User talk:east718

Archives

Current Late 2004 and onwards March 2006 and onwards November 2006 and onwards July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June–July 2009 August–December 2009 January–June 2010 July 2010 and onwards

Leave a message, sign your posts, get a reply.

Funny!

Thanks for stepping in that DarkFalls issue. It's that kind of contention that made me drop out of this project for the long term on more than one occasion, but I have to tell you, you made me feel better. Reciprocating with a cookie! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Images uploaded by Mr. CF

Could you please research this a little? I notice that you deleted Image:Mormeck.jpg, and in researching the image Image:B-Pac.jpg I discovered that it appears on [1] with the photo credit "CHRIS FARINA, Top Rank Promotions". Can you contact User:Mr. CF to verify that they are in fact the same Chris Farina who took the photo, and if they are it seems likely that the Mormeck photo was also legitimate, but just not properly licensed. One question to ask, is even if he took the photo, does he own rights to it or not? 199.125.109.57 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You're right about the questionable source and the issue of it possibly being a work for hire, so I've deleted the image. I've sent Top Rank an email asking them to get in touch with OTRS if they'd like to donate any photos to us. Thanks for the tip, anon! east.718 at 19:06, May 10, 2008

Flowing Hair Dollar

Why did you delete the images from Flowing Hair Dollar? Is there any way to get them back? I am not going to contribute to Wikipedia if you are going to randomly delete stuff. --Freshmutt (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there are special rules about photographing coins and paper money. The rules can be confusing, but although I am not East718, I want to encourage you to continue to contribute, especially because there are so few images in Wikipedia (partly because of the strict copyright requirements). From the stated reason for deletion "(CSD I6: No justification given for fair use for more than seven days)"[2] it looks like there was not a proper copyright notice on the image. In the case of a 1795 coin there would possibly just need to be a notice that it was so old that any copyright had expired. I would suggest looking for some other articles with coins and see what license notice they used, such as Indian Head nickel, or Seated Liberty dollar. I think all you had to do is under the license section choose {{money-US}}. Please also check to see if it is ok to upload to commons instead, as all pd images are being moved to the commons. see commons:dollar 199.125.109.104 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the anon is right - the real issue here was that the image was mistagged: they were actually free. I've restored the images, put them back in the article, and filled out their information pages correctly. east.718 at 19:06, May 10, 2008

Super. If you know all about tags, and I obviously don't, why didn't you just fix it in the first place? I had the same problem with an album cover I uploaded to Skynyrd's Innyrds. Is there any way to restore that with proper tags?--Freshmutt (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored that image and fixed it up too - it was deleted by another admin for a really silly reason. The reason why I delete images rather than fix them is that there is a very serious and perennial backlog with regards to copyright infringement; it's at around 10,000 images right now and over 100,000 a couple months ago. Most of these images are very problematic, and the task has been laid out. It is far faster and safer from a legal perspective to slash-and-burn through these backlogs and accept the 1% of good images that get deleted as collateral damage, rather than spend far more time tirelessly applying potentially baseless fair use rationales. east.718 at 21:40, May 17, 2008

Rogue Images

You wrote:

There is no evidence that Rogue is licensed under the GFDL.

east.718 at 15:24, May 9, 2008

From the uploads contribution log....

1. 00:35, 26 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Image:Rogue Unix Screenshot Thumb.JPG‎ ({{Information |Description=Rogue (computer game) Unix Screen Shot |Source=self-made |Date=2008-04-25 |Copyright (c) 2008 |Copyleft (cl) 2008 GFDL |Author=Arthur_Transformation |other_versions=None. |Note:Parts of the software used to create this image are) (top)

hmm.. What does it say there? Looks like it has both a copyright, a copyleft, and a creation source as well as GFDL. Hmm.. Some other policy yould like to quote? Artoftransformation (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot make up a license of your choice for screenshots of a game, only the person or company that holds the intellectual property rights to the game has the authority to do that. And since myself and ^demon seem to be on your "assholes" list, I don't want to discuss the issue further. east.718 at 04:13, May 11, 2008

Sweet! You have just invalidated a large number of images, both of game screen shots, but of a *lot* of other works, in terms of IP. Are all the Disney/Star Trek images here also invalid? Artoftransformation (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a tiny amount of reasearch ( like actually READING wikipedia ) would have helped you a lot. To wit: [[]] "

This is a screenshot of a non-free copyrighted video or computer game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company or person that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

   * for identification and critical commentary on
         o the computer or video game in question or
         o the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Wikipedia:Non-free content."

Did I put you on any other lists? Artoftransformation (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Image:Rogue_Unix_Screenshot_CAR.PNG. Check out the last part above the license. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I've been immortalized in imagespace! I don't really care, but I'll probably support you no matter how you play it. east.718 at 01:07, May 20, 2008

Bobby Pacquiao

Was the image on the Bobby Pacquiao article really copyvio? Didn't the uploader provided sufficient information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.128.115 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The uploader falsely claimed that the image was self-authored; a little investigation by a different user found that the image was actually taken by Chris Farina for Top Rank Promotions. east.718 at 17:35, May 11, 2008

I see the point. However, that user managed to add information such as telling where and when the picture was taken. Also, part of the uploader's username might be an acronym of the copyright holder. 71.130.128.115 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't just take the word of some anonymous user as to their identity (ostensibly, this is to protect the copyrights of the people whom the uploaders claim to be). There's also the issue of the image possibly being a work for hire; either way, I've shot off some correspondence to Top Rank asking them about the copyright status of the image and whether they'd like to donate some images to Wikimedia by relicensing them as suitably free. east.718 at 07:04, May 12, 2008

unprotection...

Hi - Your note on the PPA talk page indicates you were going to unprotect the article, but it's still locked. Did you change your mind or are you still planning to proceed with that? Thanks --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I reverts

I saw your comment, Beta rolled over both our edits with his latest revert though.. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, you've both stopped. east.718 at 07:04, May 12, 2008

Lady Pearl Photo and Article

I'm wondering why Image:606 LadyPearl2.jpg and its accompanying article, "Lady Pearl," got deleted.

I don't know anything about copyright law, all I know is that I got verbal permission from the person who took the picture (who was also in the picture) and tried to note that: "This photo was taken from the following MySpace site with permission from the subject. It was taken at home with a digital camera and The Lady Pearl gives permission for this photo to be used. http://www.myspace.com/theladypearl" Is that information not relevant? Does copyright law really apply to personal photographs? Is someone who takes a family photo considered an "artist"?

And how about the article? I've tried searching the February deletion log for my login, "lady pearl" and "ladypearl" and I'm not coming up with anything.

I'd also like to know more about why you (East718) felt justified in deleting the photo, and, if it was you, the article, and how it feels to be, in many cases, something of an arbiter of pop culture. How do you decide what's too provincial, too unimportant? How is this forum different from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica if entries have to prove national or global importance to be included?

Thanks Csflannery (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, East718.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Was there supposed to be a !vote to go along with this?[3] If not, you might consider putting it on the talk page to avoid confusion (or maybe putting it under Neutral). Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		For your image query bot that introduced me to BOTing MBisanz talk 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

uh

"[edit] Re: Dear Bonehead Your entire contribution history over the past four years amounts to nothing but an amalgam of self-promotional spam, vandalism, trolling, and harassment. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Can you think of any reason why we should keep you around here? east.718 at 10:06, February 24, 2008"

No personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip to Sunderland (talk · contribs)

Hi. Can I ask if there was any particular reason motivating your blocking of this user at this point? I'm not disagreeing with it in any way -- it would just be useful to understand why the action was taken at this point.

Thanks!

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a sleeper sock of somebody who creates hundreds of them to waste time; if you're asking about the timing, I think Dmcdevit found it when he was running an IP check or something for me. east.718 at 19:03, May 13, 2008

I was just wondering if there was any particular reason given the block history. Thanks -- that's exactly what I thought was going on. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my Userpage.

