User talk:Mr.Z-man/Archive 5

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian ancestry of royals of Bulgaria

You recently closed this AfD as Delete. However, I have found two other articles of the exact same type and just realized that they were made by the same user and are completely original research (!!). Can they be deleted as well? They are: Russian roots of Catherine the Great and Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka Zogu. Charles 07:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw this post, and just nominated those two articles for deletion myself. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka Zogu (2nd nomination). Terraxos (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just let the AFD run, things can't be speedy deleted on precedent. Mr.Z-man 17:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I will learn how to use the tools and then see what I can do to help with PUI. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your exceptional attention to the AfD backlog on December 14th. Well done. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

I just noticed some offensive vandalism by User:Dickboobface and then found that you'd indef blocked the account. Just a friendly reminder to check through edit history when indef blocking a vandal to ensure all the edits have been removed (I'm sure you usually do this). Regards, violet/riga (t) 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was actively vandalizing when I blocked, so I was in more of a hurry than usual. Mr.Z-man 18:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing question

I see your active on AfDs, and I'm wondering if there is a template or notice that could be placed on this page's PROD Stephania Bell in response to this diff [1]. I looked at wiki canvassing and didn't see any templates, and I've seen templates in AfDs, but not PRODs before. Watching here. Thanks Mbisanz (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since a PROD can be removed by anyone for any reason, there isn't really anything you can do if someone removes it except to then nominate it for AFD. Mr.Z-man 02:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, works for me Mbisanz (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My steward election

Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%.--Jusjih (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More blocking

Z, perhaps you should think about blocking user:69.47.110.119 again; he/she is back to his/her old behavior, this time to Blue's Clues, a recent project of mine. This person seems to target Nickelodeon-based articles. I suspect, then, that this editor is a kid who doesn't get it. Anyway, thought I'd bring it to your attention. Perhaps the editors needs a permanent block, eh? Thanks. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (media)

Final discussions, you may want to chine in. Secret ^account 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Weeaboo

You have set up a protected redirect of Weeaboo to The Perry Bible Fellowship. However, the target page makes no reference to the term Weeaboo, nor can it, as no reliable secondary sources can be found that make mention of it. This issue has been brought up in two sections of Talk:The Perry Bible Fellowship. Perhaps this should be a candidate for deletion? Thanks -Verdatum (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Its up to you, that was so long ago I don't remember why that was done. It was probably a request on WP:RFPP. Mr.Z-man 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

COIN Rollback

I've got a user whose been changing facts in Neopup PAW-20 because he claims the real designer of the weapon told him to. But the things he's changed have been from sourced facts to unsourced facts. I'm wondering if an Admin can roll back his 5 edits or if I should just pull up the last clean version and re-save? I'll watch here Mbisanz (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rollback shouldn't be used for content dispute matters, even in cases like that (you can't change the edit summary). You should do it manually. Mr.Z-man 23:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know what the preferred method was. I've filed a report over at COIN, but I know how much traffic that board gets and I've reverted to the last sourced page version for the time being. Mbisanz (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Energy Literacy Advocates

Mr. Z-man, can you please help me understand why the Energy Literacy Advocates page was deleted for "Non-notable organization". This organization, while new, has an ex-Governor, an ex-Congressman, and two ex-Senators on their staff. It has been written about in major printed publications, including Forbes, Market Watch, Northern Colorado Business Report, and several others. It is listed with the Colorado Secretary of State here and their entry was a non-biased, Wikipedia friendly article. I'll look for your response here. Thank you 67.176.123.145 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Troy.

It needs to establish notability with significant references in reliable sources in the article. The only (possibly) significant mention in a reliable source the article had was a dead link to the Ft. Collins Coloradoan. I'm going offline for the night after this, so I will undelete the article now (proposed deletion candidates can be undeleted after any objection). You need to add the sources like Forbes or it may be deleted again. Notability is not inherited, so having notable people on the staff does not automatically confer notability on the organization. Mr.Z-man 05:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cuban contemporary artists

I noticed a thread on this over at COIN, and in my AWB work, I've run across at least a dozen of these articles with questionable notability. Where is the right place to discuss a mass-add of 146 pages from a single EL site that can't be verified for CopyVio or Reliability? I know there is no such thing as a 146 part AfD, but where could a retention debate on this mass add be held? Mbisanz (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, mass AFDs, unless all the articles are nearly identical and absolute crap, almost always fail. There is a reliable sources noticeboard, you may want to ask there if the articles are redeemable. Looking at the creator'stalk page, there have been complaints raised before, some speedy deletions, and likely COI. The reason a mass AFD would probably fail is that some of the people probably are notable (if they won awards or something) and instead of saying "Keep articles 5, 26, 29, 45, and 122, delete the rest" people will just say to keep them all since they would all need individual appraisal. Mr.Z-man 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I tried the RS noticeboard, and about an hour after I posted, the whole "Citing Wikinews" thing happened, and no one noticed the Cuban Artists thing. Since this has been to COIN and RSN and no one's commented, other than me and I think an IP, does this mean its ok? or is there somewhere else to try? Mbisanz (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, unless you want to go through all of them and pick out the notable ones (those who won awards or did something notable), you might want to try WP:AN. I notice Betacommand already removed the link to the website that was added to every article. Mr.Z-man 07:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the user has stopped uploading them for now (maybe they ranout), I'll add this to my list of things to do. Mbisanz (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a template

