|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 14:59, 8 August 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Could you take a look at the permission for Pietro Porcinai and see if it's sufficient? It should be at Ticket:2007032510012681. I cave easily to needy messages on my talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Sure. :) I'm on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it probably is, but I'm going to check with an agent fluent in Italian to be sure before saying so. It's not quite as specific as I like, I think, but I don't believe that it's unusably vague. I'll get back with you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong ticket number. Ticket:2007032710020669 covers the biography on that site. It also covers "la lista dei lavori", which may be his list of works, but could also be his publications. Contact a native speaker for that. It does not cover any photos from the site. I'm following up on that at Commons. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So since list of works/publications aren't really an issue, does thi means the article can be unblanked with the Ticket:2007032710020669 placed on it? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google translate would suggest yes. :) I'll ping Chaser in case he's not watchlisting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My page This_Is_How_You_Play was recently marked for speedy deletion. The wikipedia help page indicated that you were one of the users that could "userfy" my page. I'm a noob on wikipedia and I probably did something really wrong, but I spent a few hours creating the page so I wouldn't want it to go to waste. Could you please "userfy" this page so that I can work on it until it's ready to prime time? Thank you Christorea (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the title says it all. Since I'm still new to Wikipedia, even though I've been contributing (not as much, since I'm a RC Patroller, a Tagger, and even a WikiGnome), I've still got things to learn about (I'll never know it all, so as everyone, though :P), I've still got some problems identifying some issues. Well, the template left in that User talk is not actually right, since it was a PROD, not an AfD, but Twinkle didn't have a warning for that, so I used up the one it was best suited to this problem. I admit it, I'm (sometimes) lazy to read the whole help article, assuming that I claim to understand the concept of the article, I let slip some stuff I was unaware of. I'm concerned about the future of this article, what will we do about it? Oh, and welcome back! FredZ (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, sounds like me, except that I'm a little bit stubborn, I try to research for help for myself, but when I'm beaten, I just go to Wikipedia's chat (I should stay in there more often :/) and ask for it. Yeah, when Wikipedia changed its lookout I was confused, it was all under a single arrow, I've got a TW tab and that familiar arrow, but I still get confused while trying to bring the TAGHAMMER (© 1970-1979 Chapulín Colorado, all rights reserved), don't waste time on thinking how it was lost, just install it back :P. Well, I actually was referring to knowledge itself, but, I think it applies for Wikipedia as well lol. But yeah, good to know there're a lot of people who cares to share a share of their knowledge (I can only help with grammar knowledge [even though I'm not an English speaker], and tagging). And good to know there ARE real people to talk with! o_O all those people I've been talking were bots (look at my user page, it's full of bots!). FredZ (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yeah, the good old Wikibreak enforcer, I've tried to do it myself (see this and say, am I Wikiholic? Guess so, I'm not sure if that's good or bad xD), but I just can't, I keep coming back, besides, it was a little too extreme for me. I've been searching for new gadgets, but so far, the only ones I'm satisfied with are Twinkle and Friendly, they're just so... perfect. Yeah, from what I've read so far from Signpost (not much, actually), it's pretty good, I hope I can be at 'Approved this week' section some day (?), nah, I'm not really interested right now, although I might change my mind some day, but I always do things half-heartedly, so that's impossible :P. But so far, what matters to me is RC-lling and stuff, although I'd like to create a gadget like Twinkle, that has interested me since ever, but how can you surpass something that's already like this? FredZ (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... sorry it took a while to answer your post. Unfortunately, there have been problems with the Procon site in the past year or so. I found a significant amount of spammed ELs and "references" (i.e. links posted as 2nd or 3rd references after existing in-line references, or as replacements for existing valid cites), as well as a number of single-purpose and low-activity accounts that were doing this. At the same time, I learned that Procon had actually sponsored a contest amongst its members to spur the creation of an article about the site, complete with a cash prize. Discussions about this problem led to the conclusion that, while the site was useful as a starting point, it should not be used as a reference source itself. Documents found there should be traced back to their original publisher. Hope this helps; I do realize that the regular Wikipedians who have placed these links did so in good faith, and sometimes the edit summary doesn't entirely convey that. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the article with links to the full text of the decision from Google Scholar. Procon only provides a summary, with no links to the actual decision (and thus no way to verify the conclusions). FYI, here's a link to their contest. --Ckatzchatspy 16:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of information added to Serial Killer which I'm sorry to say looks like cut/paste entries. I'm not sure how to check to see if that is the case so here I am. I removed a lot of the new edits for lack of sources, undo weight and POV type comments. Would you mind taking a peek? Sections like 'Fantasy' just seem wrong. You can see the new edit is the history. There are like three or four new editors adding large chunks to the article. It shouldn't be hard to see which ones. I swear though that the new stuff looks like it was taken from somewhere else verbatim or at least close to verbatim. I may be wrong with this but the way the new items are written it really looks like a cut and paste addition. I would really appreciate it if you have time to take a look at the article and if I am right, remove the sections that shouldn't be there. If I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to apologize for wasting your time. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. :) I'll be happy to take a look. I'll let you know what I find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I dig in, can you by any chance give me a date when you think it was clean? It's a whole lot easier for me to check copyvio edit by edit. If not, I'll do it the hard way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure I will, I should have done that to begin with. Here's the history of the article. An editor has worked the areas since I did but I still think there is a problem with copy/paste. You want to start looking after after flyer here. I think this is when the article was cleanest. I hope this is what you were asking for. :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Crohnie. I am not sure where all these new editors are coming from, except from a class; a lot of them joined Wikipedia about the same time (back in April). We have had college students who are currently studying this topic add major chunks to this article before, but we tackled the stuff that was wrongly formatted, unsourced, or just plain wrong back then. This time, I am not sure what to make of it, because I cannot check all these sources (at least not now). I was going to check for copyright text as well, but I see now that you will. Thanks for that.