Has it ever occured that some userpages took ALOT of time to put together?!? If something on the page violates the policy, delete the damn part that violates the policy, not the entire freakin page. That took me over 5 hours to make. Sure, i'll remove all the personably identifable info. But deleting the entire page without first contacting me? Wikipedia isn't my parent and i don't need them for that. the main reason why most of that stuff was on there was a reference poiont, for me. I can't even remember my own ICQ number most of the time. Please consider others before following policy. Could the page please be recreated and i will remove any personal identifiable info. [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just because I'm young doesn't mean i'm uneducated. There are some sick people out there. But thankfully, wikipedia is mostly a safe environment. I'll take your advice and remove some of the more personably identifiable info. I understand why people would fuss over it, but it's not like i'm a small child who doesn't know any better. I'm 1 1/2 years away from legally being an adult. I've registered my Email not and it can be sent.[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, East718. You have new messages at LukeTheSpook's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for being overprotective... - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg

Hi,

You deleted Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg some time ago because it was unused for 7 days. The image was unused because UniModal was deleted. UniModal's deletion was overturned, and I was wondering if you would undelete the picture. Let me know.

Thanks Fresheneesz (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Fresheneesz (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For being way overprotective [The Spooky One]

WBOSITG's RfA

Recall?

Hello sorry for my impolitness. But are you open to recall?  :) Save The Humans:) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into our case

I thought that I was doing the right by posting Vandalism Warnings on Panel 2008's talkpage. I only did so because Panel 2008 was editing against consensus and he knew that.

I thought that repetitive edits against consensus was vandalism, am I wrong?

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: AN3

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'm at a loose end with this particular editor. The underlying problem is that he just doesn't seem to "get" the concept of original research (or refuses to read the policy page on it) and fails to understand when he is beginning to engage in it, particularly when he is drawing his maps, which he does so like to do. He also, when challenged for sources, has a tendency to do some Googling and then cite self-published websites (ie personal websites uploaded to the web by "some guy") or another map uploaded to Wikipedia. How does one deal with someone who just plain refuses to change their behaviour here? And - worse - when it's at articles whose talk pages have very low foot-traffic and can often be weeks before someone else chimes in - if at all? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that User:Red4tribe is evading his two week ban by reverting at Italian Empire whilst logged out. [4] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting deletion

• 16:52, May 13, 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008" ‎ (csd g6)

You didn't delete the associated talk page. I CSDed it but the tag was removed. Shouldn't that be deleted as well? Enigma ^message 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. IMO, it was a speedy candidate. Enigma ^message 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a decision in 3RR

Hi, regarding your decision on this case - I would like to say, that while I appreciate the block against Panel_2008, I think you may have the wrong idea of the situation. EconomistBR and the user who posted with his IP should not have been warned/blocked. Panel_2008 is a vandal, who continues to violate consensus, who brings no reliable sources to discussion, and concentrates his edits on nationalistic, biased POV. Proposal II was agreed on, and stopped months of edit warring. It solved all problems between most parties, and the only person who is violating it is Panel 2008. A page like this cannot exist without a proposal reached by consensus - it attracts too many uses who have nationalistic goals (if you understand geography, you'd understand that Central Europe includes some Eastern European countries - and E. Europe still having a negative connotation to it due to the Cold War, is a less desirable term than C. Europe). What EconomistBR and the IP user were doing were simply enforcing concensus - trying to get rid of Panel 2008's vandal edits. Panel 2008 has also been asked countless amounts of times to bring his OWN proposals and the rest of the users would vote on it - he declined, and has never really shown any reliable sources at all. All he continues to do is edit the pages to suit his nationalistic goals. My question is (since I'm somewhat new to the whole behind-the-scenes issues on Wikipedia): how much longer will it take for this user to get blocked from editing? It's been 2-3 months and we're all pretty tired of it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning unprotection of Pro-pedophile activism

Although I was hoping that, once the page was unprotected, editors would edit in a gradual cooperative manner to achieve consensus and would be cautious about introducing significant controversial changes, PetraSchelm has decided that the article is his or her own to mold to whatever he or she wants. Since unprotection, this editor has completely revamped the entire article, without getting any sort of consensus or giving other users time to address incremental changes. The article is now nothing what it used to be, and there's far too many individual changes to address in a gradual manner. I'm not sure how to deal with this situation, seeing as reverting to the version that was under protection would remove all the intermediate edits (some of which may indeed be legitimate), even those by another editor who did not introduce any radical controversial changes. What PetraSchelm did goes way beyond being bold - this is down-right disrespectful to all the editors who contributed countless hours to making this article what it was before this unilateral day-long editing spree to completely alter the article.

Your assistance is requested in regards to this new development. I regret to admit it, but I would personally recommend protecting the article anew, seeing as the message clearly did not sink in for PetraSchelm, and there is no easy or accessible way to assess or undo individual edits by this editor, since so much information and so many sections have been altered in such as short time, some beyond recognition. If protection is viewed as unfavorable, please remind PetraSchelm that unprotection was carried out on the assumption that editors would seek consensus prior to incorporating controversial edits. Likewise, time should be given for others to respond to proposals on the Talk Page and to new incremental edits to the article. It is unrealistic for PetraSchelm to expect everyone else to spend 24/7 watching and editing pedophilia-related articles in the manner he or she does. Most users simply don't have that kind of time, and don't have the opportunity to respond to dozens of consecutive edits, all carried out within the span of a single day. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Those edits look accurate and well-referenced to me. I didn't do much editing on the article today, but I did add several references and as I did so, I reviewed the changes and found them appropriate. Most of the changes appear directly related to the extensive talk page discussion that has been in progress during the time the article was protected. Petra has been asking for feedback on the talk page all along - the fact that others did not respond during the time of protection does not mean that the opportunity for discussion was not offered. Why did no-one respond and discuss while it was protected?

Any information that's incorrect or badly-referenced should be addressed. But just because it's different than it was before does not mean it's wrong. Solidly-sourced accurate material is what the encyclopedia needs.

I support the improved version as it is at the time I'm writing this note; also, I acknowledge that others may see it differently. The way to handle that is to review and discuss the edits, like any other article. These changes are not sudden, they've been on the talk page for weeks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What PetraSchelm has done is pretty much contest everything within the article and delete (or move to the Talk Page) whatever he or she doesn't like. When an editor questions every single word, without providing much significant consensus-backed reasoning for changing something, and does this at a 24/7 rate, it's no surprise that other editors would not respond to every single thing he or she posts on the Talk Page. Besides, even if posting on the Talk Page in the manner that PetraSchelm does is a sufficient notice of an edit, it is generally best to introduce significant controversial changes in a gradual manner, so that they can be assessed and addressed individually. Spending an entire day to revamp a contested article shows no respect to other involved editors, who may agree with some changes but not with others. Likewise, it's hard to keep up with an editor that lives and breathes pedophilia-related articles, when most users don't have that luxury of time.

Lastly, PetraSchelm did not gain consensus on or even discuss all the edits he or she recently introduced. For instance, where did this editor see any consensus to remove the entire "Scientific claims" section from the article? Outside of the newly started thread on the Talk Page, the only other section that addressed the concerns PetraSchelm had to this regard definitely had no clear consensus. Besides, presence of what one editor considers weasel words is not sufficient enough of a reason to remove a whole section. If the editor is worried about some particular words, it's up to him or her to address this concern, especially when others have already expressed their views on the issue. Considering that this is one of the longest-standing sections of the article, and there's more than enough supporting evidence for the passages in question, there's really no excuse for acting in a unilateral manner as did PetraSchelm. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire scientific claims section needs to be attributed (something even Daniel Lievre agreed with on his one day sojourn to the talkpage). I also noticed in the talkpage archives that this isn't the first time someone has pointed that out. Moving it to talk is a good impetus to get people work on attributing it/taking out the weasel words (We're not talking some weasel words--not once is anything attributed in that section, it's one "some argue..." after another.) And talkpage discussion was posted about that weeks ago, but not once did I see you address it or do any work on attribution...-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here;s the discussion--more than two weeks old: [5] -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm, within the very section you reference above, Daniel Lièvre attempted to find a way to address your concerns, but you would have none of it. Besides, you still haven't explained how moving the entire text of a long-standing well-sourced section is justified by concern over some possible weasel words. All the assertions within the passage are sourced, so I'm not sure what problem you see here. If you wish to improve the section, please do so, but there's no reason to completely remove it from the article and to expect others to do introduce changes on the Talk Page to address your personal concerns. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't "some weasel words," it's that without attribution it's a complete compilation of original research, as I stated in the discussion linked above (in which you have never participated, curiously enough). The onus is on those who would like to include information to show that it is verifiable. And I'm quite sure that if I went through the section, pruned it, and attributed it all to mhamic (which is the only source I know of that makes those arguments) there would be nothing but complaints. So if you know how to attribute some of those statements, why not work on that.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, Daniel Lièvre was almost immediately indef blocked for engaging in pedophile related disruption, so hardly an editor we should be looking up to. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this situation. Suggestions for the article have to be judged on their own merit, not based on who makes them. You surely know this by now. It doesn't matter what happened to Daniel Lièvre, because what is of concern here are his contributions to the discussion in question. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, you're glossing over the fact that even the immediately blocked pro-pedophile activist Daniel admitted the section needed to be attributed. Meanwhile, you seem to have done nothing on-wiki for the last 48 hours except complain about this in multiple locations, after never participating in the discussion, or doing anything then or now to attribute it so it's not original research... -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are msissing my point, which is that it was such comments that were, to my m,ind at least, part oft eh disruptive comments that got him blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that Petra thinks or acts as if she owns the article is an OTT reaction, IMO, Homologeo. Yes, she was being WP:BOLD butt hat is surely a good thing, and she has been trying to address the issues that have resulted in the totally disputed tag being ont he article for a year or so now. I strongly oppose re-protection based on what has happened to date, I am hoping to edit the article myself when I have a little more time over the next few days. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SqueakBox and also strongly oppose re-protection. Protection was needed due to the wave of sock-puppets and that situation has resolved.

