Please take a look at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jack Merridew]]. Thanks. --<small> [[User:White Cat/08|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/08|chi?]]</sup> 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jack Merridew]]. Thanks. --<small> [[User:White Cat/08|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/08|chi?]]</sup> 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
== question... ==
Was it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safe_house_raids&curid=16314102&diff=198581749&oldid=198471587 your intention] to have your robot "fix" double-redirects even when they are '''<nowiki>#redirect [[]] {{R from misspelling}} or #redirect [[]] {{R with possibilities}}</nowiki>'''? [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 17:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Today is Sunday, 8 September2024, and the current time is 05:20 (UTC/GMT). There are currently 6,880,070 articles and 924,607 files on English Wikipedia.
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
The truth resists simplicity.
TALK PAGE OF とある白い猫
Hello, welcome to my talk page. You are welcome to post comments below. Anything you put here will likely be archived and available for public view. Please be polite and civil.
{{{ovr|
To post a new topic please use this link or the 'new section' between "edit this page" and "history".
FYI, you probably shouldn't be getting involved in a discussion with Jack Merridew on the Arbitration page, since it's specifically noted in the how to that the request page isn't the place for discussion. It might piss the arbitrators off a bit, and the last thing you want is to not be able to weigh in if and when the case is accepted. (Or have your opinion discounted because "that dude doesn't know when to stop") Besides, you gotta save something for the actual case page itself. :P -- Y|yukichigai (ramblearguecheck) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I just added numbers from a graph. It was not intended to be a response to anybody. I don't have any intention of continuing a discussion. It is important evidence to demonstrate that the problem is of grand scale involving many articles and users. My post is intended to demonstrate only that. -- Catchi? 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom questions (White Cat)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
I am just a mere editor on en.wiki. I am a commons admin if that matters at all... I would not classify any of those examples and etc as a "position". None of them is a big deal.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I feel this is an area where I can employ my experiences. I do not really have a detailed answer to this question as I merely want to serve the community.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I really do not feel I am in a position to question the decisions of arbcom. I really feel it is very easy to look back to a closed case and 'judge' it so anything I put here wont be truly fair. Arbcom is overloaded with cases and they are doing quite a decent job. However I feel there were one case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan) which were handled less than perfectly. There was a second case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2) over the mater which was handled exceptionally well. I do not believe arbcom did poorly on the first case. Remedies could have been better worded and enacted and the second case perhaps might have been avoided - but all that isn't really important. Resolving such a complex dispute is however an exceptional accomplishment for arbcom - it just could have gone more smoothly though. There may be a third case judging from enforcement logs: case 1, case 2.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Had I been voting for a candidate, criteria I would look for at the candidate would be candidness, honesty, sincerity, impartiality, credibility. I recuse myself from judging myself per coi :P. I'd hope the users would vote for a candidate (whoever it may be) that has these fine qualities.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315»04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be working on my response so please disregard this for now. -- Catchi? 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
All done. -- Catchi? 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your statement. That you are proactively addressing any concerns by citing many negative links makes your honesty believable. But do you really have no positive links to show? — Sebastian07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad qualities are clearly well defined in Wikipedia so I cited those. As for my "good qualities", I am not sure how to cite those as there is no fine definition of what is "good behavior"... I strongly dislike "bragging" about myself. People seem to be fascinated with the level of access candidates have... I have none on "Wikipedia" but I am a commons admin if that matters at all. On my Rfa #4 it was said to be unimportant so I did not mention it on my statement. I figured people would ask me what they'd like to know per their own criteria. I was asked some questions but nothing too spesific so far. I am waiting for such questions feel free to ask them per your criteria for example. -- Catchi? 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you just look at what the others provided in the table and provide something similar? It's not bragging to include a few links to contributions or diffs that you can be proud of. Personally, what I want to see is evidence of people skills, conflict resolution, or diplomacy. — Sebastian18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)(I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]
Hello! Back in time you had added a merge template to the Preity Zinta article and its daughter article.
As you requested, the daughter page was merged into the main article as the info really belongs to the main article. Now, what should I do? I proposed the daughter article up to deletion. Is that what I have to do? Shahid • Talk2me13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would violate the GFDL. It should just become a redirect of the page was properly merged. I am glad an agreement was reached. -- Catchi? 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the slow reply, I am quite busy at the time being with study, but when that dissipates I'll be sure to talk you up on the offer; thanks for the consideration.~CortalYXTalk?01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RickK
I was not part of the dispute RickK had. I was completely uninvolved. I was on a vacation back then. To but it bluntly I do not understand what you are getting at. -- Catchi? 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think RickK got blocked for revert-warring. I do not clearly recall the details on that particular case but IIRC he was having an interaction (revert war) with SPUI ([1][2]) not me. He also seems to have wheel wared over SPUI's block. I was NOT the person blocking him and I was not revert/wheel waring either. While I did revert him once, that alone was not the reason for his block. He was only blocked for 24 hours which was pardoned several minutes later. I had taken the time and looked at the 3rr history as this particular case happened before we had 3rr archives. I have this link to the case which I was not a participant. In sum, I did not drive anyone away. My involvement with that particular case can be said to be minimal. -- Catchi? 18:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
How are edits by someone else my responsibility? Please do not get this the wrong way but it appears you are blaming me for SPUI's edits. SPUI might have just as easily picked some other case and things would end up the same way. I did not invite SPUI. In fact I did not even know SPUI... In fact I never liked SPUI. -- Catchi? 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi I have Commons:Commons:Project scope concerns on this image. Also the license is problematic as it needs to be GFDL per screen capture. -- Catchi? 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
How is any of that in the project scope? -- Catchi? 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a question for Commons. As I said, they seem to have a number of these and I have no idea what's been discussed with respect to them over there. --bainer (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be a commons admin which was why I was inquiring. I'll drop this issue for now since this is a non-critical issue and can be resolved later, preferably after the conclusion of the arbcom election. You may want to rename the image given some people may use it in a less than ideal manner. I'll keep you posted on this since I feel you'll have valuable input. -- Catchi? 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The redirection of WP:BANG to WP:POINT was done so as a gag. You are more than welcome to rerediect it to WP:BANGLADESH. -- Catchi? 12:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Username change
Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, is that enough? -- Catchi? 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That looks good to me, it's just an unfortunate situation when two editors in good standing have very similar user names. I think the disambig clears the problem now. Thanks for your co-operation White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a similar disambig on the other users page with his consent. It may appear like a COI if I made the request myself. -- Catchi? 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like your perspective on the following issues
I'd like your perspective on the following issues you mentioned on the arbcom page:
Deletion nom: Civility nomination was on 10 December 2006. The intention was to rise community awareness and perhaps initiate a discussion on the issue. For well over a year Wikipedia:Civility had been a policy people had been quick to ignore. No one is willing to enforce it. The nomination itself was not the best of all decisions I had but it wasn't really disruptive either. I am suprised people have been bringing that up since its been over a year.
Signatue issue: It has been nearly 3 years since I have been a part of the wikipedia community. Some people do not really care too much about the signatures but people had always been allowed to update their own or even other peoples signatures from time to time. As for my specific case, I had updated only some of my signatures. I had not had time to update others as people like User:Centrx and etc started mass reverting my edits. I merely raised it to community attention on ANI. To this date no one has explained to me how my updates to my own sigs damages the project. Every banned action needs a reason after all. I have made every effort to deescalate the matter.
lolcats: I do not believe the issue was ever about "lolcats" as I haven't picked any random image. I merely objected the addition of an image to User:WhiteCat with the image description "TROLL KITTEH NEEDS MOAR DRAMA" to a userpage. The image was placed on User:WhiteCat page instead of User:White Cat to avoid a ban at least in Gurch's words. What more, he uploaded a second such image despite the objections. Such images had been speedy deleted before for trolling and uploaders have been banned indefinitely. Popular target has included people like Jimbo. So why is it that I am treated differently? I do not understand. And an additional note both Gurch and Miranda were temporarily banned and booted from the IRC channels over their conduct during this incident.
The reason I am posting this here is not for a defense - such a thing would be pointless. Instead the intention is a dialog and mutual understanding of each others position.
MfD of civility policy: if your intention was merely to raise people's awareness of the lack of enforcement of the civility policy, it would have been much better to raise this issue at the village pump. Nominating the policy for deletion, especially during your personal dispute with User:Elaragirl, only added drama to what could otherwise have been a productive discussion in another venue.
