User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Trivia TfD[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for moving the TfD to its own page. It's done automatically for AfDs and MfDs, but for some reason not TfDs, so I was trying to figure out how to do it manually but gave up. It was sorely needed for a discussion of this length.

17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean you were trying to get TfD's automatically transcluded upon creation, the same way MfD's and AfD's are, then I think everyone would support you at this point. I sure would. That is, if you want to try and get it done again. 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit[edit]

Usually peer reviews are for articles preparing for an Featured Article or Good Article nomination, not articles that are already FA's. If you do not think the article meets the featured article criteria then you should probably pursue a Featured article review.--Michael Greiner 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on TIME issues and covers[edit]

Hi there. As someone who contributed an external view to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2, I thought you might be interested in the discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#First copyright renewal of TIME issues are for 1934. I've also invited the other editors who contributed external views to that RfC. Would you be interested in contributing your views at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Inviting more opinion on this? Thanks. Carcharoth 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I meant "as someone who was the subject of that RfC" - you know what I mean! :-) Carcharoth 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

There isn't really an opportune place to put in my two cents, and it isn't really needed, but you asked, so I'll put it here. My main objection to the trivia template came as a result of my experiences seeing "in popular culture" sections and articles deleted left and right. The equation of "popular culture" with "trivia" is a shame. It's an extension of an Arnoldian conception of culture as dividing into "high" and "low", with corresponding absolute values. Popular culture is not "trivial". It is utterly relevant, important, and interesting, and is a huge reason why Wikipedia is as frequently used as it is. "in popular culture" sections (which are often misnamed "trivia" or "miscellanea") are wonderful collections of material that will not fit into a narrative article, or which speak to intertextuality or the reception history of a piece of culture - the last of which is critically important to understanding it and which is the subject of a huge amount of current scholarly inquiry.

In the end, DGG nails it; I don't trust anyone else to judge for me what is trivial. Take two articles I have written recently, like Philipoctus de Caserta and Jump 'N the Saddle Band. Taken from one side or the other, both of these articles discuss utterly trivial matters. Who cares? Who should care? The fact that one is the subject of enormous scholarly research and the other is the subject of none at all really changes nothing; they're both forgotten musicians that nobody listens to anymore. But I'd fight to the death, literally, anyone who wants to have them deleted.

What is trivia? There is no consensus, and I do not foresee one; it remains a ghost, like Potter Stewart's pornography ("I know it when I see it"). The trivia template makes it sound like there is a consensus, and that policy dictates that it should be removed. Neither is true, and so that template just frightens newcomers and makes people mad. But nothing will change unless there is a cultural shift - a recognition that popular culture, and "minor" facts about major things, are inherently encyclopedic. Chubbles 09:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trivia[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up. Btw: Hilarious quotes on your user page, I didn't even know about Bash.org before. — [ aldebaer⁠] 14:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I remember is wonderful, although I had to read over it three times till I got it. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting without any proper reason[edit]

No!, your reverts towards the headline does not make any sense Nick10000 08:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah!, I just took a look at the talk page and you just answering your own posts and made a decision out of that. Nick10000 09:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol!, I just told you that I took a look at the talk page and noticed you was talking to yourself, that's the reason why I undid your work. Nick10000 09:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I think you are still confused. The change you've been making/endorsing was one Pixelface made, not one he disputed. It was reverted. So, he didn't change the policy. Mangojuicetalk 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I owe you an apology[edit]

Thank you for message and your apology. I appreciate it. Although I too owe you an apology. I apologize for calling your comments trivial at the TFD for Template:Trivia. I was trying to illustrate what I meant when I said I thought the template was not neutral, and I was trying to make people see how some users react to the {{trivia}} template. Now I realize that templates are acceptable on article pages but labeling opinions on talk pages is uncivil. You have made some good points on Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Template:Trivia and I'm thankful for the discussions. --Pixelface 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me a barnstar...[edit]

Ha, ha. Yes, I have found your statement on WikiProject Sydney that you will give a barnstar for anybody who gives an article previous Aboriginal culture references. So I did! Speers Point talks about Aborigines.

(sticks hand out)

Humour seems to be going well.