For perspective: After protection was placed, it took a week or so to sort out the multiple sockpuppet issues. After the last sock was blocked on April 26, during the next 3 weeks there were around 110 posts talk page comments - approx half posted by PetraSchelm - that's a lot of comments offering opportunity for discussion of content. Of the remaining 50-some comments by others - a half-dozen were IP strangeness and several were about the page protection and not content related. That leaves around 40-some comments entered by 6 or 7 editors, including around six from me.

Those 55 or so talk page comments from PetraSchelm during 3 weeks of page protection did exactly what Homologeo wrote: " introduce significant controversial changes in a gradual manner, so that they can be assessed and addressed individually." If other editors chose not to respond, what does that show? Lack of concern? Tacit agreement? A belief that it's not worth discussing protected pages? I don't know that answers, but it's clear on the talk page that most of the content and referencing concerns she expressed did not receive replies.

While the edits were bold, they were not done without discussion or advance notice. PetraSchelm entered 55 or more comments discussing the edits in advance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out elsewhere, what PetraSchelm did is either criticize or remove from the article everything he or she didn't like. If involved editors have already established that something belongs in the article in its current shape, and the issue in question has been discussed a number of times before, there is no obligation for them to debate the issue time and time again. What's more, simply posting on the Talk Page does not equate to consensus. Likewise, it's quite likely that others chose to not respond due to possibly poorly justified criticisms the editor introduced. As for my own decision not to comment on much of the threads started by PetraSchelm - besides my lack of time to edit at this individual's rate, I do not have the necessary background to adequately address the technical issues presented. This is why I was waiting for individuals more versed in the research and texts to respond. On another note, a great deal of PetraSchelm's criticism is centered around his or her own discontent with particular sources, based on the claim that they are somehow inappropriate. Since these sources have been shown to be appropriate multiple times before by individuals who are sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject, my input would not have furthered the discussion that much.

Please also note that, even if some of the changes that PetraSchelm wanted to introduce were listed on the Talk Page in a gradual manner, there still has been no explanation for why the editor chose to introduce them all at once within less than a day after unprotection, knowing full well this would make it very difficult for others to judge incremental edits on an individual basis. What I'm concerned here is PetraSchelm overwhelming other editors and the article in general with his or her edits, making it hard for all of his or her changes to be properly evaluated. Truth be told, what matters is what happens to the article, not just what is said on the Talk Page, and PetraSchelm's editing conduct within the article is what I personally found disrespectful. Lastly, please do not assume my lack of involvement in editing the article or responding to very specialized issues listed on the Talk Page as a sign of apathy or as something else of that sort, because I have never claimed to have specialized knowledge of this subject. Unlike several other editors, I do not assert to have read many research studies, or to have done my own research within this topic area. What I'm concerned with is maintaining NPOV standards, watching out for civility, and assisting with general quality control on pedophilia-related pages. This is why most of my efforts go into critiques, rather than direct intervention with article content. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't want the article to be changed at all, so don't pretend that what you are objecting to is how it was changed, or when, or by whom, with what talkpage discussion-- you're on the record saying: Why fix something that's not broken? and Well, you're free to think what you want. I would personally contend that the article is doing just fine. As for your lack of involvement in editing the article or responding to very specialized issues listed on the Talk Page as a sign of apathy and This is why most of my efforts go into critiques--exactly. You don't edit the article, you don't discuss on the talkpage--you just complain. Sorry, Homologeo, but get over it. That article hadn't changed much in three years, it's had a "totally disputed" tag for a year, and it was about time for some changes. If there's some particular change you don't like, tell us about it instead of endlessly harping on the fact that changes were made and you wanted the article to stay the same forever. All articles change--it's called eventualism. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Many changes have occurred since I stumbled onto the Pro-pedophile activism page, and I have not contested edits that actually made sense, which were incorporated in a civil and respectful manner. As for my comment you mention - "Why fix something that's not broken?" - I still stick to it, and I honestly don't think the article was in that bad of a shape when you appeared out-of-nowhere and started trying to revamp it in its entirety. Next, please don't act as if I haven't contributed to the article over the time I have been involved with it - just checking the article's history or my contributions would suffice to demonstrate that I've contributed more than enough times. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, I tend to comment on the Talk Page on topics that I have some knowledge of or that deal with Wikipedia policies. When something is over my head, I don't interfere and never pretend to be any sort of expert. I think that's the smartest thing to do when an individual does not have specialized knowledge on a subject. Thus, what I usually focus on are the select areas where I am able to provide informative feedback and on critiques that center on Wikipedia policies. Sorry if you consider this to be "complaining." I simply do not intend to pretend to be an expert and to edit war in the way that you do.

Moving on to the "Totally disputed" tag - the reason this has been attached to the article is because a couple editors have been bent on ripping the article apart for quite some time now. One editor in particular has refused to follow consensus on countless occasions and has made it amply clear that he intends to get rid of anything he considers to be so-called "pro-pedophile propaganda." However, despite his exaggerated concerns, time and time again consensus of involved and outside editors has shown that his take on the situation is skewed and does not reflect the stance of most editors questioned on this matter. This is partly why the "Totally disputed" tag has remained on top of the article - to appease this individual. Granted, he probably honestly believes what he says, so he should be treated seriously, thus the tag legitimately remains. Furthermore, once in a while, some editors do come around (much like yourself) who do not like the way the article is structured. This is yet another reason the tag is there. However, since up to this point, most involved editors have concluded, on a number of occasions, that the select users who find the article problematic are mistaken, the article has kept more or less a consistent shape, while keeping the tag on-top to recognize that certain parties disagree with its content. Howbeit, presence of disagreement is not sufficient justification for completely revamping the article.

Finally, when I personally have the time to look into some of the multitude of edits you recently made (if I'm actually able to distinguish individual changes among them) and to research the issues on my own, I will indeed comment on, respond to, or possibly undo some of your contributions. All the while, my analysis (elucidated above) of your editing behavior since the unprotection of the article remains the same as before. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what I "consider to be complaining" is these ginormous rants on poor East's page. (Instead of editing or discussing on talk if there's some edit you object to). It's hard to tell, but the gist of the most recent rant seems to be that it's all one person's fault (Squeakbox, I presume?) that there's been a totally disputed tag in the article for a year? When I read through the talk archives, that hardly seemed to be the case, nor did it seem to be that "time and time again consensus of involved and outside editors has shown that his take on the situation is skewed and does not reflect the stance of most editors questioned on this matter." Maybe you should lay off the peevish book-length ad homs for a while and go have a nice cup of WP:TEA. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While Petra has far from resolved the problems on the PPA article she does at least address the real issues and in a way that tends towards NPOV, and that is to be commended, especially in the face of such persistent opposition. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My talk page isn't dispute resolution. I don't have the time to sort this out now, but will hopefully get to it in a few hours. east.718 at 00:14, May 16, 2008

Deletion review for Image:Jersey £1.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Jersey £1.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.212 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have restored this image, but another administrator beat me to it. If you need help writing a fair use rationale, please see WP:FURG or model it off another coin's; Image:20pesos.jpg seems like a good choice. Don't hesistate to get back at me if you need any help. east.718 at 23:42, May 16, 2008

Doctor Wikipedian

Hi, you tagged Doctor Wikipedian as a sock of User:Dereks1x. I don't see where the a checkuser has been done though? I saw a page full of Dereks1x checkuser requests, but not with Doctor Wikipedian's name. As I wasted a lot of typing on that user, I'd like to look at the right confirmation - could you point me toward it, please? Aleta ^Sing 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in, East. The ironic thing is that Doctor Wikipedian was practically begging everyone to do a checkuser (which I'm sure you know if you looked at his edits at all, since that's almost the only thing he did). Aleta ^Sing 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe

You know, it's a minimum requirement before undertaking administrative action that you have some actual idea of what's going. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, you ought not to be giving out advice and/or blocks, nor blindly supporting other admins' actions.