- Crohnie, excuse me for following you. I was going to bring this matter (something about all these recent additions) up on your talk page, but decided to check where you were first (your contributions) and saw that you came here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who knows? It may be exactly that, a class. Thanks for the starting point, Crohnie Gal. I'll see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, for example, Klindseth is from a class, as he or she stated, "I am a student at Seattle University and I wrote a research paper on medical serial killers. I added some common motivations and information on Richard Angelo." After Klindseth, many more started showing up. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making notes. I will replace this with my conclusions, but if you care, you can follow my progress here. :) I'm up to [1], and there are certainly red flags. So far, I have not found any problems, though, up to and including this edit. I've done a mechanical scan and a spot check, and I'm currently checking a few of the sources directly (such as footnote 19. See [2]. Note, that this footnote may not support that text, but I'm not reviewing closely for this, and the contributor does not identify the specific edition, so the page number may be out of whack. However, from a copyright standpoint, there's no problem here, as I failed to find even a single match in that book for "child's development.") --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not comfortable with the closeness of the single sentence "Theorists interested in serial homicide have dedicated themselves to explaining why certain people kill serially." to the source [3]: "Theorists interested in serial murder have dedicated themselves to explaining the social problem of the serial killer...." Doesn't rise to the level of copyvio, though, since it is quite minimal, and I have not found evidence of other duplication in that post. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Moonriddengirl. Thanks a lot. I will go ahead and take care of that one sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. :) I'm not done, though. This is a slow process, when checking is thorough! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I have been pretty impressed with how well these guys have avoided infringement (class activities I've encountered in the past have been more problematic). I found one quote that was not properly marked and repaired it, let the contributor know. But I just found the first substantial problem. As it was scrupulously sourced, I suspect that User:Jane Emily intended no issues, but I am continuing forward with analyzing her contributions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! That one contributor evidently was unaware of our policies, but otherwise I found little to concern me. I've removed her content and explained the issue at her talk page. Good catch, guys. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just popped in to see if you had the time to check this and you did. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. What you did was a lot of work and I appreciate your efforts to repair the article. Tomorrow I'll check what you did so I can learn some more about how to do this myself. You are great at this and again, thank you very much for taking the time to clean the article up. Flyer, thanks too for what you did to help. I haven't been online since you all started the clean up. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, Crohnie. And I am also most appreciative to Moonriddengirl. She helped me last year with my own embarrassing "close paraphrasing" issue. So, yes, she is awesome at what she does...and most gracious with it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are both very kind. :) What I do, Crohnie, is more tedious than magical. I use a couple of mechanical detectors ([4] is good, but doesn't exclude Wikipedia mirrors; [5] is good for whole articles) and supplement by spot checks in google and google books of "striking phrases". When I know there may be a problem, I'll also spot check the sources directly, if I can. (Spot checking the sources cited can deceive you, though. I've run into quite a few copyright issues where people are copying wholesale from other sources, including their citations.) Ordinarily it doesn't take me so long to do one article, but I'm having a bit of trouble getting back into my proper time zone. I was only six hours off of my base, but I've been struggling to control jet-lag induced migraines since I got back. Makes me extra slow. :/ (Flyer, I'm glad if I could help, and nothing to be embarrassed about. :) You were also quite gracious, which I always appreciate.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those tools can be handy for me to keep around so I bookmarked them. :) I know it's a lot of tedious work, that's why I always hesitate to ask you for help on something like this until I'm pretty sure there is a big problem going on. This time it wasn't as big as I thought but still you did good getting rid of that which was a problem. Thanks again, and I hope the jet lag is easing now. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I rewrote the close paraphrase that I saw in Doug Gray, so the only thing I left on the 20th is possible OTRS permission for restoring some content to Li Yi (sociologist). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Verno! I couldn't possibly have accomplished as much as I did, though, if you and the others of the copyright cleanup crew hadn't been as on top of things as you were (there was a time that my absence meant that probably little or nothing would get done at CP), not only at SCV and CP but on my talk page. And, Silver seren, that's kind of exactly what I did. :) I was pretty wiped out by the time I finished, but I was determined to get as much done as I could. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. Hope you enjoyed your holiday and had a good break. Back in the wikiworld I'm afraid I may have more for you again...
