User talk:After Midnight

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave me a message to discuss my actions or tell me about something that you think I might want to know. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

• Please place new conversations at the bottom of the page, not at the top.
• I prefer to keep conversations intact, so if you ask me a question here, I will reply here, unless you indicate otherwise.
• If I left you a message on your talk page, I have added you to my watchlist, so if you reply there, I will see your response (unless several weeks have passed). One exception to this is if my message was a "semi-automated" edit such as concerning an image deletion, in which case I have not watched your page, as I do far too many of these.

Archives

Archive 1: 28 May 2006 – 1 Sept 2006 Archive 2: 1 Sept 2006 – 10 Oct 2006 Archive 3: 16 Oct 2006 – 31 Jan 2007 Archive 4: 1 Feb 2007 – 15 Mar 2007 Archive 5: 16 Mar 2007 – 30 Apr 2007 Archive 6: May 2007 Archive 7: June 2007 Archive 8: July 2007 Archive 9: August 2007 Archive 10: September 2007 Archive 11: October 2007 Archive 12: November 2007 Archive 13: December 2007 Archive 14: January 2008 Archive 15: WB Jan 2008 - Sept 2009 Archive 16: Oct 2009 - Aug 2010 Archive 17: Sep 2010 - Mar 2011 Archive 18: Mar 2011 - Jul 2011 Archive 19: Aug 2011 - Dec 2011 Archive 20: 2012 Archive 21: 2013 Archive 22: 2014 Archive 23: 2015 Archive 24: 2016 Archive 25: 2017 Archive 26: 2018 Archive 27: 2019 Archive 28: 2020 Archive 29: 2021 Archive 30: 2022

Gretchen Carlson

Would you mind helping with the Gretchen Carlson article? I regret that User:TanningLamp has removed the section on controversies three times, while I have put it back twice. I do not wish to violate the 3RR rule. I also would be open to any compromise, but TanningLamp appears to simply wish the entire section gone. TanningLamp is a new user and has already been involved in some edit wars, has been banned for insulting other editors and may be pushing an agenda, though perhaps just needs a bit of guidance. Thanks Arjunasbow 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you have each reverted the other, but edit summaries do not count as a true discussion. Please try initiating one on the talk page of the article to build consensus among the editors of the page. Once there is a consensus, the path should be clear. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Daniel

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Daniel (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DanielTemplate:Highrfc-loop]]. --   j    talk   04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

wikiporn enjoyers

"The result of the debate was result" ?? Too much after midnight reading? Johnbod 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've corrected that. Fortunately that one was obvious enough that there shouldn't be any issues. Hey, it took 3 days for anyone to notice I did it wrong! --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks:-)

Thanks for correcting the category F14 and F16 into military history as per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 8. I had created the earlier catergories since I had got the impression that categories could be created anywhere we wanted;-)--PremKudva^Talk 12:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. That seemed like the bast place to put them, rather than having you "by yourself". Over time, if something else makes sense, it can always be changed. If you want, feel free to use Category:Wikipedians interested in aviation as well or instead of the one for military history. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AWB

Oops - I have been previewing rather well, but I must have misread some. Ive noticed the diff engine highlights some lines with no difference, i'll watch more carefully in future. Sorry! Also, I thought reorganising the stub tag orders etc was significant, its still a minorish edit, but its useful and worthwhile. If i misunderstood that part of the manual, please forgive me, and i'll stop doing that now. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is unusual, is there any way to selectively turn off that behaviour? The general fixes etc are very useful, but I don't want to be doing something that a bot reverts several days later. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page where thread began. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Abbott Cup

I am not the uploader, but I would be capable of adding fariuse rationale to "image Abbott cup.jpg", could you please undelete it so I can add fairuse rationale and it can go back on its appropriate article. DMighton 15:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Here is it. I'm bumped out the deletion date a week to give you time to post the rationale. Please remember to remove the tag when you are done. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. DMighton 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD

I see it's too late. Oh well. Honestly, I think it's a good point that there's not much reason to collect the category. I did like it existing, so I could see how many users were using the template. :) But that's not a very good reason in the end. Mangojuice^talk 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, counting transclusions doesn't get those who subst the template, and I imagine there are a good number. But really, the days when it was exciting to see how the idea was catching on are past. What I should work on is finding a way to do the same thing with perfectly hiding commitments. Mangojuice^talk 11:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Network

I see that you made two deletions on the Blue Network page of images. I had attempted to fix the rationale on these images, but found it difficult to do so. I had reloaded the images with what I thought was a better fair use rationale, but frankly the person who had been tagging these things was extremely unhelpful, and did not respond to a request for assistance in getting the tags corrected for the images.

The images that had been uploaded (and which you deleted), plus one other image this same person tagged, were all advertisements taken from newspapers. They had been emplaced by the American Broadcasting Company to promote their broadcasts, and as such were clearly promotional materials. Ironically, neither of the two now-deleted images, nor the current tagged image, use logo trademarks. The advertisements were used in the article to illustrate certain points (that is, how ABC promoted its change from the Blue Network to its new name, how it was using the Blue Network name even after the change, and its post-1942 use of facilities at Rockefeller Center), points that could hardly be made by other means, especially given the way Wikipedia emphasizes the need to document facts in articles.

I would note for the record that I happen to be a lawyer, and one with experience in copyright law. In my frank opinion, the use of these excerpts from newspapers clearly falls under the fair-use doctrine.

As such, I don't think the two deletions, and the current tagging, were justified. The manner in which this was done, in particular the ignoring of a request for assistance (plus the added tagging of a third image) has left a very poor taste in my mouth. Hopefully, I can get some better assistance from you. Eric O. Costello 00:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Here is what we can do.... If you can give me a lead on which images were deleted, I can undelete them for a short time to allow you the opportunity to get fair-use image rationales posted onto them. The key is, I need to know which ones to help me find them and I need your word that you will try your best to post legitimate FU rationales on them. I think that I know which 2 you need from Blue Network, namely Image:ABCBlue247.jpg and Image:ABCKATE645.jpg, but I have no idea which other image(s) you want. By the way, it looks like you tried to put a rationale on both of the images that I deleted, but there was noting actually there, but we can cross that bridge later. Let me know what you want and we'll go from there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct on both images, the ones that were deleted. The third image is Image:BLUEKATE344.jpg, which is also on the Blue Network page; this one has been tagged for removal, but nothing has happened yet. I think the problem was I had a hell of a time (and unsuccessful) figuring out how precisely to edit the image so that the rationale could be inserted. (As you note, evidently my good-faith attempt to fix this didn't work.) A pointer as to where I can find the best script to plug in and fill out in order to meet standards would also be of great help. And thank you for responding promptly, I might add. Eric O. Costello 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Non-free media rationale guideline, which discusses how to use {{Non-free media rationale}} which you can just copy add to the image and then fill in the blanks. It also tells you how to just type in free text which will also work. I've restored both images for you now. I've pushed out the date on both of them to give you a week to resolve them. When you have you may remove the deletion tag. You should probably take care of the 3rd image 1st, since it is scheduled for deletion in about 2 days time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have followed your advice, and have inserted rationales on all three. Thank you very much for (a) your patience, and (b) your helpfulness on this matter. Eric O. Costello 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am happy to have helped. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your expert help!

Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)  Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Brought this to WP:DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by pet. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Húsönd 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

STAR TV's logos

Hi, just wanna know why the STAR TV Channel logos were deleted. Did it violate any policies? Im not really familiar with wikipedia's polices for image use. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.49.97 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of exactly which images you are referring to, but generally, I have been deleting images recently in this category. Any image in here was tagged for deletion as a result of not having a fair use rationale added to it to justify the use of copyrighted images. If you can tell me which article you are wondering about, I can possibly be more specific. I don't see any images that were deleted from STAR TV, so I must be looking at the wrong one. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance artice image

Oops - I didn't realize that image was on the speedy delete list - thanks for being up on that --Badger151 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Any chance that a free image might be available to use in its place? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD?

Regarding your edits here, and here, with your edit summary referencing Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007#July_17, this page does not appear to exist. Additionaly this User Category was just discussed and was the TARGET of a merge discussion at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007#Category:Pastafarian_Wikipedians. Where is the discussion you are referring to? Please reply on my talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, looks like this one went back and forth quite a few times! It seems that the lateset discussion was possible from a COI nominator, but I really don't care enough to go to DRV (apparently AGAIN!) and the !votes were favored delete. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your help!