I am reverting a long-running unilateral edit-warrior's tendentious edits, in the aftermath of mediation case worked out without the slightest assistance from said warrior -- and your only worry is about which 'i' is dotted and which 't' is crossed? That's there's some sort of equivalence here between one edit-warrior and 16 opposers?

There WAS no 'edit war' -- there was an upholding of a literal consensus. There was no call for blocks and no call for uninformed warnings. The slightest skim of the evidence would have told you otherwise -- yet, you couldn't be bothered. This is NOT the standard one expects from an administrator. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If there really was a solid consensus of "16 opposers", you shouldn't have to edit war. The correct way to go about things is to seek assistance from other editors, or in the case of a single disruptive editor to seek assistance from an administrator. Edit warring only escalates the disruption and will do nothing except get everybody involved blocked.

Derek's Laundry

Hi East718. The sock of Derek that you blocked (BVande) did apparently actually mail a copy of a drivers license ID'ing himself as a B. Vande to an admin. Given the history, I'm inclined to think forgery, but I was wondering if this is something that needs to be listed over at long term abuse or somesuch place. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi East. Thanks for taking care of the socks. I still do think it's odd that he keeps obtaining random licenses and using them to impersonate people: largely since I can't think of a legal way to do that. Has anyone considered forwarding this on to local law enforcement or postal inspectors? I know no one's really being harmed here (yet), but given that he's used multiple real or fake licenses, the potential seems to be there. (That said, I can't see what anyone would really do, other than file a report). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Joelster

ANI thread you might be interested in.[6] --Elonka 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of talk pages...

If you're going to mass delete article talk pages that contain the genetics tag, please make sure they're not also tagged for other projects as well. Would you mind helping me by restoring these articles that you deleted? Many thanks. – ClockworkSoul 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :-( I was mass deleting John Bot's new pages only and must have hit some without the little "N" tag. east.718 at 22:54, May 17, 2008

No harm done. It's a good idea to take a look at pages before you speedy them though. :) – ClockworkSoul 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hello! You deleted the image "BMP-1 03.jpg" ‎and wrote "no source, no license". There was a source as well as it was a free public domain, so the image will be uploaded again!

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI review of one of your blocks

ANI thread about one of your blocks. I think last time this happened you unblocked with unblock summary of "other participant in edit war has been unblocked" - since it has now been conclusively proven that Betacommand was the other participant in this latest edit war, and he has been unblocked, I suggest you do the same here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Olga Lehmann image deletion

East718, I noticed that you deleted, or commented on the deletion, of an image I uploaded to illustrate the Olga Lehmann entry. I would like to undo that deletion. As I'm the owner of the image, and have no copyright axes to grind about it, I shall attempt to reinstall it. However, I am not expert in the intricacies of this process, so my efforts may be a bit bungling, for which I hope you will forgive me, and if necessary, help me.

Thanks. Pahuson (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.164.189.135

Follow up... :) -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Nothing444 block decrease?

You may have remember the block of the above user. Some users are asking on his talk page that he be unblocked in a year instead of indef. I don't know what you I can do but it would be better if you took care of this. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Two people have said it as a "perhaps down the road..." kind of thing. But as far as I can see, there is no real desire to have this reduced. And this discussion were a few weeks ago. If there was a real desire, it would have been brought up vocally. Metros (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree but I would like East's opinions. Thank you.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite." We can always revisit blocks sometime later, although this one was supported by the community they'd have to consent to an unblock. If Nothing444 wants to be unblocked, there's several different avenues of appeal for them to take alone, but I think it's telling that instead of doing so, they went directly to Commons, where there contributions have been of similar quality to those here. east.718 at 09:18, May 19, 2008

Strongly opposed to any unbanning based on Commons contribs since ban and original contributions. Daniel (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I do agree that he still be indefinitely be blocked for now. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Void title

Let me know when you are online and plan to be that way for awhile, because I need to have a word with you. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} at 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no IRC client, nor email account, and don't plan on making any. I do, however, send Monk-E-Mails, but seeing as you cannot reply, the point is beyond gone. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

i'll check with korpuskat tonight, and get back to you. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 03:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

If I have no reason to apologize to you, then I should at least thank you. Joelster (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Heading

• Hey! Why did you block me?--3j4nt4 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• So what if I'm a sock? I was just making conversation.--Linesnewly username (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• OK. What do you want to talk about?--James458 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• That's cool. Hey, you're all right. I don't care what they say. Take it easy.--Gloryrates bud (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I NEED MY PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live for that page please give it back!!!!!!!!!! I need my page. PLEASE REVIVE MY PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Altenhofen (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

East? I'm assuming you'll say "no".--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find this message deeply, deeply amusing, considering I emailed them the source before they left it. ^_^ east.718 at 01:11, May 20, 2008

Ah. Do you mind explaining? I would just like to know more about this.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Administrators can view deleted pages, so I just took the last copy of the page and emailed it to them. I'm assuming they placed a lot of work into it, (misplaced in my opinion), so I wouldn't want to send anything that could be useful into the ether. The personal information needs to go and stay gone though. east.718 at 01:17, May 20, 2008

Oh, I thought the personal info was still there when I said "I'm assuming you'll say no". It should be good now. Thanks for clarifying.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I REVIVED IT. I WAS GOING TO FIX IT BUT IT WAS DELETED AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Altenhofen (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I know it wasn't in your intention (I think) but please don't capitalize all the letters in your comment. That is considered yelling and we may think you are loosing your WP:COOL. Thank you. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Altenhofen. please remember that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information.--Hu12 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RUINED

my life is ruined because of all of you. I would say something imensely hurtfull or rude to you but I'm not that kind of person. I hope you are happy, I hate life right now and it is all your fault.Altenhofen (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, East? Is that a personal attack? I can't tell to quickly... RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is, I don't care. However, I'll repeat what I already told Antenhofen by email: that as soon as he promises not to repost personal information, he can have his page back. east.718 at 02:26, May 20, 2008

you have personal info you idiot.Altenhofen (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

and because of you.Altenhofen (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay? I have no personal info on my userpage. Nothing on my user page says my age, birth date, school (If I went to one), life, etc. Please remember that this is About|Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not a WP:MYSPACE. It's not that important to have user pages that has personal info. We frown on that. I redesign userpages myself. Their commonly used for item, links, etc. to help yourself contribute to wikipedia.-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

you are an idiot, I was talking to east.

the place you live is personal info. plus, I did not mention my school and I know tons of other people who have personal info on there page and no-one cares.

also, you are a big bully and I hate you.Altenhofen (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to get off and eat supper now then cry myself to sleap because of what this guy did to me.Altenhofen (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh. Stop overreacting and forum-shopping administrators. And the reason they have the personal info on their pages is generally because they feel more comfortable disclosing their name and (generally) are mature enough to know the pros and cons of doing so.

