User talk:Bastique

Archived discussions: Please visit the the page history for archives

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpressionism

As you did the above during your wikibreak, I hope you will excuse this note. I think it would be best to removed the comment "It appears to be vanity", per WP:AFD:

The accusation VANITY should be avoided [1], and is not in itself a reason for deletion.

Best, Tyrenius 03:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Bastique a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Kalani ^[talk] 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! I hope you have a great day! – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! I am glad that the WP:EA B-day committee is back on duty! Bearly541 18:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Bastique! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish you a Happy Birthday! I hope you have a magnificent day! You are a year older now, enjoy it! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Save me a piece! Congratulations once more from AndonicO!

.

Fair use rationale for Image:Torchwood ep 1 Indira Varma.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Torchwood ep 1 Indira Varma.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images 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. Yamla 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Adjacent geography

Template:Adjacent geography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Fred Bradstadt 17:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Permissions email

It is about Ticket#2007012110001373. Lately, there has been a bunch of performers in the Philippines who have been putting their works into the public domain or GFDL. I don't know why it is being done, but no complaints from my end. Well, most people have been CC'ing the emails to me because I am an admin and perhaps the only one willing to talk with WP:PINOY. I personally do not know how many more of these kind of emails will be sent, and I am not being told by WP:PINOY about the sheer volume of emails that could be sent in the future. If you wish for me to deal with guys and gals at WP:PINOY and ask them to slow down, then that is fine with me. I just assume they do not want to get stuff deleted before uploading. (I chose to reply here and not in the Permissions email, since I do not want to clutter the box with banter). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block on 207.253.115.51

I have recently noticed the block on the IP address 207.253.115.51 as I was conducting research from a system at my school and attempted to edit a page. I'd like to notify you, the user responsible for the block, that this address is of an educational institution's proxy, specifically that of my high school. According to WP:BLOCK, long-term blocks should not be imposed on shared IP addresses.

Knowing that this IP address belongs to a public institution, might you please reconsider the indefinite block? Laogeodritt ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If a soft block was placed, please excuse my ignorance of the fact; the most recent block log entry does not suggest this, and I would have been unable to attempt to log in, either way, as I did not have my Wikipedia password at the time.

P.P.S. If possible, I'd appreciate that you reply on my own talk page. Thank you.

In reply to your message dated 29 January 2007 18:39 (UTC), "The block on that user id", posted to my talk page:

Thank you for your timely reply. I understand your position on this issue. I do not quite agree with penalizing all users from within our school's network for, I presume, these few vandals, but I understand the problems it causes for the Wikipedia communities; I do not feel the need to further discuss or argue on the matter.

However, there is one issue I'd like clarified: Is it possible to log into one's own account from a blocked IP (or my school's IP specifically) and edit pages as that user, or does the currently instated block prevent established users from editing pages as much as anonymous users? If it's possible to confirm this for both the English and French Wikipediæ, it'd be appreciated; if not, I'll ask over at the French Wikipédia for the ban on that project.

Thank you, —Laogeodritt ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you very much. —Laogeodritt ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie imposters

I just looked at some of the vandalism cleanup you've been doing, it's definitely a serial vandal who I'd filed at CheckUser report against; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tooj117 and Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Tooj117.2FThe_Geek_Vandal for more info. It appears that since this group of teens has been blocked from English Wikipedia they've taken up residence on ht (and probably others). Do you happen to know if CheckUser and subsequent IP blocks have to be done on a case-by-case basis for other language Wikis, or can that be handled on a global level? Thanks again, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:GreenLakesSPap04.jpg

You marked up the image Image:GreenLakesSPap04.jpg, I think because it didn't appear that anything linked to it.

Actually, the article Green Lakes State Park does link to it. I have no idea why this doesn't show up when one checks with "What links here." Possibly some slight formatting problem in the Green Lakes State Park article?EAS 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I marked it to be transwikied to Wikimedia Commons, because it's been released under the GFDL. I mispelled the permission template, but I have since fixed that. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - thanks! Not sure if I'll get around to that "transwiki" project anytime soon.EAS 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Macarthurj.jpg

Please delete the Image:Macarthurj.jpg image as I just found out that the image source does not grant GFDL licenses. Thanks. -- Jreferee 00:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Little Travellers

Gotcha. I will delete due notability or spam if possible whenever they are reported at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. Thanks for informing. -- ReyBrujo 18:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Private information

You wrote that you deleted User:Nikola Smolenski/Bernard Cloutier and moved it to OTRS because it contained private information. Well, I have more of those: User:Nikola Smolenski/FreeSrpska, Image:Toranjstari.jpg, commons:user:Nikola Smolenski/njegos.org, and possibly more. You will probably want to do the same thing.