Z-man, is there a template for activities like this [2] [3]? or it this more of a discussion/consensus/WP:OWN thing. I'll discuss my COI issues if need be, but I do have reasons for declaring the things I did. Mbisanz (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a typo in a discussion is a bit odd, I don't know if it could be considered wrong though. But he should not have removed something from the list with just assumptions without asking you first. I don't think there's a template for it, that would just be something to discuss. Mr.Z-man 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

STBotI

Greetings, Mr.Z-man. It appears that STBotI‎ is still tagging images that have FURs, even after it was reported as fixed on AN:I. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] From what I've seen, the bot has a very low error rate. And there's always the possibility that I'm missing something. Still, it seems problematic to have a bot tagging images incorrectly, even some of the time. However, I didn't report this to AN:I as I'm not sure if the low rate of error would merit their attention. Instead, I thought I'd check with you. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Heuschrecke 10 rear view.jpg

I have the permission from the original copyright holder and I will be e-mailing it to the permissions at the "en." Dreamafter ^⇔ 14:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing another's comments

Where would I go to suggest a user warning template about not editing other user's comments. In my case, it was just a user being overly helpful, but things like this [11] seem to cross the line of user conduct. MBisanz ^talk 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest hand writing a message. Giving template warnings to non-newbies is often seen as disrespectful - WP:DTTR. Mr.Z-man 07:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I've read that essay, personally, I prefer getting templates over handwritten messages, since templates tend to be more well-thoughtout and neutraly worded. But I guess for sensitive issues, handwritten is better. Seeing the debate that's engulfed the English monarchy on this topic, I'm thinking I'd do better to steer clear of a hit-and-run message and let the edited user do something if he cares. MBisanz ^talk 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right

I've seen that same sort of pattern for years on this site. Plausible title with that of a Baptist church with ridiculous content, in this case, simply "rat." The same sorts of things used to come in by the truckload on anonymous IPs back before the site required establishing a username. Also, the username was similar to spambots I've dealt with on other sites; most end in a seemingly random number. That's why I bit hard and that's why I've stayed away for so long. That kind of abuse of the site just chaps my hide, but you're right; I shouldn't have bitten so hard. Won't happen again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if there were similar edits I would probably have done about the same, but for only one instance I tend to assume just testing. Mr.Z-man 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think most of these accounts really are just testing since they do their thing probably assuming all the while that nothing will happen. When they get called for playing in the article space, they disappear. What I always thought was strange were the sheer number of entries which used to come in such as the one this guy made, as I pointed out. Most turned out to be open proxies and it was generally assumed that they were generated by spambots. You might have had a plausible title like "List of Shakespearian quotes" with a total article content along the lines of "hoo haa." Some folks have nothing better to do, it would seem. Thanks again for setting me straight. PMDrive1061 via --71.102.80.39 (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I've been a a coachee of User:Academic Challenger for some months now. But it seems that he is going on a long wiki-break and I'd like to continue on the coaching track. Would you be willing to take me on as a student? Mbisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not right now, I'm somewhat busy with another coachee and quite a few things both on and off wiki. IF you don't mind waiting a few more months I could, but otherwise you'll have to ask elsewhere. I know Wizardman does a lot of RFA noms, not sure if he does coaching though. Mr.Z-man 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't, but I see some other familiar names on the list, so I'll try them, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

7-Eleven

I beg to differ, why did he leave the other unsourced and useless content in the Pop-Culture references after criticizing my content? Also, why did everyone choose to ignore this fact after I mentioned it so many times? Edit wars are one thing, but he's an admin, his job should have been to removed the entire section itself after seeing my post, not removing my post alone and leaving the rest since it was all useless and unsourced. No, this was no Edit War, this was simply tyranny, I challenged his authority and he got pissed.

Duhman0009 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, how can people editing an encyclopedia have such a hard time understanding what I'm saying. I admit, English is not my native language, but it's not that bad. This was the Pop-Culture section of 7-Eleven:

* In Back to the Future Part III, the protagonist Marty McFly participated in a shooting game at a town festival and shot down all targets. When asked where he learned to shoot like that, he said, "7-Eleven". Since the 7-Eleven brand is not known in all parts of the world, some foreign versions of the film replace 7-Eleven with Disneyland. The German version replaced 7-Eleven with Space Invaders. On the Spanish version Marty says he learned playing videogames. However, in Spain he says Disneyland.

* David Letterman has a running gag about 7-Eleven where a "representative" of the company makes an announcement about a free gift or promotion which can be obtained by saying a catchphrase (e.g. "Give me my million dollars!") at a 7-Eleven store.

* An episode of Futurama showed a 31st Century version of the store, with the logo name rendered as 711 as if to denote "7 to the 11th power". A sign beneath it boasts that the store is "open 28 hours".

* Rock band 311 used to manufacture T-shirts featuring the 7-Eleven logo with the numeral "7" replaced by a "3." However in 2001, the band received a cease-and-desist letter from the corporation.[22] Relient K also sold merchandise in 2001 featuring a variation of the 7-Eleven logo but eventually phased them on their own accord having never received a complaint from 7-Eleven.

* In Rush Hour 2, when Kenny (Don Cheadle) talks with Lee (Jackie Chan) in Cantonese, he asks why he is hanging with 7-11, referring to Lee's partner James Carter (Chris Tucker). Lee questions why he called him 7-11. Kenny replies because his mouth never closes.