Indeed, based on what I've been seeing of you, I assume you're pretty young (or at least not mature enough to have a discussion without resorting to name-calling). It is Wikipedia policy to remove identifying information offered by users self-identifying as children in order to protect their privacy (indeed, Wikipedia users tend to get harassed quite often; geez, I haven't revealed my true name and I still get harassed!). Please take a few deep breaths, have a schmoke anna pahncake, and discuss matters like a gentleman, not a child on the playground. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm eleven.Altenhofen (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then see Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and please be a bit more civil. I get mad too sometimes; but I talk things out civilly, without calling names. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have aspergers syndrome and am in a behavior school, I can't help my behavior sometimes.Altenhofen (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Red4tribe

FYI.. [7] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

deal

1. I didn't get to sleep until 2 A.M because of what happened. 2. I will make you a deal. Go to your logs, find were you deleted my page, undo the delete because whan I revived it the coding was messed up.. I will take away all personal info I think should be deleted and you tell me if there is anything else you want gone.Altenhofen (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'm stealing this emoicon!) seicer | talk | contribs 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already sent you the code to your userpage; if the version I sent you was wrong, here's a list of revisions, pick out the correct one and I'll restore it. east.718 at 00:01, May 21, 2008

I don't get it.Altenhofen (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

it is this one: (diff) 21:16, May 19, 2008 . . Altenhofen (Talk | contribs | block) (45,938 bytes) (he is evil). I will edit it once you revive it.Altenhofen (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you that version. In the meantime, can you please explain how your plan on using your userpage to facilitate communication with others for the purpose of encyclopedia-building? east.718 at 06:09, May 23, 2008

I will do the neccasary edits to it to make it more appropriate. after that I will make 1 or 2 edits to it for every 150 constructive edits to the encyclopedia. I will delete some stuff I don't need as well.Altenhofen (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the e-mail didn't handle the format of some of the characters, will it re-format them the way they were before?Altenhofen (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can remedy this besides telling you to get a modern mail client, but as a last effort, I've uploaded it here. Again, can you tell me how your new userpage would be in line with the relevant policy? east.718 at 03:41, May 25, 2008

Image:Berberss.JPG

Hello. Is this image - Image:Berberss.JPG - the same one as the deleted collage Image:Berbers.jpg? Thank you. --Daggerstab (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cookie time

Here is a really good tasting cookie for fixing my bad merges. Enjoy! MBisanz ^talk

Image:Australia Cyprus Locator.png

Hi. Just noticed that you deleted the image named above. The log comment doesn't mention which image it was a copy of, any chance you could enlighten me?

04:00, 27 March 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Australia Cyprus Locator.png" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image)

Thanks, Marmelad (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your Commons talkpage. east.718 at 07:57, May 23, 2008

WP:DABS

Hi East,

Thanks for taking up the slack with WP:DABS. Having a bot keep this list updated saves us a lot of work. Thanks so much.

The old bots used to show a GA or FL icon next to the articles which were GAs or FLs; those have since disappeared. And a few of the FAs no longer show up as FAs either. Do you have any idea what happened? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I added support for GAs and FLs, and also think I've ironed out the missing FA bug. Just let me know if you find any other problems. east.718 at 08:40, May 23, 2008

Thanks, East. That seemed to fix nearly everything. However, Species of Allosaurus and Species of Psittacosaurus don't show up as GAs on the list still. It is a minor issue, actually, but hopefully this can be worked out down the line? Again, you have my thanks for taking up the DABS list in the first place. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up the page! J. Spencer (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're all very welcome - and I've fixed that little GA bug too. east.718 at 11:04, May 24, 2008

Saving Mrs. Pilate

Hello! Last week, you put a page protection on Pontius Pilate’s wife following my complaint about a revert war started by another editor. You suggested that the editors involved in the article try to build a consensus on its future direction. The good news is that I took the initiative and tried to encourage a discussion regarding a game plan. Progress is being made very, very slowly, but at least it appears to be going in some direction (hopefully the correct one). Should a problem arise again, however, I hope I can call on you for advice. Thanks again for your help! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my pleasure! I've been on the receiving end of rudeness here, too (that character who started the revert war I complained about caught me off-guard with his nasty comments in the article's Talk Page). Thus, I like to make an effort to say something supportive and pleasant at all available opportunities. Be well and stay focused. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Having looked through your Talk Page and your contributions, I think this is more than deserving:

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For maintaining focus, cogent thought, sincerity, dedication and a sense of humor in the midst of Wikipedia's surreal environment. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. More good news: this article received WP:GA status! Thanks again for restoring order and allowing the editors to focus on what's important! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

hmm...

It appears that you used this edit to justify a ban for Wowest, because it was "original research" and not "verifiable". However, it was later restored by another user as reliably sourced.[8] Based on that edit, there was nothing done that would merit a ban. I'm not questioning the banning, I'm just pointing out that the edit in question was nothing out of the ordinary, as he cited lack of discussion on and consensus for the removal of the section, which is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative nature. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The other editor is equally in the wrong then. east.718 at 11:00, May 24, 2008

Is that a citation I see? Uh huh. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

One good citation to the Hoover Foundation isn't adequate for that laundry list of material. You keep saying things about "no consensus for removal" and "collaborative nature", but that doesn't really indicate to me that you have a good grasp on verifiability or the neutral point of view: both of which are far more important than the consensus model. east.718 at 03:41, May 25, 2008

I'm all for neutrality and verifiability, and that's exactly why that section should be included. That article, along with most "conspiracy theory" articles is written in a predominantly dismissive nature, and that isn't neutral at all. Including a list of confirmed conspiracies (which is verifiable by the articles themselves) makes it more neutral. The citations could be found in the individual articles, but no one took the time to add them. Now, isn't improving the section a better approach than just deleting it? --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Page

Why did you keep deleting my secret page! It seems everyone have one. Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you digest this. east.718 at 10:59, May 24, 2008

How about other users? They can have one but why not me! Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is an easier read (I've responded on your talkpage). east.718 at 11:10, May 24, 2008

How about User Aliasd, User Basketball110, User Jonathan, User Thetruthbelow, User Sir Drance, User D4g0thur, and many other users who have secret pages. Why they can have secret pages but I can't! P.S. I have over 500 edits as Troop350 and Tyw7. Due to a comment on role editing, I created a new user account, User Tyw7. --Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

moar "secret" pages

In your free time you can browse through these and nominate/nuke some not-so-secret cruft. I'm tempted to batch-delete them but that would make me an even more evil goon, so I won't. :] Миша13 13:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:O Misza, I love you. east.718 at 03:41, May 25, 2008

Click here for leave-Britney-alone stirring lulz, east. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just got a revelation - instead of mass-pwnage, let's make a habit of deleting 2-3 per day (with a damn good reason - most of these people stopped editing long ago or are otherwise spending too much time in userspace as compared to what matters) - this way it should dissolve over time (my bot will update the page daily and we'll see if the numbers drop steadily) - there will be less shitstorm backfiring from this. And spread the word! Миша13 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Shhh its a secret!

Hi, actually thanks for deleting all my crap secret pages. I did it because i was bored, but it was a rubbish idea. I was going to tag them all for deletion before, but it was so much work for both me and the admin, so i decided just to remove the links to them. I'd watch your edit summaries though... little inflammatory... Again, thanks anyway! ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 14:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in going out of my way to be nice to people who are blatantly misusing resources paid for and maintained by volunteers like me. east.718 at 14:18, May 25, 2008

As far as I am aware, and please correct me if i am wrong, but having a secret page is not against the rules. And if you go around deleting peoples pages without their knowledge and permission, then you might have people coming here screaming vandal, misuse of admin rights etc. And you don't need to be 'nice', just Don't be a dick about it. All I have done, is created a few pages. Really, how much space did it take up? Couple of KBs I guess. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 08:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject...

"[...] you might have people coming here screaming vandal, misuse of admin rights etc." - dunno about east, but in my case "bring them on" - individually, none of these pages is defendable per WP:USER. Only en masse they managed to survive an MfD (because deleting them all would be a psychologically drastic thing to do). We only show leniency towards established contributors (who actually do something outside their userspace).

How many KB? Even if it's just one, that's one too many spent on something that's outside the Project's scope (is the concept of Wikipedia not being a social network really that difficult to fathom?). Also, if all of 48,237,713 were to be granted one, that'd be 46GB. Plus, if everyone was to sign a guestbook on them, get a barnstar for finding them... getting the picture? Миша13 14:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just like the conversation a few threads below, this one gave me a really good LOL - specifically, the "screaming vandal" and "dick" bits struck me as falling victim to the psychologist's fallacy. east.718 at 15:32, May 27, 2008

hmmm... fair points Misza13. Although, I dont deny the fact that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Infact, I loathe MySpace. My secret page, was simply a test, to see how well I could do it. (Not very well, it turns out.), I don't deny their worthless-ness, and dont want it back, as I said, I was going to tag them all for deletion myself. Another point you made was "We only show leniency towards established contributors (who actually do something outside their userspace)." - I do make edits outwith my talk page, not recently, I will agree, but as you can see here, [9], I do make edits to articles. What has kinda irked me, is the assumption that I am just another MySpace or Bebo fanatic, whose sole goal for this site is to disrupt it. Every edit I have made is in good faith, and will continue to be. The point im trying to make is that, if you go around deleting folks pages, which are not against the rules, then you will have on helluva backlash, especially with that kind of attitude. May I suggest a summary which better explains Wikipedias stance on these pages? Thanks, Grant ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, im very impressed with your {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFUSERS:R}}/1024/1024 round 1}}GB maths! ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Restore images please