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I need a help from you with regards to templates. For more information, please view this page. I feel that it is paramount to achieve consistency with regards to templates. If you know how to correct this, it would be much appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone else already got to this.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category

I just wrote to MSJapan about the same issue, as he also asked about it. I don't meant to be a nuisance over a category, and if everyone feels it should go, I'll fall in line, but I'm curious to know what harm anyone feels it's doing. Or is it duplicated somewhere, or something like that? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

An editor has asked for a deletion review of [[::Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV

I don't get it. I close something based upon precedent, and it gets overturned because I didn't count votes of consensus. You close something based upon consensus and people come out of the woodwork to overturn based upon precedent. We should really get these two groups together. I'm guessing it'll be like matter and anti-matter, and we'll be able to power a small city with the energy produced. --Kbdank71 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just make sure we stand back far enough in case it explodes. BTW, they really come out of the woodwork when someone canvasses 40 people who used to be members of the category.... KABOOM! --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:WFLX.png

An appropriate fair use rationale was added shortly after your warning was placed on my talk page. Thank you for your attention. -- M (^speak/_spoken) 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I've removed the tag. FYI, if you place a good faith rationale on an image page, you can feel free to remove the deletion tag yourself in the future. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. To what do I owe the honor? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image rationales

I see you are busy trying to find any logo that does not meet the requirement. Has there been a crackdown on the policy? It seems like a lot of work to located every single logo that does not have a Non-free image rationale. Strafidlo

Hello. I am actually not focused on logos; I am looking at any non-free images. This includes all sorts of things such as screen shots, posters, logos, album artwork, box covers, and more. Yes, there has been some increased attention paid to these across the project by a number of editors. Bots are also involved to a great extent to aid in identification. For more information, you may want to check out some of the following: WP:AN/FURG, foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy, and Wikipedia:Non-free content. There is probably much more discussion on other pages also. As far as how much work it is, it's really pretty easy. With popups, twinkle and tabbed browsing you can easily open multiple articles at once, each of which seem to contain numerous images, none of which often have rationales posted. These can be quickly tagged after glancing to make sure that the tag is appropriate. Twinkle does the work to notify the uploader and update the article to communicate to people that they can fix the rationales so that the images may be retained. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not PD! How did it end up as PD?

I don't know if you got this or not but I replaced the PD tag with a logo one and added a rationale. Does that make you happy? -- M (^speak/_spoken) 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you put the {{PD}} tag on it in this edit 2 years ago when you fixed a typo. At any rate, yes {{Non-free logo}} is correct here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Serena Blaquelord2.jpg

Can you undelete this please? As indicated on the article's talk page, the picture of her as she appears today totally does not do her justice as an ex-porn star, and a comparison between the two qualifies as fair use. I have the article watchlisted, but not the image, otherwise I would have caught it before it was deleted. I will write a proper rationale for it. -Nard 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have restored it and moved the deletion tag out another week to allow you to post a rationale. When you have done so, please remove the tag. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Greenienew.gif

I just started watching the Little Green Footballs page yesterday, but it seems odd that there could not be a fair use rationale written for a major blog's logo. Can I convince you to reinstate the image, if I promise to compose a rationale? --Knulclunk 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I've put a new deletion tag on it which you can remove once the rationale is posted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Knulclunk 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep on Word Association

Hi, I noticed your speedy keep on Word Association but the deletion tag is still on the page. Should someone remove it now that the discussion is over? I think it's confusing, as I clicked on it to leave my vote and found the archive instead.CindyBo^talk 06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. I've cleaned it up now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Juanjov1 still at it

Looks like Juanjov1 immediately started adding fair use images to articles after his block expired: [1]. —Chowbok ☠ 16:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've tagged the image for deletion and left another warning. Keep an eye on it and let me know. Next time I will make the block longer. If I'm not around, feel free to post to WP:AN/I and reference this discussion. Next block should be either 2 weeks or 1 month, I think. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

req photo tag

why do you keep removing them. I went though this with Yamla he thought they were for talk pages only after a discussion he came to admit it doesn't say that anywhere. [[2]] I put the link to the page with them. [[3]] no where does it say that the tag should only be on the talk page. No reason tags can't be on both pages. No rule against. Users come to the article see that an image is needed. Until there is a wiki rule stating that the tag is only for talk pages or a rule saying if the tag is on the talk page don't put it on the main page I'd appreciate you not reverting my edits adding the tag. Those articles need images per wiki rules and people just glancing at the article will not see that and may be able to help. Anything like this that can help improve wikipedia can and should be left. Thank you for your time. --Xiahou 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

heck, you took the tag off Kockásfülű nyúl and there is nothing on the talk page? So the fact that some have a similar tag on the talk page doesn't even apply. Why would you remove the tag requesting an image? I see from your contributions you deal alot with images. Thats great. Good but I am lost at why removing a tag made available on the cleanup page requesting images is something you want to remove. Till there is a rule agaist and there is every reason for I am just going to put it back in its deserved place. I am breaking no rules adding a necessary tag. One could say you removing them especially when nothing is on the talk page is. --Xiahou 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this to become a personal issue at all. Reading my text one could read into and see that. I don't. I felt those articles could be improved by adding that tag in hopes someone would see that and possibly take action. I read the fine print on the tag. The talk page even has a discussion saying it isn't set on if its for article or discussion page only. Never resolved. I am trying to be bold and add the tag. Where needed. Possibly you see the tag color and think its for talk pages only. But then I am confused on the pages you remove it from and there is nothing on the talk page. I await your response. I just want to know where you are coming from on this. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am back now. I can see that you are editing in good faith. My experience has been that these tags are depreciated on the articles themselves are are much more commonly found on talk pages. There has been a move towards putting more of that type of information of the talk pages, but it does appear that it is not settled. I like that you have started a discussion on the talk page of the template in question, that should resolve the matter. I would like to suggest that you consider making a post at the village pump directing people to that discussion in the event that you do not get sufficient feedback at the talk page to reach a consensus. As to the way that I rolled back your edits, I will apologize, I had recently had to do a numbers of reverts of another editor who had performed a large amount of image vandalism and I confused you with that other editor. I would also like to point out to you, that if the article that you are wanting a photo on has an infobox on it, you might want to use Image:Replace this image1.svg in the infobox. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much getting back to me. Please let me know how any kind of policy change comes out. There needs to be an official say on this. If its down to the brown color a simple tag color change would be an obivous thing. I personally think its needed. I don't look at the talk page myself when just browsing a topic. thanks again for getting back to me. I will try out the infobox template thanks for the help. Again, whatever comes of that can you put a message on my talk page and let me know if something comes of it. Thanks.--Xiahou 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add Template talk:Reqphoto to your watchlist. Then you will be able to see yourself when the consensus is achieved. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I misread what you wrote and took it to mean you had started a talk. Big OOPS. Anyway thanks for pointing out the infobox tag to add. I fixed any I could with an infobox and will use it for that from now on. Thanks. --Xiahou 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, After Midnight, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters - not spamming me would be good.... I'm afraid that you and I are not currently on the same page. That may change, but it will require time. Please don't re-apply without actually addressing the concerns, rather than merely rebutting them. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Submilli

Darn! Anything we can do about that? It appears to be his perennial quarrel with KP Botany again. >Radiant< 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I be joining your brigade

I'm going to be brute forcefully tagging ANY fair-use image without citations, and I'll in some cases, be resizing images to satisfy fair use requirements. ViperSnake151 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition and all subcats

Hello! Where you see a "delete all by strength of arguments", I see a very clear "no consensus", which should have defaulted to keep. I was thus curious to see which arguments you felt tipped the balance in favor of deleting the group of categories.--Ramdrake 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the delete votes cited concerns regarding WP:OR and a lack of legitimate collaborative potential. The keeps cited being able to collaborate easier. For this issue, WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOCIALNET tips the balance. Also, Black Falcon's comment on Deceased Wikipedians was particularly strong. The deletes also did a better job of refuting the arguments of the keeps. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Becon.gif

The image Becon.gif which I uploaded almost a year ago is the logo of WPPB-TV. As the logo for that tv station wouldn't it be considered fair use for it to be in the article about that tv station? --PiMaster3 ^talk 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it very well may qualify for "fair use". There is no rationale stated on the image page, so you probably just need to go ahead and do that. I recommend that you use {{Non-free use rationale}} and fill it out as shown on the template page. Once you do that, please feel free to remove the tag that I placed on it for deletion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods & WikiProject Saskatchewan

Even though you are an American we could use an admin on these projects:

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject and WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

Mr. C.C. 04:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that I received this invite as a result of some vandalism I removed a short while ago. I am honored that you remembered me. I have no real knowledge of the subject matter, but if you ever need me to perform an administrative action, please don't hesitate to let me know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review : Information

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Please note that this deletion review includes ALL subcats related to this one which were deleted at the same time. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 09:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken warnings

Just wanted to let you know that both of the CfD warnings you left on my talk page have been incorrectly formatted (with that Category:category thing breaking the link). I presumed the first one was a one-off and so didn't say anything, but since it's happened twice figured I'd better let you know. I've never used that template, so I'm not sure where it's gone wrong. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know

I placed a DRV request regarding one of your closures: Category:Wikipedians by generation and subcats.