How could these e-mails be accessed, now that they are in OTRS? Nikola 10:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adult_worm.jpg

You updated Image:Adult_worm.jpg to indicate that permission for its use had been archived in the OTRS system. However, the license specified for the image (cc-by-sa) does not match the permission documented in the summary ("Free to use for nonprofit purposes"). Could you check OTRS and update either the license or the summary to be consistent with each other? Thanks. —RP88 08:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Arno Political Consultants

I have replied at Talk:Arno Political Consultants --Eastmain 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Map of Tampa, Florida

Some editors are unhappy about the appearance of Image:Tampa Hillsborough.png (see Talk:Tampa, Florida). How much trouble would it bee to show the shoreline of Hillsborough Bay on that map? -- Donald Albury 13:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus also, to add to Donald's, the boundaries are all wrong on the Hillsborough map shown; it leads users to believe there's more than just 3 incorporated areas, but there's not. There's only Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City; the rest is unincorporated and without a clear definition of uninc. boundaries, shouldn't be on a map. Is it possible to create a map with adjustment as well? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Those other units are census-designated places, which have their own Wikipedia articles. -- Donald Albury 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that (as I said above), but since there's no real boundaries for CDP's, they shouldn't be on a map. If they did have defined boundaries, they would be incorporated.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Census Bureau defines the boundaries of CDPs. See, for example, this map covering south central Hillsborough County, showing the boundaries of Apollo Beach, Gibsonton, Ruskin, Greater Sun Center, Wimauma, and parts of Boyette, Riverview, Progress Village and Bloomingdale, as well as the southern end (MacDill) of Tampa. Without the Census Bureau boundaries, there would be no populations figures to report and cite in our articles. -- Donald Albury 04:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Donald re CDPs (which *do* have specific boundaries)... when I get Adobe Illustrator back on my PC I'll be able to do these. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks again for your help in that! I might need to hit you up again for some maps, but I'll let you know. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS en-permissions?

I have a question regarding OTRS. Is there any way to determine what the current processing delay is for en-permissions? I understand that processing for the en-permissions queue may have a backlog, but I sent two "proof of permission" e-mails to en-permissions a couple of days ago, and haven't heard anything back. Since this is the first time I've used en-permissions I don't know if a this is perfectly normal or if something has gone wrong. —RP88 15:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Another request

We have a new incorporated municipality in Palm Beach County, Loxahatchee Groves. The town was created on November 1, 2006. The boundaries are specified here. Any chance of getting Image:Map of Palm Beach County Florida 800px.png modified to show it? I understand you might be a bit busy. -- Donald Albury 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Having a time reading through this to figure out the boundaries :) Bastiq▼e ^demandez 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:OTRS

That's odd, my e-mail was functioning until recently. I have reenabled it, and you should now be able to contact me. - SimonP 14:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ally Carter

you said:

Protected Ally Carter: Persistant bad faith edits from anonymous source.

Reverted bad faith edits. Other authors real names are more well known. This is not appropriate.

for your consideration:

• the post in her agent's blog (in which the author herself participates) [2] states that Sarah Fogleman's real name is not a secret, and that she is openly a member of various writers' groups under her real name, and quite openly linking it to her pseudonym, including publication in various industry and publicity releases. [3] [4]
• bad faith implies malice, instead of seeing the edit for what it is: simply trying to be true to wikipedia, in including actual encyclopaedic, verifiable info (via live links) within the article. please refrain from using inappropriate legal terms to libel well-intentioned editors.
• all the other authors' (or actors') real names are not always more well known... most only became known via the fame their pseudonym (or stage name) brought them. most of the entries for those people usually state

  Pseudonym (born as Real Name)

  in the first line of the article, or is otherwise included in the first line under 'Biography'.
• you reverted some good edits, including the wikifying of the Disney movie option.
• hopefully, you will not allow the “author” to edit the article to make it read like a publicity page [5], which is also wiki-inappropriate.

thanks for your time.  :)

172.161.199.59 03:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) have a nice day!