Auroranorth 07:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This is my first barnstar, and I really appreciate it. Do you have any suggestions as to what improvememnts Speers Point should get? Thanks again! By the way, what does your name mean? I speak a little Chinese, so I believe it means 'he/she is not 'da yu? Thanks so much for the barnstar. Auroranorth 09:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I despise the lead section. I can't think of much to put in there, though. Again, what does 'ta bu shi da yu' mean? Thanks! Auroranorth 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - that's why I couldn't understand it. There are a couple of words 'da' and 'yu'. Auroranorth 12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Windows 2000[edit]

Did you know that Architecture of Windows 2000 is at WP:FAR? Others took over the notifications a while back, but I was just reviewing and saw you hadn't been notified. If that's a problem, you can request extra time. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

It's not that I think that Christian views about women is full of OR, it's that I think that it can never be repaired. There isn't enough literature written by non-Christians on the topic to ever put together an objective, reliable article on the topic. Kww 12:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question for member of GA article sweeps[edit]

I'll answer those questions in a moment, as I got a class in about 5 mins and I should be heading to the classroom now. Sorry for the wait. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer[edit]

GA and FA article that I wrote or substantially contributed to can be found on my page (User:Ruslik0). In addition Uranus (planet) is in FAC and Callisto (moon) will be their soon. Ruslik 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 2[edit]

GA:

FA:

Epbr123 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 3[edit]

GA (Not including those I substantially improved during the review process):

(As the requested copy-editor):

FA (As the requested copy-editor):

LaraLove 15:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 4[edit]

The answers to both of your questions can be found here (at the top of the page). Most of the GA articles listed I actually nominated myself at WP:GAC, with the exception of Washington Square Park, Chicago. I don't think I actually was the primary nominator of any of the featured articles listed, though I was a major contributor and supporter of each nomination. Minneapolis, Minnesota is a pretty unique case, as I did not really contribute directly to the article itself - it was originally nominated at WP:GAC, for which I was the reviewer, and passed it as well as made numerous suggestions for its improvement towards FA status. I also initiated the dialogue of discussion on improving the US city template, which greatly contributed to improving the Minneapolis article, ultimately leading to its FA nomination and status. And, I supported the article through its FA status as well. Dr. Cash 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 5[edit]

GA

No FA's yet. T Rex | talk 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & response number 6[edit]

I have authored the following good articles:

I have reviewed the following articles for Good article status:

Sorry no FA on my side. Thank you for your message of support. I belive that the good wishes of friends and acquaintances will help me along the speedy road to recovery. Regards, AshLin 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 7[edit]

GAs:

To see the list of articles I have reviewed, you can see them here.

At this point, I haven't been involved with the FAC process yet, as GAs are my main focus. However, I plan to take Oklahoma City bombing there soon. I hope that adequately answers your questions, but if you need further explanation, leave me another message. --Nehrams2020 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 8[edit]

Can't believe I'm so slow on replying... I have worked on...

GA:

FA:

Just out of my curisoity, why do you want to ask everyone who participates in the sweeps about their GA experience? Trying to see if they're experienced editors? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, people participating in Sweeps are probably the best and active reviewers in the GA community. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps#Participation and you'll understand why. Participants must receive invitation in order to join. So what are the requirements? In the first phrase only the experienced and trusted reviewers are invited to ensure the quality of the sweeps. I'm sorry to see that the article that you worked on went through sweep and put on "on hold" status. Please understand that the sweeps is for upholding the quality of GA, not to upset people. I was "attacked" by other editors before for delisting their favourite GA (see Wikipedia:Editor review/OhanaUnited). Don't feel bad for yourself, comparing your reaction to others in the editor review, your comments aren't harsh at all. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer #362[edit]

Articles of note I've worked on:

And I've got a number of other projects that I should be nominating for GA/FA/FL soon. Drewcifer 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation[edit]

I started to write a reply to your recent posts here, but then it turned into a vent (not a mad one, so don't be alarmed), a release of bottled up frustration from months passed until now. I felt it inappropriate to double the length of your talk page for my ramblings, so I posted it to a subpage of mine. I would like you to read it, if you have the time. It's an explanation of sorts that will hopefully shed some light on the whys of our procedures. It was written very light-hearted, with no angry tone, so please read it with that in mind. Best regards, LaraLove 06:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Andrew C. McCarthy[edit]

