Are fair-use images allowed on episode list pages?? The only thing I asked that because, I am having problems with some users with images on the Pokmeon episode list, like I wrote images idenitfy episodes visually and identify key moments. But this Pokémon Collaborative Project voted on not having images which I wasn't imformed with.
I got a commit from a two users liking the idea of images:
Well I personally think they improve the article, and I've followed certain Featured List Candidates involving fair use images, and opposers have always stated that images should be in relation to the text, much like any other image, and not there for decorative purposes. HighwayDaytrippers20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The users that are causing this problem is A Man in Black and Ryulong. Some of the iamges have the Fair Use Rationale for the images. Please help me. (Yugigx6014:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I can't fault your logic on ANI, but I've told Parsssseltongue that I don't mind. I still don't, but I have enough respect for you to reckon yours is ok, too. If you want to counteract my advice, his talk page might be a good place to do it. - brenneman{L}12:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not repeat what I already said and run the risk of appearing to harp on about something that I'm really not massively bothered about - the important thing is that it looks like the error, such as it is, will be corrected. The other important thing is that Parseltongue understands the importance of WP:V and WP:CCC, and I think you've covered that adequately on his talk page. If Parseltongue continues reading the WP:AN thread, he'll see my post, and can consider both our opinions and make up his own mind - and if he doesn't, well, he's almost certain to pick it up at some point if he does continue following the path to adminship. --Sam Blanning(talk)17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultima Dragons
Hey, is there a way to get the old content of the Ultima Dragons page that was deleted, so I can at least work on improving it in my sandbox? The sources that have been mentioned on the AfD page I have been working on tracking down, and it would be nice if I could have the old content so that I could improve it in my sandbox or what have you so as to actually have a good article to show to the Deletion for Review board people. Thanks! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've restored it to User:Wizardry Dragon/Ultima Dragons. Good luck in finding those references. Incidentally, the logo, as it's uploaded under a claim of fair use and isn't currently in any articles, will be deleted in a week unless the image is used in an article again and the {{orfud}} template is removed. You may want to save it to your hard drive if you don't have it already. --Sam Blanning(talk)17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I was fighting a losing battle Re: Iain Lee all day! Thank you for your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlosPauloEthetheth (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Samuel - beware, I believe this user may be a clever hoaxer. Several of his past edits are incorrect or unverifiable, and almost all relate in some way to Iain Lee (including, bizarrely, trying to imply he is a descendant of a North Pole Innuit explorer). Stephenb(Talk)09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that - unfortunately, in all the confusion I couldn't really sort one lot of nonsense out from the other. I've removed the information tagged as 'citation needed' for the moment and will be able to keep a better eye on the article in the next few days than before. --Sam Blanning(talk)10:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a a hoaxer, someone has been using my account! Argh! Help! I think i just switched off the browser and not logged out, so there has been some chaos! CarlosPauloEthetheth15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Samuel, someone put the article Where Troy Once Stood on a list requesting deletion. I wonder if this is really necessary. Of course I believe in the article but that is not the only reason why I feel bad about this. What harm can this article do as almost any link and reference to it is deleted anyway. I don't feel like fighting this because it all seem so childish. Antiphus18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I consider its notability to be in doubt, although the AfD has made me less doubtful. Because of that I feel the AfD is worthwhile even if it ends in a 'keep' result. I don't feel strongly enough either way to participate myself. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well i am new to this and just wanted to know how it worked just leave a message please when you recieve this thanks
hi
well i am new to this and just wanted to know how it worked just leave a message please when you recieve this thanks Arejay03:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badlydrawnjeff has been adding the new (empty) days lately because we've had a number of cases where people have put in requests that didn't get seen for a day or two because the date page was never linked. So, it doesn't hurt to link in the new day automatically. Haven't seen a day yet that didn't get a DRV request sooner or later. Fan-196719:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD
Hello Samuel,
after more than five days of AfD now and with the vote in favour of keeping the article about Where Troy Once Stood I still found the AfD-message on top. Isn't it removed automatically or should editors remove it? Most of the content of the article is removed by someone with respect to soapbox. Could you explain what that means and is it a reason to delete three quarters of an article? Regards, Antiphus05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the discussion is closed by an administrator, he will remove the AfD tag. There's almost always a backlog of AfDs waiting for attention on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. At the moment it's three days, but only a short while ago it was sometimes going up past a week. What that means is that the AfD may still remain open for a few days - hopefully not longer.