Signatures: I didn't follow that controversy too closely, but I am well aware that people can and do change their signatures. Here for example is one of my former signatures, which I used under my former User:Tachikoma account: Kyoko. That was before I requested a name change. As I recall, you had wanted to go through all instances of your prior signature and replace those with your current signature, even on pages which had been archived. Some people objected on the basis that changing an archive page is like tampering with history. I think there was also some concern about the block logs on your accounts being obscured. While I personally think that it's a little frivolous to want to change your signature on archived pages, I wouldn't have objected myself. What matters here is that you and several other people got into quite a conflict over a pretty minor issue.
The cat image: while I'm inclined to agree with you that Gurch should not have changed User:WhiteCat's page with out that user's permission, I don't think it was a good idea for you to post about this incident on WP:ANI without first asking Gurch why he had altered someone else's page, and with that particular image, and that particular user. Again, my concern is that your approach to this matter added drama to something that might have been settled between you and Gurch without administrative input.
I hope this message has explained things to your satisfaction. Let me also add that I'm considering striking out the "Strong" from my ArbCom opinion on your candidacy. This is something I've been thinking about since I first posted there, because adding the word "Strong" only makes my comment unnecessarily hurtful at a point when your candidacy is unlikely to succeed. I do hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia following the election. Take care, --Kyoko15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd like to continue this if you don't mind :) I have formated (indented) your comment and duplicated the thread for your convenience.
My dispute with User:Elaragirl was a very minor one. I found her general tone to be problematic, not just to me but to others. There were and still are others (even admins) who are impolite and dicky on a regular basis. I felt back then (and still do) that we need a serious amount of improvement on this issue. I thought nominating WP:CIVIL would generate such a discussion... Didn't work as I had hoped. In any case, I can't change what I did back then... If you take a look at some of the votes on the nom page, they are quite uncivil. What I am curious is what would you recommend I do to get this issue addressed?
Centrx considered all edits older than a day to be 'archived'. He even reverted my edits in my userspace. I stopped making signature alterations soon as people complained (over RC feed getting flooded mostly). However Centrx continued his slow paced mass revert despite this. Centrx continued reverting my edits for months. I initiated discussions with Centrx and even invited uninvolved 3rd parties to talk to Centrx. Sig fixes on archive pages are not banned (to my knowledge). As for the block log. For quite some time I have those linked on my userpage. My old sig does not generate a block log so I never completely understand that concern.
What you said would be what I would have done had my interaction with Gurch had been different. On IRC for example Gurch had been most unpleasant even when I was agreeing with him on an issue. He had actively done so over the past months (Deletion of WP:MIT (a project intended to verify free-images 'freeness' making them more commons compatible) per his speedy nom for example). That is why talking to him on this issue was pointless in my perspective. I have the access to delete the image in question from commons in the blink of an eye. I have initiated discussions merely to avoid a COI for the most part.
I do want to add that the nom page has been interesting so far. A number of support and oppose votes have been most intriguing. A good deal were particularly unhelpful and 'hurtful'. Your vote was not hurtful and on the contrary quite helpful as I have a better understanding of peoples' concerns now.
If you want to discuss the civility policy and how it is enforced, I suggest starting a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That way perhaps you will get the discussion you desire.
Signature issue: like I said, I didn't follow it closely, but the very fact that people (not just you and Centrx) wrote a lot of text about it means that the alterations were controversial.
If you read the top of the WP:ANI page, it says in boldface "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." That's a step that you failed to take. You and Gurch may have a history of conflict, but I still think it would have been better to ask him first about his intentions, rather than post an ANI and inform him after the fact. If you felt uncomfortable approaching Gurch, you could also have asked User:Dmcdevit to ask him, as he was the admin who reverted Gurch's edit. You could also simply have allowed User:WhiteCat to respond for him/herself and not intervened personally. After all, you've said that you and Gurch don't get along. Any of these approaches would have generated less heat than going directly to ANI.
I am kind of confused. Should I avoid discussion of any kind in the future? My edits (signature alterations) came before the discussions I initiated. Had I not taken the issue to ani and instead revert wared, would that be more productive? I just still am uncertain what the community expected me to do. Should same thing happen again, how should I deal with it?
I have brought the issue to ANI for general discussion. Dmcdevit's revert came after my post to ANI. Dmcdevit probably would not know of the issue had it not been posted on the admins noticeboard. User:WhiteCat is an inactive user and like I explained his involvement in this case is simply because of the similarity of his username to mine - that what bothered me most in the whole case.
Signatures: I think most people in the community didn't understand why it was so important to you to change your signature on messages that you had already left on various pages. Changing your signature so that future messsages look different is one thing, while changing signatures on messages that you have already left is another. As you know, people's views on it ranged from seeing it as eccentric but harmless to outright disruptive. If I were in your place, I would have stopped the signature alterations if other people were concerned... but then again, I wouldn't personally have bothered to change old messages in the first place.
The cat image: in this case, I think you should have asked Gurch first before going on to ANI, not after. Any issue that is raised at ANI gets a lot of attention, and the very fact that the discussion is there rather than another venue sometimes leads to heightened tempers, and yes, drama.
Knowing Japanese: despite my name, I don't know much Japanese, because it wasn't spoken much when I was growing up, and I've never devoted enough time to properly learn it. --Kyoko17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add: I'm glad that you weren't hurt or offended by my oppose vote. I generally try to make my oppose comments constructive or at least non-bitey. --Kyoko17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did stop making the sig alterations. I had a total of 2000 such edits after which people started complaining. For the next few months after that one or two people mass reverted those edits contradicting Help:Reverting#Do not ("If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof."). I desired to remove as many references to my former nick as possible over privacy reasons as it may put me in real risk... I can't go to the details for obvious reasons... I don't think anyone needs to cite reasons for trivial edits. Although people had been reverting my sig alterations, none had actually had a serious discussion with me - even despite my attempts in talking to them.
I really think when someone is being disruptive it should be addressed in ani. By the same analogy nothing should be posted to ani as anything posted there is automatic drama. I have talked to Gurch numerous times, talking to him over such issues is pointless IMHO. :/
Unfortunate! I could have used your skills had you developed them. :P
Any oppose vote not intended to insult or annoy me is casted with a positive intention by nature. It is generally not that hard to distinguish that. Otherwise I wouldn't bother posting on your talk page at all. :)
Hello White Cat, I'm resetting the indent to make it easier to write.
Signatures: You should be aware that if you want to obscure your former nick, you ironically just draw more attention to it by changing old messages. This makes all of those alterations appear in "Recent changes". In the future, I hope that you will reconsider making such changes should you decide to change your signature once again.
Cat image: If you feel that it's unproductive for you to personally approach Gurch, perhaps you could explain your situation to another person, perhaps an admin, who could explain your concerns on your behalf.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Terra Prime, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Terra Prime. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
on the large margins of the Iranian peoples
The estimates vary. Not in all countries censuses are taken in which ethnicity is asked, so for an elaborate discussion on numbers you should go to the demographics of those countries mentioned. I myself have named a few sources for my edits the Soviet census of 1989 and ethnologue, all the other numbers are based on sources too. Margins are large because we are dealing with estimates in a large number of countries. I do not see the problem. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello White Cat, I wanted to check if you had further questions concerning our recent conversation. I archived my talk page because it was getting lengthy, and I will be taking a wikibreak soon. I hope you didn't interpret my message archival as a way to brush you off. It just seemed as if you had no further questions, based on your contribs. Happy editing, Kyoko15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None I can think of :) -- Catchi? 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Subspace Node Map Freespace.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Subspace Node Map Freespace.jpg. 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 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you upload this image and other images with a free license to commons? You can do so using Commons:Special:Upload. -- Catchi? 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No sweat I have legal copies of all the FreeSpace games except Silent Threat expansion. About the node map. I recall getting it off of the official site. That was some time ago - well over 2 years. It might have been added to the official website despite being a 'fan creation' as you suggested. Volition had done so in the past, especially for missions.
We certainly have this official map that establishes most of the nodes. Everything else should be in line with all briefing connections in the game. It is not OR to duplicate that info. I suppose we could verify all node related info not mentioned on the official map I just linked. We do know a lot about the subspace nodes from the briefings. For example we do know that the Sol (at the end of the first game) and Capella nodes were severed (at the end of the second game). I suppose we could cite exactly which mission establishes node connections. How does that sound to you?
Well, at the very least the copyright status of the image you posted is in question, and so probably is insuitable. A recreated map from a source map is perhaps borderline original research. A better solution would be to just include the original map you cited above, and get permission to do so. Even in that case, the caption to the image was overlong and didn't need to say much more than "This is a jump node map of the Terran-Vasudan region of space." Xihr (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions are supposed to explain the contents of the image in question. That is the very point of them. The reader should understand what about the image is significant. The summaries can be longer if an additional description is needed. Explanation over the alterations to the map (destruction of the nodes) only makes sense. The summary wasn't that long either, a mere 3 sentences. Consider various captions on the article September 11, 2001 attacks and how long they are. Mind that these are description of the photos and not a map. Or consider the article Tibet with 6 sentences as the caption.