Can you restore Image:Westmeath2.gif,Image:Antrim crest.gif,Image:Tipperary-crest.gif and Image:Meathnewcrest.jpg and i will add the fair use rational Gnevin (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch the i see they where just dupes Gnevin (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny remark

I just re-read your note on Mikes page and there was something I missed the first time, but that made me laugh out loud the second time I read it. I dragged Mike in to this? It was Mike who went after me. Please meditate on why you had it backwards in your mind. --Duk 18:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a good LOL on my return from an excellent long weekend. Perhaps it's your eminent affability that's playing tricks on your mind, but Mike didn't "go after you" in any reasonable interpretation of the phrase: are people forbidden to comment on discussions now? (Maybe we can call this sentiment the "Duk Effect" henceforth.) This coming from you, especially in the face of labeling him a "bloodthirsty jackal" and slandering his weight and sexuality as a "queen with glittering bobbles and doohickeys... strapped to his fat ass"?! Absolutely disgusting behavior unbecoming a member of this community that only a crack baby would stoop to. east.718 at 14:40, May 27, 2008

Nobody seemed to have a problem when Mike made this attack, only when I defend myself in kind. If you can't acknowledge that, then your words are meaningless. --Duk 17:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You made the bloodthirsty jackals and censorship comments first. It's not as if I called you a drama queen out of thin air. It was deserved and, in my mind, quite true. So, please, really, stop. You didn't make yourself look good before this and you're not making yourself look any better now. Mike H. Fierce! 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I made the bloodthirsty jackals and censorship comments after you guys displayed a nasty intolerance for my polite and well reasoned dissent.

Here's the thing, Mike. I don't care how I look to you. I speak my mind, and if an unpleasant thing needs to be said, I'll say it. I'm sure Werdna is a wonderful guy and has lots of friends, but at this very moment he's running around approving bots doing fair-use stuff and yet he doesn't understand the Foundation's rules regarding fair use, even when explained to him. And nobody but me will say a god damn thing about it. Utterly unfucking believable. --Duk 06:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've read into a lot of the nastiness and vitriol yourself and perhaps made up some where it didn't exist initially. You felt threatened and attacked when people basically told you that your vote was a bit ill-thought-out. I was pretty much indifferent until the whole "bloodthirsty jackals" episode and you trying to remove me from a discussion where I had, until that time, been more than reasonable under the circumstances. I think if you re-read the situation as an outside observer, you will see that the unreasonable attitudes and overreactions started with you, and I think you hold a lot of blame in what the whole situation turned out to be. Mike H. Fierce! 07:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think if you re-read the situation as an outside observer, you will see that my reasoning was sound and appropriate, and you'd question why you were following me around to other people's talk pages and yipping at me. I'm not the one here under a fuzzy veil of group think. I don't spend all day on irc or at Wikipedia. I'll judge admin candidates with my own eyes, and if you try to stomp me for my honest opinions, you're going to get stomped right back. --Duk 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your reasoning was sound or appropriate, and other people didn't, either. And please don't play the "stalking" card; it'll go down just like your "groupthink" and "bloodthirsty jackals" cards, which would be not seriously at all and laughed at. You weren't stomped by any stretch of the word until you started your antics. Stop acting like a child and start taking accountability for your actions. I'll start: I apologize for calling you a drama queen. I should have kept my thoughts to myself because it was rude. Your turn! Mike H. Fierce! 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Another big long ad homium, par for the course. You've done everything except discuss the point at hand. Really, go back and look at all your comments at the RFA - no rational discussion, just frothing at the mouth ad hominums. I have no respect for that. Then look at mine, rationale and sincere until I started getting dumped on. Even here, I bring up the point that there is a person 'approving' fair use bots and yet he doesn't even understand the foundations fair use policies, even when explained to him. And you have nothing at all to say to that, just more insults heaped my way. You should be ashamed of yourself. As for apologies, go ahead and keep thumping your chest in moral self-righteousness and superiority ... seems to be a good way to avoid rationally discussing the important things. --Duk 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean by you reading into things that aren't there. I was actually apologizing to you, hoping you would apologize to me for calling me a fat-ass. Clearly that went nowhere. Mike H. Fierce! 07:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'm wrong. I just haven't seen many apologies that started out with "Stop acting like a child". Please forgive me for misunderstanding that. --Duk 07:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Mike H. Fierce! 09:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Seriously, Mike, are you able to have a rational discussion about important things? For example, our bot policy is very specific about bot owners; they have to be helpful and open to feedback;

Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general.

And yet we have a bot owner who tells people that if they leave a problem about his bot on his talk page, it likely won't be fixed before the 'heat death of the universe' - but that if they created an account at his website and jump through his hoops, it might go quicker. Do you find this acceptable? Do you agree that WP:B's was clear when it mentioned "cordially, promptly, and appropriately" was a condition of operation of bots in general. And yet we have some arrogant little prick who thinks the rules don't apply to him, and if anyone calls him on it he takes his ball and runs off sulking, after calling them 'stupid' 'idiots'. What do you think about that Mike? --Duk 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another question for you, Mike. Do you know if ST47 has access to server logs (or similar data) at his little bug reporting site, the one that requires registration? If so, that's some of the same data made available to checkusers, and I don't think ST47 has been granted checkuser status. --Duk 01:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He's back -- help

Hi there, I'm not sure if you remember banning user User:Panel_2008 (see his talk page for you reason)... but he's back.. this time as a new IP -- User:83.4.168.185 - see discussion page of Central Europe -- really obvious, only would he make a discussion heading like that - "Poland thinks Romania is in Central Europe". This isn't the first time he's been using socks/meat puppets - User:Marc KJH, User:Bonaparte, (possibly another user who has been involved in Central Europe - won't make mention of his name because I'm not 100% sure). He's just been good at it and has been able to play around with his IP to avoid detection. Please see the history of Central Europe -- March 20, 2008 is a good place to start. Seeing as you've been involved in this before, and have some idea of what's going on, decided to send you a message. I KNOW he will avoid detection as Panel_2008 will have been on another IP (a checkuser will prove to be useless I think, but at least check the country/city of origin).. but it's blatantly obvious that it's him......--Buffer v2 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that this user is a Bonaparte reincarnation, please submit a request at the relevant noticeboard with evidence. east.718 at 15:18, May 27, 2008

Deletion of Bristol bath path 08.jpg

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this.

You recently deleted "Bristol bath path 08.jpg" following a (CSD I8: Image exists on the Commons). However the image in the commons comes under a different filename "Bristol-Bath Cyclepath 08.jpg". Consequently the image became a redlink, and then User:ImageRemovalBot commented out the Wikilinks to the picture. There is no apparent way to manually search for references to the original file, to point them to the file in the commons without searching the Bots history, which can only be done for a short while. Martin451 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Abortion time series Norway.PNG

You deleted Image:Abortion time series Norway.PNG, which had been improperly tagged as having no fair use rationale. I have restored the image, but I just wanted to leave you a friendly note to be a little more careful. STBotI was broken and tagging images like that for deletion, so we should watch out for that and try to be careful not to delete image pages that are from the commons, but have been categorized and placed in a corresponding wikiproject here at en.wiki. Thanks for your consideration!-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's bizarre. The tool I use to scan images at high speed doesn't pick up whether it's on Commons or not, which I promise to fix. :) You might want to let Misza13 know too just in case, because he runs an adminbot several times a day that deletes all CSD I6 candidates last touched by STBotI. I've tried contacting him on IRC but he seems to be away at the moment. east.718 at 15:17, May 27, 2008

I might not come around very soon (got addicted to Assassin's Creed :]) but will still check on messages and mail (IRC backlog with my name in it gets mailed too). To the point, I have removed STBotI from list of approved taggers. Миша13 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A problem with this photo??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:African_buffalo_kenya.jpg

I have only limited experience at Wikipedia but it appears that you have flagged this photo. I don't see how there can be any problem with it - I took the photo myself in Kenya last year.

