User talk:DennyColt

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #85

---

Talk archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Women's rights

I'm not on a shared IP, just a lowly comcast inet connection and I certainly did not vandalize the Women's Rights page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) page. Feel free to contact me at victor at fourstones dot net but don't ban my IP since I use wp as an important resource in my work. (this is me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fourstones-framed_bg.jpg ) -- 24.5.196.208, 22:18, March 8, 2007

Fair use disputed tag

I put a fair use disputed tag on the image you put on the article Barbara Schwarz. Don't get me wrong - I think an image would add nicely to the article, but that particular image doesn't have enough of a fair use reasoning behind it. There are a coupla things that could be done - You could add a "Fair Use Rationale" subsection to the image description page, with about 4 or more "points" as to your fair use reasoning, or even better, attempt to contact The Salt Lake Tribune, and see if they will give permission for the image to be used on a non-profit encyclopedia with attribution given - for education non-commercial purposes only ... Let me know what you think. Yours, Smee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

hi, I'll reply on the Schwarz talk page to everyone. I didn't realize we weren't linking to the mirror SLT article so will DB self the image for now, and mail SLT for an OK. if they give it, I'll reupload the image then with an email authorization from them. thanks! - Denny 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Denny, thank you for your efforts with seeking permission from the SLT to use their image. Sorry it didn't work out. Best wishes, Orsini 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks again! There are probably more public domain documents somewhere... Smee 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Bates College

Denny,

We currently attend Bates College. The Bates College Rough Crew is a crucial aspect of the Bates College student life. There is no joke here. The Rough Crew is as much a part of student life as the pub crawl, Newman Day, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstrumol (talk • contribs) 05:36, March 22, 2007

Img

Hi. Any word on this ? Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for reinstantiating Template:Buddhism!

You reverted the vandal within a minute. Amazing! Well-done! I applaud your diligent, righteous, safe-guarding efforts! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

William Bradford (professor)

Thanks,Denny. I appreciate your fairness and decency. I imagine that the enemies I made 2 years ago won't be happy with the edits and will want to revert everything, and if you would be kind enough to be on guard for that I'd be very grateful. I've written to the administrator asking for relief in the form of either removing the page, freezing it in a fair format, or else "salting" it I believe is the proper phrase. It's difficult work being a whistleblower, and to have to bear the burden is hard, especially since my wife is disabled from what happened to her in 2001 and the smear campaign has dampened my job prospects. I'm hoping the sun will shine again, and I pray every day in Christ's name. So I know God is watching.

Warm regards, and thank you.

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.202.104 (talk • contribs) 06:44, March 24, 2007

Cheers

Have a nice w/end, SqueakBox 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page houskeeping upon closing a "move" debate.

I would like to invite you, when moving an article, as a consequence of a discussion or debate to also do some talk-page and debate-housekeeping.
One model is here at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move.
I can't find a policy guideline for this kind of thing, but if you do, please point it out to me.
What is helpful about doing this housekeeping is that it affirmatively closes a debate, and gives notice that the move has been accomplished, which...might not be clearly closed without the housekeeping.
(The move at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Requested move is what brings me to make this suggestion, which I marked concluded, after your move.)

-- Best regards, -- Yellowdesk 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A follow-up and another caution.

For your information, the moved page has a reason for being moved in your edit summary remarks (as related to similar pages, titled Political views of ..... listed at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Requested move) that is erroneous. I had initiated the discussion because of the exceptional character of the move, and so we would not have future "move wars" on the page because this page doesn't follow similar article titles. Perhaps the proposal's intent to not follow other pages of the same name is something that should have been said on the project page, and that the move was exceptional...and now (for the moment), intentionally unique. For an outsider, I can see it might be a challenge to see why the discussion was created. -- Yellowdesk 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly

Hi there, got your message. Haven't been online very consistently so far today, but I will gladly take a look at that article sometime within the next 24 hours and make minor cleanups/tag, and leave a note on the talk page at minimum. You seem to be having an interesting evening ;). Risker 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Denny, give me a few days to go over the article. I get back to you then. :-) (→Netscott) 20:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the article over the course of the day (you can probably see a few of my edits), but failed to get back to you until now. I did put a couple of cite tags in where there are quotes that are not specifically attributed, down near the end of the article; I know I may be a bit cite-happy given recent editing experience ;-). I am of the overall impression that the introduction could use some further discipline in its structure, in particular bringing to the surface why the failure of RegisterFly is significant in a world-wide sense, and not just to those domain holders. It will probably be difficult to really flesh this out before the expected announcements from the ICANN meeting later this week; and of course when the deregistration occurs later this week, there will also be yet-to-be-seen impacts on the customers that will be reported. What you have here is a good base for moving forward in the next couple of weeks as the situation continues to evolve. While I think it will be a while before this will be eligible for GA status (simply because it is a current event), you might want to see if there is a really good sentence or two that might be suitable for Did You Know; perhaps talk with one of the editors there? Risker 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence on Registerfly

