User talk:B/archive200701b

RFA Thank you message In lieu of spamming eveyone's talk page with a message of thanks, I would like to place this message here for everyone who participated in my RFA. Thank you. The tremendous show of support was humbling and heart-warming. This week has been an interesting one. I will strive to earn the trust that the community has placed in me. I am placing myself in Category:Administrators open to recall. That means that if you feel I am ever using the administrative tools incorrectly, I want to hear about it, no matter how minor the concern is. I will, as some have suggested I should, make sure that I spend more time on writing and on developing an encyclopedia. Thank you all for participating in this process. --BigDT 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read this first. Please remember to give context, as it may not always be obvious to me what you are talking about. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Please do not use profanity on my talk page. Please remember to sign your messages using ~~~~, preferably with a signature shorter than the message itself. ;)

Quick links: Main page * My Contributions * Talk to me * June 2006 archives * July 2006 archives * August 2006 archives * September - December 2006 archives * January 1 - 15 archives

Redirect

Could you also delete R.L. Wysong. PatriotBible 02:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --BigDT 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad image list

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of that. The list does seem adequate to deal with the present problem. Noting your concerns 9and those on the page) about the size of the list, some of the image there have been deleted and can be removed (as they could be uploaded under any name there seems little point in blocking the old titles). The page is edit protected so would you care to use your shiny new tools? The following pictures have been deleted:

Saves anyone else from having to look through them all to work which have been deleted... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --BigDT 04:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your mods re [Image:Major_religions_2005_pie_small.png] chart

BigDT, I'm not following what you've done to my request to have the chart in the subject line removed on the grounds of being WP:OR. Are you saying that my request was not somehow procedurally correct? I did notify its creator, User:Bookish, of this chart's violation of the Wikipedia Original Research policy and gave more than the required notice. What else is needed? --Ubarfay 09:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The reason I relisted the discussion is that the image was not tagged with {{ifdc}} in the five places that it was used. (I have fixed everything - it is now tagged correctly.) The creator hasn't edited since June ... so just notifying him/her doesn't mean that anyone would actually see the message ... but by tagging the articles where the image is used, anyone who is interested can come and participate. I hope that helps. --BigDT 12:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --Ubarfay 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for the comments on RFA. Actually I agree with them so much I wonder about withdrawing. THe only consolation I can offer is (1) someone very recently pointed out about edit summaries, in particular that I could set preferences to self remind which I do now (2) Yep, until a few days ago I haven't really hung around recent changes, so the vandalism I have picked up through watch is mainly subtle enough to have got through the RCP and apart from occasion ones (e.g. [1] I don't put remarks on vandals pages which I agree I should... although three of the recent cases was repeated vandalism from roving IPs so there didn't seem much point (3) speedy delete versus AfD I have mixed feelings about. I got pretty cross when the servers had a very slow day and someone kept speedy deleting an article I was starting here: [2] and I am inclined to the view that new articles are so invisible anyway we should give them more of a chance. Perhaps if I hung around Recent Changes more I would have a better idea of the scale of the real problem: but I generally move slower. Anyway, your thoughtfulness is appreciated (you are actually the only oppose who has put in critical time) and as I said it ain't going to change anyone's world if I am not elected. --BozMo talk 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You are obviously a very good contributor and with a little more experience, I think you will be ready. I really despise numerical cutoffs (ie, you must have 4000 edits, at least 20% of which are talk and 20% of which are Wikipedia space). But I think that demonstrated positive experience in administrative areas is definitely a good thing. If you keep at it, I will definitely support next time. Good luck! --BigDT 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

While I still strongly support BozMo, yours are the best RfA comments I've seen in quite a while. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the comments here, per BozMo's strong work in the anti-spam area, and per an expressed and demonstrated willingness to fix the areas of concern (which is all that any of us could ever ask), I have switched my !vote to support. --BigDT 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving Pages

Well, thank you for the advice and concern on the movement of Ninja Warrior. Your dedication to Wikipedia is very clearly shown, as is my ignorance. Hopefully, that last part will soon change. --Mooooorad 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I can help. --BigDT 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping your eyes peeled

Hey, thanks for looking after my talk page today, vandal hunting and AFD'ing always brings out the worst in others! Cheers again. The Rambling Man 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Always glad to help. This place gets crazy sometimes. ;) --BigDT 18:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Images kept

Hello - there were a bunch of images not deleted (see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 14) and I noted that you said they were to be kept. One that was not included in that list was Lenna, which, I am sure, can be kept as well. May I take off the dispute tags on Lenna or is that something you should do? Thanks - PAR 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I have removed the tags and left a note on the talk page referencing the discussion. Personally, I disagree with the outcome of the debate, but there was a nearly unanimous consensus that those images do not violate our fair use policies. --BigDT 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. PAR 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Page move