Deiz reasons for removing my Rush Hour 2 content was: Useless and Unsourced Trivia. Looking at all the others, can you say that they were useful and sourced? No, and that's why someone else removed them. I didn't removed the section myself because I didn't believe that I had the right to do so and I'm sure Deiz would have reverted my edit anyway. And by challenging his authority, I meant by telling him not to remove it again unless he could provide a proper reason after he removed it the first time.

I never taunt him not to block me, I dared him to call an admin so that this could be settled. He was using his PPOV to determine if this was valid or not and his reasons were flawed because the entire section was unsourced and useless. If he would have removed the entire section himself, stating that it was unsourced and useless, then yes, I would NOT have reverted it because it would have been a just decision, simply removing my comment on the other hand and not the others was unfair. He's an admin first and a user 2nd, so he should have either left it alone and debate the removal of the section, or removed the section without talking about it, would have been fair either way.

What happened instead is that he abused his power by removing my comment and leaving the rest and blocking in the process (not that I really care about that last one). This clearly shows that this person should not be an admin due to lack of judgment and/or power abusage. Duhman0009 (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would have to say that the evidence is in the article history itself. If I were a clerk, calling the cops because I saw two people shoplifting and the police officer only arrests one and ignores the other, that cop would guilty of NOT doing something. By looking at my post, removing it and leaving the rest, I would put Deiz at the same place as that cop since he's an authority here. Duhman0009 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gangrene disclaimer - escalate please

Hi the same user you warned in December has added a disclaimer again [12] in contravention of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. As you are an admin, perhaps you can escalate - thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Note about second proposal related to restrictions of Gp75motorsports and Blow of Light

As someone who gave your input into my initial proposal, would I be able to respectfully request your input into a secondary proposal which addresses issues related to the restrictions placed on Blow of Light specifically? Your input into gathering consensus at this discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My work here

Whatever. It certainly doesn't feel like what I do is appreciated-more like it's ignored. I've created three articles so far, all fruitless. What's worse, the admins hate me and are looking for any way they can to shut me down. Sucks. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User Page

Listen. I heard that you deleted a Wikipedian Criminal's Page. jungwirthwillkillallrocks. That is ok, but please, it is his page. And he can write what ever he wants on it. Next time I catch you doing that I will tell Wikipedia. Don't do it again.Crips r us (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, all I did was move it out of articlespace and into userspace where it belongs and then delete the redirect - User:Greg Jungwirth. If he's notable enough for a real article, it should have reliable sources, should not be written in the first person, and should not be written by him. Mr.Z-man 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

????? Wait I thought Greg Jungwirth and jungwirthwillkillallrocks were two different people. Even thought they both use the name Jungwirth, I tried to connect but Wikipedia said that they were two different people.Crips r us (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thank you for unblocking me, something that should never have happened in the first place. I wish to have the entire edit history pertaining to that block removed from both my talk page history as well as the block log, as I find it rather defaming, especially considering it was done accidentally. How do I go about requesting that? Justinm1978 (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You can ask Brion, the CTO for the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it, but the answer will likely be no. Log entries are usually only removed for the same reasons that edits are oversighted. A better way would be to ask the blocking admin to leave a 1 second block with a summary that the previous block was in error (if the unblock reason is not enough) and he may be willing to delete the history of your talk page if there isn't a lot non-related edits made while it was on your talk page. Also, the original blocking admin did unblock you, he just forgot to remove the autoblock. Mr.Z-man 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article

Could I view the deleted article List of Dragon Ball special abilities? Earthbendingmaster (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats Ok. Never mind. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just received it. Thank you anyway. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

I see you are considering user adoption. Am I ok for that? KC109 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Block

You haven't placed a block notice on User talk:67.174.230.165. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 08:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PRODs on Yu-Gi-Oh GX character article

• I removed them as they certainly would not go unopposed. You can AfD them if you like. JuJube (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You did not AFD them. To AFD see Wikipedia:AFD WhisperToMe (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Whups! Yeah, you did AFD them. Now what I will do is see if I can get some gold. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Donna Ladd

Hi! Someone (not me!) has nominated Donna Ladd for deletion. As someone who has made contributions to it, you may wish to comment on this on the talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the page Syriacs

Hi. can you please protect the following page -> Syriacs
Syriacs are recognized as a ethnic group in the whole world in countrys as sweden, netherlands, turkey, syria, lebanon (arameans) etc. only in sweden there are 80 000 SYRIACS. the Syriac national association in sweden got 20 000 members against the assyrian national association in swedens 8 000 members. i am syriac, and im under a another flag, the syriac flag that is way different from the assyrian flag. i have another history ( the aramean history) when you have your own "assyrian" history. there are millions of people worldwide calling them self SYRIACS (suryoye oromoye) that is differnet from ASsyrians (Suryoye othoroye). there is a syriac channel called SURYOYO SAT, and its logo is the Syriac/aramaic flag. there is the Syriac/aramaic universal alliance and their logo is the syriac/aramaic flag. the syriac/aramaic party in lebanon is called aramaic democratic organisatoin and its party logo is the syriac/aramaic flag. and the syriac people in lebanon call them selfs for syriac/arameans. it is only CHALDEAN and ELIASALUCARD that thinks that the syriacs are "assyrians". i can put up 600 sources and references that shows that we, the syriacs, are a ethic group and descendants to the ARAMAEANS, not the "assyrians". Can you please protect the page, from being removed and deleted all the time by the assyrian campaigners CHALDEAN and ELIASALUCARD. VegardNorman (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of studentsorry.jpg