A recreated map from a source map is not any where NEAR original research. We do it all the time on a wide range of articles such as various maps on countries, world and etc (see: Image:McDonaldsWorldLocations.svg). If a node between two star systems is mentioned on a briefing in the game, thats more than adequate to construct such a map. There is noting original of using information established in the game itself to construct an image. Consider reviewing this: Wikipedia:No original research#Original_images
We do not need any permission to use images under fair use. Fair use by nature is use without permission for educational purposes. If you mean getting free license permissions that is unlikely to happen.
Please notify me on my talk page so I know you posted a reply.
Since you've shown interest or made some contributions to Vasa (ship), I'd like to notify you that it has been nominated as an FAC. Your insights and comments would be much appreciated there.
Feel free to view the substantial edits I've done to the article, actually. I've improved it, found citations, regulated the formatting on the pre-existing citations, hacked out a bunch of useless stuff, and generally made it pretty. But just remember the only reason Jackyboy even brought this to your attention is because he disagreed with a comment I made in an unrelated deletion discussion. (And no, I am not wikistalking him in return, I was merely curious to see if he had reverted anything else I had edited. That's how I found this talkpage.) Howa0082 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no hurry. Until the rfar concludes, Until then I will make little or preferably no edit to fiction related topics. I'll abide by the decision there. I do not want to make a futile attempt to improve articles in the meanwhile if all those articles will end up getting deleted w/o discussion. -- Catchi? 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No discussion?
Would you please provide a few examples of TTN redirecting articles without discussion? I can only find cases where he has provided warning on talk pages.Kww (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A warning template is no discussion. A monologue is also no discussion. He may be using a merge template but a good number of times he has no edits to the target merge article. On occasions he has removed/blank articles despite a discussion. Please see the arbcom evidence page for the examples. -- Catchi? 21:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the phrase "without discussion" is quite misleading. He seems to always post advance warning, and responds to any discussion from people that state an intention to improve the article. I see no evidence of him refusing to engage in discussion, or failing to respond to comments founded in policy.Kww (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of evidence showing him revert waring. One such example is [3]. I have linked so on my statement to arbcom on the linked case. Please have a read of it as many of the issues you ask me is answered there. You are more than welcome to conduct your own research.
Drumhead discussions with only one possible outcome (any other outcome will be ignored) is not really a discussion. Initiating a discussion or posting merge templates is not adequate to make bulk edits. The very reason we ask people to "discuss" is to promote a collaborative environment. I see not a whole lot of collaboration from TTN. I do see bot like edits.
TTN's use of the merge template is particularly misleading. Also the problem does not only involve TTN. There are others.
I can only return the best wishes - but with this full bag! -- Catchi? 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hope you and yours are having a nice holiday time. I have an almost white cat, called Blue. I'll try and get a pic of her and let you know when it is uploaded here. Thanks, SqueakBox20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
This is very clearly a far worse image than the one you have replaced it with - a typical washed-out Yorck project scan from a 50-year-old book. Please reverse this imediately! I am very concerned that you could possibly think this the better image and would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning, preferably at on en WP. diff on enJohnbod23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. OK so what is the issue again? The other version is higher resolution and feels better. Your version is simply darker. -- Catchi? 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it is much richer and has far better colour values. Your preferred version is washed out. Caravaggio is famously dark - that is why the image is at Chiaroscuro. I am concerned because when I can be bothered to check these bot-changes to so-called "improved" images they are often worse. Do you actually know what works like this look like in the original? I have removed the tag on Commons on the other image - is there anything else needed to stop the replacement process? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivially easy for me to revert the bot edits. I will do this now. I will quote this thread too. -- Catchi? 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I think I have reverted all the en:WP changes. But what can we do to stop futre occurences? I saw the original of this a year or so ago btw. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution is finding a high quality image of high resolution. We have a high quality image with low resolution which is not good. Where is the source of the image located? A nearby wikipedian can take a photo of it for example.
In the future DO NOT revert CommonsDelinker. On the pages you reverted commons delinker a link to this thread was not generated. I could have deleted either version and you would have generated redlinks. Manual reverts of commonsdelinker creates problems and no benefit.
It is in Italy, & not supposed to be photographed (of course). An amateur photo would be worse than either of these anyway; you need special lighting - it is about 2m high. I won't revert Delinker if you don't tag superior images for replacement - deal? Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The museum may have a better quality image for our taking. Museums typically have these DVDs full of the content inside the museum so people visiting can take the photos. So that may be an option. You could contact the museum for a better image as well.
Commons has over 2 million media. We commons admins try to juggle these 2 million images trying to get the best ones for the +250 wikis these images are used at. This isn't very easy as there are so few of us around. It makes our job more difficult and time consuming when people contradict CommonsDelinker. We can't force anyone to obey us but all we ask is to let us work from a central location. So I ask you not to revert CommonsDelinker even if you are 100% right to do so. Just page me or some other commons admin and we will sort the issue centrally. I or any commons admin may make a mistake. This is no big deal and it would be easier for everybody if we do this.
Well I appreciate your prompt response & will do so in the future. The better image is actually far better than the vast majority of our images of paintings, a great number of which are, like the poorer version of this, scans from books over 50 years old with similar faded & washed out values (Yorck project etc), no matter how high the resolution. This painting is actually in a church, as you can see from the file description. I remain concerned that decisions like this are being taken; perhaps you could let me know if you are tempted to replace any more images of old master paintings. I am rather distrustful of Commons procedures here, especially after finding this 1930s reproduction replacing the one of an original (yes looking more faded) in the Met NY, which now is hidden away], only accesible from the file of the fake (sorry repro). It was clear from the discussion on this that knowledge of older artworks is in very short supply on Commons. If this can happen to the most famous image in Japanese graphics, God knows what is going on elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cant remember how many images I juggled today so I can't make any such promises. I do however invite you to work on commons. You could help better categorize painting images and work on the quality. You could even help with the featured pictured thing as well as commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Your expert opinions would be most welcome. -- Catchi? 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I do a certain amount of categorising there, but only see these deletion & replacement tags when they crop up on articles I watch. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to use the undeletion process (COM:UNDEL) if you disagree with a deletion. There is no easy way to monitor the RC feed of commons. -- Catchi? 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Andranikpasha and ASALA
This is counter-productive; I did block Fedayee for repeating accusations of sockpuppetry. It is quite likely that there is offwiki canvassing going on here, but the article is on the noticeboards, so it will sort itself out in due course. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with sockpuppets from the Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense for quite sometime. For example I was rather active on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad: (page history). I helped expose a good number of Artaxiad's sockpuppets. That #Raw_data was generated with my intervention. So yes, I have been dealing with this issue. I merely had taken a long break as dealing with this is more then stressful as you probably agree.
I did not randomly go to Penwhale, he the person placing VartanM under the restrictions and I merely pointed out identical edits by Andranikpasha. All this was before the issue was on the noticeboards.
I merely do not want any of the Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense leaking to that specific article. Now that the problem is under scope, I do not believe we will see any more of the nonsense on that article.
I clearly am not the source of the problem here and would welcome a little more courtesy. That was the first time I used the word "sockpuppet" in months.
Is there any way I can help you regarding either this or some other problem?
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Joint Command Lisbon.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Joint Command Lisbon.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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.
To check whether all of our members are still interested, we have blanked the members list, if you still wish to take part please add your name back on the list.
Hi. Though I'm not an admin I've left a statement on the ArbCom request. In other news I thought you might want to see this. If this case gets accepted I'm going to ask for a neutral and uninvolved admin to mediate because clearly he is neither of those things. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have been in tougher situations Al. We are here to put things right that once went wrong. Perhaps we need Dr. Sam Beckett to correct this one. Sorry I have just been watching too much Quantum Leap lately... :)
I'd like that. I wonder how far this crusade will go. How are admins that mock people for their opinions be legitemate candidates to enforce civility? I hope they are having a good belly laugh. Shows how seriously they take the matter.
I really do not want to defend myself. Whenever I do that people accuse me of drama. I be damned if I defend. I be damned if I don't defend.