As for the edits you refer to, I agree with them, personally. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" may be an oversimplification, but it's correct in that we don't regurgitate a subject's theories or opinions. A better term is "undue weight". As it stands the size of the section discussing the subject's own viewpoint fits in well with the other sections - as it stood before, it took up far too much of the article. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relation rules review...
I'm genuinely curious why you feel the modified version of the relationship rules article fails on WP:NOT guidelines. The article is more than a dictionary definition (WP:NOT 1.2), the article is well-cited and keeps to the ideas as presented in the original works (WP:NOT 1.3), the article does not serve as a soapbox for a cause (WP:NOT 1.4), the article is not a mirror to other sites (WP:NOT 1.5), the article is not a blog or a social site (WP:NOT 1.6), the article does not serve as a directory (WP:NOT 1.7), the article is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as all cited sources deal with the topic of rules in relationships and even use the term 'rules' in the original sources (WP:NOT 1.8), and the article does not try to predict the future (WP:NOT 1.9). So why exactly does the Relationship rules article fail these guidelines? Thanks in advance for clarifying. User:kc62301
Your opinion regarding whether editing to an article should continue during the mediation process would be appreciated here since there doesn't seem to be a relevant policy. I've also asked two other seasoned mediators for their opinion. Thanks. Antonrojo22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For placing the coat of arms in the template, also I noticed you took part in the DRV of Pro Wrestling Unplugged, an article I was the nominator of for deletion. I have to say his comment "The people who have endorsed this article's deletion know NOTHING about professional wrestling." made me chuckle considering the amount of effort I've put into the wrestling wikiproject and articles, your reply also made me laugh. –– Lid(Talk)14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The turi page was completely vandalised by a user by the name of "Rolln94lac". Check the history and you'll see it. Basically he changed all the information on my page to false information, changed the topic to "homosexuals" and edited the photo. Absolutely juvenile behaviour.
Anyway, I returned it back to normal. Any chance I can get the WatchBot or whatever to stop my page being vandalised? Or something of that nature?
Let me know
peace
s-endz/turi - my user name on here is Militant3121
Thanks for reverting it - I've blocked the Rolln94lac account. I'm not sure what you mean by 'WatchBot' - I've got the page on my Watchlist, which means I should see if it's changed (though I don't check it as much as I used to). There's also a few bots that automatically revert vandalism, but they only see vandalism if it's blatant - for example, blanking the entire page or replacing it with a few words, or inserting lots of capital letters. Unfortunately vandalism is the other side of the free-editing coin - we do have a lot of ways to stop it, and it hopefully shouldn't happen often or remain up for more than a few hours when it does (on higher-profile articles, vandalism remains up even less).
And welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. I notice you've been editing articles on and related to yourself - generally, we discourage autobiographical writing, but as long as you write neutrally and stick to what we can verify (anything you know personally but isn't published elsewhere, for example, can't be written here), there probably won't be much of a problem, as your subject is a bit of a neglected area on Wikipedia.
You can sign your name automatically by typing ~~~~ at the end of each post, or clicking the signature button on the toolbar if it's enabled (third button from the right). --Sam Blanning(talk)17:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks Sam. I was referring to the bots that automatically detect vandalism.
Thanks for the welcome. Yeah, I only post factual neutral information that can be verified and sourced for the most part. Nothing will be on here that hasn't been formally announced. Militant312117:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note on the article. My deletion was a matter of process. I don't recall the exact reason for marking, but unfortunately I must leave it as it is. I've got too many other things pending and someone else will have to get to it. Thanks again for your note. --meatclerk17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
La'o Hamutuk deletion
As the top of this page suggests, I left a message for you on my talk page [1] on October 13, in response to a message you wrote there about why La'o Hamutuk was deleted. Could you please respond? Thank you.