A tag has been placed on Andrew C. McCarthy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. hbdragon88 03:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding reporting me for copyright infringement, i have permission to republish that content - i apologize for not adding the appropriate copyright tag (not sure if i know how to do that but i will try to figure it out Larryfooter 02:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so can you remove the protection on the Andrew C. McCarthy page? thanks! Larryfooter 04:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how would you like me to prove that to you? Larryfooter 04:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UnitedStatesCode[edit]

I think the span should be removed because then readers will have a visual cue that the link is external. Why do you think it should be kept? (I'll read your answer here.) —Markles 13:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try printing a document with this template. Looks terrible. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? I had no idea. OK.—Markles 14:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay move[edit]

The relevant discussion is in the village pump archives. The point is that CAT:E is rather excessively large, so it was suggested to userfy those pages that are (almost entirely) written by a single person, and aren't widely in use by the community. [1]. >Radiant< 11:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I wasn't on-wiki for last week so I didn't see your message earlier. Frankly I don't really see the problem here; I made a bold move, you disagreed and reverted, and we're now discussing it - also known as WP:BRD, which is a common editing process here. If you strongly object to having your essay in your userspace, I'm not going to lose sleep over that :) >Radiant< 11:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, unless you claim WP:OWNership of your essay, why are you reverting good-faith edits without even bothering to give a reason, and while making personal attacks in your edit summary? If you're complaining about other people, the least you can do is not exhibit such bad behavior yourself. >Radiant< 11:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I expect people to keep watch of pages they are interested in; that's what watchlists are for. Furthermore, I should point out that calling people narky and unpleasant in an edit summary reads very much like a personal attack. Aside from that, you're essentially claiming that other people must discuss and find consensus for their edits before making them. This is an intriguing idea, but it runs directly counter to the philosophy of a wiki. You are making very hostile responses to a few minor edits that really are no big deal, and I really wish you wouldn't overreact to that. >Radiant< 11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. Of course I don't mind discussing this, but I have tried that in the past and it turns out that most people don't really care about it. So I figured I'd do some of the cleanup, and deal with objections as they come up on a case-by-case basis. It's no big deal to me, raelly. >Radiant< 12:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. I have no objection to deleting a bunch of essays, and you're not the first to suggest this (although dumping them at meta sounds like sweeping them under the rug, to me). However, I suspect that people will go "keep - nominate each one separately" and "keep - does not violate policy" as a response. >Radiant< 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kurdish-Israeli relations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Esperanza essay[edit]

Hello, were you talking about the Esperanza essay in my userspace? If so, thank you. I thought that Esperanza had fine ideals, but also that it never quite found a way to act on those ideals. It's sad to see how badly it turned out, but to be quite honest, I'm happier now that it's inactive and no longer triggering new arguments. I'm doing much better than I was when I wrote that essay, thank you.

Out of curiosity, what made you read my essay? --Kyoko 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I miss Elaragirl's presence here, but she felt that she no longer fit in.
Esperanza created a lot of arguments, though I'm sure not deliberately. If you really wanted to read about the arguments, they're all linked at Wikipedia:Esperanza, in the deletion debate section. If you ask me, you're better off for not having taken part in the debates.
Thank you for your kind words. --Kyoko 23:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Gayle[edit]

Hi. Could you explain more your rationale for deleting Jessica Gayle? You stated, "Mention in a few random websites don't really make for notability" - this does actually make for notability, by definition; was there a problem with the sources? You also stated, "Overwhelming consensus is to delete" - there were three delete comments and three keep comments, and one of the delete comments was made before the sources were found. Thanks. Epbr123 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a few random websites" don't, reliable sources do. The main question is whether Economia Aziende (and their article [2]) and http://www.dramma.it/ are reliable sources per our standards. I don't read Italian without the Google translator, so I can't figure it out. Ta bu shi, do you? :-)--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Websites are not really a good source of verifiability or notability. Unless you can establish that these websites are particularly notable in and of themselves when it comes to this topic, then they really aren't good enough. However, if you would like to dispute my deletion decision, please feel free to take the article to WP:DRV. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do the websites have to be notable? Don't they just have to be reliable, which an economics website probably is? The other source wasn't even a website, it was an arts magazine which had been scanned onto a website. Epbr123 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note: both editors have the option of taking the Jessica Gayle to WP:DRV. I don't believe the websites sourced are notable enough in any way. It is their right to have the case heard on DRV if they feel my decision was wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Yeon Woo[edit]