Incidentally, I've been reading through the UCFD archives (I've been away from Wikipedia since late June), and it's been interesting reading. I'll be proposing a couple things on the UCFD talk page soon, and I'd welcome your thoughts. Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. I know that you have much experience at UCFD, and I'll look forward to discussion regarding this topic. One issue that you might not note from looking in the archives is a growing sentiment to allow canvassing of votes for usercat discussions. I must say that I have some particularly strong feelings regarding this particular issue and I hope that it is included in the discussions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, according to WP:CANVASS, there are rather specific criteria in which canvassing is permitted. But if they're votestacking, that's a whole other thing altogether. As for my proposals/thoughts, I'm still thinking about how best to put them into words. For example, one is somewhat extensive, but, in my opinion, necessary. And btw, it may or may not mean much, but the DRV posting(s) aside, I think you've been doing quite a decent job at WP:UCFD. Too often we all just hear the negative. I think a bit of positivity is nice once in a while : ) - jc37 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for the kind words. I have been on DRV a bit recently, but I think that most of my decisions have held up so far. The only time I get bothered is when I don't find out about the DRV for a couple days while the discussion is going because no one left a note on my talk page, but I'll get over that. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Davina Kotulski

An editor is removing the afd tag on Davina Kotulski and well, the current outcome of the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Kotulski looks like it'll be keep. Can we quickly close over WP:SNOW, so I don't have to give warnings to an editor who could be acting in good faith? -WarthogDemon 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll probably keep watch over the page and try to clean it up. It's a keeper but it'll still need fixing. Are the external links okay? That's the only part I'm not sure of. -WarthogDemon 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I tried to respond sooner, but I seemed to encounter some connection issues right after I finished cleaning up after the keep. Personally, I would prefer that the external links were worked more into the references using the <ref>...</ref> syntax. By the way, did you just get lucky and find me online? I don't think I have any history with you or with this issue. (I apologize if I've forgotten). At any rate, I'm happy to help whenever I am available. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was odd for me too. :) Anyways, I don't believe our histories have crossed before even though your user name isn't light blue. I found you by the logs; if ever there's something that I think needs to be checked/cleared quickly, I consult either the Block Log or the Deletion Log and speak with whomever was the last to block/delete something. Nine times out of ten I get someone still online. :) -WarthogDemon 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting?

Can you please take a look at this table I'm working on: User:PageantUpdater/Miss America award winners? I am at my wits end as to why the rowspan isn't working in the bottom instances and I don't want to do the rest until it is resolved! Thanks :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)  Done You had some ref tags that you hadn't closed.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Questionable categories?

I don't know if you're presently online, but obviously I know that you care about and are involved in the maintenance of categories. :) There's a user presently busily creating the category Category:Pilot Cans at the Queer of God, which sounds like patent nonsense to me, particularly given the dissimilar entries he's linking. The user involved, Macarion has twice been blocked. Since I'm not familiar enough with the category maintenance yet to tackle this, I thought to point it out to you. Given the speed of his work, he's quite likely to be detected soon anyway, but I hate to just watch vandalism happen and do nothing. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for CFD, let's see if it gets speedied. --Kbdank71 15:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Thank you both. I see that this was an obscure reference to a song by The Flaming Lips here. I have speedied the category, rolled back all the edits and reblocked the user. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick work After Midnight! I had also CSD'd this and was just about to go back and try to find all the category adds for reversion. Great job, thanks! EyeSerene^TALK 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help.... Admin rollback with tabbed browsers make for fast reverting of vandalism. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mankiewicz family CFD

I have to ask, is there some reason why you ignored overwhelming precedent and guidelines in favor of a pack of WP:ILIKEIT histrionics? Otto4711 13:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the keeps made a reasonable case that the precedent did not apply to this category. The consensus that made that guideline is subject to change and is often challenged. I think that each category deserves to present why the precedent may not apply. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out that reasonable case? Because what I see is: an assertion that being in a prominent family means there should be a category (clearly not the case as evidenced by the several dozen deletions of similar categories); an argument that there is no consensus on family categories in general (irrelevant as this was not asserted in the nomination as a reason to delete); the number of articles in it (irrelevant, as we routinely delete categories with far more material, also doesn't address OCAT); an objection that it was discussed in terms of "Hollywood" instead of "Jewish" or "American" (which, why does the parent category matter?); and a somewhat hysterical screed about the non-existent data loss that would result if the category were deleted. Seriously, where is the argument in any of that which overcomes the OCAT guideline and the extensive precedent? Otto4711 16:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Otto, I can see pretty clearly that I am not going to satisfy you in this discussion. Seeing as how this is a guideline and not a policy, I am not going to throw out a strong majority consensus against your nomination, despite what you feel to be an illegitimacy of your opposers' arguments. Certainly, were I to do so, this would have gone to DRV, which is where I expect it is now headed regardless. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to take this to DRV. Your close was a mistake but it was within your discretion. Otto4711 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you truly believe that I have erred, go ahead and take it to DRV. If the opinion there is that I did make a mistake, I will surely admit my error and adjust my closing philosophy accordingly. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Since it looks like you aren't taking this to DRV, I'm going to ask 2 other admins who spend alot of time at CFD to provide a 2nd opinion. I don't know that they will respond, but I want to be sure that I have been as fair as possible in this matter. Further, I respect their opinions a great deal and hope that they really will help me adjust if I have gone astray. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't call it a mistake or anything, but with respect to strength of argument, Otto has a point. The problem is that if you have nine individual debates on similar categories, you'll find that people are in agreement that certain categorization is inappropriate, and if you hold a tenth debate on the same issue, you'll hit the one category that was edited yesterday by someone who Likes It, and the debate will get hit by a number of people who don't want their information to be lost, despite it already being covered elsewhere.
• This is somewhat more important with templates, categories and other metadata than with articles, because consistency is more important in the former, and it's why I probably would have closed this one as a "delete" myself. Of course, this is the precise reason why deletion debates have moved away from vote count to judging argument and applying guidelines. Closing a debate against the majority wish is certainly an option, albeit one that requires an explanation in the closer's rationale. Such debates sometimes end up on DRV anyway, but the "appeal to vote count" does not hold much weight in Review. HTH! >Radiant< 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Based on multiple inputs, I have taken this to deletion review myself. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cgingold 12:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultratech

Hello, on June 26, 2007 you deleted a page with this name. I presume it was from: Ultratech - a fictional company from the Killer Instinct videogame series. However, there is a real international quarter billion dollar corporation listed on the (nasdaq:UTEK) with that name, and I intend to recreate the page for that real company as Ultratech, Inc. I just want to run it by you first here, just in case there is any issue. Thanks, Steven Russell 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the page which I deleted was based in fiction, though it appears to be more generic than Killer Instinct. At any rate, there is no problem that I see with you creating a wholly new article that happens to have a similar name. As an aside, I would also not have a problem with the article that I deleted being restored, as any prod'ed article mat be restored for someone who presents a good faith attempt to improve it such that the article would survive an AFD. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I will use the new name for my stub for now, with an "otheruse" tag pointing to the Killer Instinct article, since that's what kept coming up in my search, I think.Steven Russell 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Toastmasters

Hi. I recently nominated Category:Wikipedian Toastmasters for renaming. However, in my nomination (link), I mistakenly specified the target as Category:Wikipedian in Toastmasters International, whereas it should have been Category:Wikipedians in Toastmasters International (with an 's' at the end of "Wikipedian"). I specified the correct target on the category page, but not in the nomination itself. Is this a sufficiently uncontroversial issue that you could rename the category again or shall I make a quick nomination under the "Speedy nominations" section of WP:UCFD? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have caught that when I did the rename. I'll fix it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

EFD

After Midnight, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:R/EFD#After Midnight and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the editors for deletion template from the top of your userpage; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :).