About this edit, the sentence is a direct quotation; the source itself is good. Did you mean that the quotation itself--that's literally what the person said--is incoherent, or the way I referred to the quotation? - Denny 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The quotation itself (on Registerfly is incoherent, and lacks a subject to relate to the verb "understand". If maintained as a quotation, it needs a [sic], ; even better is a different quotation that makes sense in English, or better yet, paraphrasing in a non-quotation context, or editorial insertion of the subject of the sentence with [I] ; or something like that. -- Yellowdesk 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jesse, updated (sorry, I forgot!). - Denny 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This image should be replaced with a free photo.

Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This image is a repost of an image that has been deleted as a replaceable fair use image.

Since this person is not a recluse, fugitive, nor prisoner, it is possible that this person could get a free image created which does not restrict the usage to non-commercial entities, so this image fails the requirement that a fair use image be unrepeatable. He could grant permission to use this photo under a free license like the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses (which are not version 3.0 (which has a clause that prohibit derivitives that infringe on the moral rights of the licensor) nor have the noncommercial attribute attached). Jesse Viviano 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion might help here

You might like to comment at WP:AN3 under "User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)". Note that the words "in principle" are contentious; people have been inserting and deleting these words from question 1. Two of Marskell's five (alleged) reverts in my allegation that the user violated 3RR were restoring the words "in principle" (among other words) which you had deleted. The user claims those were not reverts because you are now in agreement about the wording. What do you think -- were they reverts? Do you now support having the words "agree in principle" etc. in the question? --Coppertwig 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I replied as requested. - Denny 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) --Coppertwig 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz

Denny, thanks for your enthusiasm in defending the article. Aaronbrick 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

two days later... interested in RFC or arbitration for this? apparently some people still think they can unilaterally delete the article. Aaronbrick 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Just wanted to tell you that the message you left at my talk could be deemed rather far out of place. Inappropriate speedy nominations with wrong template use is something I can live with, but I will thank you not to welcome (!) me to Wikipedia and direct me to the sandbox. Regards, Punkmorten 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a complete mistake (I had just woken up). :( - Denny 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but on the other hand I apologize for not keeping a sufficiently cool head about the issue. Punkmorten 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries... if it makes you feel better, you'll always remember this as the time someone accused a footballer of being a no-name musical act. - Denny 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perry Tong

I just wanted to let you know that I removed your speedy deletion tag from this page. The article does indeed assert notability, it does so in the first sentence. I replaced it with a prod. You shouldn't just throw on a7 speedy notices on articles you don't think are notable, it doesn't work that way. Please be more careful in the future.

Other than that, have a nice day :) Oskar 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0. Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt block

Thanks for bringing that to my notice. I've tweaked the block to 1 week. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DennyColt

Dear Denny, please see above page where I requested a checkuser. If it wasn't you, please don't be offended. The sheer sensitivity of this article outweights personal issues in my opinion. For the record, as long as there is a diff on the talk page linking to your removal (which I added), I have no objections to the removal of the comment by Brandt itself. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As confirmed it indeed wasn't you. Thanks for understanding my request though. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous shared IP templates

Your concerned is covered by {{SharedIP}} which covers for everything. -- Avi 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the template deletion page. :) - Denny 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Denny, Thank you for the warm welcome. I am new and could read up more on how I can contribute. I am concerned about contribution's to bio's from sources that use "self hypnosis". Which if you know much about the vast anti-mormon community you will find a plethora of opportunists who would prefer to distract or redirect the readers attention from the fascinating scholarship and faith of Hugh Nibley, to his estranged daughter's disingenuous "so called memory" of her father.

Is Martha Beck his only child? Where are the comments by his wife or all of his other children? (I noticed there is no mention of his wife Phyllis or their marriage, or their children and their names.) Can you see the potential snowball effect of allowing such defaming comments. I hope there is concern here for defamation of character. Obviously Martha has distanced herself from the LDS church. I hope she is not given a platform here to blemish her fathers memory because of her distance from his faith.

I point this out to show the motivation force behind this. It is driven by a hatred for Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) & gains momentum from sites that propagate its so called contributions cloaked in honest or fair rhetoric. Well I don't know what outcome will prevail, all I can do is attempt to remind the powers that be, that responsibility precedes credibility. I can only hope that authenticity prevails over objectivity.

Sincerely,

Derek Harris User:SentinelLion

Reasons for my actions

Hey, since I'm doing things that affect you so much, I feel I need to explain why I'm asking you to slow down so much. One reason is due to scaling issues, our software will not easily allow such a large number people to use a single page, as you may by now be aware.