Why did you speedy deleted studentsorry.jpg when there clearly wasn't an overwhelming consensus to do so? Speedy deletions are for non-controversial issues where there is already an established consensus - the consensus clearly doesn't apply in this case, otherwise there wouldn't have been so many people saying to keep it during the deletion discussion. --Tango (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Speedy deletion of this image was clearly inappropriate. Please undelete it. -- Arwel (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That rule only applies to the more subjective speedy deletion criteria. WP:CSD#I3 states:

Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1] This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".[2] Such images uploaded before May 19, 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles.

Content on Wikipedia must be reusable outside the site. That is non-negotiable. If it is not under a free license it must be usable under fair use. The terms of use for that image forbid its use in articles, fair use did not apply. You are more than welcome to upload the image to Flickr or another website that is set up for image hosting. If you don't have a copy saved, feel free to email me for a copy. Mr.Z-man 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is something of an unusual case. Here we have a letter addressed to "Wikipedia" (whether that means the Wikipedia community or the Wikimedia Foundation, is, I think, a question of intent, and not one we're likely to be able to answer here). But either way, I'm pretty sure that image was a legal copy of a message, now in the legal possession of the WMF. As such, a "fair use" rationale isn't needed for legal purposes -- the WMF has the explicit right to publicly display a legal copy of a work, under Title 17, Section 109(c), United States Code. So that leaves WP and WMF policies. Now, contrary to your assertion, not all content on WP must be Free Content. That's what "Exemption Doctrine Policy" (see foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy) -- on WP, WP:NFC -- is all about. Now, as I read them, WP:NFC and WP:CSD#I3 are mainly concerned with keeping the encyclopedic and administrative content of the project freely reusable. For WP to truly be a free encyclopedia, it has to be freely copyable, too. Makes sense. But this was a message addressed to "Wikipedia". As such, it is of interest to the community's heritage, which is an argument in favor of keeping it. At the same time, I don't see how the inability to copy it in any way conflicts with the goals of the encyclopedia. It isn't relevant to the encyclopedic content, and it's not part of the encyclopedic project administration. Rather, it's relevant to the community and its heritage. That's what brought me to WT:IAR in the first place. Under the spirit of IAR, I think this is an exceptional case that wants consideration on its own merits. Finally, uploading the image to Flickr or elsewhere would, I think, be a copyright violation. WMF has a legal copy, but they do not own the copyright. Can you address these points, please? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts:

• The image was not under a free license.
• Unlike the rest of Wikipedia's content, the image could not be reused outside Wikipedia (other sites can use fair use provided it is within the law).
• The image did not meet the terms of the English Wikipedia's EDP. (Criteria 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10)
• According to the Foundation's legal counsel, the image is not freely licensable.
• The image is not encyclopedic.
• Wikimedia is not an image hosting service.
• Someone apologizing for vandalism is hardly "historic," its one of the most common unblock request reasons, right after "it wasn't me"

Which of the above suggests that we should keep it? Until Mike Godwin or another foundation representative says otherwise, I do not plan on undeleting this image. And I never assserted that all content on Wikipedia must be under a free license. Mr.Z-man 00:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

← ← ← ← ← (outdent) ← ← ← ← ←

I appear to be having trouble conveying my message. Let me try addressing your bullet points, in order:

• I've said all along the image is not freely licensed. Not everything on WP must be under a free license.
• The image could indeed be used by other sites, if they provided their own fair use rationale; it's just that WP/WMF doesn't need a fair use rationale, being in possession of a legal copy.
• As I've said, WP:NFC appears to be about keeping the encyclopedic content Free, so that the content behind WP is not locked into this or any other site or effort (and that's a good thing). I think this image is not something NFC foresaw, and as such, deserves consideration based on the spirit and intent behind NFC. To wit, I don't see loss of this image in reproductions as in any way harming the encyclopedic content, or the project administrative content. It's relevant to the Wikipedia community; it's not relevant to arbitrary entities. (If such find it relevant, they may have a fair use rationale.)
• See first point.
• I've said all along the image is not encyclopedic. My point is that it is (or at least, may be) relevant to the community.
• Wikipedia is not a hosting service for arbitrary images. WP does host images relevant to the encyclopedia and/or the project. If this image is relevant to the community, it's perfectly acceptable to host it here.
• The image likely isn't "historic" in the sense of "notable". But assuming it's a good faith apology, I don't see why it should be deleted from WP just because it's in an unusual format (image, rather than text). Any apology to the community is relevant to the community, I think. It can lend hope.