Hi White Cat, thank you for Christmas greetings! I hope your holidays went well and that you have a great year. --Kyoko17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and I made the same edit nearly the same second? That is rare. And I randomly noticed it too, I mean the vandalism. -- Catchi? 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered taking some of the redirected articles that you are fond of, putting them into your userspace, repairing them, and then putting them back? No one can object to you putting up a repaired version of an article that meets all relevant guidelines. Simply shouting "TTN IS BAD!" doesn't help anything ... it just helps edit wars happen. Point redirects like we were talking about in your last ANI report don't help either. Unless, of course, your goal is to eventually derail TTN so that Wikipedia can be full of bad articles that are mainly plot summaries.Kww (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not written in userspaces. Stubs are not banned. We do not expect articles to be in featured quality when placed on mainspace. As you point out improving article quality involves expanding them, not blanking. This isn't a matter of good and evil. Articles that are mainly plot summaries are 1/3rd complete. That leaves the reception and production sections. -- Catchi? 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you think sandboxes and userspace pages are for? I didn't use the word "expanding", by the way. I said "repairing." Stripping the plot summary down to a paragraph, and then adding all the awards the episode has been nominated for, real life impact, things like that. And, if it never has been nominated for an award and has had no real-life impact, leaving it as a line or two in a "List of" article.Kww (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandboxes are there to experiment. For example how to use images. Userpace is there to help you manage articles you care about and to communicate. You are neither expected nor required to have any content in your userspace to write articles. Otherwise stub articles would be banned. They aren't.
Certainly an episode or movie that received no award is not automatically non-notable. There are plenty of movies that received no Oscar awards. Having an article on every movie made does not seem to be a problem on my end. Wikipedia is not paper. Just like how we do not exclusively have articles on physics theories that won the Nobel prize we do not expect nor require every movie article to have an award. Wining prizes has not a whole lot to do with notability but instead about the reception the particular movie received. Also, just because something has real-life impact or won an award does not make it notable.
You seem to be confusing the concept of notability. You seem to be seeking a universal notability which would be a mistake.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Welsper and his demon-angel Blue Lance.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Welsper and his demon-angel Blue Lance.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. BJBot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sigel (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sigel (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Satoko Yamano (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Satoko Yamano (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shohei Yoshida (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shohei Yoshida (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Toraichi Tamiya (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Toraichi Tamiya (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Otaki Aoyama (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Otaki Aoyama (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shiho Sakakibara (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shiho Sakakibara (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).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. BJBot (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hild (Oh My Goddess Manga).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hild (Oh My Goddess Manga).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. BJBot (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x17.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x17.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. BJBot (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x15.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x15.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. BJBot (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x07.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x07.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. BJBot (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x22.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x22.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. BJBot (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x12.0.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x12.0.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. BJBot (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Troubador (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Troubador (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Keiichi Morisato.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Keiichi Morisato.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. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 12.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 12.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. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 11.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 11.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. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 10.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 10.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. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Belldandy and Holy Bell.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Belldandy and Holy Bell.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. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sentaro Kawanishi (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sentaro Kawanishi (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chihiro Fujimi (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chihiro Fujimi (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Megumi Morisato (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Megumi Morisato (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chrono, Ere, Ex (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chrono, Ere, Ex (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gan-chan (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gan-chan (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).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. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ru Fe Morgan (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ru Fe Morgan (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Celestin (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Celestin (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Almighty (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:The Almighty (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lind (Oh My Goddess! manga).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lind (Oh My Goddess! manga).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. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hijiri (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hijiri (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Senbee (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Senbee (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Goddess Relief Office.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Goddess Relief Office.gif. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Koshan (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Koshan (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sayoko Mishima (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sayoko Mishima (Oh My Goddess!).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. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nekomi Institute of Technology.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nekomi Institute of Technology.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 3.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 3.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. BJBot (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 2.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. BJBot (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot.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. BJBot (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration workshop is not a discussion page. Please place your general comment elsewhere not in the main section. Not even arbitrators place comments there. -- Catchi? 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? There seems to be a whole lot of discussion going on there. Is this another of your official comments? I've edited that page 74 times, so I think I know what's appropriate. My comment even seems to have prodded you to focus on that section. In fact, I somewhat agree with you that a lot of the proposals are unsupported by evidence. --Jack Merridew13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sections are divided among arbitrators, involved parties and outside parties. It has been a tradition to keep it that way. I haven't heard of anyone 'disobeying' the tradition to date. Was merely trying to help better organize. -- Catchi? 13:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The format of the workshop has changed since the prior case. I feel that as long as things are clear, my comment is fine; removing it not yours to do. The case does need to focus on actual evidence. I offer the suggestion that you reword the end of your comment to "…presented have no evidentiary basis."
The format of the workshop still reads those three headings. Feel free to alter it/reword it as you see fit.
I typically copy threads to the talk pages of everyone involved on the thread. As you suggest I will stop. I normally do not check other peoples talk pages for responses.
If you check earlier edits of mine to the workshop page (w/edit summaries including the word tidy), you will see that I have made a variety of edits to the overall format of the page.
If I leave a note, I have my preferences set to automatically add pages to my watchlist, so I'll see a reply. I have 2,459 pages on the list at the moment, and I often cut things. --Jack Merridew14:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should re-apply for adminship, since you appear to be a good editor who would do the job right. You were close in the last vote and you're an admin on Wikimedia commons (which is good to establish your credibility).
Some of the links in your userpage appear broken. In the TOC, none of these work:
Asking for administrative intervention concering User:TTN is outside of the purview of WP:AN and WP:ANI. You are both involved in the arbitration case which is still on going. Wait for the ArbCom to decide on something.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked the presence of an RfAr is not a license for disruption. TTN is being disruptive in the absence of consensus on the matter which is exactly the point of the RfAr.
I find this culture of people going out of their way to prevent any kind of review to TTNs behavior. Any post to ANI about TTN is immediately attacked and rendered useless within minutes which adds to the disruption.
It belongs to the talk page. My GOD I cannot even move discussion to the talk page... You know, just forget it. I won't even try discussing this. I surrender to your revert-waring skills as I clearly can't compete. -- Catchi? 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Always good to see the skills are recognized. Seriously, though, the General Discussion section belongs there. Perhaps what they're discussing belongs on the talk page, but in that case you should have just moved the discussion, not the whole section. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I suppose I have misjudged you. I am just so sick of revert wars. Why don't you do what you suggested? -- Catchi? 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yay! I owe you an apology. This episode thing has been way too intense :( -- Catchi? 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of Starfleet ship classes
An editor has nominated List of Starfleet ship classes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Indian women artists, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use Image:Kikuchi_Masami.jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Kikuchi_Masami.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Ja-0 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Naohiro19 revertvandal (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? -- Catchi? 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess Logo.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 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:United Federation of Planets flag.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 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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.
A tag has been placed on Template:List of computer viruses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Afsouth-logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Afsouth-logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oh My Goddess Manga cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess Manga cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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.
Arbitrators are capable of handling checkusers. As this is arbitration related on a complicated case, I don't want to spread the disruption in any way. -- Catchi? 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Proving Ground (ENT episode).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Proving Ground (ENT episode).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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.