It seems to me like a wonderful photo so I hope you can please unflag it or tell me if there is anything more that I can do, thanks. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Elena Lappin

Can you transwiki me the detritus of whatever was at Elena Lappin? Seems like she is a notable author and columist over in England, so I believe I can restore it. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; it was in much better condition than I had though. People are still talking about her deportation problem. I added a ref and will probably just watchlist it for now. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Idea

I have an idea. I will design a new page. But, I will keep that page as a SUB PAGE. Is that a good idea?Altenhofen (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, putting personal information on the Internet is never a good idea. east.718 at 04:15, May 28, 2008

Let me rephrase that. Can I please COMPLETELY RE-FORMAT MY PAGE and tear apart my old page (The one you deleted) and take certain parts of it to use as multiple different sub-pages, Completely decimating all personal info?Altenhofen (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I've unprotected your userpage. east.718 at 11:58, June 3, 2008

THANKS DUDE!!!Altenhofen (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd Block

I was at this computer, not logged in, when it popped up that you had blocked the IP address or "IP address range". The Block was set to expire on 4:48, May 28, 2008 (about four hours from now, unless it's a timezone thing). When I checked the sandbox a few minutes later to see what was going on, the expiration date for the block had moved up to midnight June 1. I understand that this IP could have gotten caught in a wide net due to someone else’s vandalism, but I don't understand why the expiration date would move like that.--Dlargecat (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot problem?

Your bot recently performed this edit with the summary Reverted edits by ImageRemovalBot (talk) to last version by 212.55.52.2. Of course, after your bot's edit, the two images were still broken, because they were deleted, which caused the ImageRemovalBot to do its edits in the first place. Thus, I have reverted your bot's edit. I don't know why your bot decided to do this edit, but perhaps you should check if this is a one-off problem, or if indeed your bot is malfunctioning and needs to be fixed. Cheers! -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I did those edits because ImageRemovalBot removed a lot of images that were still being used; rather than leave 150 or so articles in a damaged state, I decided to take the hit, revert a whole swath of edits, and leave 35 articles with redlinked images. east.718 at 06:06, May 29, 2008

Okay, good idea, and thanks for fixing that, then. In the future, you should perhaps consider a more useful edit summary? -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind. east.718 at 23:22, May 31, 2008

See ya 'round

Well, it's all set. It's been fun. Thank you for all that you have done. See you sometime. ;) Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

BRC & privacy concerns

Hey east, would you mind dropping in your opinion here? Thanks. GlassCobra 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. block

Could you please explain your policy reasons for blocking my account, without warning? Thanks. --  Chzz  ►  09:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Did it ever cross your mind that uploading a picture of a man engaging in graphic anal stretching is a terrible idea? :| east.718 at 23:22, May 31, 2008

No. Could you please explain your policy reasons for blocking my account, without warning? Thanks. --  Chzz  ►  00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Common sense says that there's going to be some punishment if you continue to upload shock imagery in spite of repeated warnings. However, if you're looking for alphabet soup, I guess WP:VAND and WP:C may be a start. east.718 at 11:58, June 3, 2008

Image

Could you restore Image:Ahauntlogo.JPG so I can provide the appropriate rationale? HeadCaptain (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much :) HeadCaptain (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My idea

Well, sort of, yes... it will continue, if you know what I mean, but just like the amount I am spending at this very second. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Victoria Cougars.jpg

On April 11, 2008 User:Kryten2q4b created Victoria Cougars (VIJHL), which made use of Image:Victoria Cougars.jpg. A few hours later you deleted the image with the reason "(CSD I1: Redundant to another image)". Well, where is it? If you're going to tell us that the image is redundant, you should tell us where the better image is found.  Randall Bart   Talk  03:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the correct image and put it back in the article. east.718 at 11:58, June 3, 2008

Email

I've sent you one. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied. east.718 at 11:58, June 3, 2008

Check your email, please

Please check your email, in regard to a message I sent your way. Many thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm not ignoring you, just been quite busy for the past few days. I'll shoot a response your way shortly. :) east.718 at 11:58, June 3, 2008

Not a problem. I appreciate your time, consideration and input -- and I hope you were busy with good stuff, too! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Random observation You know, when I signed up for Wikipedia, I never realized there would be so much drama going on around this site. This is more fun than General Hospital! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I find drama to be synonymous with "community-sanctioned harassment." But I promise you'll be getting that email soon! east.718 at 13:08, June 3, 2008

Hey, if anyone is harassing you, just let me know! I know people who know people who know people who...well, you know. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you for today's input. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments at Giggy's RFA

Hi East. I've reviewed your switch to oppose. I must say I find this very worrying. In the past DHMO has had his RFA fail over something similar (releasing IRC logs). I've been very close to Giggy since both our early days on WP (he nominated me for adminship twice in fact). I have a lot of time for him. But I agree very much with your assessment that we cannot have admins who may release private information. I get the impression from your oppose that this release was not malicious, but equally not accidental. Maybe "without thinking it through" would be the summary?? I ask, as I respect your opinion a great deal, would this be your interpretation as well? I am trying to minimise the OMG drama that his RFA has already created by approaching you here rather than at the RFA. I'm possibly uncomfortable continuing to support, based on the words in your oppose, as privacy is of great importance to me. Pedro :  Chat  12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pedro, and sorry for restoring this comment, but it deserves a reply. I don't think the release of info was accidental either, and to be honest, I can't even rule out malice. The nitty-gritty of it was that Giggy came up to me out of the clear blue and asked "would you like personal information about [person X whom he was pissed off with at the moment]?" I replied with surprise, at which point he emailed me X's real name, as well as a long thread of correspondence that he had with them. I spoke with him about it a couple days after the fact and am convinced that it was just a stupid action which he didn't think through, but the impression I got was that he doesn't understand why it was wrong either. east.718 at 12:33, June 3, 2008

Hi East - no problems you restoring the comment - I think it will be noted anyhow due to your oppose. I think then, the two issues that are present are 1) The "offer" or "intimation" to release personal information (for whatever reasons) coupled with actual release of private emails between person X and DHMO to you and 2) A lack of understanding, after this event, as to why it was a poor decision to even think about telling you such information. Would that be it in a nutshell? Pedro :  Chat  12:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. :) east.718 at 12:55, June 3, 2008

Okay. Thanks East. I guess the fair thing is to await for a response from DHMO on this issue. Pedro :  Chat  13:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of participants are likely to be significantly influenced by the content of this email. I understand you are constrained by the rules on release of private correspondence but, were DHMO to agree to this, would you be willing to release the content of the email on wiki? WjBscribe 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to ask both Giggy and the third person involved but barring that, sure. east.718 at 16:53, June 3, 2008

I'm a little shocked by the comment too. Whether the RfA closes or not now (and it's looking like it has), I think the community will need some form of answer on this, rather than just leaving it open. It's in Giggy's interests, and others, that this get sorted now. If this is true, well I'm pretty shocked - Alison ^❤ 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as a first step, please share your information with trustworthy people, I'd say WjBscribe since he's been watching the RFA carefully. Cenarium (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy has admitted it, see [10]. Cenarium (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sad and disappointed that it had the chips had to fall like this... I spent the past few days agonizing about how to handle this while avoiding an unfortunate situation like the one that just went down and kept drawing a blank... :-( I'm not going to bother Giggy with such emotional drivel now because he's quite obviously distraught and it's probably best that he takes some time alone - but if you're reading this, please get in touch with me soon. east.718 at 23:22, June 3, 2008

Don't feel bad, it's my fault entirely. (Yeah, I am reading this, though I really shouldn't be.) My email is open. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

um... Help?

the coding has been completely decimated... Altenhofen (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cascading protection of Barack Obama

Is there a log or forum anywhere indicating a request, rationale and intended length of time for the cascading protection of the Barack Obama? It is impairing the editing of linked templates relating to the presidential articles. A little like an ant colony in amber. Multiple items frozen in time.
I see that the controllng pages are

• User:Nakon/p and
• User:East718/PTT

Thanks, Yellowdesk (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Last night, there was an incident of sneaky vandalism where a malefactor replaced the title of Barack Obama with "NIGGER!!!" by editing a transcluded template; this vandalism wasn't repaired for around six minutes. Being that both Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain are all very high-visibility articles (sometimes receiving over 100,000 visits a day), the date was important (securing of the Democratic ticket and all that), and that we're dealing with biographies of living people (wouldn't want something like this happening again), I decided to protect all the templates used on them for safety's sake. It looks like the articles are under control now, so I've unlocked the templates. east.718 at 16:30, June 4, 2008

Thanks, and thanks for your attentions to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heya