All this brings me back to why I mentioned this at IAR. I don't see keeping this image as in any way harmful under the spirit of any of the rules. I see it as relevant, albeit in a very minor way, to the community. IAR asks us to look beyond the letter of the law, to the spirit and intent. All I'm asking is that you do the same. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And I don't see how it benefits the encyclopedia. You are free to take this to DRV, but until I get an email from an @wikimedia.org email address saying that it should be undeleted, I don't plan on doing so. Mr.Z-man 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content of Alex Muller

Asking purely out of curiosity, and because you're in the "deleted content" category – found it through its AfD. I'd appreciate it very much if you could copy it into User:Alex.muller/draft2. Thanks — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks :) — alex.muller (talk • edits) 00:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Syriacs

Hi, you protected the article Syriacs, so you would probably notice this 'translation' without my message. I think it is beyond acceptable incivility to mock-impersonate an opponent like that. I was considering reporting it on an incidents page, but I thought I would contact you first. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That is quite inappropriate, feel free to report it on a noticeboard. Mr.Z-man 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Done: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Civility issue: mock-impersonation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adjusting the MalwareTemplate

Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination) has been reverted. This discussion has already been prematurely closed twice. It does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. While the discussion will probably end as you describe, there is no point in yet another premature closure and further dissent. Let the discussion run its course and be closed properly. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

JS?

The view-patrol-tags JS that you wrote for me appears to have stopped working. My competencies in that area are weak to nil; what happened? DS (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

zee script

Cool script, of course. I would suggest, however, this change so that it can be used on different projects and so that it points to /w/index.php instead of /wiki/index.php. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Yes I was creating them as quickly as a bot. I will be adding the remainder over the next few weeks. Then we can build them like Ottrott. I'm not aware of how to apply for bot permission -in all honesty it seems tedious -I have created around 14,000 articles on wikipedia, higher than anybody, and have requested that my new articles are automatically filtered but noone seems to be concerned. I have addressed this to several people but no one has taken it seriously when I said I was concerned about clogging up new pages. I refused adminship long ago but surely I am respected enough to be regarded as admin level in editing. I always add valuable content and most of my articles are referenced except such stubs. Isn't it time somebody made a decision to help new page patrollers by helping them. I;ve contributed tens times more than many adminstrators on wikipedia who automatically have their page unmarked -shouldn't mine be the same? I consistenly add new content to wikipedia. It would help patollers a lot.Any idea if you can help me apply for permanent clearance? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination)

As I have already explained several times, that discussion was not, in fact, open for the requisite 5 days. The edit history shows that the discussion was opened at 17:32 on 19 Jan and prematurely closed at 19:50 the same day despite not meeting the requirements for a speedy keep. Total time open, less than 2.5 hours. The error was found and corrected at 00:14 on 25 Jan (and, after explanation, the closer understood his/her mistake). It could have been summarily relisted with a new nomination but that is not the norm for adminstrative mistakes like this. The normal course is to reopen the discussion, list it to the new day and "reset the clock". It is reclosed, still out-of-process, and reopened several times. Your closure was at approximately 11:00 on 28 Jan. That means we were up to barely 3.5 days of discussion time.

So, yes, the speedy keep rules had to apply for you to close the discussion early. They did not. Your accusation of wheel-warring is inappropriate and unappreciated. It is, in fact, the subsequent premature reclosures that have violated our policy.

I am rapidly losing my ability to assume good faith here. If the fate of the discussion is as clear cut as the closers all seem to think it is, why are you in such a hurry to shut down the discussion? Why is everyone in a rush to close the discussion when substantive questions remain unanswered and so many of the "keep" opinions seem to be of the ILIKEIT variety? Rossami (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and DRV is not required for the correction of every minor mistake that we make. The first error was well-intentioned but wrong - and easily fixed. The subsequent errors were also pretty clearly mistakes made because of a failure to notice the discussion's history and that first premature closure. Or, at least, I did my best to assume good faith and presumed that the mistake was honest each time. So far, you are the only person to continue to object once the discussion's timeline has been pointed out.
In hindsight, should it have gone to DRV? Perhaps. I will certainly be more aggressive about that in the future - and probably less able to maintain the assumption of good faith as I do so. Rossami (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Graphical timeline

Hooray! Thank you so much for your repairs to the graphical timeline template - I really appreciate it! All the best, Verisimilus T 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Custom edit summaries for Rollback

Would you be able to help out here? Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian

Just an FYI that I rolled back another anon insertion of that link to the porn-for-sale site, so that you can take it to the blacklist if you wish.[13] I've been there, done that, at least three times before. This is one very persistent spammer, and indeed they keep moving it to a different website every time we blacklist. Risker (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User: PopzTartz

I apologize on not informing the blocking Admin about my decision to shorten this user's block length. I was definitely negligent in not doing so. I'm all about fighting vandalism. In fact, the vast majority of edits are just that. However, after looking over this user's edits again, I have to disagree that what he was adding would definitely be considered vandalism. Yes, he was definitely POV pushing (calling Scientology a "cult"), however after he was warned a few times and told to read up on some Wikipedia policies, he commented on his own talk page, "Awright, I will check that out". He then stopped editing. Three minutes later, he was given a final warning. Did he overreact to that warning? Yes. Does he really deserve a indefinite block because of that and his unsourced POV pushing? I would argue no. If you really disagree, then re-block him indefinitely, because I'm not going to get into a wheel war over something as ridiculous as this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time with my little problem. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasniffer (talk • contribs) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Turemetalfan

Hi there, this guy has started an edit war with me and reverted more than 3 times, I don't want to continue reverting as I will get blocked here, what action do I take? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You can file a report at WP:AN3RR Mr.Z-man 01:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ooh, sorry I just did it on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#edit_war_beginning_on_list_of_gothic_metal_bands looks like I did it on the wrong place. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that should be fine. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OP

Hey, there's a pretty serious backlog at WP:OP. There's also a backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. Can you help? Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Gene Wojciechowski

Hey, could you point me in the right direction on what to do about the Gene Wojciechowski article. There is one IP address that continues to add negative information about Gene Wojciechowski, and that IP address excusively edits the Gene Wojciechowski article. The edit seems to me to give undue weight to a very trivial matter, but perhaps other people would disagree with me. Where would be the best place for me to seek resolution of this (the IP address editor is unresponsive)? Chicken Wing (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleh

You broke the .js again. Fix it, please? DS (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the Al. Ringling Theatre concerning its change to the proper title spelling. I since learned how to use the 'move' as to not break the continuity of the 'history' (and won't do a no-no cut and paste move again). Thanks again.