Hey, I don't mean to bug you too much but what happened? I haven't logged in for a while and the link on my userpage to CVU is broken! Thanks! --MADISON (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay had booted me off the group and started a CVN. Since then I avoided it. Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit is still out there. -- Catchi? 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Typical behaviour
How much do you know me to make that assertion? Have we met? -- Catchi? 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you name some? After if it is "typical", it shouldn't be hard to give examples. I do not consider myself to be remotely abrasive so I would like to know what area to work on. -- Catchi? 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
OTOH, wouldn't you agree that you have kind of a controversial history? Granted, some if it dates back to your Cool Cat days, but I see a similar attitude at play in the way you've been crusading against Jack Merridew for quite some time now. Or maybe it's my own POV. User:Dorftrottel 00:12, February 20, 2008
Umm... Feel free to double check on that. I feel the contrary is happening. I do not particularly feel like a controversial individual. If my analysis on Jack Merridew is correct, Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir would have been wiki-stalking (WP:HA) me continuously for the past three years. -- Catchi? 00:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll follow the development of that. If half of it turns out to be true, I owe you an apology. User:Dorftrottel 00:30, February 20, 2008
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
A tag has been placed on Template:Userpagebox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
You really don't need to notify me like that. If it needs to go, just speedy delete them :). -- Catchi? 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you nominating every orphaned template for speedy deletion? If so why? -- Catchi? 23:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Seemingly that would be "yes" and "that's a very good question", respectively. In the cause of "cleaning up old data" we're creating further "data" in the form of an equal number of talk-page discussion, and absorbing large amounts of people's time. Not much time per person, granted, but integrated over the whole wiki, a good chunk. Here, "speedy" is a complete misnomer; the not-very-lightweight process involved is really much more in the style of a highly speculative "prod", which really just serves to remove the requirement for any actual deletion rationale beyond "it's orphaned, so hey, maybe it might also be 'deprecated'". Alai (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tagging templates that seem to no longer be of value to the project. There's no real need to keep old templates around; in fact, a lot of them seem to be test templates or templates from when users were new and unknowing. I'm (trying) to avoid templates that are substituted or are part of a larger series. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose does it serve to seek them out and get them deleted? Deleting them wastes more server resources and admin time. So I would recommend leaving them alone as they do get deleted (slowly) over time. Instead of tagging them one by one, how about compiling a list and let people process that. This would save you time as well. -- Catchi? 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a list; as you can see from my contributions, I do letters of the alphabet at a time. Some of the templates I've been tagging are years old. And, I don't mind the work, and I usually end up deleting the templates myself when seven days has elapsed (no admin time wasted). Also, I try not to waste server resources as much as possible (one small step: not using an annoying image alongside my user notifications). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a problem with the templates, 'deleting' them does cause problems. For example you generate an extra log that wastes server hard drive space. Of course the amount of waste is trivial at best. I really think you should leave the matter to its natural course. We have greater backlog on copyrighted images with possible legal implications. -- Catchi? 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oop, forgot one thing. The script I use automatically notifies the original creator of the template that is being tagged. I don't check who it is, and unfortunately, getting a list of pages that a user was the creator of isn't particularly easy to do. So, unfortunately, you may get a few more messages. I apologize for any inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably get hundreds of messages. If you take a look at my talk page, it has been dominated bu bot talk and that does become inconvenient over time. "You have got a message" pops up and it turns out to be a bot... -- Catchi? 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom /evidence page for episodes is a bit too long and editing it has been rather difficult. I am somewhat panicking because the voting on the arbitration case has started and I feel the late evidence I provided may be overlooked. The sections on the evidence I collected that I would like arbcom to take a closer look are:
Aside from these I feel the combative mentality (comradeship) exhibited by some of the users has not been addressed. This is more evident in sub pages of the arbitration case itself such as the talk page of the proposed decision. Any time something is said about one of them they all defend each other 'to the bitter end'.
I am very concerned because after the first arbitration case the disruption continued. I do not want to deal with 2 more months of disruption just like the past case. As it stands I feel the passed remedies will not be adequate in resolving the dispute. Despite the temporary injunction by arbcom, people have continued to mass remove material. Alas on 'video game' related articles and not 'television'.
Let me clarify, I would like to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. While it would seem that we are hopelessly at odds about some issues, I'd like to limit that, and not have it bleed over to any time we interact on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Computer/Scepbot
If your bot uses the pywikipedia framework, you might want to change the following code in redirect.py:
# watch out for redirect loops
if secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == secondRedir.sectionFreeTitle() \
or secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == redir.sectionFreeTitle():
continue
to:
# watch out for redirect loops
if secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == secondRedir.sectionFreeTitle() \
or secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == redir.sectionFreeTitle():
content=secondTargetPage.get()
secondTargetPage.put("{{db-r1}}"+content, "Tagging for speedy deletion")
Hmm. I would like to do that but I also want to keep the bot in sync with SVN. Also CSD#R4 would be better criteria me thinks (alas that was created today by me). I'll tell this on #pywikipediabot -- Catchi? 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"<Filnik|away> White_Cat: tell Will that he has an old version of redirect.py and if he will send me a patch suitable for the new version I'll consider it (and apply if correct)"
So if you can do that, we all would benefit from this. :)
I really don't know. You could test on a private wiki, perhaps wikia. -- Catchi? 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying Wikiquote, by looping an already double-redirect, then running the script on it. I'm trying to find out where the error is being thrown, though... Will(talk)23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me of pointyness? Maybe I tried the talk page of multiple arbitrators and they failed to respond in a satisfactory manner? -- Catchi? 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't know if you have or not, but the point stands. The page makes it clear that you should use the talk page. Just because your proposals haven't found any traction doesn't mean you should try to force them into use. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not forcing anyone to do anything. For example if they gave me a single rational explanation why they are completely ignoring the evidence I provided - that would be a satisfactory response.
I will cease responding to you or anybody on this any more because I know people are waiting in a long queue seeking a mere excuse to block me over the most trivial error (this isn't an accusation directed at you, they know who they are). I will not give them the satisfaction. To put it mildly, I am very frustrated.
Very well. I understand you may be frustrated about your evidence not being seen, as I went over Krill's talk to see an example, but it seems to me that Krill at least has acknowledged it. Just because they don't accept it doesn't mean they're ignoring you. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well?
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Catchi? 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've told you before, I've looked at the material you've presented, and do not believe that modifying the proposed decision will be in the best interests of the project. Neither, apparently, do any of my colleagues. Kirill04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be having difficulty communicating... Would you prefer IRC?
Would you find it in the spirit of the passed arbitration remedies if people carry out the edit behaviour they had on television-related articles (what this case handled) to video game related articles? That is what is happening to a degree due to the wording of the remedy with an emphasis on "television". Video game related articles are typically not television related. This is only one of the issues I feel arbcom failed to address.
Is meatpuppetary not an issue? Granted arbcom is passing the "Fait accompli" thing, yet again... I presented evidence of editors are acting as a group on hundreds of articles. Surely this is not the preferred way of editing per "Fait accompli"... So why can't arbcom pass a ruling to limit or discourage any more such behaviour?
There are 10 headers on the evidence I presented. All I ask is a rational explanation why none of it is not used on the /Proposed decisions? I never expected all of them to make it to /Proposed decisions.
The bulk of your evidence is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand. This case concerns the broad question of editorial conflict over the disposition of certain articles; if you have private conflicts with certain other editors involved in the matter, you should pursue the dispute resolution process in that specific regard, rather than expecting those issues to be handled as a side effect of an unrelated case.
The rest of it is no different, in essence, from that presented by the various other parties. We're already well aware that there are two groups of editors fighting over the issue here. The current remedies remain, in my opinion, the most appropriate method to deal with the editorial conflict at this juncture. If the conflict spreads or otherwise increases, we can deal with the matter then; but I see no need to try and predict where someone might try to take it in advance. Kirill05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange that arbitration committee is willingly overlooking problematic behaviour. Is the desire for me to file more arbitration cases? I can do that if you like. I already filed two arbitration cases on Davenbelle, I can file a third one no sweat. I can file a video game rfar as well, fyi it has already spread. Evidence to this end has been presented and that is not just by me. I can file an rfar over meatpuppetry issue. Is this what arbcom wants? More workload? -- Catchi? 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
yardım
selamlar cat,
senden bir ricam olacak, ben benim vikide Şablon:Metakutu yu çalıştıramadım. Bu şablon Fransızların Modèle:Début des onglets [8] şablonu. #if fonksiyonu görünüyor, tablo oluşuyor ama yarım yamalak.Burda görüldüğü gibi
şunu belirtim Türkçe vikiden css ve js dosyalarını yükledim, ama benim serverda ekstsnsin dosyası boş bununla bi ilgisi var mı ve ya sürümle. Ne yapmam gerekiyor
Wikinin kurulumu bilmedigim bir konu size nasil yardimci olabilecegimi tam bilmiyorum. -- Catchi? 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re Well?
I want to clarify the following 3 sections before focusing on others. -- Catchi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
edit point a
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Catchi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a lack of attention from the ArbCom White Cat. I personally had gone through all the evidence you submitted and i am still believing that i only could have accepted it if it were the basis of a separate case though i find it partially quite unconvincing (in most of its parts as it is presented now) as a proof of anything. However, i am still open to hear about any further or new solid evidence. There would probably be a few elements worth checking but my 'common sense' tells me it should be separated from this case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll 'walk' you through what I meant with my evidence. Its 2:45AM3:25AM and I have an intercontinental travel tomorrow so this will probably be unsatisfactory today. I will post something more detailed tomorrow.
Some history. Firstly please familiarize yourself with these usernames
Coolcat -> Cool Cat -> White Cat
I have changed my username twice to date
Davenbelle - Moby Dick - Diyarbakir.
Davenbelle and Moby Dick had made identical/similar edits and have been treated like the same person.
Moby Dick and Diyarbakir are checkuser confirmed to be the same person. Both have been banned indefinitely.
Stereotek - Karl Meier
Stereotek has changed his username to Karl Meier. I have not been in dispute with this person for the most part. I hardly ever hear from him.