Thanks for the heads up about the page move. Normally, once an admin deletes a redirect to make room for a page move, they let the proposer do it. I imagine you'll get tired of notifying people after a while but thanks anyway. Congrats on your recent RFA, anyhow. Axem Titanium 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

CSD redundant removal

Yah, I didn't have them side by side. Ohwell, they'll both go in the IFD bucket anyways. Thanks. --MECU≈talk 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

accuscore

Hey, thanks for deleting Accuscore. I noticed that a new user had put an AFD tag on it before I speedy tagged it. I wanted to leave them a note pointing them in the direction of CSD, can you look in the history and let me know their username? If this is a big pain don't worry about it. Thanks, delldot | talk 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:70.224.229.167 --BigDT 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! delldot | talk 04:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome --BigDT 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Lebanon

Hi BigDT

I'm not sure you've noticed it, but the flag of Lebanon that you've listed for deletion is not identical to the proposed replacement. The images with a border are used in regards to the "flagicon" feature where it is a lot easier to use an image that already features a border, rather than having to add the border manually where most users will forget to resize the affected flags to give the finished result the same proportions. The image is only intended for use regarding the "flagicon" feature, and using such flags can create nicer lists, see e.g. Odense_Municipality#Twin_cities_and_towns where the countries with a flag mostly consisting of white are all represented by a pre-bordered version of the flag. Such material is also very useful when it comes to material regarding the Olympics. We have a consistent system now, so I'd hate to see it go. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... that image is not being used. But since you say it is potentially useful, I'll move it to Commons. --BigDT 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Either somebody missed this one or it must be because Ligulem protected the relevant template. I'm glad almost all of this work was completed some time before he suddenly protected the entire template series. Updating to the bordered image looks like a good idea here due to the prominent white stripe, and you can do it by updating {{Country flag alias Lebanon}} to Flag of Lebanon (bordered).svg

The relevant IOC template was unprotected so I've updated that one. You can see the system on the description page of image:Flag of Lebanon.svg Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I guess it all worked out well, then ;) --BigDT 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't update the relevant template myself but someone will probably do it sooner or later. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it protected as a "high-risk" template? If you tell me exactly what needs to be changed, I can do it for you. --BigDT 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that was his motivation. The template is {{Country flag alias Lebanon}}. Simply replace "Flag of Lebanon.svg" with "Flag of Lebanon (bordered).svg" (without the quotation marks). You can see what I mean on e.g. {{Country flag alias Qatar}}. Cheers. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please check to make sure that everything looks right. I spot-checked a few transclusions, but I wouldn't necessarilly know what to look for - this is not at all an area with which I am familiar. ;) --BigDT 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

<- The line of text looks fine, but Ligulem has not added a no-include section to the other images. I'm not sure if he had a reason for this. Anyway, the image looks fine in the tables. Thanks for the help. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. As for the noinclude section, usually {{Protected template}} is added to high-risk protected templates. It isn't really needed for something like this - a low-level template ... I just put it in out of convention, though it doesn't matter particularly one way or the other. --BigDT 23:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Two Witnesses

Hi BigDT -

O.K. - it is time, after trying some time, to ask for help from experienced and trusted folks - I need to either REDIRECT or somehow cut the article in at least two parts - it will "hang together" if I can "splice" the entire section of "Exegetical Considerations" along with graphics (as is) on to another page as suggested - it's still a bit too long on both but this would make it 43/43 or so - so, how do I do that? Also, I probably should simply add a "See Also" to reference back and forth on the two articles because of their interconnectivity - is that a simple [[]] situation? Any help will of course be greatly appreciated. Thicked-headed Technician of sorts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriegerdwm (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, certainly splitting it is one option. But I think what would be a better idea is to do some cleanup on the one article that is there. For example, close to half of the article is in the see also, further reading, and external links section. Some of that can probably be trimmed down ... like the see also section. The various links to RCC, SDA, Mormon, JW, etc eschatology don't really need to be there - those articles aren't directly related to the two witnesses, but, rather, to eschatology in general. I probably won't get to it tonight, but sometime tomorrow or Monday night, I'll sit down and give it a good read to try and edit some of what's there. --BigDT 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Mitch (2nd nomination)‎

Hello. Re your vote at the article's original AFD, you might like to comment at the AFD for its recreation. Cheers. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

I like your idea of putting a message for everyone atop one's talkpage about one's recent successful RfA, and I have done that, but I can't also help writing to thank you personally for your early support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned fair use image (Image:3_first_singles.jpg)

I mistakenly uploaded the image awhile back but forgot to add a speedy deletion tag. It can be promptly deleted asap. LuciferMorgan 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question concernig Scouting image

I'm not quite sure if commons:Image:Scout stone Brownsea.jpg is correctly tagged. It was modificated from commons:Image:Scout.stone.750pix.jpg which states that it was first uploaded to en-wiki. The tagging of the source image can't be correct; it was likely uploaded by User:Arpingstone.