Leprechauns (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Manners

I've seen your editting to Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c and am rather glad its going up for MfD. But are edit summaries like this [14], even if directed at a bot, appropriate? Would we ever sanction calling a user User:Retarded Idiot? I'm tempted to file a wikietiquette complaint on that user unless there is some background I'm not familiar with. MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its certainly inappropriate, but as it is just a bot, I'm not sure its worth a formal complaint. Maybe take it up with the user. Mr.Z-man 05:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock blocks

Thanks for chasing up that SSP report I filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rohit tripathi60. You've reported the two known socks as blocked, but neither seems to be blocked yet. Is that an error, or am I just too impatient? :) Thanks, Technobadger (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They look blocked to me: [15], [16]. I was reclosing all the SSPs that Archtransit did, so I didn't leave those 2 a message on their talk pages to save time, if that's what you checked for. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't check the logs. Just ignorance, not impatience. :) Pages now tagged. Thanks, Technobadger (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of a certian page

I'm requesting that a page that was deleted be un-deleted so that I could continue to work on it and revise it according to Wikipedia's policy standards. The page I requesting un-deleted is: The Shack (book) PLEASE RESPOND ON MY TALK PAGE IF POSSIBLE Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Stefan T. 00:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifying email permission for image use

Hi, could you explain to me what kind of processes there are for verifying email permission to use an image? I have contacted Christopher Tin about using an image of him in his article, and he is willing to license one of his photos for use here. Is it okay if I simply quote the message from him in the file description? I was thinking this requires a more formal process (OTRS? I still don't know what that's for, but some images have that on there). ALTON .ıl 07:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You should forward the message from the owner to either permissions-commons[at]wikimedia.org or permissions-en[at]wikimedia.org (depending on where you uploaded the image). To make the process go faster, make sure you give a link to the image that you uploaded, include the full email from the owner (mainly for the From: header), and make sure that the statement of permission is clear. If you haven't already uploaded the image, do so first. Mr.Z-man 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank a lot. I will do asap. ALTON .ıl 04:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Histmerge request

• The June 1, 2007 edits and earlier of Dover 200 need to be moved to RoadLoans.com 200. It was cut/paste moved on June 1 by User:Gaeaman787. From June 8th on it was rewritten into a duplicate of what was already at Dover 200 (Spring Race). Thanks -- Cmjc80 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Table of nuclides

Hi, can I ask you to execute my deletion request? Thanks, --Quilbert (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but please delete the talk page, too --Quilbert (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended

Just to be clear- I don't think you'd do things out of spite, and I didn't meant to suggest I thought that. Not sure where it came from. Oh, wait, maybe I get it now. No, what I was suggesting was that your judgement became clouded, not that you intended any harm. To me this is a big difference. Friday (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You said I was guided more by personal annoyance than rational thought, I'm not sure how else one would read that. Either way, it seems your oppose is basically since we have different opinions on "disruption" and no amount of discussion will change either of our opinions. I still stand by my original opinion, that is that blanket opposes based on no evaluation of the candidate whatsoever are a misuse of the RFA process. This doesn't apply only to Kurt. If Jimbo himself came and opposed every RFA that wasn't a self nom because they were too indecisive and he refused to discuss elsewhere, I would still support a block based on disruption and failure to AGF based on making broad assumptions about their character based on one action. Mr.Z-man 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see a very big difference between the kind of misguided opinion a crat might reasonably ignore, and the kind of opinion that we should not even allow an editor to express. A crat, in particular, should be able to recognize this difference. You don't seem to see it, and thus I can't consider you qualified for the job. You even disregarded community consensus on this issue, and I don't know where you're coming from with this "refused to discuss" issue. In my recollection, Kmweber was happy to discuss his opinions, and did so at length. In short, you continue to defend the indefensible. This tells me your judgement on this issue is still clouded by something. Mistakes are certainly allowed. Everyone gets boneheaded ideas sometimes - I know I do. But for a wrong idea to stick around for months is not a good sign. Friday (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One user conduct RFC doesn't create sitewide policy and I'm certainly allowed to have my own opinion. I didn't remove any of Kurt's comments and I politely asked him to stop. Apparently I'm a horrible person for having an opinion that's different from some other people's opinion, and I'm certainly not the only person to hold that opinion. I totally dropped the issue after the 2nd RFC and was willing to let it go, apparently other people aren't and they'd like to shove it in my face that "I was wrong." And given my RFB, apparently we aren't allowed to make mistakes. Sorry for wasting your time Mr.Z-man 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it

Have one on me. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You would have made a great crat, it's a shame others believe differently. Please try sometime in the future - I'll support you again. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it certainly wasn't as bad as I thought it might get (though it definitely wasn't as nice as I'd hoped). Maybe if I go insane again in 6 months or so. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first try when fairly well. Try again in 4 months, and you'll probably get lots of supports. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was with reluctance that I opposed. You will make a great bureaucrat one day. Rudget. 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll support again of course, you've been a great sounding board to me and my newbie questions, but yes I think more experience will move a lot of votes from O to S. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're great as well: I hope to support another RfB from you in a few months time. Acalamari 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion (refbuttons.js)

It would be pretty nice if you could add Template:Cite video game to this script. Thanks, - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Refbuttons script is currently not working at all for me IrisKawling (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

@Master Bigode: I tried to keep it limited to the ones that would have the most uses, and ones that already had an image made for the button.