Note, the name, while available, is not well known. It is therefore unencyclopedic trivia. Please read WP:BLP, while all sorts of information may be available, it is not all appropriate. We frequently remove information from articles to protect the privacy of individuals. This information, unless it becomes notable, will remain removed from the article.

Please do not persist in replacing it in the article. The article was semi-protected to prevent anonymous edits to it, and to prevent you from replacing it. Your IP continues to vary and therefore is impossible to leave you a message. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 03:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Free pictures of celebrities

Would you please consider uploading these to the Wikimedia Commons? You can do that here: commons:Special:Upload. We'll be more than glad to help you with this. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merci Bastique! I have just created an account at Wikimedia commons with the same user name I have here. I've just uploaded three images, however I'm not sure how to replace the code in the wikipedia articles to reference the images in at Wikimedia commons, or if I should do that? I live in Los Angeles and work in show business, so I can also occasionally provide original photos of celebrities to share here. I'll do my best :) à bientôt--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 10:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning User:Ral315

Hi,

The user page says it can be edited. I felt free to add something. My edit was then reverted by someone who apparently didn't know that it was okay to edit the user page and thought it was vandalism from my part. Then Majorly put back my comment stating that it was possible to edit the page (which is true). The edit that Majorly did was therefore not horrible satanic vandalism and he probably doesn't deserve to be blocked for that.

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Majorly is a friend of mine. It was humour (hence the block duration of "kumquat"). Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with that, he was just having a little joke! We don't block for period of kumquats anyway, they aren't within policy :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 17:55 27 February 2007 (GMT).

Regarding licensing of Logo-CEEES.png

I note that you revised the licensing of [[Image:Logo-CEEES.png]] and I assume that your revision was the correct thing to do. I did email to permissions@wikimedia.org a copy of my email exchange with the CEEES organization which included their granting permission to use the logo in the Wikipedia article CEEES. I have since received confirmation that they received what I sent them and they thanked me. Is everything okay now? Or is there anything else that I should do? Regards, - mbeychok 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I really would like to get a response from you regarding the above questions. Please take a few minutes of time to answer. Thanks, - mbeychok 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to learn that you considered the above request for a response to be "Harassment". I thought it was a polite request for help from a knowledgeable Wikipedia administrator. Thanks anyway, - mbeychok 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ral315

I have half a mind to send you to ArbCom for wheel warring over my page. How dare you! Three cabal demerits for you! Ral315 » 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Licensing for Image:Bakenshark.jpg

Hello, Bastique. I noticed you recently removed the text of an e-mail from the image description page of Image:Bakenshark.jpg and replaced it with a PermissionOTRS tag [6]. In this same edit you removed the "replaceable fair use" tag, but did not remove the fair-use tag itself or add a free license tag. This leaves me confused as to the licensing status of this image. What permission does the ORTS tag refer to? Has the image been released under a free license? If not, then it should still be tagged as a replaceable fair-use image. —Bkell (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott Burry

Thnaks for alerting me to Fort Lauderdale High School. He struck there again. Can you please check out His talk page? He has accused me of malicious editing. I provided all the proper souces for him to read up on polices, but when I first started on here about 6 months ago, I had similar problems and felt like one person was out to get me. Maybe a second voice would help him to see he is not being attacked. Thanks for any help in this. Butnotthehippo 01:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Rstepp another one of his accounts? Butnotthehippo 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

National Council of La Raza

I have reverted your reversion on this page.

My reasoning for doing this is that it is bad form for any administrator to revert and then protect something like this; there is a content dispute, not vandalism, happening and you appear to have used your admin powers to "win" a content dispute in that regard.

Additionally, I remain unconvinced by Evrik's statement that it is legitimate to try to "force" people to register for this site: talk pages are open to all, and it is perfectly reasonable to conduct a discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks and trying to "force" people to register an account if they do not want to. Your readdition of the semiprotection seems to fail on this point as well.