Fadix
User has been banned by arbcom on the 'Armenia-Azerbaijan' arbitration case.
I have spent a good part of my wikipedia's various dispute resolution processes such as collecting evidence for arbcom. To date I have been involved with four arbitration cases of which two were episode/character related. As it appears, on all four of them I have been dealing with one person that got banned several times.
First one was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek lasting between 24 July 2005 and 5 October 2005. If you take a glance at passed remedies you'll see "Efforts by Davenbelle and Stereotek to monitor Coolcat" which diplomatically addressed the harassment issue. The issue did not settle with the closure of the case. It lasted till 7 December 2005 (two more months) as visible at /mentorship and /mentorship talk
The peace and quiet was only temporary. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick particularly take a look at "Prior behavior by Davenbelle" and "Moby Dick has harassed other editors" Arbcom has again held a more diplomatic tone. This again did not end there. Moby Dick went to inactivity.
I did not really have much peace and quiet. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir shows examples of the kind of nonsense I wasted my time with. Diyarbakir focused on Turkey and Kurd related articles in a manner which is the exact extreme opposite of my edits. Finally Diyarbakir and Moby Dick was indefinately blocked by the community on Early May 2007 with the checkuser evidence. I genuinely thought my harassment days that started on spring 2005 have finaly reached an end.
Now I know a Jack Merridew has seriously started editing wikipedia just a few days after Moby Dick's ban. Unlike Diyarbakir, Jack Merridew focuses on fiction related articles again in a manner which is the exact extreme opposite of my edits. He has removed nearly all of my contribution to Oh My Goddess! related articles. He went out of his way to participate in any related discussion in a manner only to remove content including discussions on templates.
I am not sure how receptive the wikipedia community is on the matter of this notorious stalker in the light of this thread. Each year I file a new case and spend 3 months on thwarting Davenbelle's new account. Jack Merridew would be his 4th account.
Based on the evidence I provided, is there anything unconvincing on the identity of Jack Merridew? I am rather tired of filing case after another and request much much more severe remedies to get this guy (Davenbelle) off my tail. No one should be required to sacrifice 2-3 months per year on stalkers.
This is relevant to the case because it involves tv episode related articles and a disruptive party.
I get two things out of the above... You and your case and the E&C one. If you really believe in your evidence then you don't have to waste more than a few minutes of your time posting the above as a new RfA case unless you have to gather more evidence; which necessarily has to be really solid. Also, there's no CU findings for arbitrators' guidance. Again, the evidence as it seems now is unconvincing to me and concentrates more on you and your alleged wiki-stalkers. You may argue that the two cases are related and I would not disagree but as I see it in a whole I strongly believe they are partially if not minimally related because if you ask the majority of the involved parties they would tell you that they got a problem with an edit pattern and not with a stalker sock/meatpuppeter, etc...
If you decide to file a case and if your present evidence has a chance to be treated as a proof of any violation then obviously and simply the decision enforcement on the subject would override the original one. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider these:
"For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." (#Identity).
CheckUser results show Jack Merridew edits from IPs compatible with the Davenbelle's location. An hence compatible with the location of Moby Dick.
Edits
Diyarbakir has edited until 10 April. He stopped editing on the 10th.
On 11 April Jack registered and started editing and has done so until 19 April. He stop editing on the 19th. Jack focused this entire contribution between 11 April and 19 April on various non-profit organizations operating in Bali.
Diyarbakir made edits on 23rd of April.
Diyarbakir was blocked in 26 April for being a sockpuppet.
On 2 May Moby Dick was also blocked indefinitely.
Jack Merridew resumed editing on 8 May, 6 days after Moby Dick's block. From 8 May to 25 June (nearly 2 months) he made 48 edits most focusing on Indonesia related articles. [9]
On July 2007 Jack Merridew made 881 edits almost entirely focusing (attacking) on fiction related articles as if someone switched off his interest to non-profit organizations in Indonesia. [10]
As you seem to agree the two cases are related to a degree. Jack Merridew of course did not ONLY stalk me but also edited other fiction related articles in a problematic way. I cannot however understand why arbitration committee is going to disregard users other related disruptive behavior. Arbcom is a dispute "resolution process" and the dispute concerns Episode and Character related articles. There exists an alleged sockpuppet harassing one of the editors editing episode and character related articles. By basic logic it is very related if you ask me. So long as the issue surrounding Jack Merridew is not addressed, the episode and character dispute will not be resolved. Arbcom isn't supposed to be a bureaucracy.
Point one - You already state that ArbCom is a dispute "resolution process". The thing is the ArbCom hasn't seen any dispute resolution process followed by you to sort out the alleged stalking and sock/meatpuppetry. With no RfC and no CU request, the ArbCom cannot rely on just a user's analysis. It doesn't require an arbitrator to agree that the two cases are related for your evidence to be addressed. That's why, at the absence of CU, at least solid evidence is required. That is for the weight of the evidence.
The other point... This is not bureaucracy but common practice. Also, as a common practice and sense, cases are referred to on a historical and eventual basis. In other words, your case dates back to years ago and has evolved under different circumstances than those of episodes and characters case. Your case involved 2 or 3 users while this case involve many more users. Your case involves stalking and sockpuppetry according to you. The community sees the whole as two different things and i haven't seen any change regarding that. They just happened to interfer somewhere and the only existing relationship between them is you. The community may then refer to two different ArbCom desicions for convenience using referentials. Your case appears to be more complicated than the E&C since you believe it has taken a long time to be fixed. It does not mean that we cannot sort it out through the ArbCom. We are here for that reason but cases cannot take longer times. Your case can be addressed separately. We cannot keep the status quo for a huge number of articles because of a problem that can be separately resolved. The community cannot accept that White Cat.
The degree of relationship between the two cases is relative of course. So add to that the lack of solid evidence and a CU finding. This gives you two broken eggs. I have suggested how you can keep them for later on instead of losing them all now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked you to the checkuser material twice (once on /evidence and once here). For the the third time, please click here. That is a report by a checkuser. User:Moby Dick's IP is still indef blocked. So, Moby Dick by very nature of computer science and our blocking system has to change his IP to make edits. Under that assumption Moby and Jack will not have indentical IPs.
I will not engage in any forms of dispute resolution process - particularly something as dysfunctional and useless as an RfC. I kindly ask you to never again mention 'RfC' to me because I am to, put it mildy, sick and tired of engaging in the dispute resolution processes for the past THREE YEARS. I have used each step including RfC multiple times. I feel it is jawdroppingly obvious that this is him. What kind of evidence would you classify as "concrete" or "solid"? I may be able to provide it if I know what you are looking for. I do not know what exactly is you want me to provide. I do believe Moby Dick has a learning curve so he will not give me any obvious evidence like he accidentally did in the past. For example User:Diyarbakir pretended being a Kurd born in Diyarbakir. He added a category:Kurdistan to many articles strictly to bait me (per RFCU evidnece). One of his major mistakes was editing as Moby Dick in march which made checkuser a possibility.
I think what i meant by the above is that a "complicated long-time case that needs more digging cannot impede, even unintentionally, the smooth running of Wikipedia. Your case can be better dealt with separately for referential and historical reasons plus convenience and Wikipedia standards and common practice while giving the main case a chance to go sorted out on time without delays. There are many editors out there waiting for things getting to normal." As you see, you can still disregard my 'Point one'. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are getting at, but see my comment on part c. While things should run smoothly, rushing an arbcom case is more problematic. If the passed remedies are not effective in resolving the dispute more community/arbcom will be spent on the continuation cases. This happened with the first RfAr case on episode articles for example. So rushing it may not be smoothing the process. -- Catchi? 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be probably right but we are talking about 'part a' here which can be better dealt with separately for referential and historical reasons plus convenience and Wikipedia standards and common practice while... -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I am inclined to do as you ask and file a separate case simply for the convenience alone. I just am skeptical what good will it do (per section c). I guess what I am asking is assuming my assessment is right - that Jack Merridew and Davenbelle are the same person - what remedies can arbitration committee enact so that I do not deal with Davenbelle any more? Blocking him indefinitely doesn't appear like an effective measure. -- Catchi? 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not asking White Cat and it is not only for convenience. I am explaining to you what is appropriate and reasonable and why. So let me explain it to you again that the answer to your last question can only be answered through a separate case if needed otherwise everyone is under the radar of the ArbCom and the people who help at the ArbEnforc. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I did not express myself well enough. I was inquiring on what arbcom can do as in what are the limits of the committee. Can arbcom take any action beyond indef blocking this user? I do not want to spend another 3 weeks on an arbitration case if arbcom lacks the authority to do anything. -- Catchi? 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Can arbcom take any action beyond indef blocking this user?. Well, yes. It can be a ban and i am referring to any user who would exhaust the community patience, not necessarily this user because we still don't know. ArbCom can only indef block user accounts and its socks or meatpuppets after verifications of facts, a thing that also the Community can do without involving the ArbCom. We are not the police White Cat. The maximum the ArbCom can do is to ban someone. Now, before even indef blocking or banning anyone, we must analyze the evidence and to do so we need to hear it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And he can pick a new identity in less than a week. In best case scenario arbcom can ban this what I believe is an indef blocked user that is somehow still editing. You do see where I am getting at I hope... In other words I will have to put up with harassment unless I leave wikipedia and hide in a bunker assuming a fetal position. :P
I am fully aware that arbcom is not the police, particularly not the Indonesian police. I just am not convinced what arbcom can do to actually prevent this person Davenbelle from further harassment.
