful, and I see no indications that it has gained, or even seriously sought, such approval to date. As long as it stays an experiment, limited to its own project space, i ahve no objectionds to it -- for it to move out into the main article space without such community approval is IMO pure vandalism, and should be reverted on sight. I will continue to do so. DES (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • All of wikipedia, including the policies and guidelines, are works in progress. XD is labelled "experimental", this is true. But the only meaningful way to experiment with it that I can think of is to use it on articles. I still hope we can find some compromise, otherwise it seems like you're telling us we can't do the experiments. Surely instead of disrupting each other's work, we can find a way to co-exist? Friday (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see no reason why you can't create copies of articles in project space to experimant on. If that is not sufficent than i see no reason why you should not make a formal, widely publicised proposal to permit the experimental use of XD6 or a similar procedure. if that gains support, I will have no reason to get involved. I am sayign that this kind of experiment, in the main article space, can't go forward without community approval. Suppose I wanted to experiment with changing article titles to title case (all significant words capitolized). I would be promptly reverted, and proeprly so (although i think tha such a change would be an improvement, and although the changes would be easialy reversable and transparent). What the use of XD is doing is IMO at least as disruptive as that would be. DES (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Spoiler-about[edit]

Hi, David! Please see my reply to your revert on the talk page. —Lifeisunfair 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Tournamentbracket.png[edit]

While I do appreciate the reminder, and the help in cleaning up the errors that will unavoidably come up when doing as large a job as clearing out the backlog at {{no source}}, it seems you read the log wrong in this case. According to the history of Image:Tournamentbracket.png the no source tag was added 08:13, 10 January 2005; according to the deletion log, I deleted it on 16:36, 10 December 2005, 12 months later. While it is a shame that the uploader was not notified, I did follow the procedure in the CSDs. I'm delighted that the uploader still had a copy and was able to reupload it, with proper source and license info. The process is working; thanks for your help. (Copied to my talk page, and the help desk) JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal advice on defamation on User pages[edit]

Hi DES, me again. This time I want to ask your advice about an RfC I've been involved in. It concerns a user who has been inserting highly POV material into various articles, as well as some rather wild comments on Talk pages. He has also made complaints against a number of users (including me), which he has not been able to back up with evidence. However, the main point of the RfC is the hateful remarks on his user page, where he lists under "People I Hate" - "The Nazi Pope of Rome,Pope Benedict XVI, who is the pointed-hatted Nazi gorilla in Rome & the current Antichrist", "Homosexuals and Transexuals", and "Jim Bolger, the low-life scumbag" (Bolger was New Zealand's PM), among others. The question is: what is Wikipedia's policy regarding personal attacks on User pages? The user in question cites "freedom of speech". Is this acceptable? If you can find time, your comments would be much appreciated.

(BTW, the Redcly???.jpg images have been removed from the relevant articles, and can be deleted).

(BTW2, your talk page is becoming rather HUGE. Maybe time to archive?)

Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svgtalk|contribs 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply DES. I see you have added a comment to the user's RfC. Er - how did you know who it was? Or what that be letting out a secret about the mystical powers of admins? ;) I guess you noticed from the RfC that the "People I Hate" section had been removed pending the RfC from the user's page by another admin. Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svgtalk|contribs 21:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It was easy, and required no admin power. After I posted my response on your user talk page, i clicked on "User contributions" and filtered for the wikipedia namespace. This would have shown me any RFC comments you posted, but before that I cane to an edit of yours on WP:AN and reading that made the user involved clear enough. You can alwasy see what any user has been doing on wikipedia this way, unless the user uses alternate IDs or edits not-logged-in. DES (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page?[edit]

I created a new page for Bill Shillito, but it was put up for deletion for a reason that I don't really understand. Can you tell me what I need to do in order for the page to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards?

By the way, I'm sorry about removing the notice so many times, I guess I panicked.

--Shaunofshadou 03:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you weigh in?[edit]

You might be interested in this RFC, but in any case can you weigh in there? Thanks - Taxman Talk 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Southern Ivies[edit]

Hello. An article that was agreed upon as not meriting deletion was recklessly deleted by another member. Could you check on "Southern Ivies" and see about restoring it? Thank you. preceding unsigned comment by Vandy (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC-5)

The article was not deelted, it was redirected. (the redirect has since been reverted.) A redirect is an ordinary edit which anyone can make, and which anyone can revert. It would, of course, be better to come to a consensus than to edit-war over a redirect, just as with any other edit. Talk:Southern Ivies is the page where this would best be discussed.
When starting a new topic on my edit page, please create a new section so seperate threads can be distinguised.
When making comments on talk pages, please sign your name with four tildas (like this ~~~~). Thank you. DES (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)