I never said there was a Korean article.. I simply asked if he put it on the Korean Wikipedia (on the AfD). -Domthedude001 23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't got an article over at kowiki. Anyway inclusion or lack of inclusion in kowiki is a poor indicator of anything --- enwiki has two orders of magnitude more articles than kowiki, which is less active even than other languages with similar numbers of speakers (maybe because there's so many freely-viewable --- but non-free-content --- alternatives available). Cheers, cab 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Galaxia AFD - surpising timing[edit]

Heya! Sorry to bother you, but I was literally just about to post on this AFD to 'keep' when I noticed the 'do not alter this text' message just above where I was going to type - surely not? But there it was, AFD closed literally as I was looking for sources.

I'd have voted keep because a) the Game Tunnel link Marasmusine supplied looked fine to me (mistakenly called GameSpace, that's just the title of that area of the website), and b) I'd found this Play This Thing review to go with it. Play This Thing is related to Manifesto Games apparently, and Game Tunnel is a site I have personally used to cite several casual games in the past on WP.

I've never played Pax Galaxia in my life and have no links to the game, I'm also right behind Marasmusine's AFDs which have removed several non-notable games from WP, but in this case I think there's a half-decent article waiting to happen and the sources could scrape it through. Would you be willing to reopen the AFD? Many thanks. 86.138.198.93 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I've literally just stumbled upon this blog article which, despite being a blog, does sign the writer by name and seems like an ideal source. If that's still unacceptable then I'm happy to go with that and consider it closed. Thanks for your time. 86.138.198.93 14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embarazada[edit]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I'm not sure if there is a copyvio. But I wouldn't presume any good faith on the part of the main editor, due to his serial plagiarism. While I haven't given a clear opinion about the deletion, it doesn't seem like an encyclopedic topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


DI.fm deletion[edit]

Hi, I looked up sky.fm today, which redirected to di.fm(both wiki articles, not sites)- I was surprised to find that it was deleted. I found the AfD entry and I was not satisfied with what I found there. There was one vote for delete(the person who nominated it, looks like) and three votes to keep. Then you deleted the article. Why? The votes clearly showed assent to keep and made good arguments for its notability. You deleted it just because it didn't assert its own importance? Doesn't that go directly against WP:Peacock? At the most, this article should have been tagged for cleanup. Phasmatisnox 08:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill 'Em All[edit]

Hello, I've restored the two articles of Metallica singles, "Jump in the Fire" and "Whiplash", that you merged into Kill 'Em All on top of the ones listed at AfD. They had not been nominated nor do I see any consensus to merge them as well. See also Talk:Kill_'Em_All#Redirected_pages. --Tikiwont 09:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Cory[edit]

Hello. Yesterday you closed the Priscilla Cory AfD as "delete", but then you didn't delete the article. Maybe you forgot? Mushroom (Talk) 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


doubt for deleting di.fm[edit]

hi. i'm a di.fm user from korea.
i think di.fm is the best internet radio station serving electronika musics.
i can really not understand why you delete that page.
what is the metric of 'notability'?
i read several explanations, but i cant understand the deletion of di.fm.
was 'di.fm article' so bad for wikipedia?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudmaker (talk • contribs) 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not boring[edit]

I didn't mean to offend. Maybe your'e right, that it's a matter of being in the field. But I still think there are ways of making the article just a little more accessible to dummies. Perhaps by explaining the big picture at the top of sections and subsections? Could be a matter of just adding a little here and there, or glossing a few concepts/terms. Tony (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EP-101.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EP-101.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 14:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