You asked for that one you know =D. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomás Ó Criomhthain

Hi, You deleted an image I uploaded of Tomás Ó Criomhthain. I created this imaghe myself by scanning an old postage stamp and I included text to indicate this when I uploaded the image. Yet I received a warning when I logged into Wikipedia at a later date saying that I had not given the image a proper copyright status description...which I did, most deliberately, by selecting one from a drop-down menu, when I first uploaded it. Now you have deleted the image. I will visit here again in the next few days to see your justification for your action.

169.133.253.21 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The image did not have any copyright tag on it. I don't mind undeleting it, but someone is going to need to tag it properly, or someone else will end up deleting it again in another week. You can find it here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/EFD

You closed this as a snow closure for speedy keep. I wonder if that was exactly appropriate. You closed it less than two hours after it opened. There was clear consensus to keep at that point. However only one person who commented on the deletion has never edited the page, two of them have once before and everyone else is an active contributer to the page. Because of this, there is only one impartial comment. There wasn't much time to get a wider community consensus here. What are your thoughts? i ^said 01:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It looked like a pile on to me and I don't think it would have ended differently. Considering that accusations had started, I thought it good to snow before anything got out of hand. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that it was a pile on by people who have participated in the page. One outside opinion does not mean everyone else will. The bad faith accusation was only by one user, and was quickly curtailed. i ^said 02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never participated in the page, and I don't see any reason to kill it. It's in user space, and (IMO) that makes all the difference. It's silly, and I think that the "targets" need to be carefully screened (Miranda obviously didn't appreciate the humor), but as long as it stays in user space, and doesn't become some sort of by-invitation-only type of thing, I don't see the harm. How's that for an outside opinion? Horologium t-c 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well now there's two. Sorry it took so long to get back, I had to finish my summer reading. Anyway. I still think that there is a chance it would be deleted, because although Miranda made it somewhat in spite, it was a valid delete rationale. i ^said 08:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Help With Out of Control User

After Midnight,

I hope you don't mind me asking for your help.

I've been editing some articles on Wikipedia for awhile. It's a lot of fun and I'm always happy to contribute when I can. However, someone named User:Nascentatheist has really irritated me.

This user has recently vandalized my user page and marred my talk page with all sorts of accusations. It all started when I disagreed with him about a link on the Kearny High School (San Diego) article. See the talk page here [4]. After he started being really aggressive to me, I didn't say much because I didn't know what to do, but it has only gotten worse.

This user has attacked and belittled me and I just don't know what to do. He has said that I'm a worthless contributor . . . and he has hurt me deeply. Please see what has happened and help me. I'd like to continue contributing, but I don't know if I will unless this guy stops. --Creashin 04:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to do much research of this right now, but it appears that you are being accused of being a sock puppet identity of a banned user. I would suggest that this might be better resolved at WP:ANI where more admins can get involved and take any necessary action. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll follow your suggestion. Thank you. --Creashin 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image question

• THERE WAS NO NEED TO REMOVE BEBE BUELL BOOK COVER*

When a book is published and in public domain there is no need to remove any references to it- it is okay to use as promo and or in a Wikipedia context. I checked with the publisher- St. Martin's Press- and the author. This cover can be printed in newspapers, articles, Amazon and any other public domain that touts it's contents.

If you need me to contact Danny Wool about this I will be more than happy to. Please advise. I have NO idea why you removed the book cover and would appreciate you putting it back asap. Thanks!

• note* as a NY Times Bestseller the book will frequently be used in many variations- Wikipedia being just one of many.

21 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aerocrew (talk • contribs) 16:51, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

• OK, well let's see. I think that you are refering to the Image:Bookcover bebebuell rebelheart.jpg which deleted on August 18. When the image was deleted, it was also removed from Bebe Buell. I deleted the image after it was tagged for deletion on July 25. The image was flagged for deletion as it did not have a rationale posted as to how it qualified under fair use, which is required of all non-free images. Such images may be deleted after 7 days, but this one was so tagged for 24 days. The uploader of the image was notified of this on July 25 also. Had a rationale been posted the image would not have been deleted for this cause. If you will commit to posting such a rationale, I will restore the image for you. Incidentally, unless the publisher is willing to release this image under the GFDL, their opinion on this matter is of no consequence. I'm not sure what Danny Wool has to do with this, but I doubt that he will mandate that an image be restored without a rationale. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AWB/CP

Now that the issues have (to an extent) been erased, do you think you could add it to the checkpage again? Giggy ^Talk 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you used up your 50 trial edits already, I'm not comfortable re-adding you yet. I would feel more comfortable after more discussion on the BRFA and a new trial approval/extension/etc. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the issues were fixed, I extended for another 50 edits so we can test it properly. Please re-approve for AWB. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: instrument categories

• We were almost done though. I'd say ignore the "no consensus" and go through with the rename. The closer's call for a "babel expert" is misguided because the point of this was to deviate from babel. Since there's no consensus to delete, it should be fixed. Unfortunately I don't have time to help with this in the short future. –Pomte 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Could you clarify? - jc37 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just being a bit of a smart ass. I was mildly insulted by Pomte and I was a bit indignant, but I'll get over it. We can just let it pass, unless you want me to elaborate. You are on my watchlist, so if you do want me to respond, just let me know here, or catch me anytime on IRC. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. At this point, I'm only concerned about it if you are. To clarify, this was a part of an effort (prior to my recently being away from Wikipedia) to fix some templates which populated categories, and the names of the categories thereof. Your input would be welcome, of course : )

Oh, and I don't have/use IRC or an IRC client. Thank you for the invite though. Hope you're having a great day. : ) - jc37 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the invite about the categories. As far as IRC goes, let me say that I used Wikipedia for almost a year before I tried IRC. I was always intimidated by the thought of it, but I really needed to use it to get some help with something in real time, so I gave it a shot. I have since found that it is really very easy to use and is very helpful for having quick conversations without having to mess with talk pages all the time. If you think that you would like to try it at any point and would like a fried to help you put with it, please think of me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant at all. I don't wish to elaborate either, not for this minor an issue. –Pomte 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We have never had a problem with each other in the past and I doubt that we will in the future. Thanks for stopping by to make it clear that no offense was intended. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

photograph for Joyce Elaine Roop

Dear After Midnight: You deleted the photograph for Joyce Elaine Roop because you thought it was a fair use posting, but it was actually posted by the photographer (me), so it is under license. Please restore it. Joseph D. Schleimer Schleimerlaw@msn.com. I took the picture myself in 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.226.92 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are probably talking about Image:JoyceRoop.jpg which actually had no license tag on it at all. If I restore it for you, will you agree to tag it properly? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Luksuh 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Category en-ie

I noticed you are processing the merges for the en-xx cats; can you change the target cat for the Irish ones to en-ie, as per the nominator's rationale? That sorta got lost when I combined the noms. Thanks! Horologium t-c 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with disambig fixing via popups

Thanks for your help on Lupins talk page, and for changing my monobook :) It's worked in some respect, that when hovering over a link (such as Glory in the table (under Reading Saturday) on this page) that has a disambig. page, it says:

Click to disambiguate this link to:
Computer Game, Europa (wargame), GMT Games, Glorification, Glorificus, Glory! Glory!, Glory (board game), Glory (comics), Glory
(film), Glory (novel), Glory (optical phenomenon), Glory (religion), Glory (satellite), Glory (singer), Glory (single), Glory
(song), Glory Be to the Father, HMS Glory, Hod (Hebrew), Imperial Glory, KMFDM, Napoleonic Wars, Persian mythology, Perth Glory 
FC,  Richard Berg, Television, Underworld, Vladimir Nabokov, canonization, wiktionary:Glory, remove this link