Could you please check this? I'm not very deep in image-tagging besides CC-by-SA and Scout-logo. Thank you. --jergen 09:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed Commons:Image:Scout.stone.750pix.jpg by copying its licensing information from en using [3]. I have tagged en:Image:Scout.stone.750pix.jpg for deletion as the commons description page is now correct (once the en image is deleted, the Commons one will show through.) As for commons:Image:Scout stone Brownsea.jpg, that tag looks fine. It's a derivative of a public domain work, so the uploader is free to also release it into the public domain. --BigDT 13:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; the tags look coherent now. --jergen 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi there,

Just noticed the message you had left on my talk page. Actually, I've never seen that image before. Are you sure it came from my account? I find this rather troubling. Please let me know - as far as I'm concerned - you can go ahead and delte - never uploaded that art.

Take care,

Goatboy95 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the "File History" section on the image description page. It says that you uploaded it on November 30, 2006. If you take a look at Special:Contributions/Goatboy95, you can see other edits made from your account on or about that time. Do you recognize them? If there is any question that someone else may have used your account, you may want to consider changing your password. Do you ever edit from a public computer (such as from a school library, at work, etc?) Is it possible that someone else at your school or place of employment could have used the computer (innocently) while you were logged in? If you ever are on a public computer, it's important to always log out or even clear your cookies before you leave. --BigDT 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong's RFA

Whoops, thanks for pointing that out. Sorry, it's been a hectic past few days. Just H 05:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

Why would this be asking for a lawsuit? The entries are properly sourced. Also, media personalities are already famous. WP:DENY won't have any effect on them. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dell970 THANKS YOU

for protecting my page. This comment was left on it. (comment redacted) and all my hard work was deleted but a Amin got it back. Now this can not happen again. DELL970 salutes you! [22ndCW, IC ArmA]Dell970 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad to help. --BigDT 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

happy birthday

i wonder if encyclopedia brittanica has an article for every star trek episode too —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.112.155.43 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

If Encyclopedia Brittanica were an internet encyclopedia maintained by thousands of volunteers, I'm sure it would. --BigDT 05:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. Is there any way for you to tell me who the single purpose account was that created these pages that you deleted - [4] and [5] —KingIvan 05:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User:R3b6 ... a sock of someone, I would assume. --BigDT 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Edvard Munch - Madonna (1894-1895).jpg

I've readded the deletion template. Please see reply in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 18 /Lokal_Profil 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion of files

For deletion did you mean ones like this ie orphans, which are the most numerous that I've seen on the untagged area. Just an image with no links to it. I think this is the case where this user created a page, but it wasn't notable enough to warrant a page, so it was deleted, but the image is still around, so I should mark it for deletion then? I've never deleted an image. There is this page, but is there anything special to deletion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:180px-Post-1-1141028020.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Listing_images_and_media_for_deletion --Kolrobie 22:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Yes, an "orphan" is an image that has no "file links" down at the bottom. If an image has no source or no license, there is no need in nominating it at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion, but if it does not qualify for "automatic" deletion, then yes, WP:IFD is the place to go. Does that answer your question or is there more? --BigDT 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guess so. I'll think I stick to just to the methods outlined in the untagged image faq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Untagged_images#List_of_untagged_images. Thanks. --Kolrobie 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... one other thing that may be helpful to check out is Help:Link. This page talks about making internal links. If you use [[name of page here]], then it looks a little bit easier to read than the full URL. So, for example, [[Wikipedia:Untagged images]] shows up as Wikipedia:Untagged images instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Untagged_images. I hope that helps. --BigDT 23:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User: UDHSS

Thanks for telling me about using {{subst:orfud}} for orphaned images, i really appreciate your help. Thanks. UDHSS 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --BigDT 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I think valid criticisms were raised in areas that I need to work on, so I've withdrawn my name. I intend to work on addressing the concerns that were raised, and think I need to work contributing without allowing myself to become as stressed as I have been at times, which did result in some inappropriate behavior. Perhaps I may re-explore adminship at some point in the future, but it's a little early to consider that. Again, thank you. Fan-1967 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)