@IrisKawling: Have you bypassed your browser cache? If so, what browser do you use? Mr.Z-man 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Firefox, and yes, I've bypassed. I have several other scripts functioning properly, however refbuttons refuses to work. IrisKawling (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything in the error console? (Tools -> Error Console) Mr.Z-man 06:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Could it possibly be interfering with other scripts I'm using that add tabs to the top toolbar? ie Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add purge to tabs and Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Easy db IrisKawling (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[17] Works for me in Firefox/2.0.0.12, not sure what the problem is. You could try moving the importScript for it higher up so it loads sooner. Mr.Z-man 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Huggle User Category

Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I was thinking of applying for an admin...on the page, it says "Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER" what exactly am i suppose to put there, if i'm nominating myself. Also, skimming through, I didn't see any other self-noms..are they rare, and unlikely to pass, or what is the reason for that? Please reply on my talk Ctjf83 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

do you have a response? Ctjf83 05:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

lol, so for my impatience...it's one of my flaws. i was actually looking over the coaching the day i put the first post, and was thinking of doing it. the only thing that stopped me, was the long list of people waiting, so I didn't think the program worked very well. But if you are volunteering to coach, i would be honored to except your assistance...thank you, Ctjf83 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

is this going to affect me at all....some IP complaining about his vandalism warning Ctjf83 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

i've been going through the AFDs, and contributing to get more involved with that aspect of wiki...do u want us to be listed here? Ctjf83 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you ever review QACs? I have some, and am anxious to see if they pass...they have been candidates for 11 days Ctjf83 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DO you have anything for me to do yet, for my RFA...and if possible, can you review my two QACs, i'm impatiant to see if they pass Ctjf83 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been very busy and quite stressed out lately. I guarantee you I will have something within the next 24 hours. And I'm not sure what you mean by QAC, do you mean WP:GAC or WP:FAC? Mr.Z-man 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, sorry GOOD AC...typo...i have 2, can u review them, so i can see if i got 2 up to that level? Ctjf83 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, i'll take a look at it, and get it done soon! Ctjf83 00:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't even have to ask any questions for this..lol, but what do u want for number 2? "What is your impression of what [the majority of] admins do?" do u mean what they do as far as their "job", or my impression on how well they do stuff? Ctjf83 01:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

i answered them all...let me know Ctjf83 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the next thing we do? Ctjf83 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

well?? Ctjf83 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, have fun! if ur goin on vacation that is...Ctjf83 ^talk 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm ready to get protection reviewed, and get more training Ctjf83 ^talk 03:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

do you have anything? I'd really like to kick this up a notch Ctjf83 ^talk 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

are you too busy to coach me? I'm not trying to sound rude, but we've been doing this for a month and a half, and have only done one lesson. If you are too busy, it's fine, I can find a new coach, although I'd like to keep you, if we get going more. Ctjf83 ^talk 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

in the fair use questions section, am I just suppose to answer following policy, or can I use my own judgment (which would probably be not the best thing to do, as you probably know) Ctjf83 ^talk 07:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I just answered the questions, along policy lines, so whenever your ready to "grade" it Ctjf83 ^talk 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Next questions? Ctjf83^talk 19:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please go faster on the admin coaching? we have been doing it for 2 months, and have no real progress. If you are too busy to do it, I understand, I can find a new coach, if not, can we get it going! Ctjf83^talk 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

alright, answers are done! see how fast i answer them ;) Ctjf83^talk 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How many lessons are there? and can u post the next? Ctjf83^talk 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Think of any questions for practice...let's finish this up!! Ctjf83^talk 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For the first answer, I have always planned to put, fight/block vandals. Looking over some RFAs that have passed, is it too cliché to put that? It's true, I do want to, but does everyone use that, are people tired of reading that, or do they still like to see that? Ctjf83^talk 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you'd like these questions to be asked on the training page. So I mean should I put I want to be an admin to block vandals, or is that overused? Ctjf83^talk 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you could look over my responses. Ctjf83^talk 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you look over my answers soon, I wanna get nominated soon! :) Ctjf83^talk 00:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be annoying, but are you seeing my post, or are u just too busy trying to be a Bureaucrat? Ctjf83^talk 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So how soon till I can be nominated? Ctjf83^talk 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on!!! I'm just about to self nominate Ctjf83Talk 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it is useful for game players...is that not a good enough reason to keep? Also, is one poor response to an AfD enough to lose an RfA? If I voted for those, that would hardly be a reason for me to oppose someone Ctjf83Talk 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted a question on the coaching page Ctjf83Talk 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what do you want me to do to fix any negativity from my AfD vote?? Ctjf83Talk 02:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Message you left on MickMacNee's talk page

I'm not sure if you're still watching it, but I left you a response here. You misunderstood him. Enigma ^msg! 02:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Either way, his behavior has been grossly inappropriate as of late. Mr.Z-man 02:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. I'm just letting you know about an incident you may not be familiar with. Cheers, Enigma ^msg! 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination)

The Characters & Episodes arbcom case closed yesterday, so the injunction is no longer in place. Some admins already closed all the open AfDs in Category:Article for Deletion debates under injunction by Arbitration Committee Episodes and characters 2 case. When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination), there was no {{FICTWARN}} template, and I am not sure whether you remember on-hold-closing this particular AfD. This is just a heads up. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Script?