Thanks for pointing out that awkward situation on my talk page, but more importantly, congratulations on the pregnancy, and I wish you both all the best (and plenty of good nights of sleep between now and the blessed event :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement message[edit]

Heya El C, long time no speak. This is a little random, but I saw a revision of WP:AN where you were baited by another user. It was over a year ago, but I just wanted to say: you are a good admin, and a great editor, with a totally quirky sense of humour that I personally think it fantastic. Stick with it dude. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tbsdy! Long time, indeed! Thanks for the encouragement note, it really hits the spot and is very kind of you to say. I hope everything been well on your end (anything new and exciting to report? for my part, I've been petting chipmunks and other woodland creatures). I'm still somewhat active here; just don't ask me what the Chipoll means. P.S. I added your signnature to the Chipoll! Thx again & best wishes, El_C 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:SA-mastereditor‎[edit]

Check this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always found these service awards to be... weird. I'll look into it. El_C 07:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray Starring in InDepenDance Day; Vol.1 The Takeover[edit]

Hi! Can you please take a look at the above which you presided over? Consensus was definitely not followed and article PRODded. Thanks!216.194.0.77 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Atlanta city seal.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Atlanta city seal.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. βcommand 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MKDE server.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MKDE server.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. βcommand 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MKDE server.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MKDE server.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the above image protected from editing? I'd like to tag it as replaceable fair use. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:rfu}}. Should you really be protecting your own images this way to prevent them from being tagged from deletion? Videmus Omnia Talk 01:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, the bot was not malfunctioning - the image was orphaned at the time it was tagged. It looks like you placed the image in an article after it was tagged by BCBot. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Slashdot[edit]

Dear Sir,

regarding Slashdot today: I have come to the conclusion Wikipedia's administrators really don't care about the rules except as they can be used to bludgeon users that they disagree with (even if those users make good edits!) to death.

Case in point: I went through the records of one "Enviroknot" with a fine-toothed comb some months ago. For some reason, every few months, some editor who seems to have relation to a very small clique of admins "discovers" a new supposed sockpuppet. Many of these have no relation in terms of edits on the page space, and there are a variety of different editing styles.

The only conclusion I can draw is that this is a concerted effort; either people are deliberately using the name "Enviroknot" to get their opposition banned, or else these administrators are so mind-numbingly consumed with hatred that they must continually try to push what already appears (from the arbitration proceedings on record at least) to have been a mockery of a sham trial that resulted in a year-long and illegitimate ban.

If you look at the various other accused supposed "sockpuppets", a disturbing pattern emerges - a group obviously trying to get multiple users banned, using spurious "sockpuppet" accusations that are then substantiated in very dubious circumstances by their friends who happen to have access (you might examine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo in which "NotAWeasel" was exonerated of even the spurious "likely" and "possible" checkuser bullshit results, but has somehow been banned as a sockpuppet anyways).

The complicity of a small group of administrators in certifying obviously false "sockpuppet" decisions over and over again is worrisome at best.

I suggest you look into this with open eyes. But I doubt you will, just as I doubt the hundreds of other users who have been given similar treatment will ever get so much as a real response from any administrator on this misbegotten project.

If you are interested, my posts to Slashdot are available at the following links (second link includes the response from "Ginger Unicorn" for purposes of context): http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=325091&cid=20940595 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=325091&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20946127

Of course, you could always just turn around and subject me to Scarlet Letter harassment for daring to even bring this up. I'm certainly not an admin and would have no defenses, save for the records of this conversation to be posted to Slashdot (which I assure you I will DEFINITELY keep), were you to try to do so.

Sincerely, Moryath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moryath (talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I just want to edit Wikipedia articles. That was the point I was trying to make. Unless you have been blocked, I'm not getting into it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars[edit]

I once had a Working Man's Barnstar removed from my page because I didn't meet the criteria (I gave it to myself). My reaction was not to call for the deletion of the Working Man's Barnstar.--Dr who1975 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting that on the talk page next time. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Btrieve[edit]

I've added the sourcing & licensing to all of the images, do you think we can remove the deletion notice now ? > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clin d'oeil Thanks > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 07:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/Archive26&oldid=1140556814"