The article New Forest Coastal Heritage Project would appear to be almost a direct copy of this page on the NPA's website. I'm also fairly unsure about its notability and wonder if it might just be better off deleted. The creator of the article is JamesBrownNFNPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also edited the article New Forest. Specifically he's been working on the New Forest Coast section, his first edits coming only 5 minutes after an IP created the whole section. When added, the section appears to have been a fairly unedited copy of the parent NPA page here, but the current version of the article has changed it (but not a lot). These are the only articles the editor has edited and the latter section of his name (NFNPA) reads to me like New Forest National Park Authority (the runners of the website), and a James Brown appears in the news pages of the coastal section.....
BTW, the last incident I mentioned to you has progressed to here while you were on holiday. Welcome back! Ranger Steve (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Tagged, so content hidden, editor notified of COI and copyvio issues. And I've suggested in any case that the article be a redirect to a paragraph elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't realised this was almost a year old, so I've emailed him. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Doug! We'll see if he responds within the listing period. And thanks, Ranger Steve. :) A great holiday was had; the new order of business: getting back into my time-zone. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck! Any thoughts on the section in the New Forest article? Ranger Steve (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet, but thanks for the gentle poke. :) I was so focused on the serial killers article yesterday that I completely failed to follow up on it. I'll take a look after reading over the rest of my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I swear I haven't forgotten this! I'm trying to catch up on CP, but as usual things keep intervening and I fall behind. It's on my mental "list." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, with all the information you provided, that one turned out to be startlingly easy. I should have just taken care of it immediately! Oh, well. :/ Anyway, I've removed the text pending verification of permission. If the contributor comes back and follows up, we'll have no issues with restoring it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping Ckatz, who's involved with this article, can help, but on the article talk page I've noted some copyvio. I don't have time, or at least shouldn't, to do much on it. It's a very complex article and there may be quite a bit more. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At a glance I agree with the complexity, particularly as you note there that it could be reverse infringement. I'll take a look a bit later when I'm up and fully operational. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some letters to publishers might be in order it appears. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I notice you get involved in copyright questions. I've noticed a table on Wikipedia that is copied verbatim from this this page, though somewhat re-formatted. I've removed the table, but it has been restored, on the grounds that the material on the webpage itself comes from multiple sources. There's a discussion about it here, if you care to weigh in. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I do indeed involve myself there. :) I'll be happy to take a look and see if there's any input I may be able to offer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for commenting! I've tried to clarify there further. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You weren't unclear. I was simply too tired to dig into it. :) As I note below, I've been having some jet-lag induced migraines since getting back from my trip, and I wear out quickly (stupid migraines :P). That said, today is looking good, but I'm off and running now for other reasons. I'll come by and take a look a bit later. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got two more trips assigned to me, this week and next. I won't be around, sorry. :( MLauba (Talk) 07:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll miss you. :) I hope that your trips go okay and currently you get my deep sympathy just for having to leave home. When I get back from traveling, I have a tendency to never, ever want to leave again. :/ (Today is - knock wood - my first day migraine free since getting back!) I hope you remain in the same time zone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A new account just reverted my reversion on CP Gurnani from your original version to the one that was copied from the home website. The account's edit summary said that they are in the process of changing the website's home page, so that the information in the article will no longer be a copy. Does this actually change the copyrighted status of the article if they change where it was copied from? Wouldn't it be easier for them to just fill out a ticket to allow the material on Wikipedia? SilverserenC 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, afraid it won't help them. They must explicitly release the content for us to use it. I've explained that at the editor's talk page and reverted to the last version. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I already asked this of MLauba, but he had to run away before he followed up on it, so now I turn to you. I was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:Public domain#Copyright infringement dispute (and if you enjoy drama, the related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Copyright violations in copyright-related articles) and see if [[::User:LakeT|LakeT]] (talk · contribs)'s latest additions to Public domain and Orphan works are close paraphrases or not.