But when clicking on Glory (singer), the correct disambig. link it goes to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reading_and_Leeds_Festivals_line-ups&action=edit&autoedit=s~\[\[\s*([Gg]lory(?:#[^\[\|]*)?)\s*\]\]~[[Glory%20(singer)|$1]]~g;s~\[\[\s*([Gg]lory(?:#[^\[\|]*)?)\s*[|]~[[Glory%20(singer)|~g;s~\[\[Glory%20%5C(singer%5C)\|Glory%20%5C(singer%5C)\]\]~[[Glory%20(singer)]]~g&autoclick=wpDiff&autominor=true&autosummary=Disambiguate%20[[Glory]]%20to%20[[Glory%20(singer)]]%20using%20[[:en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups|popups]] But when clicking "Save" no changes are made. And on looking back and checking the edit box, it still shows [[Glory]]. -- Halo2 ^Talk 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• For me, when I click the link you describe, it does what you are saying, but there is a message at the top of the window which says The Show changes button has been automatically clicked. Please wait for the next page to load. A moment later, it shows me a preview edit with the change appearing correctly. I can then click Save Page (but I didn't) to commit the change. Are you possibly not seeing the wait message and clicking on save too quickly? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. I waited, but still it didn't change it. It's not even showing the change in the edit box -- Halo2 ^Talk 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Possibly there is something else in your monobook that is causing a conflict? Did you consider removing everything except popups and trying it? If it works, then you can re-add things one at a time until you discover where the problem is. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've just done that. It seems that the problem is with the WikiEd editing box. This diff (without WikiEd) works http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHalo2%2Fmonobook.js&diff=153749799&oldid=153749375 When I deleted that text, the popup disambig thing worked perfectly. Any ideas with what the conflicting thing is? I've check the FireFox error console, and there's no warnings shown.-- Halo2 ^Talk 14:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like WikiEd is written by User:Cacycle. Maybe he has some ideas. I would guess that WikiEd may not allow the automated action, but might be able to be changed. I see that there are some notes at User:Cacycle/wikEd#Known general issues and below that appear relevant. Let me know if I can provide ny more help, but I think that now that we have isolated it, I might not be of use to you any longer. If you do get it fixed without me, I would be interested in knowing, so please do drop me a line. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I contacted User:Cacycle, and he said I need to look at User:Cacycle/wikEd#Making scripts compatible with wikEd. I'm not sure whether I fix it when importing the script, ie including the above text into my monobook, or I contact the author of the Popup script (User:Lupin). Just thought I'd let you know about it. -- Halo2 ^Talk 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the update. I personally think that the issue is for Lupin rather than you (bit I'm not 100% on that). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes

I just saw the size of the UCfD archive for the 17th. I promise NEVER to do something like that again. 96K? Horologium t-c 14:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I am still completing all the moves and deletions. :) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT-related songs

Greetings After Midnight. I started the category originally titled "Songs with gay themes" and noticed it was renamed "LGBT-related songs". If you don't mind my asking -- was there any particular reason for this change? (Mwmalone 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Sure, I can help with that. There was a discussion to rename the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 10#Category:Songs about queer issues. An admin (User:Kbdank71) closed the decision agreeing to the rename. My involvement is that when that admin closed the discussion, he listed it for processing at WP:CFD/W and I have a bot that I used to actually move the contents of the category and as part of that I deleted the old category and created the new one. I hope that clears up everything, but if you have any other questions, please just let me know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Caitlin Upton

I think there might be the need to semi-protect a few articles to prevent vandalism relating to Caitlin Upton's final question answer. Initially I thought it should not be mentioned anywhere, however I am now thinking that it is probably worth making a brief mention of it in the Miss Teen USA 2007 article... I don't have time to do it now but this has now been covered by a few reliable sources... a few Australian newspapers have even picked it up. Anyway I just thought I'd see what you thought about the possibility of semi-protection until things settle down. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually salted Caitlin Upton yesterday. I am just getting back from work, so I haven't seen the other articles yet. I'll see how bad they look and then think about semi-protecting. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick archiving

As I've said previously, I think you're doing a decent job with the WP:UCFD discussion page. (I seem to find myself commenting more than closing...) And that includes archiving. I used to keep a full month on the page before archiving, though I think we all would agree that it left the page rather long and troublesome to navigate.

However, could you keep discussions on the page at least 5-7 days after their closure, before archiving them, for various reasons that I'm sure you can imagine already? Thanks in advance. - jc37 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If my closing allows you to comment more, and you enjoy that, then I am happy to serve. As far as the archiving goes, I'm a bit conflicted on it. On one hand, I understand that some people may find it easier to find the recent activity when it remains on the page. On the other hand, the edit summaries need to point to the archives for permanence (linking to diffs is too hard), which means that it is good to get the history moved there for people who get that edit summary and want to know what happened. I think that it may actually be more important to accommodate those people, who are less familiar with the process, rather than the editors who come to comment and are more likely to know where/how to locate the archive. Also, it is worth noting what the other XFDs do; CFD archives after 5 days, regardless of whether the discussions are closed or not. RFD archives after each day has the last entry complete and TFD does the same (I think). MFD is (it seems) arbitrary, but those items get archived very quickly sometimes, or at least moved to the bottom of the page without transclusion. I am leaning towards staying with the way I have been doing it. Finally I should mention that I really started archiving after I noticed Black Falcon doing it, so even if I didn't archive it, someone else probably would. Do you find any of these points convincing? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the obviously well-thought out answer.

And I agree about the conflicting perspectives on this. It sounds like the main concern against waiting the few extra days is edit summary links. (Others archiving can be resolved by a comment on a relevant page somewhere.) My main concern is transparency. Closing a discussion, and then archiving it could seem to those unused to the discussions as if we're "hiding" the discussion. While that is obviously untrue, I think it wouldn't hurt to attempt to prevent confusion and disruption (per WP:BITE, etc.).

In looking the page history over, I'm not seeing a pattern. Could you explain your personal methodology? - jc37 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, personally, I never close a discussion until it reaches 5 days old (unless I mess up my subtraction) unless it is a speedy like Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Users. Once all of the discussions for a day are closed, and there are no older sections still open, I move it to the archive. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that seems understandable. Though I still am leery of the idea of archiving a discussion the same day that it's closed. How about splitting the difference and archiving right away (or even perhaps waiting a day) as you suggest, but waiting several days before actually removing it from the main page? - jc37 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are asking if the discussion can be on both pages for a few days and I have no problem with that. Only potential issue is if someone tries to change a closed discussion, but that's easy enough to revert. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me : ) - jc37 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot request

You mentioned on the UCFD talk page that you have a bot that can potentially tag categories for deletion? If so (if it isn't too much trouble), would you be willing to help in the tagging of several dozen categories? - jc37 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, assuming that you are looking to do a group nom. Just list your request at User talk:AMbot/requests. There are brief instructions at the top and you can just list the request at the bottom. Note that many people list every single category that they want tagged, but if you want every subcategory in a parent tagged, you don't need to list them all. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Since you seem to be online now, I'll list them now, so that we can coordinate efforts (in other words, so that as soon as you tag them, I can then list them). Thanks again : ) - jc37 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was mistaken about you being online : )

Have a great day : ) - jc37 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had popped online just for a short while this morning before I went to work, but I am online now. BTW, from reading your request on my bot page, this would be one of those times when it might be convenient to have IRC. I'll follow up with some questions about your request at the thread on the bot page.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AMBot

See diff -- Your bot is accidentally removing newlines after category deletions. It would be awesome if you could change it to not do this. If you don't have time, or whatever, email me (I've enabled it) and I'll be glad to help. (I've left a similar note on the bot's page) --Silas Snider (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify -- the newline deletion is a problem only when done in the middle of wikitext that depends on the new line (lists, tables, etc.), not in general. --Silas Snider (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the issue and there is an AWB fix pending for it. The edit that you cite is from 2+ weeks ago and I have been watching the usercat edits more carefully since then to reduce the change of occurrence. Ideally, these templates would not be getting subst into user's pages as that would make it easier, but I realize that the bot does ultimately need to handle it. I do expect that the AWB version that corrects this will be available soon. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: David Beck

Thanks for the catch - I usually check the article's history, but this time it appears that I didn't... GregorB 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page where thread started... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Best seller no more

So it is. I stand corrected. Thanks :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I know how it can be when things seem to happen without a reason. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ammi Burnham Young portrait

Hi After Midnight. Would you please provide some guidance on what is remiss re licensing here? Would you share with me or give a little guidance as to what license you would like to see used? Thanks. CApitol3 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Portraits of Vermont Governors

Hi After Midnight. I've found what I hope is a more suitable license. Thanks. CApitol3 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the portraits are not PD. You are taking pictures of the portraits and then claiming that you are the copyright holder. This is untrue; your photographs are considered derivative work. If you want to use these images, you would need to put non-free license tags on them and then apply non-free use rationales for each article that they are used in. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of the images you tagged are derivatives of pre-1925 portraits so are not in copyright violation. The portraits in the VT State House are apinted as the governor leaves office so this gives a good rule of thumb. Admittedly, some of the images concerned are of post-1925 governors, but not all. I have indicated this on the relevant deletion list, but thought you might appreciate the info Mickmaguire 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. If the proper information was added to those images pages, that would be helpful so that they might not be tagged by someone else again in the future. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a message...