Can I get your impression as to whether this section is crufty synthesis? You would think I am offering to kill someone's firstborn by the resistance I am getting in pointing it out - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A word of warning first: I'm a Doctor Who layman (I prefer drama) - and as such am probably not qualified to judge any in-universe sources. That said, the rest of the article looks decent; but I read the "continuity" paragraph four times and still can't make heads or tails of it, so I guess the "fancruft" label is an appropriate one. :). east.718 at 17:17, June 4, 2008

Okay. Care to lend a hand? You do not need to be an old salt to spot synthesis and fancruft. I have a lot of the fans in the article discussion crying that they have a consensus for keeping it in while I keep plugging away that it is synthesis by any definition of the word and fancrufty trivia. Halp! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get some time. east.718 at 10:17, June 5, 2008

TFA move protection

Not a big deal, but see the log here. Too much of a good thing, I think. That's been happening with the past few TFAs I think. I'll let the three of you sort this out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like pywiki doesn't prevent this. I do this shortly after Raul schedules, since I do talk page stuff at the same time. Gimmetrow 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, my first daylight savings bug! Gimmetrow - my bot thought all your protections ended a few seconds before 00:00 UTC (instead of a few before 01:00 UTC), so it went "hmmm... I'll need to cover for the last few seconds it'll be unprotected..." and pulled the trigger. A creative application of ... if time.localtime()[-1] is 1 else 0 seems to have squashed this. east.718 at 10:17, June 5, 2008

Giving it another shot

Hey, please disregard that email I sent -- I decided to give WP one last chance. Hope to see you around! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it - one more volunteer is always a benefit. I've found that taking short breaks when I'm not getting any enjoyment out of editing to improve my performance here and hope the same applies to you. :) east.718 at 05:56, June 7, 2008

can you help me fix the image you deleted?

Hello East718, I uploaded the file IbanklogoReg.gif and you deleted it the message is listed below:

"A file with this name was previously uploaded, but has been deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to upload this file. The deletion log for this file name is provided below:

* 07:31, 6 June 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:IBanklogoReg.gif" ‎ (CSD I4: Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days)"

Can you help me fix it so it won't be deleted again?

-Robert roberthamoore@gmail.com

Hi, Robert! The image was originally deleted because you didn't provide its copyright status (terms of reproduction and modification, etc.). However, I see that you've reuploaded it and another user's was kind enough to write a rationale for its usage. That image shouldn't be deleted by anybody again. east.718 at 05:56, June 7, 2008

Clayton Bennett

I saw in the edit history that you deleted Clayton Bennett and then undeleted it a minute later. I'm curious: what was the reasoning behind that? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There was information in the history that wasn't appropriate for public access. It'll hopefully be oversighted by tomorrow morning, but the need for removal was urgent. east.718 at 07:36, June 7, 2008

If I may ask, is it some edits that have been made, or something like BLP violations? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There was private information regarding a contributor and his family. I wouldn't normally mention this, but the offensive edits have been permanently hidden now. east.718 at 21:06, June 7, 2008

Meh

Someone is creating some traffic on the proxy bot by edting & placing {{blockedproxy}} on them when they are not. Someone playing silly ****? Etc etc - thought I'd mention it - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just seems to be a one-off incident with a confused user. Thanks for the heads up. :-) east.718 at 21:06, June 7, 2008

Monterrey at night

I noticed you deleted this image due to "I9: Blatant copyright violation" (on 05 Jun 08) where you were right but the uploader decided to upload the picture again here. -AMAPO (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though I wasn't the deleting admin, I can help with this - I've killed off the enwiki copy, and the commons copy should be gone in a couple seconds. east.718 at 02:04, June 12, 2008

Image:WTSB logo.jpg

Please restore this image. It was removed from the infobox on WTSB because of a format change on that radio station. This image should have been moved to the history section.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and sorry for the really long delay (been on a well-deserved break :)). I took a look at the article and see there's already a logo there. The two images aren't exactly the same though, so I restored the first one so you can choose which one's more suitable. east.718 at 01:16, June 12, 2008

IMAGE DELETIONS

Carnildo says you deleted two images from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier that were posted by another WikipediA Administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Earl_Andrew. Is there a hierarchal structure system among Administrators so one can overrule another without discussion?

One image showed the subject of the article wearing the gag "Fear of the Truth" over his mouth as he was beat up and removed from the Visitors Gallery of the Canadian House of Commons on the first day of televised debate in history. That would make it an image associated with history, in Canada at least.

Understanding WikipediA respects copyrite restrictions, the tag applied to the deleted images reads as follows:

Because the image is historically significant, the entire image is needed to identify the subject, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image. Low resolution?

The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable for uses that would compete with any commercial purpose of the photograph. Purpose of use

Identification and critical commentary in the article, a subject of public interest. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed next to the associated material discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Replaceable?

Because the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Other information Use of the historic image in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above. The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopaedic.

It will take some time before the Article is so widely known by the public, there is a 0% probability any newspaper will want to claim copyvio considering the subject.

Will you please undo what you did until there is a free and fair discussion by users? If there is any tag that could be associated to the disputed images to stimulate discussion, do that. The Editors of the Ottawa Citizen have been aware of its images on the Article since they were posted by Earl Andrew.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You should probably address this to User:East718, as he's the one who deleted the images. My bot merely removed them from the article. --Carnildo (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the difference. His name is nowhere to be seen in the History. Would you clarify, Please?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Administrator who started the article and posted the images with the tag he deemed appropriate is away and cannot undo what you did. Did you consult him before deleting? If not, will you please restore his work until his return?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I deleted both images because they were extremely high resolution scans of newspaper articles; this constitutes a copyright violation. If you want to use them as sources, you can just cite the author and title and it'll be fine. east.718 at 01:16, June 12, 2008

• The deleted newspaper image 'Expelled_1' from the House of Commons came from an earlier report when the subject of the article was fighting this Court ordered gag: "not to attend on The Sparks Street Mall, or any other Street in the City of Ottawa, for the purpose of speaking or shouting" by peaceful means. Cormier claims on returning from Montreal where he sought advice on strategy, he returned to The Sparks Street Mall wearing a fancy sandwich board and gag. Immediately he was surrounded by crowds 10 deep all around him with cameras taking pictures. The police told him to move on, but the crowds remained like that all day as he moved along slowly. Of all the people with cameras, he didn't know which one was from the newspaper.

Most casual observers wouldn't even notice this in the image, but in a fraction of a second, as the world turned, in the shadow of the Sun off his nose started the word ""Fear", but in the light the gag read "Ear The Truth"

The source was cited in the tag accompanying the 31 year old image and also in the Reference section #5. What can be done now? Thanks for answering. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification regarding my recall criteria

Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked and amazed that anybody would think I represent a good cross-section of the community and place trust in me. east.718 at 20:47, June 12, 2008

VigilancePrime

• VigilancePrime (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• HyperVigilancePrime (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

This user has requested an unblock for his alternate account at HyperVigilancePrime. The user professes ignorance as to the reasoning behind the block, and would like more detail. As I am unfamiliar with the situation, and you were the admin who blocked the alt account of HyperVigilancePrime, I thought I'd ping you as one of the original blocking admins. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. In line with our long-standing rules wrt pedophile activists, this block may be appealed only to ArbCom; however, I have the faintest suspicion that they'd reject it. :] east.718 at 20:47, June 12, 2008

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 707th Special Mission Unit (specifically an image). When removing an image, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Perhaps your edit was justified, but you did not provide an appropriate reason. Your reason was "CSD I6: No justification given for fair use for more than seven days)" The image is not copyrighted, and with the few images on Wikipedia already because of copyright restraints, we do NOT need more images taken down for the wrong reasons. The image should be brought back. If you feel that you have been wronged, feel fry to discuss this on my talk page. Thank you. Neil the Cellist (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Neil the Cellist (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, don't you think a templated "welcome to wikipedia..." warning is a bit patronizing when directed towards anybody who's properly encultured? Anyway, the image is most definitely not copyright-free and was missing a fair use defense; additionally, it can be replaced with a free image and as such would be unsuitable even if a defense existed. I poked around for a free image but was unable to find any, perhaps you can find some success by requesting permission to reuse one? east.718 at 20:47, June 12, 2008

Hey

Very. Smart. Move. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of

Hello. You or a bot has deleted a sample file: . User:LAz17 deleted the infobox from the article Helicopter (song) after some louzy edits. Could you restore the file? Thanks!--ometzit<col> (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)