These are my concerns, please take them as helpful criticism. One Elephant went out to play... 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Because you have threatened me, I have no recourse but to request a full intervention from WP:ANI. Administrators are not supposed to behave in this manner. One Elephant went out to play... 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Elephant

I've left a comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's Enviroknot (talk · contribs). He was reverting at National Council of La Raza to support edits from this IP, which resolves to the University of Houston, Texas. That's Enviroknot and the voice seems very similar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would explain his turning up at Allegations of Israeli apartheid; he was always a very anti-Islam editor. The other main accounts were KaintheScion (talk · contribs) and ElKabong (talk · contribs), and some others here. I think he was also Queeran (talk · contribs) and he posts to Wikipedia Review as Queeran. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I found an earlier IP used by Enviroknot — 129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs), which is in the same range as 129.7.35.202 (talk · contribs) whose edits Elephant was reverting to at National Council of La Raza. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an easier reason why I "turned up" at Allegations of Israeli apartheid: it's mentioned on the noticeboard page just below where I was trying to get help against Bastique's continual attacks, so I took a look at it. One Elephant went out to play... 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Noor Leghari

Can you explain the recent deletion of the above mentioned article. What were the specific reasons for deletion. Was it done on anyone's request or was it done on objections to the article content or relationship to any person in particular etc... I would be very grateful...thanks...MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.125.158.229 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

The article was deleted based on the fact that there were complaints to its content and the fact that the subject is of borderline notability; in accordance with our policies on Biographies of Living People. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversion on Hialeah, Florida: Private Education section

I'm curious as to why my addition to this section was removed. I didn't think I was misstating anything or showing favoritism, but if I was breaking any rules, please let me know. Thanks. ClutteredMind 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please verify yourself for Commons

You said: "Upon verification, you should create an account on Commons, such as User:Yamla-en, and then confirm that account creation here, via a diff or link to the new account name. We will thereupon rename the imposter account and then you can usurp the account."

Done. See here. Thanks, Bastique. --Yamla 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Could you please get a bit further through that list? Perhaps 6 more users? :) Prodego ^talk 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep up your good work here and at meta wiki:) Have a nice week and god bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 04:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject LGBT studies

Hey - thought you might be interested in the LGBT WikiProject. Take a look around, and if you are interested, sign up :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinbad (actor)

Please note, your office/Vprotected [7] (which didn't seem to protect the article) was changed to Sprotected[8], even though the article still is under Office scrutiny. -- Jreferee 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your new endevour with the Foundation. In our conversations you always struck me as intellegent, capable and interested. I wish the best of luck to you in this and in all things. Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich 17:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Champagne is the tits, man!

Let me throw in a congratulations as well, and I hope you wear the hat well. Corvus cornix 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I convey my best congratulations for your new role. All the best! --Bhadani 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please pay some atention to this

First of all i cannot express my excitement enough to your promotion, that not only have you given time and energy to our small non-existent Yiddish wikipedia but the wiki community as a whole from over 260 languages, has seen in you a leader. Thanks for your story.

Now back to business: censorship in wiki communities;[9] to serve the world view of their religious believes is that tolerable from wikimedia foundation by laws? eventually this will affect all of the smaller wikis that the community is religious. can you start saying whats the foundations stand on this?

I personally have this problem on my wiki the yiddish wikipedia daily, because i am 1 against 3 fighting what can be written and whats not acceptable, because in their view doesn't match their importance to fit into an encyclopedia due to its sexual nature against religious mindset, on one hand you can say 3 against 1 is a community's will, but on the other hand the question is can we let a religious community silence out the heretics of its community from a wikipedia project?

Danny Wool has never ever expressed his opinion on this he only took away my sysop rights for these fights daily, and until i was given it back by an other steward seeing that this was utilised to block me out. Maybe its time someone from the foundation should explicitly say what is the rule should i let the community silence and censer all sexual articles or have i some standing in fighting them back?--yidi 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Joyce McKinney from "non statutory female on male rape"

Please see Talk:Non statutory female on male rape. -Lwc4life 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just seen your recent appointment. Congratulations! --MichaelMaggs 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Live Prayer with Bill Keller

Are you aware you restored a promotional version of the article? I think you made a mistake so I'm going to undo it. Please tell me what is going on. Thanks. The Behnam 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Promotional or not, paragraphs starting with "His hard-to-swallow message" are entirely unencyclopedic and POV. As an editor, you have an obligation to create an article that doesn't overly browbeat its subject. We would rather have a whitewashed version of an article than one that is full of innuendo and weasel words. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see it got destroyed. That's probably better. I got involved there because of newbie contrib patrolling and it was an endless pain of vandalism. The Behnam 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB

Hi Cary , thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. I'm humbled to be supported from an editor I respect as much as you, it means a lot to me. See you around! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