--Cscheiner18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sam, I would have said that deleting a cited section of text counts as blanking, but I appreciate the criticism. (And am glad I got it before I hit 3RR).
Do you have a second to tell me what my remedies are? I think that edits like this are pretty blatant, particularly given 131.94.55.64's contribution history. Do I really need to request an RFC and a mediation once I hit my three reverts? Thanks, TheronJ18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, deleting cited text isn't blanking vandalism. Vandalism is more about intention than action. Do what you would do with any other editor making any other tendentious edit; revert him, and if you hit three reverts, let someone else revert. That will confirm that he's on the wrong side of consensus. Then if he continues reverting, report him at WP:AN/3RR. I assume you're not the only editor watching the article. The sky won't fall if the anon manages to get it left at m:The Wrong Version for a few hours. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the cool head, and am sure that once I cool down myself, I will conclude that you are right. ;-) TheronJ18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emmalina protected redirect
Hi I noticed that you protected Emmalina as a redirect. Is this in response to something I did? I created a history for Emmalina per unclosed request of everyone in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes. I was waiting for a closure since it seems that this article will be deleted. This way I can revert edit so cited information will not be lost on Wikipedia. Also shouldn't Emmalina be a redirect to Notable YouTube memes since that is her main article? Valoemtalk23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's because, unless I'm wrong, the redirect is intended as a softer version of {{deletedpage}}. Otherwise, the history shouldn't have been deleted (there are 175 edits still deleted). It prevents people from wasting their time creating a new article when it will just be redirected again.
I can redirect it to Notable YouTube memes if you want, but as you say that article is probably going to be deleted soon, so I don't really see the point.
The main thing is, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (3rd nomination) came up with a clear result, that the subject does not merit its own article, and that can only be overturned by a full discussion at deletion review. Otherwise the history behind the redirect wouldn't have been deleted. If an article is to be put in place of the redirect again, the deleted history has to be restored by DRV. It can't be done as an uncontroversial 'History only' undeletion - indeed, I refused a request to do just that, which led me to then fully protect the redirect after discussion here. I think it should have been fully protected when the history was deleted in the first place, but I didn't close the AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a somewhat unusual situation, so if you do ask for a deletion review, please make clear in your nomination that you are looking to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (3rd nomination) which resulted in the deletion of the history before the redirect. Otherwise we could get confusion over whether the request is an uncontroversial 'history only' undeletion, or whether deletion review is even relevant because it's a redirect at issue (normally to redirect or not to redirect is a matter for talk pages, not for deletion fora, but not when the history behind it is deleted). --Sam Blanning(talk)23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, however this article initially passed an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emmalina, the second nomination was only done one month after initial nomination which, if I am correct, is a violation of Wikipedia policy since you can't repeatly nominate an article thats has passed in a short period of time. The 3rd nomination was done by a user with a history of not researching before nominating. I feel this article has passed an should be keep esp since she passes WP:BIO "cited by multiple indepedent sources". Valoemtalk23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change - only the most recent discussion is relevant. You can't repeatedly renominate articles, but 'one month' is a long time on Wikipedia and certainly isn't 'repeated'. I shouldn't really have mentioned deletion review, as I'd forgotten that deletion review endorsed the status quo only twelve hours ago. You'd need something pretty convincing to start a review this soon after that. "Multiple independent sources" were presented in the AfD, were obviously considered by all participants, and it still resulted in deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait so in otherwords, an article that passes AfD can get renominated again and again as long as the user waits for sometime, but once an article is deleted it cant get recreated? Valoemtalk06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright it looks like Notable YouTube memes has finally been deleted. This calls for an "emergence" recall of the Deletion Review of Emmalina since a strong argument was that she has been redirected because Notable YouTube memes has already covered her. Other than that she is certain notable per WP:BIO. It think the article should be restored now. Valoemtalk15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Emmalina has adequate coverage in YouTube, where it currently redirects. You're welcome to try for another deletion review, but if by "emergence" you mean "without discussion", not a chance, IMO. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By "emergency" I mean that the reason for maintaining the delete to redirect is no longer valid (per deletion review), therefore what you said about requiring a very convincing argument to reenact a deletion review within 12 hours exists. Valoemtalk19:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sam i would like to offically report User gerrado for vandalising my user page he was warned any more attacks and i would report him to an admin so now i am reporting him to you an admin. Please deal apropriatly with gerrado as he is a thorn i thought i had removed please permenantly get him off my case. Thanks --Lucy-marie12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've left him an explicit warning which I intend to be the last. Occasional, even rare vandalism from a contributor who otherwise attempts to edit positively is the most frustrating kind, but it can't be tolerated. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there were 5 votes for "keep" and 5 votes for "delete," and the guidelines say to err on the side of inclusion. How did you come to the decision to delete the article? It seems Wikipedia is just that bit less informative and useful now - the article would only improve - but then again I'm an eventualist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HunterAmor (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Of the five arguments you're referring to (AfD is not a vote), RFerreira said "Keep if and only if the best selling claims can be sourced. Otherwise...", and that didn't happen (indeed, AnonEMouse stated quite convincingly that this was not only unverified but actually wrong). That makes him explictly on the side of deletion. User:Cdcdoc didn't back up his opinion at all, despite being challenged by another editor. Architectsf said "Surely she has numerous newspaper articles during the campaign. The author role would qualify as well", which isn't sufficient - the burden of proof is on those who want to keep the article, which means you actually have to come up with some credible non-trivial coverage. Your and User:Admiralwaugh's arguments are less flimsy, inasmuch as they rely on the simple fact of her candidacy which is essentially a matter of opinion - and Marriedtofilm (who didn't argue one way or the other) had a solid-sounding argument against Admiralwaugh's claim that the race was inherently notable, which wasn't contested. Policy, not votes is what decides AfDs and it was clearly on the 'delete' side.
"Harmless" is not a very good argument for keeping an article, incidentally - if we keep articles that no-one has any interest in maintaining (which applies to all articles on candidates with no other claim to notability once they lose the election), readers can't be expected to know which of our articles were written and checked by independent editors and which were posted by a campaign group.
I admit I should probably have included my reasoning in the closing summary in the first place - sometimes I get into the habit of seeing closes like this as sufficiently obvious not to need one, when it isn't going to be obvious to people who went for 'keep'. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stannington First School
No consensus? In a split of merge and delete, I don't think keep is a viable option. Choose one of merge or delete, and go with it. └OzLawyer / talk┐18:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to merge if you want, but articles for deletion does not make binding decisions on merges. Quite rightly, as it is grossly poor on doing so, rarely making any more than the vaguest suggestion on how much should be merged, where in the target article it should be merged (if a target is even specified!) and why it should be merged at all. In an AfD discussion, 'merge' is equivalent to 'keep' - the content is merely moved to a different place and the page itself turned into a redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you, but you were so spot-on with User: Edward Saint-Ivan. The self-promo problem has cropped up again, but with another user--an anon using two IPs. This time I have some personal knowledge--it's a father vandalizing a son's page. Please believe me when I say it's more malicious and disturbing than it looks. The son will not get involved, out of fear of encouraging stalking behavior on the part of the father, to whom he does not speak (father may be encouraged if he thinks this is a form of "contact" with son). That's the subtext--on the face of it, the father/anon has still made a a number of violations--patent nonsense, 3RR, WP:VAIN, etc. He has ignored all of my attempts to get him to discuss anything, or to read any Wiki policies or guidelines. I made a report about him here: [2] but nothing is being done, meanwhile the father continues to "edit" the page...
User:71.242.186.236 has been blocked for violating WP:3RR on Joshua Clover (not by me, but I was about to issue one when I saw it had already been done). If there are other IPs vandalising or still edit warring, please list them or the page they're vandalising - I can't do anything otherwise. I don't know how block ranges, so if a rangeblock is needed you should try WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't see the 3RR block from William Connelly before I wrote to you. If anon persists after the 24 hr block, and Bio noticeboard can't resolve things, I will take your advice re WP:ANI. (He seems to have used two IPs, on Joshua Clover page, that begin with 71 and vary only in the last four numbers--so maybe it is not a range but just the two numbers?) Anyway, thanks again for your help and advice.