I left a message on User talk:Anoshirawan's talk page, with some further advice about how to address the problem that although native English speakers think they know "Afghan" means a person from Afghanistan, people with local knowledge of the reason say that Afghan only refers to people from the most numerous Pashtun ethnic group.

In my comment I made some suggestions, and I suggested that you might offer some further help. I hope you have time to read it. And, if you have any further advice I hope you have time to offer it.

Cheers! Geo Swan 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment/Question?

Note sure how to do that. Please give me a step by step. JDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.41.17 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I ready have no idea what you are referring to. Did I leave you a message that you are responding to? I would be happy to help if you can provide some detail. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Sorry this is late, but thanks for the revert done on Nan Kelley. I really appreciate it. Chris 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with Delta Sigma Theta Page

Hello After Midnight. I am attemtpting to add some information to the DREF section of the DST page. I not sure how to cite sources and references. I was attempting to post the information first. Then it was my intention to go back and post the sources where I obtained some of the information, before I could do so Miranda deleted my information and said that I copied without providing a source. Well, when I attempted to go back and cite the source to some of the information Miranda deleted my DREF sections again. First, I am not an expert. Are posters given an opporunity to correct or make changes to the information before it is deleted? Even now when I attempt to go back and post the sources with the DREF inforamtion cited she deletes it. Thanks for your help. You can also email me at historicdst@yahoo.com. Also, I post under ueser name HistoricDST (which was created first) and HistoricDeltaSigmaTheta. I was not sure if I could get my account back when I decided to leave initially. Also, if I am wrong can you show me how to cite the sources correctly? Thanks. HistoricDST 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the information that you are trying to post is a direct copy of something else, you really can not copy it, even if you do reference it. What you would need to do is to paraphrase the information and then reference it properly. I would suggest that you take a look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia and WP:CS. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Typo fixing within reference tags

I agree that there's no particular benefit in correcting capitalisation / spelling of text within reference tags, but since there's also no particular harm, I don't bother to override the 'corrections' suggested by the AWB typo script if other genuine corrections are made at the same time. Thanks Rjwilmsi 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted category=broken template

04:08, 23 August 2007 After Midnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:User en-ca-N" ‎ (perWikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#August 17)

You deleted this category, but when users have {{Babel|en-ca}}, it has a redlink to that category. Please fix the template. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hadassa Ben-Itto

The Bookcover of this author has been deleted.

I don't know why.

Can you help restore the image?

Thanks.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• The image was deleted because it did not have a rationale posted. I have restored the image to allow you to post one, but if not, it will be re-deleted in another week. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Ugh... CFD was wrong on this one.... Category:Leporids is better than Category:Leporidae. Please pass any biology categories by some folks at WP:TOL before making these changes.... or at least alert us there is a CFD up that we might be interested in. And please undo the change made. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I actually didn't make the decision here. This was an old CFD which I found which I thought was not implemented, so I did so. The actual decision was made here over a month ago. I have notified the admin who made this decision. Before I take any action, I would like for him to decide how he would like to proceed. Please find that discussion here. It is the bullet saying "Similar action...". --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:PCD.jpg

Hi. You recently reverted an I9 speedy that I tagged this image with, with the edit summary of "rv - fair use was asserted - please read the CSD criteria that you are using to tag this". I have reverted this because you didn't check the previous content. The fair use summary was for a Buffy the Vampire Slayer image and had evidently been copied and pasted from another image the user had uploaded (which I checked in their contribs). Therefore it remains a copyvio. Seraphim ^Whipp 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I need a bit of help

Hey, it's been a while. If you can do me a favor, can you delete all previous versions of my talk page except the most recent one as you did with my user page? If you can, thanks.   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Do you mean just the main one or the 3 archives also? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead with the archives.   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A question

"Miss World USA" - worthy of mentioning in the "notes" section of Miss USA state articles... or not? I thought I'd better get a second opinion before I deleted them all. I am definitely going to be getting rid of "Miss All Nations" and things like that :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that representing USA at Miss World is notable, so that person deserves a note, but I don't think that the lower placements are worth keeping. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Image restored

After Midnight, I noticed you (correctly) deleted Image:FRIENDS.PNG after 7 days because it didn't have a fair use rationale. Just an FYI, I've restored the image and added a rationale. I knew you wouldn't mind, but wanted to let you know in order to avoid any appearance of conflict. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. FWIW, I would never complain about someone restoring an image and tagging it properly, but I do appreciate you coming by to let me know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee

Amen. --Boricuæddie 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If people want to comment on the process, they're free to at WT:MC. Cheers, Daniel 04:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Thanks, looks like I missed those. I'd suggest that a dispute about "leporid" be taken to that article's talk page, because at present the cat name reflects the article name. >Radiant< 12:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Audrey Daston

I'm at work right now, so I can't just go to playboy.com to confirm something. So, would you mind going there and confirming the spelling of Ms. Daston's last name? The article uses the spelling "Datson", not "Daston", several times and I just want to be sure which is correct. Dismas|^(talk) 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I've confirmed the spelling and fixed all the instances (I think). Would you believe that it was one of my first 100 edits, and my first page move, to send that page to the proper spelling, but I neglected to change all the spellings in the text at that time. I was such a n00b. :) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! We're all n00bs at one point. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

UCFD for Category:User programmer

Regarding Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/September 2007#Category:User programmer, I'm concerned about the process followed. I noticed when the {{cfr}} (not cfd) template was placed on the categories, and decided "I don't care one way or another if they are renamed in the stated fashion" so I thought nothing further about it. Then today a bot comes along implementing a "delete" verdict, which causes me to think "WTF? It was supposed to be a rename discussion!". I haven't decided whether I care enough about the matter for WP:DRV, but since one of the steps there is to contact the closing admin, I am doing so now. Anomie 14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. When a discussion begins on either CFD or UCFD, sometimes an unexpected result will occur. Sometimes a suggestion to rename will result in a merge or delete and sometimes a delete will result in a rename. At any rate, in this case, the minimal amount of comment (UCFD doesn't always draw very much) was in agreement, so I decided accordingly. If you feel that you would like to have the discussion reopened, I have no problem with you taking this to a DRV to see if there is consensus to reconsider. I am not so hung up on my decision that I would be bothered by whatever the DRV result was. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent closure

I am confused about your closure of Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. No one suggested that all the cats should be deleted, just Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. (Including Black Falcon, which makes demon's "delete all per Black Falcon" apply only to the single cat as well?) Could you clarify? - jc37 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I never tagged the operating system cats.) - jc37 01:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. That is one of the more stupid things that I have done. I have changed the decision, undeleted the 3 categories (with 1 talk page) and rolled back all of the edits that I could find. Fortunately, I have good edit summaries for my bot, so I think that I got all of them fixed. The categories look pretty well repopulated. Feel free to look things over to make sure I didn't leave anything out or screw things up more. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's avoid the word "stupid" and go with "mistaken"? (I personally like the word "oops" : )

And I think you did a good job at undoing it. If anyone was missed, they can always re-add themselves.

Someone else was concerned about this, I'll let him know it's been taken care of.

This aside, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as usual, for your encouragement. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A category issue

Hi, some time ago you closed this CfD and deleted Category:User ke and subcats. Now, a friend who was on wikibreak at the time, NikoSilver, tells me he would like it back ([5]). His point, which I think has some merit, is that "Ancient Greek" and "Koine Greek" are sufficiently different that many people would classify themselves as knowing Koine without knowing A.G. to the same extent. I guess this applies especially to many native speakers of Modern Greek, for whom Koine is significantly easier than "real" A.G. Indeed, there are a good number of users who give themselves higher Babel ratings for Ke than for Grc (see besides User:NikoSilver e.g. User:Kimon, User:KRBN, User:Brianbeck, User:Kupirijo, User:KaragouniS).

This has quite a practical significance for Wikipedia: if you seek a fellow editor who can verify a Greek quote from the New Testament for you, you might want to turn to somebody different than if you need someone who can translate a line of Homer.