71.247.128.0/17

I notice that you recently placed an indefinite range block on Verizon, to prevent 1 user from editing 1 article. This range block is bound to affect most Verizon users, is there any way you could consider lifting it and replacing it with sprotection of the article in question?--VectorPotential^Talk 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've unblocked. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Ray

I noticed that you sprotected Charlie Ray with cascading. However, WP:PROTECT stipulates that cascading sprotection should not be used, as it applies full protection to any transcluded templates. Thanks! mrholybrain's talk 22:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE questions

Since you seem to be the new person to pester with such questions, here I go: Could you look into the articles Mindy Kaling and St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine and say whether office protection is still necessary? They've been protected since September 2006. That's more than half a year by now, surely whatever might have come up then should've been resolved by now? --Conti|✉ 00:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I will add both of these to my list of "find more information about as to why, and undo if necessary." Cary 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Conti|✉ 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Any update on progress with regard to unprotecting St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine? 67.177.149.119 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Any update yet? 67.177.149.119 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into and attending to this issue. 67.177.149.119 01:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Ireland

You may wish to comment on my question about the above. Frelke 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

how pretty!

Love your userpage and signature! Very pretty indeed! --Rebroad 10:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Todd Goldman

I'm curious as to whether you think I could have handled this better, and if so how. At 04:45, 11 April 2007 I removed potentially libelous material sourced to unreliable blogs and message boards from the Todd Goldman article. [10] It was re-added 20 minutes later.[11] I again removed the potentially libelous material half an hour after that with a more explicit edit summary: "remove per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used). [12] It was restored about half an hour later. [13] Another half hour later I removed the information again.[14] About ten minutes later the material was restored by User:Night Gyr, a Wikipedia admin, who wrote that "We're not saying it's true, just that he's been accused, and given that it's been picked up in many sources, it's worth noting)."[15] That didn't seem quite right to me, so I listed it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where it recieved no comments and no action seemed to be taken to remove the potentially libelous material. Now I see that over a week later the material has been removed after "external correspondence regarding this article." Is there something I should have done differently to better protect Wikipedia? The material seemed obviously defamatory and unreliable, but other than post about it on that notice board I didn't know what else to do about it. --Dragonfiend 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, you indicated at WP:OFFICE that the office protection for the article would expire today. I'm not sure how something like this could be resolved in one day, but could you please either unprotect the article or, and this is obviously the more likely action, change the information at WP:OFFICE? I know you're new to this, but you seem to have indicated above that you recognize that these situations sometimes go a long time without update, with supposed deadlines and expirations going unheeded, and I don't think that's what anybody wants. Thanks. --Maxamegalon2000 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Any updates on the office action? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Office action extended until next business day. See article. Cary Bass ^demandez 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE

Your highness: Is WP:OFFICE Wikipedia-wide policy or Wikimedia-wide policy? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As indicated by the [[WP:]], this is an en.wp policy. And don't call me "your highness". Cary Bass ^demandez 11:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimania notice

I would think this is more appropriate on watchlists than on all the pages. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

you can "dismiss" it (see link at right of notice) once you've read it and it won't show up again for you. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm following the lead of other projects. The Wikimania committee requested this go in the sitenotice, and given the serious underparticipation issues with Wikimania, I felt that it was appropriate there. Also, it can easily be dismissed. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can be dismissed, I'd noticed that. The issue is however deeper than that. I'd argue that Wikipedia-wide notices should be used very rarely, only with extremely good reasons, and for a short period of time. I assume this will stay only until end of April and will be gone afterwards. Is that correct? Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising OUR OWN conference is a great use of the site notice -- an "extremely good reason" in your words. Don't forget you're part of a larger community on Wikipedia -- if the notice annoys you dismiss it, end of problem. -- Brassratgirl 00:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

GSSchool

Read the comments and tell me that this guy isn't a Sock Puppet. Same tone, same issues raised. He claims to be a 'friend' of Sanchez, which is also suspicious and the account seems to have been created with the sole purpose of editing the Sanchez article. Also, bluemarine, Sanchez's account suddenly went dead right before the GSSchool account took an active interest in the Sanchez article.