Cindery18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated that page based on the fact that I read somewhere on here that talk pages needed to be retained if they contained policy violations etc. Your comments straightened it out for me a bit more... SunStarNet; 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm not exactly certain on this point myself - I agree with the principle, but whether it's sufficiently accepted is a different matter - so I would wait for other editors' opinions in the DRV before you trust mine too much. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking more about the restoration and then redeletion of all the music lists. As I was the one who closed the second AfD and redeleted the 100+ lists, I think I can call it a waste of time if I like :-). By closing the AfD as I did rather than deleting all the lists and hoping no-one would object, I wanted to prevent that waste of time happening again. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a huge effort collecting these lists and I'm sad cuz they are deleted. Is there any way that I can recover these lists, at least for a while to save them on my PC. I feel shocked that they were deleted after all the efforts I did in research collecting them. If wikipedia do not want them, I do want them, so can you please help me recover them.
Sure. I can email them to you - would you like the full wikitext of the articles (including formatting), or just the lists themselves? I can also restore the articles to your userspace, but I would prefer to email them, as the userspace articles would need to be deleted once you'd saved the contents, so it would be extra work for a lot of pages. --Sam Blanning(talk)16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good man, I'm less devastated now. plz email me the wiki source of the articles and the template. Thank you for your time. --Thameen16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me share this thought with you. It is really disappointing how in wikipedia the results a lot of effort and research get deleted so easily. When I added these lists to wikipedia after a lot of work and research I was thinking I'm adding to the richness of this encyclopedia. But suddenly few members apear who vote for these lists to be deleted and they get deleted, this easy.
No one thought on improving these lists or putting them in a more suitable format or integrating them in the main article in some way. They just got deleted. This makes me wonder how much of the deleted things are trash and how much is sincere high value work.
And the idea that a dozen of members can vote to delete an article is very interesting. What if these members are coordinating their actions behind the scenes, what if they have other motives than the well being of wikipedia in their minds.
What was I supposed to do to protect the lists that I made, to mobilize my friends in wikipedia to vote in favour of these lists be kept? Will not this form of deletion policy give the upper hand to majority or the more willing and more sincere in mobilising others?
I started writing for wikipedia knowing that it is an editable forum. However, the latest delete disappointed me alot. I see my work of days and nights gone in a second. This is heart breaking.
The fact that we decided on an open-editing system as the best way of growing the encyclopaedia doesn't mean we can expect less of our content than Britannica or Encarta. If there are good reasons to delete something - and I think those brought up in the AfD were valid - then that's what we do. Usually, the fact that something is deleted doesn't mean it's bad - it just doesn't belong here.
Your claim that other users are colluding and acting in bad faith is bizarre bordering on paranoid, and I'm pretty sure you know quite well what I was referring to. As for the "other pages like this exist" argument, it has never been accepted. --Sam Blanning(talk)15:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No do not be pretty sure. I did not understand what you mean by paranoid in your first post until your last reply.
When I pointed out the idea that some members work in editting gangs I was not refering to the deletion of the lists in question, I do not know those who voted for deletion. But I was talking in general. I have been here for a short while but long enough to know how gangs form behind the scenes, this is not paranoia. I wil be surpirised if you do not see this, you may call it other names; small editting armies, group of people interested in a certain subject to appear or disappear in wiki, a network of edittors. But it exists. I'm not saying it happened in my lists' case, but was sharing a thought with you in general about the complex subject of deletion.
You say deletion does not mean the material was bad, so if it is not bad why delete it? Why not merge it with the main article? why not give us the opportunity to improve it to fit into wikipedia?--Thameen16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia
いかにウィキペディアに貢献する!? (How do you contribute to Wikipedia?) 悪影丸 (21:39, 2006年10月28日 (UTC))