You don't have to hide in a bunker. But just don't shoot. There is RfAr out there and its doors are open. We will verify your allegations and decide. If we find out that what you say is right then the harasser will be banned. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I patiently waited, collected evidence and got Moby Dick banned. That was the product of 2 years of patience until 2 May 2007. I was almost completely alone during the entire time.
We are in March 5th so it has been about 10 months this blocked user continued editing despite the ban - assuming if I am right of course. I am very skeptical that arbcom can offer a real solution. :/
I am somewhat saddened with your statement that my evidence concentrates more on me and my alleged wiki-stalkers. That is not true or at least was not the intention.
#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry) demonstrates that at least these four users act as a group to dominate a particular discussion. Not just issues concerning me but on other incidents as well. There are numerous examples of such participation. Also if someone files a complaint against either one of them or if one of them files a complaint against someone standing in their way, other three are quick to come to assist. Consider the case here for example or look at the workshop of this rfar. Granted not all four show up all the time as it is more of a combination of three people than four. This is more visible with the evidence. This was not addressed at all.
The statement that there are two groups of users fighting each other is not right. The diplomatic tone on arbcom remedies imply as if the inclusionists and deletionists united in fronts. There are multiple groups of people writing articles on unrelated fictional topics and a single group of users trying to purge it in a systematic manner. There are other unrelated deletionists groups who operate more reasonably.
For example, I focus on various anime (mostly Oh My Goddess!) and Star Trek. I have a dispute with a group of users (TTN - Ned Scott - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - ?) on Oh My Goddess! and Star Trek related articles. If the same group purges or attempts to purge "Hannah Montana" (random pick) related articles, the same people will be in dispute with a separate group of people writing Hannah Montana related articles. Me and people writing "Hannah Montana" do not work together against the deletionist group while deletionist group works together against separate groups of editors who actually write articles.
They cannot yet meet the resistance they are faced by people editing more popular TV shows so they pick on the smaller ones: User talk:TTN/Archive 8#WP:FICT isn't working. In other words they dominate the episode/character related discussion. This is an "imposed consensus" by them. This isn't what real consensus supposed to be.
Is that all you have to say on this? The way you put it is very insensitive and infuriating. Is this the way we prefer our users to edit? Work in groups and dominate discussions? -- Catchi? 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not my intention at all. We cannot stop anyone from having deletionist or inclusionist tendencies. Plus i don't agree with the assertion that they avoid popular TV shows because of resistance there. That's not a solid assumption. If there are no canvassing or any other poor behaviour habits, then all what I can understand is that you just disagree with each other. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree with it but in TTN's words:
“
Now they only have any sort of "power" over the big series like Harry Potter due to numbers, but things like that will always go slowly due to numbers anyways. I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones.
”
When I talk about "they" I don't refer to any random deletionist but to this group of users.
Someone having over 750 common edits with another is clear indication of canvassing especially if the edit behavior is anything but coincidental and instead identical. Two RC patrollers editing the same article is one thing and two users backing each other on the blanking of hundereds of pages is another. On my evidence page on the issue (#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)) I show examples of these users collectively revert waring on multiple occasions. On Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode) or Out of Their Minds for example all four (TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott) users have edited the article in a similar/identical manner.
If you divide the total distinct pages edited by both user X and TTN then divide it by the total number of distinct pages edited by X and then multiply it by 100 (percentage of the edits matching) you get the below values:
%26.77 of edits by Jack Merridew are to pages that TTN also edited
%15.35 of edits by Eusebeus are to pages that TTN also edited
%4.42 of edits by Ned Scott are to pages that TTN also edited
I have already stated that this evidence is not solid. Even if we disregard that aspect, the numbers above appear to be normal since the same figures can be found within any group of users working on the same WikiProject or set of articles. That is an element that the mathematical model used above doesn't take into account.
I confirm to you officially that all the above mentioned users are unrelated to each other. They are not the same user. No evidence of canvassing trend. As for meatpuppetry, there's no evidence of an exhibit of recruitment or canvassing. And I am sure if there would be any in the future, you'll find many admins dealing with it on the spot.
Again, they share the same interests as you (editing these articles) but they only share their POV between themselves. This is not an exception to this area you edit, it is a common fact around Wikipedia. What the ArbCom can do is to judge inadequate behavior. This is what we do.
Your quote re TTN...Now they only have any sort of "power" over the big series like Harry Potter due to numbers, but things like that will always go slowly due to numbers anyways. I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones.
Let me get this straight so because Wandalstouring is asking you to help write a set of articles that is enough for you to completely disregard the evidence I provided? You are right that the numbers merely imply canvassing/meatpuppetary and they need to be accompanied by diffs showing evidence of canvassing which has been provided. I seriously doubt there any four users that you have voted in an identical manner on xfds (on articles all four of you have no edits) on multiple occasions.
Have you checked the "Extended Evidence (TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 60)" expandable evidence? These are 60 pages all four of the users have edited. I listed all of them for fairness and transparency of my evidence. Not every case of the 60 pages is valid. It is possible for four people to coincidentally edit same pages. For example all four of them editing each others talk page isn't exactly surprising. However all four of them editing Out of Their Minds in an identical manner isn't normal. Or consider True Colors (That's So Raven). These are just two examples of the many.
You said: "they share the same interests as you (editing these articles) but they only share their POV between themselves". Is that not the definition of canvassing or even stealth canvassing? Is the notification of a biased (campaigning against fiction related articles in general) and/or partisan (votestacking on xfds concerning topics of fiction) group of people in a secret (via email for example) manner not problematic in any way? Are you claiming that these people do not in any way communicate on/off wiki and yet coincidentally show up on hundereds of pages just hours to days after each other? These people collectively revert war and vote on hundereds of pages. Of which on all cases they collectively remove/blank/redirectify articles. They are not collectively writing articles at all. You want me to provide hundereds of diffs? If you check the actual articles they edit and the way they edit you can see that they are not mere coincidences. Canvassing and particularly stealth canvassing is not easy to document.
"They share their POV between themselves" is an analogy with your case White Cat. From their POV they may think that "You share your POV with users who agree with you." We are talking here about deletionist and inclusionist tendencies and I've already explained to you that We cannot stop anyone from having such tendencies unless it is disruptive. It is common to find different camps at different topics and it is not necessarily a bad thing. We only deal with behaviour and the Fait accompli refers to this point and one of the remedies deals with it; all parties remain instructed and warned. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a matter of deletionist tendencies. This is four or more self-righteous people dominating/canvassing discussions and votes together. "Fait accompli" is common sense. It has been passed many times by arbcom. What is the sanction if a group of users violate it? Certainly the TTN group as violated that many times. -- Catchi? 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The remedies on the case focus on Episode and Character articles on television. The original case was filed concerning all Episode and Character related articles weather they are related to television or not. There are many non-tv characters such as the ones on video games, comics and stories. As it stands the arbitration injunction has only served to shift the dispute from television episodes to video game related articles due to its focus on "television". So the intended resolution by the arbitration committee is already tested and is not working.
This is probably a good point though i see no relationship whatsoever to Jack Merridew and you so that it would require another case to be filed. After all, any motion can change that to cover a wider, probably infected, scope whenever it is necessary. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can't. This section 'c' is related to the general issue and not a spesific user. Every 3rd level (===) section of my /evidence has an indeppendent logic and rationale. I do not want to file an arbitration case on video game related articles. Just how many cases do you want or expect me to file so that arbcom will look into it? An arbitrator restricted this to 'television' not the people filing it. The dispute had never been restricted to television articles. So I cannot understand why remedies are restricted to television. -- Catchi? 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can't.
Of course it can be done if it would be deemed necessary.