As a less serious question, have admins always been reluctant to get involved in copyright issues, or did others just retire and leave you holding the slack? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack, I'm sorry VW, that one completely slipped off my mind :( I'd just say that I endorse your approach, but little good does it do. MLauba (Talk) 07:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Enjoy drama? Not hardly. I enjoy a peaceful life of drudgery with very occasional outings. :/ A certain degree of drama is, though, unavoidable in this line of work.
- There seems to be a high degree of burn-out in copyright adminship. When I arrived, CP had a 23-day backlog; it seems mainly to have been maintained by User:KrakatoaKatie and a few other admins, who may have taken the arrival of an energetic newcomer as a good excuse to vamoose. :) Occasionally, one of them still pitches in, but I can't blame them for moving to other ground. It gets old. (Wait. You're an energetic newcomer. What am I saying? I mean...it's fun. And rewarding. Ha ha! Good times! :D Seriously, I'm not planning to abandon the field, but I dance jigs on seeing new folks show up and dig in. The more the merrier; many hands make light work; fill in your favorite cliche.)
- All that said, I'll go reluctantly and peek at the drama of which you speak and see what I can do to help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whew. A minor drama. :) It seems like we have a new, good faith contributor who just needs a few points clarified (probably in the relative authority of non-admins, in addition to our use of non-free text, but I'm focusing on the paraphrasing issue first). According to my reading on this while we were working on Wikipedia:Plagiarism, a number of people trust in our non-profit status to excuse fair use in producing their works. But while this may protect us, this won't necessarily protect our downstream re-users, particularly in areas that are not as generous with fair use at the U.S. (somewhere, somebody laughs at my description of the U.S. allowances as "generous"). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for stepping in, it's always appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. At first I thought Orphan work was more problematic than it is, but the close paraphrasing is limited to a couple of sentences. I've removed one and revised some of the other content (also, it did not reflect the source). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Just a placeholder to let you know I've seen your note. I'll come take a look and see if I can assist in just a few minutes, as soon as I've finished what I'm in the process of doing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I take it that you are referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering and Wikipedia:ANI#Community ban of User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Please excuse me if I'm wrong.
- Answering you in the abstract, true consensus (that is, consensus that reflects community standards rather than a coterie of involved editors who may not be truly neutral or working within encyclopedic principles) becomes bullying when it is done in a manner designed to intimidate or degrade somebody.
- Beyond that, at this point I'm going to second what User:FisherQueen said in answer to this same question at User talk:FisherQueen#When is consensus bullying?. I'm not sure if things are unsalvageable here, because I do not know the extensive background. I'm afraid, though, that you don't help your case with responses like the following:
my dear wikipedian-collegiates wonder why I rarely enter into conversation with such bland stupidity, all of them, those MOANING, have justly had their egos branded by the Hummingbird, this is true.
- Even if you feel that your colleagues are being unreasonable, your best odds of continuing to contribute to Wikipedia come with demonstrating that you are yourself entirely reasonable and capable of collegial discourse. Rejecting input on the grounds of "bland stupidity" does not, I fear, give that impression. All conversations on Wikipedia are conducted, as it were, before the court. Nothing here is "off the record," and everything we say can and will be used against us (or for us, as the case may be) when our actions are called into question. You should never lose sight of that.
- At this point, I expect your only recourse if you wish to continue on the project is to change your tactics. You certainly need to reconsider your methods of communication in this dispute. You need to communicate plainly to others at that ANI thread and in that RFC, demonstrating that you can understand and respect their concerns and, where necessary, modify your approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel it is important to open up the discussion with people who are impartial. I have 20 people for the most part who keep on banding together against me, that isn't consensus that is partisan.B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This conversation is open at two community fora: WP:RFC and WP:ANI. Many, many people watch those fora. Your best odds of helping yourself are to succinctly and plainly discuss the issues there. Opening up the discussion in the manner you are doing is not going to help you. Since it's not neutral, it is likely instead to be used against you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just stopping by to say "hi". I know you're busy but I just wanted to let you know I am still grateful for all your kindness and help. The process isn't over yet so I'll wait and see if anything else pops up as you advised me it would take at least several months. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! Yes, not fast. We had one that lasted for about a year before it closed. :/ Once I get fully back into the swing of things, I'll try to start cycling back through the CCIs myself, and hopefully more volunteers will wander in to help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
You took down an article I put up citing the biographies of living persons rule.
I'm confident that adhered to the policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPF#People_who_are_relatively_unknown
Please can you refer to the policy when discussing this kind of unilateral action before acting.
You are not the boss of what goes in or out, you can raise concerns and remove things that violate a policy that you can cite, but you are not judge and jury.
I hope that helps.
|