What happened to the external patrol links script? Did you break it? DS (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello. I noticed that when you closed this AfD as "delete," you forgot to actually delete the article. You might want to take care of that. Thanks! :) --CrazyLegsKC 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for noticing. Mr.Z-man 05:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

BoL

As a contributor to the first discussion, your input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Removing topic ban on Blow of Light would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pauline Robinson

I feel that merge then delete, rather than just delete was the more appropriate result of the AfD you closed. If you could place a copy of the page as a sub page in my user space temporarily, I'll take care of the merge into her husband's article that should have been done before deletion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you can't merge, then delete because of the need to retain the edit history, 2 people suggested merging, 4 suggested deletion, 1 even going as far to say that even redirection would not be appropriate. I don't think there was consensus for a merge. Mr.Z-man 01:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

At least give me a chance to look at the info there and the sources provided rather than having to start from scratch. In particular, the article contained a link to her father's article that apparently was not reciprocated or has already been undone and that should be included in her husband's article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you enable and confirm an email address, I can email you a copy of the last revision. Mr.Z-man 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely spam adverse, and this isn't important enough to me to cause me to spread my email around some more, so I'll leave the email features of Wikipedia unenabled. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thread deletion in WP:VP

Please don't do this here. [18]

At the very least, if you don't like the thread, would like to unilaterally remove it, and you have a high enough social standing to get away with that, at the very least you should've archived it. You don't delete entire threads. You're an experienced editor, so you know this. Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And you were unblocked on the condition that you not continue trolling. Mr.Z-man 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83

I don't know if you know it, but your admin coachee is now up for an RfA. I find it kind of weird that you weren't a nominator or co-nominator. Was there a reason for that?Balloonman (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

You were Ctjf83 (talk · contribs)'s Admin coach, so I thought I should give you a heads up that I have recently nominated him for adminship candidacy, and he accepted. No one else received a notification, just thought since you were his Admin coach I should let you know. The question arose at the RfA nomination page for Ctjf83 of why the Admin coach didn't nom or co-nom him, and I apologize if this was out of procedure or something, I don't know, so please do let me know if what I did was appropriate. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the above subsection before I added this one. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83 was closed as not successful, some things were brought up in the RfA that quite frankly if I had been aware of sooner I would have recommended to Ctjf83 (talk · contribs) that he wait a while longer and seek out more Admin coaching from an experienced Admin, either yourself or someone else. I am sorry it turned out this way, and that I didn't consult with you first. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pano Logic deletion!! No different than any other corporate entry! --Baerjamin (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you arbitrarily deleted my Pano Logic entry! I'd like to better understand your rationale. I noticed you claimed this was blatent advertising. I'd like to ask why in the world my entry was more blatant advertising than any corporate entry! I didn't do anything differently than an Oracle, VMware or General Motors listing in Wikipedia. If you took offense at my references -- which were all largely third party coverage of the products listed -- that is one thing. My profile of Pano Logic was all factual and did not represent any opinion -- certainly no more than the listing for Microsoft or Apple or any one of hundreds of corporate profiles on Wikipedia. I'm happy to have you edit what you thought was blatant advertising but to delete the entire listing was irresponsible at the least. The company Pano Logic DOES exist and DOES deliver to interested consumers the product profiled. I'd like to both better understand your stand and I'd like the profile reposted for editing to make it better fit your standards of factual information. Please respond to me via my user space or directly at

Your comments in many ways make me think that you work for a Pano Logic competitor and have made an arbitrary and patently unfair judgement that you just don't want Pano Logic listed. Please rectify your mistake and edit the entry versus deleting it entirely.

Replied on editor's talk page. Mr.Z-man 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh

I'm out for several more days. Please catch up on the far end of the unpatrolled backlog for me; it's awful to have stuff go unchecked. DS (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm back online. DS (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS request

Could you review the user request at User_talk:MBisanz#Help_with_copyright_fair_use and User_talk:LaviniaVasilache#LA_Times_permissions and advise the user on how to submit to OTRS and properly tag the document? MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

LA Times permissions - free license or fair use?

Hi Z-Man, thank you for your response on the PDF article with the LA Times. From your response I see that IF the image complies with the fair use rules than I could upload the file. "It must meet Wikipedia's fair use rules OR it must be under a free license". I read all the rules and it looks like this article could be a candidate for fair use. Isn't it? --LaviniaVasilache (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted article

Can I have a userspace copy of whichever version of Mordred Band contains the most info please? They were a pretty popular funk metal band back in the early 90s and certainly meet WP:MUSIC, although that probably wasn't apparent by the article judging by the deletion log. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Userfied to User:One Night In Hackney/Mordred Band

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)