Is the lack of an ISO code a serious problem? I'm not aware if there is a general consensus that only ISO-coded languages can be Babelised; I guess practical Wikipedian considerations should always take precedence.

I'm not sure this is an issue for WP:DRV, because it's not a procedural challenge of the deletion closure, which was obviously valid. It's rather just an application of "Consensus Can Change". Would you mind terribly if he just re-created the category? We have no standard "official" process for allowing such recreations, I think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

responded here --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I had also contacted User:Horologium, who had made the deletion nomination, but it appears he still doesn't like the idea, so it might not be fair to just consider the CfD overruled. Should we get some formal input somewhere? What would be your preference, WP:DRV or perhaps just WP:CFD again? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read the interchange on Horologium's talk page and I am still in favor of a new category. This isn't some vanity category, such as the California English or some of the others that have been deleted. If having this category will lead to enabling translations which will help the project, I think that it should be recreated. Please let me know if a single category (without levels) called Category:User koine is what you are looking for. If so, I am prepared to create the category and note it in such a way that it will not be subject to G4. As the admin who closed the discussion, it is my right to change my decision based on further input. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Name "User koine" will be fine with me, or maybe "User grc-koine" or "User grc-k"? I don't know what precedents we have for that kind of sublanguage. I'm not sure whether a single cat rather than a full babel scale would be that useful, though; after all, most users who have the userbox seem to be using it explicitly to compare their knowledge of the one form with that of the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I can settle for just one cat (such as 'User grc-koine'). The reason being that nobody actually speaks that variant today; I'd be surprised if even Greek professors would be able to converse strictly within the specific era and not use earlier or later forms by accident. Not to mention, that the era itself is the most transitional era in the Greek language, with the greatest differences from its [conventional] start (~300BC) to its [conventional] end (~300AC). So, IMO, what that category states, is that 'whichever the depth of their knowledge in Greek, those users can understand Koine Greek with relative ease'. That would be equivalent to babel-3, IMO, for all cases, so one cat is enough. NikoSilver 12:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll create the category and put a comment referring to this discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Closing Rfas

Thank you After Midnight for taking your time in commenting about my edit(s). I have thought about the closure of Betacommand's Rfa, and decided it was unnessary. As for my break, it's supposed to be a wikibunk, but please understand that I did not put up the template because I wanted to sit around and wait for the moment an RFA is scheduled to end and then close it. My understanding was that the Rfa was due at 20:17, 13 September 2007, when I closed it at 03:59, 14 September 2007. Again, thank you for your comment. Regards, --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that your message on Hirohisat's talk page may be a bit bity. He/she surely closed the RfA in good faith, especially when you look at his/her message on WP:BN [6], as well as his/her message right above. It seemed unusual, but we all make mistakes, and we are encouraged to be bold when editing, aswell.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was bity, but Hirohisat doesn't seem like a newbie to me. I was looking to send a message, and I think that the message worked, based on his responses. Notice also, the order of the comments. I will however leave him a final message. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Then again, why should I bother when I see now that you have already taken it upon yourself. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, and I really doubt that he/she would ever do that again. I can count on it. Sorry if you think I was over-reacting.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And for posting on the talk page. And don't get me wrong. I'm sure no harm was meant on your part.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out to you that WP:AAGF, is an essay, not policy. It may one day become a policy, and I'm sorry I failed to assume the assumption of good faith.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel a need to point this out. I don't recall saying that it was a policy; for that matter neither is WP:AGF (it's a guideline). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're absolutely right. I have bite the newbies in the past, and got a message regarding AGF and WP:BITE. I will try to work on AAGF, at the same time, now. Please accept my apologies for failure to do so.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, no need to apologize. Just relax, have fun, and do your part to improve the project. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

nonfree content deletions

It seems that you are deleting many nonfree images without rationales where it is unclear that a rationale is needed in addition to the template. (Obvious example is CD cover, where we now have a template rationale, and another may be magazine cover.) Has there been any discussion about these deletions? Calliopejen1 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The images that I am deleting are all ones which are in Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 7 September 2007, which means that they were tagged for deletion over 1 week ago and that no one supplied a rationale in that time. Even CD covers and magazine covers need these rationales as noted in {{Non-free album cover}} and {{Non-free magazine cover}}. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Barclay1974.jpg

I'm not sure how this can have been deleted without my being notified. I took a deal of trouble contacting the owners of the band's official website to seek permission for its use, which of course, I obtained. If I got the copyright notice wrong, fair enough, but to have been given a chance to fix it would have helped. --Rodhullandemu 10:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget this, I did have a warning but mistakenly deleted it along with a load of other (expired) stuff. Having regard to the above, can the copyright issue be fixed? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, it appears that you are referring to Image:Barclay1974.jpg, which you uploaded at 18:13, 8 September 2007 UTC and I deleted per WP:CSD#I4 at 01:42, 16 September 2007 UTC. It was tagged as not having a copyright tag at 19:05, 8 September 2007 UTC by OrphanBot, and you were immediately notified here. You then removed the notification 2 days later as shown here. I confirmed that there was no copyright tag present before I deleted it. Now if you are planning to see that the image is licensed properly, I can undelete it, but you should consider the following: Is the website licensing the image under the GFDL so that anyone can use it or are they only giving permission to use it on Wikipedia? If it is the later, it will still be deleted eventually, per WP:CSD#I3. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can still undelete it, but you will need to determine the license that is to be used. It would be best for the wesbsite to release the image under GFDL. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I passed my RfA, and couldn't have done it without your trust and support. Thank you very much. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Rfd

I've responded to your concerns. Would you please comment? Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow

How do you mass tag images like on WBBM-TV with Twinkie? ViperSnake151 12:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TW for general instructions. As for tagging those in particular, I just opened each in a tabbed browser window. Once that is done I clicked on the "di" tab, and then selected "No fair use rationale?", which takes care of the rest. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions

Is there currently any procedure for putting a note on talkpages of articles that link to an image that's been nominated for speedy deletion? Alternatively, is there any procedure for undeleting images? The image DangerousLiaisons Screenshot OpeningScene.jpg was an integral part of Dangerous Liaisons and, as one screenshot from a 2-hour film, used for the purpose of illustrating a notable scene, certainly qualifies under fair use - if I'd only known it had been tagged I could have said so! Now it's leaving an unsightly and unnecessary gap in this article. --Zeborah 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, the instructions encourage the user who tags the image for deletion to add a caption to the image to alert the readers of any articles where it is used to its possible deletion. Also, the uploader should be notified. It looks like this didn't happen in this case. I will undelete this image soon and retag it for another week to allow additional time for it to be remediated before it is deleted. This should give you enough time to take care of any rationales, etc. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --Zeborah 03:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with the deletion? Why don't you just get rid of the image instead of commenting it out?Brian Boru is awesome 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Images are commented out as a courtesy to the article writers. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Category move

Hi, can you stop the move re articles of unclear importance/notability. Seems to be a lot of mess out there. These are massive cats and will take the job queues a while to process, plus there are various processes that utilise them that need to be updated. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Incidentally, there is a current proposal to do away with these categories altogether in favour of "whitlinkshere" solutions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46 23 September 2007 (GMT).

OK the destination categories are now in place. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:00 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Subject to the renewed discussions at CfD.... Rich Farmbrough, 21:13 23 September 2007 (GMT).

I actually hadn't done anything with these since yesterday. I'm surprised that the queue would be affected by this; I thought that I checked that all of them were processed when I made the change, with the help of just a few null edits. I'm sorry if I caused any problems, can you be a bit more specific as to where I erred, so that I can do better next time? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The destination categories weren't in place (done). There are also other templates that refer to the categories, to be fixed up ({{articleissues}} at least (done)). The process that updates the chart on the parent category also needs advising of the change (done). Dragonsflight cat tracker may not be functioning, but might need looking at. Documentation needs updating (I have done some of this). Also it would have been good to discuss on the talk page of the parent at, or one of the cleanup projects, since there may be other changes to the name - "topic" to "subject" springs to mind. Most of the articles have now moved across, I am keeping an eye on the old subcats to see when they are empty and can be deleted - or if there are more templates to change. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:14 24 September 2007 (GMT).