Just how many cases do you want or expect me to file so that arbcom will look into it?
White Cat, you haven't filed any case related to E&C yet.
So I cannot understand why remedies are restricted to television.
This is the locus of the dispute... The dispute centers on the existence of articles regarding individual episodes and characters from television series, and is part of a broader disagreement regarding the interpretation of notability guidelines with reference to fictional and popular culture topics and one of the proposed remedies is that all parties instructed and warned. Please read this carefully: They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Anyone can file a clarification request and if problems spread further and becomes an issue that the community could not solve then a motion to the present case can be easily passed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case is a very stressful, complicated and time consuming process. Filing an arbitration case is like suicide regardless how merited your case may be. For example it can very easily ruin an on going RfA and any future ones. I sincerely hope you understand what filing an arbitration case leads to for some users. I do not want to file cases for the sake of filing them. For example filing the RfAr on Davenbelle and etc was the greatest mistake I have made on wikipedia. I have been through hell ever since. So I am not very enthusiastic about bringing something in front of arbcom. I do not know what else I could have done back then, but the arbitration case did not help me at all. Neither did the second one given I am prompted to file a third one. I seriously doubt a 3rd arbitration case will do me any good given the overall dismissive-looking attitude of some arbitrators. I am telling you this in an empathic manner. It isn't like I care about a reputation (nor have one - well a very negative one). If Jack were indefinitely blocked today he would be back editing in a few days. In a month or less he would be back to the harassment campaign only he'd be just more discrete so the fourth case would be much harder for me to file. What can arbcom do? For all practice purposes? because if I am right blocking Davenbelle serves no purpose.
Reasonable people like me can understand what you are saying here in words without a second thought on it. When arbitration committee said "halt all activity" a number of users have already tried very hard to trick the system. They have to a degree succeeded. I hence feel arbitration committee should be more explicit in the remedy. Arbcom looking at something "unfavorably" may not be enough for an administer to take action against a user engaging in behavior sanctioned him from on "television" related articles. We have seen examples of this before on other complex cases.
I am talking about E&C here. I am talking about a motion if deemed necessary in the future, be it tomorrow or after years depending on the situation and the state of the disputes. You are talking about another arbitration case and you are talking about your prior cases. Again, we are dealing with "two eggs." -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the omelet-like egg metaphor - and you got me quite hungry actualy. Right E&C... So why can't we avoid explicitly restricting this to "television" related articles and define the scope as "fiction related articles" in general? This dispute at no point was restricted to "television" related articles. People have already edited non-television related yet fiction-related articles. I can list many examples even before this arbitration case started. -- Catchi? 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
White Cat, you are experienced enough to understand why we have motions in Wikipedia arbitration process. Also, if you are an observer of the Arbitration process, at least recently, you will notice how smoothly we can amend prior decisions everythime it is deemed necessary (a recent infamous example). General sanctions can be added or lifted when necessary. However, the ArbCom role is not solely restricted to sanctionary measures and you are experienced enough to know that guidence is also part of its role. We have to maintain this balanced approach and manage it optimally. We still believe users' general attitudes and habits to be reformed. This is contrary to the rushing you referred to above. After all, you agree that rushing is not good. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I just don't want a rehash of this dispute on say video game related articles. The first rfar on episodes and characters was quite disappointing. This one is somewhat reasonable and not entirely satisfactory to me as it stands. I am very concerned about the continuation of this disruptive behavior as I have been dealing with this issue for over a year now. It is quite tiring to deal with a dispute 24/7 for a year. -- Catchi? 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I also feel they are more than inadequate in resolving the dispute in question. -- Catchi? 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
For example, if TTN asks another user to nominate an article or series of article for deletion via email or even talk page he can effectively ride around the restrictions he got. Or if he gets a new account... Any user is free to continue edit pattern that TTN made. Arbcom only singled out and sanctioned TTN but his edit pattern is shared by many others. This issue as it stands is not addressed at all. People should not go out and mass xfd or redirectify entire topics. They can initiate a general discussion involving the general community and not a deletionist group and perhaps reach to a compromise/consensus. This is not done. -- Catchi? 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Or consider a slight topic change [11][12]. These are dated 25 February, 8 days after Kirill posted to /Proposed decisions. Or 22 days after the 3 February temporary injunction. -- Catchi? 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You say that Arbcom only singled out and sanctioned TTN and then you ask me to consider two slight topic changes by TTN?!
if TTN asks another user to nominate an article or series of article for deletion via email or even talk page he can effectively ride around the restrictions he got. Well, TTN would even make phone calls if he wants to but that is still just an assumption White Cat. Indeed, it is irrelevant because what is important is keeping order inside the house. We can't stop anyone from canvassing via emails but we can stop disruption at AfDs. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He could even go to the neighbor if he is desperate enough... Thats no the point. I would like to see a general sanction against the way TTN edited. You know... something in the line of "don't go mass afd/redirectifiy every fiction related articles without prior consensus to do so" or "seek community-wide consensus before taking any kind of mass action".
Also note the articles in question were exempt from the arbitration injunction as they are video-game related. TTN could have legally redirectified any one of those. I am merely showing the shift that has already happened... Arbcom remedies are out of sync with whats currently happening.
Associação Académica de Coimbra is a Portuguese multisports club with several teams which compete in many top sports leagues and championships of Portugal, ranging from rugby union to volleyball to athletics. As far as I known, sports teams names are never translated in English see Deportivo de La Coruña, Mladost sports teams, Djurgardens IF and Real Madrid. Please, restore the teams' names and redirects to the previous versions in Portuguese or simply to a shorter form of the Portuguese name like Academica Coimbra or so. Yodaki (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, why are you asking me this? -- Catchi? 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a moderate user of wikipedia. My Opus for this site has to be the article I wrote on Cobden, Ontario. This is my home town and I did a lot of research into it's history and everything so that I could make a good article on it. I have received a lot of comments from people in my town about the article and a lot of them have told me they learned things that they didn't know before. Recently a user named Bearcat has merged a lot of stub articles into the article about their region. I'm not sure what the policy is on this. Most of the articles were about very unnotible places (mclarens settlement being the best example). But I'm a little unclear on why he seems to insist on merging cobden aswell. The article was over 10,000 words long. I know that there doesn't need to be articles on everything on earth but, and I realize I may be the minority on this, it seems like towns should have their own articles. I mean.... people may want information about them and it was hard for me to find it all. Now the information is all broken up and scattered across the whitewater region article.
Anyways, the reason I'm bothering you with this is because you seem like you would probably know a little more about wikipolicy than me and I saw you get involved before. I guess you could say I'm asking for your help and opinion. And my main question is this: Are towns not worthy, ever, of their own article?
Thank you. I see that things are getting a little heated. I certainly hope that this can get sorted out. I'm afraid to pop my head in as, being the main contributor to the article, I may seem to have an obvious bias.--Matt D (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soru
Eğer Türk değilsen, neden ana dili gibi Türkçe konuşuyorsun? Özür dilerim, sadece Türk olduğum için böyle şeyler ilgimi çekiyor... Türkçem kötü ise kötülüğün sebebi Türkçe ana dilim olmadığı için - ben Londra'da doğdum ve şu anda orada yaşıyorum. Siz nerelisiniz? Onur (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Internette kisisel bilgi vermeme taraftariyim o yuzden malesef sorunuzu yanitsiz birakacagim. -- Catchi? 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You are unwelcome on my talk page. All future comments will be promptly ignored. -- Catchi? 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Depiction of Jesus
That was an inappropriate edit. Selected galleries with informative captions should not be "moved" to Commons (where they probably came from in the first place), least of all without raising the matter first. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is common practice. This is why commons exists. It was not moved from commons because I created the commons page. I do not have to extensively discuss weather or not I can make edits. I'd find the suggestion of such a thing very disturbing. -- Catchi? 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not common practice, and is a bad edit. Someone else very rightly reverted it. Selected galleries as part of articles are a legitimate part of articles, including FAs. I know you hate discussing your actions, but this was completely out of line. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not hate discussing my edits. I do not wish to discuss this edit. I am completely uninterested what happens to the article. Do as you please. What more do you wish me to say? -- Catchi? 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fine. You may find this FA nomination, where the issue was discussed, worth reading to see why a shoot-on-sight attitude to galleries is not correct. You are probably aware the WP:Galleries was A) never accepted by the community and B) referred to stand-alone galleries, not those in articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to use this to illustrate the possible move of images from Mohamed picture depiction to commons as a compromise to settle the dispute. This whole thing demonstrated how naive I was to think such a thing. I suppose I got what I deserved. -- Catchi? 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}