Aatombomb 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)\

He also claims to be a fellow Marine. Aatombomb 22:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you believe it is an abusive sockpuppet account, then you should request a checkuser. Thanks. Cary Bass ^demandez 11:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:TANK

Just a quick note to thank you for shortcut to WP:TANK. You said something about "all sorts of people will wind up editing it. Hope you don't mind." That's the whole point of Wikipedia, so I think it's great. Thanks!--Superluser 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2007

Thanks a lot for the message about the scholaship application for Wikimania 2007.
I have followed the news about Wikimania, but not closely, so I didn't know about that in detail.
I'll try to gather the info i need to fill the form as soon as i can, and if I have any doubt, I'll ask you here or on the IRC channel.
Thanks once more. Waldir 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD

I understand that you're involved with [WP:OFFICE], and right now there's been no official response on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#09_9_11_02_9D_74_E3_5B_D8_41_56_C5_63_56_88_C0_.28closed.29 I think that the community would appreciate one. Thanks --142.68.40.44 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time. Cary Bass ^demandez 20:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So the Foundation is going to let admins run about censoring the key from Wikipedia? --142.68.40.44 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some sort of statement of support for our continued removals of the key. I've been citing DMCA title II (OCILLA), at 17 USC 512, which states that in order to maintain safe harbor protections, an OSP must remove possibly infringing material as soon as it becomes aware that it is being hosted. I don't have the statute on me, but off top of my head that is subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) . In addition, considering takedown orders have been issued under 17 USC 1201 (A)(1)(a), and 17 USC 1203 (a), it's not but a matter of time before they send one to Wikipedia (considering it's Alexa rank is what...8 now?). My argument is that as administrators it is our duty to protect Wikipedia from liability when it is within our power to do so, and the general consensus of established users and administrators that I've been able to see, is that it leans strongly towards "exclude the actual content of the key", when the various SPA's and socks are removed. But again, it would be very helpful for us to have some sort of statement of support or clarification from the Foundation regarding this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no statement to offer, I'm afraid. As a user, I encourage you to use your own good Common Sense, i.e., if other sites have been ordered to take it down, there's no reason Wikipedia should be subject to hosting it. We don't have to have an article about absolutely everything. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask if the office will be making an announcement or have become 'aware' of the controversy? Basically I'm asking if the foundations knows and if they do, is there going to be a 'official' response. I hope this doesn't come across as pushy, but I'm really worried about how the issue is being dealt with currently. Thank you. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would we have something to say? Cary Bass ^demandez 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Because there is an ongoing dispute on how to handle the issue and it seems that other oversight has not taken this issue upon themselves. In fact, there is a giant talk page header seen here telling me not to post the keys because it is stated that they are waiting for the WMF for the official opinion. Thanks again, MrMacMan ^Talk 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, requests to the foundation are better handled by email. I don't check my talk page to the English Wikipedia every day :). Cary Bass ^demandez 12:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

email

Cary, if I can badger you a little bit, did you get my email regarding OTRS and unblock-en, as well as my email regarding OTRS access request? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I consider you qualified but there are a few policy changes that are creating somewhat of a slowdown in this regard. Cary Bass ^demandez 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy Blankings?

Okay, I'll bite. Why us User:Wikintern-MM blanking any mention of ISTIA is User:the Benham's discussion page, as well as elsewhere? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the user change the edit summary they are using. Right now it's "(curtesy blanking) " which, because of the typo, looks odd and unofficial. Dina 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And he's a college student. Go figure :) Cary Bass ^demandez 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

More Bill Keller

The article has reappeared LivePrayer with Bill Keller. I'm not sure if it is problematic like the previous one, but just giving you a heads up anyway. Cheers. The Behnam 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have disappeared again now :) Cary Bass ^demandez 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On another note

I think you are misapplying the supposed 'right to vanish' when deleting certain pages. It says clearly in the lead that

"The right to vanish should not be extended to users who have been abusive or disruptive, who left when they lost the trust of the community, or who have been banned."

This does not apply to you-know-who. The Behnam 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It does however provide even particularly disruptive users the right for the organizational name to be removed from Google searches. And there were two sides to this story, you realize. Cary Bass ^demandez 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed you privately about this. Cary Bass ^demandez 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could fill me in on this. There has been a courtesy blanking on my talk page, which I am somewhat ambiguous about. The blanking was of the name of the organisation, which seems to me a distinct issue from the right to vanish of the individual in question. Feel free to email me.--Gregalton 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be completely above board on this. The information is available in your user page history if you would like to find it. Otherwise, it does not need to rest on a searchable page. Cary Bass ^demandez 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)