OK, so while I took care of all the articles that were in the parent cat, I seem to have neglected the monthly children. Thanks for that. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

List of recurring human characters from Futurama

Hello, I see that you removed the images from this page stating that it is an improper non-free image gallery. I thought it was common practice to have images on list of characters pages, is this something that is being rolled out wiki-wide, similar to the removal of images from list of episodes pages, or was this a problem specific to this particular list? Would it be appropriate to have some images on this page? Sorry this is a few days after the fact, any advice for future image use would be appreciated. Stardust8212 13:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that these pages are much like discographies and episode lists. A few images are probably not a problem, but too many make it look like they are there for only decorative purposes, which would violate the non-free usage criteria. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your incredible help with your deletions, I award you The Working Man's Barnstar. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alberto Campos

Hi there, I noticed that you are around so I was wondering if you could attend the article Alberto Campos. I keep requesting speedy deletion but the creator keeps removing and I might not be around for too long to keep reverting. Thanks, take care --Kudret abi^Talk 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That was fast: ) Thanks very much, take care Kudret abi^Talk 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Happy to help. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking the time to delete User:Justinmorris/RE-15 :-) --Justinmorris 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Happy to help. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User Dsrt

• Template:User Dsrt

I was bold and made the userbox changes discussed in the UCFD discussion. I also moved the page. Would you be willing to use your bot to fix the redirect links? (It seems that this is not the first time the page has been moved.) Else, I'll go through and manually fix them later. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I started to look at this and I'm assuming that redircets are fine, just double redirects are not. I've fixed the one of those and all the regular redirects should work just fine. While not exactly what you asked, I think that it accomplishes what you are looking for and saves the database a little work. If not, please let me know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Though I might have also fixed the single redirects (and then deleted those redirect pages as really unnecessary), as you noted, it's not that important : )

Thanks for your help. - jc37 07:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Just remember redirects are cheap. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I stumbled upon this CfD you deleted awhile back. I noticed there are about 700-800 user pages still linked to that category. If there is a bot that can clean up those links, please see if it can be alerted. If not, then nevermind. Regards.--Old Hoss 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I bet that there is a template to modify that will kill most of those backlinks.... I'll take a look. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple links left, but 99% are gone now.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Flying primates image

As a neophyte trying to get me head around the rules, can you explain why the image flying_primates.jpg was deleted from the "Flying primates theory" page? There was an associated text explaninig that the image was not copyrighted and that its creator had no objections to it appearing in Wikipedia. What would be the appropriate licensing arrangement in that case?

Fluminense 11:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Fluminense 27 Sept 2007

The image was deleted because it contained no image copyright tag. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information regarding requirements in this area. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

OK, I tried to figure this out so the image was back, but couldn't do it. Basically the owner of the image has stated that he is happy to release for use in Wikipedia, but this does not appear to be allowed as a valid copyright arrangement (the image was tagged for "speedy deletion" after I added what I thought was the proper tag. Any suggestions regarding the appropriate tag? The exact text of the reply email exchange is:

Q: Jack, is the drawing of the flying primates theory (in allegorical form, as branches of a tree) that is in your web page copyrighted? If not, would you object to have that picture uploaded to a non-profit online encyclopedia (Wikipedia)? A: It is not copyrighted. I had the drawing commissioned by Schouten, so it belongs to me. I have no objection to it appearing elsewhere. All the best, Jack

Are you saying that you recreated the image? I don't see any record of that in the logs. In fact it looks like you have never uploaded an image and that the original image was uploaded by a different user. At any rate, there are only 2 options that I see. 1) Tag the image with a non-free copyright tag and make a rationale of why the image may be used even though it is not free. 2) have the owner of the image release it with a GFDL licence, making it a free image and tag it as such, also likely requiring an OTRS email. Finally, please note, that images can not be "used with permission" per deletion criteria WP:CSD#I3. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am trying to help my dad (who did the original upload) to figure it out. We would appreciate if you could have a look at what we did now, and if this reflects the proper conduct. This is all sounding too hard, and it is a pity because the image completments the page really well and the owner of the artwork has stated he does not mind it being released elsewhere. However if for whatever technical reason this can't be done we will leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluminense (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Odyssey page image deletion

I see that this image was deleted for some reason by you, though I'm not quite sure why the image that was here was deleted, also not sure on how to restore the image since I believe the image was deleted incorrectly. Please advise on how I should proceed on this from here, and why the image was deleted in case I'm not understanding the reasons for it. BeoHF 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it contained no non-free usage rationale. Please see WP:NFURG for more information. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Activity

I believe is its time to be deleted, it was never adopted is only fair. Anyway thank you for letting me know about it. Greetings. John Manuel - 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CHADS image

Why do you delete such an image when the authors have given it for use by wikipedia? You are expected to use discretion to promote quality of Wikipedia articles and not be an automat who deletes everything you don't lile. YOu've detracted from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.120.126 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the image because no one provided any license tag or source information. If you, or someone else, is willing to correct this, I will happily restore the image. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin

Hi, can you illuminate me on your speedy close of the above MfD? The argument was that the pages were a violation of the protection policy. I'm not sure why you're saying that the forum was incorrect. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Any of the 3 forums that I mentioned would, in my opinion, be a better place to discuss a change in policy than MFD would be. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not asking for a change in policy, I'm saying that the pages are a violation of existing policy. Could you re-open, please? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I knew what you meant, but didn't express myself clearly. There are many other pages like these, such as Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle‎ which seem to be well endorsed. As a result, the policy as written may be ambiguous and require further discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - do you mind if I ask at WP:ANI for a review of your speedy close? I still believe that the MfD is the place to discuss these specific pages, which I think are pretty unambiguous. Any needed policy change can probably be discussed elsewhere. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV would probably be better as the place to discuss having my close reverted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you think I acted in bad faith, in which case ANI may be better. (But I can assure you that while we may disagree here, I think that we are both acting in good faith.) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're acting in good faith also, we just happen to disagree, that's all. Nobody ever disagrees on Wikipedia, right? ;) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:DRV - I'm really just looking for a quick third opinion on whether I should take it there. No need to clog up DRV with something obvious unless absolutely necessary. I'll drop a note at WP:ANI - thanks for your time. With respect - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've listed it at WP:DRV here. I probably should have listened to you and listed it there first, there likely would have been less drama. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, noticed that. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

*cough*

Afta Midnite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rolling eyes smiley and all that... HalfShadow 00:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Hanold - FYI

Just to let you know, I posted a message on the anon's talk page about blanking out info on their "mother's" page. In that message, I directed them to WP:OTRS since I'm not sure if they know about the article histories. Dismas|^(talk) 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, but used the edit history since I didn't know if they had a static IP address. Good idea to have the message in both places. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They edited the same article in basically the same way a couple days ago and it was also from the same IP. Figured it would reach them on the IP's talk page. And for what it's worth, you beat me to the punch by a few seconds on the revert this last time. Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We are making a good pair. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

National Teenager

Hi! I haven't been in touch lately (been focussing on my own website so have had little time for Wikipedia) but I just thought I'd pick your brain and alert you to a potential issue. I just found Miss Wisconsin National Teenager and have prodded it. You can read my reasons on the talk page... just wondering whether you can check it out and see whether you agree with my actions. I just don't think that pageant (at least on the state level) is notable enough for individual articles... particularly after the individual MAOTeen state articles were deleted.

Hope all is well with you. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 06:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If MAOT Wisconsin is not notable, Miss Wisconsin National Teenager can hardly be so, either. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi I just noticed your question on this, and do appreciate you suggestions on the Wisconsin National Teenager page. I do hope you read the discussion section. I posted some articles on the pageant, and explained why there aren't more (renovated newspaper websites is mainly to blame with very short archives). MAOT for Wisconsin was not in need of its own website or notable because it has only been around for three years - wonderful system but not much of a history to write on. So many small MAOT articles did not make sense. National Teenager on the other hand is one of the longest running teen pageants in the state of Wisconsin as well as the country. I believe the longest running is Junior Miss at 50 years. Also many former Wisconsin National Teenager queens have gone on to be very successful in Miss Wisconsin USA as well as Miss Wisconsin, for instance - Meghan Coffey, Tracy Gest, Jena Schulz, and Maria Kim to name a few. If you would like more information, please feel free to contact me. --Pageant Girl

October 1

Well, it's about time... But I think I'll wait until tomorrow. (Confused? Wait and see : ) - jc37 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that you are going to put in the request for AMbot to tag all those categories that I listed for you back a few weeks ago. Am I a winner? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem so : )

The Special Barnstar - A special award for a "special" winner : ) - jc37 (Talk) - 11:42, 30 September 2007

• A good guess barnstar? ;) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)