The other reason I wanted you to slow down is to slow the rate of people coming to the page for a while. You can still try and reach the entire 3 000 000 registered userbase, but please give us some space and time to handle the new people and stay organised?

If everyone hears about this at once at the rate you've been advertising, it's like mopping while the tap is still running. It just can't be done. We'll all end up with a big mess, rather than a well organized process, which is probably what you're looking for.

So could you maybe give us all some time to figure out how to deal with this rather novel approach? Else the new groupings will spawn faster than I can handle them. --Kim Bruning 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh oh, before it sounds like I'm harping on you or anything, did I mention I admire your energy and can-do attitude, and that it's that attitude in people that really makes wikipedia great?

But at the same time, you do have to be a bit careful to not bite off more than you can chew all at once. Especially when you're not the one having to do the chewing :-P We have plenty of time. Right now I'd really appreciate it if you could direct your energy towards talking with the people already present. Preferably about ATT itself. (Since I'm already swamped.) Later on we can then try and advertise and pull in more people. But there's some issues with that we may need to look at.

--Kim Bruning 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What got into you?

Wow, I was shocked to see you add that screenshot in so fast! Thank you for self-reverting, I didn't want to have to have an edit war about it. If that article doesn't stay diligently neutral, it will be back on AfD. Keep the focus on the controversy itself, and its outcome. Remember the mantra of this article...talk for at least 24 hours about anything...I know it's not exciting, but I can tell you there are plenty of people watching this article all the time who won't hesitate to nominate it again. Risker 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A picture has nothing to do with an AFD. These comments are branded. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop that

Kindly stop attacking me on the admin board. You don't own that poll, and people who think it is a bad idea have the freedom to state so. >Radiant< 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You certainly do have that right. I mentioned you by name, yes, but that was hardly an attack, please AGF. If you guys don't think there should be a Poll MfD the whole thing and stand up to Jimbo. I also have the right to stand up to El_C's abusive misrepresenation that I did something wrong. Up to when I posted, only an extreme minority complained in the way that people are now. I was only trying to help. If people were unhappy, why didn't they SAY so? Also, his assertation that I was keeping things out of the pre-poll was a flagrant lie meant to disparage me. I don't care if someone has 300 edits or 30,000. I have every right to defend myself if made to look bad with false statements... I never once remove a single thing that anyone added, and in fact INTEGRATED two other suggestions (Q4, Q5) that I said I didn't care for. Look at my history of editing--I go out of my way to not try to own stuff, and to add in suggestions that people give me since I've been here... if you took it as an attack on you, sorry, it certainly was't meant to be. El_C was 100% out of line in singleing me out and I wasn't going to let him make me a patsy for the problems some obviously have with Jimbo over this. - Denny 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay. I had the impression you were grouping me with El C. I'm glad to hear that's not the case. I wish you best of luck with sorting out WP:ATT/P, but it doesn't seem very stable yet. >Radiant< 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have less hope now. I know polling is evil, and I do agree, but to be honest, like I said on the talk page, we'd be at it till christmas jus to figure out Q1 without some forced structure. I figured, let me see what'll happen if I try to ram some structure down their throats for how to at least approach the problem, just for that one thing. I thought if it works, great, if not, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Worst case I get laughed at and it goes back to what it was, right? I was more surprised than anything that people not only ran with it, but liked it, and actually got people to focus more. Do I think the policy itself should be decided by poll? Probably not... but do you agree it would be interesting for finality to see what a tremendous number of people have to say about this? I think no harm from that exercise itself could come... - Denny 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny Colt, this is somewhat related to what is happening between you and Radiant! here. You may want to comment there. (→Netscott) 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? No it isn't. >Radiant< 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. I think the problem is that we already had a tremendous amount of people speaking about this (check the several megabyte archive of WP:ATT), and a secondary problem is that people seem now to be arguing about the poll about the poll. It's positively herculanean. I'm honestly not sure how to untangle this mess except by giving it a few days to calm down first and stopping any further forest fires. I'm afraid that not everybody in the discussion understands the underlying issues (and that would be worse in a poll). This has the potential to be closed as a lack of consensus either way, and we'd end up with four att-related policies (3 - 2 = 4 ? ). Which I don't think anybody really wants. >Radiant< 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD close

David, I like you a lot, but I rv'd your closure. you and I are not neutral parties and shouldn't be closing that (no one really involved on that poll page should, and the nonsense about the poll being dead needs settling/attention). Another neutral party can close later. Please don't take it the wrong way. - Denny 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We aren't going to delete the poll pages. That isn't how things work. I know that you mean well, but you're creating a needless distraction from the real matter at hand.

I'm biased against the poll, so there's nothing wrong with me applying common sense in deciding to keep it. —David Levy 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

David... the matter at hand is that there is overwhelming desire from the most people (including our founder) to run the poll. The same admins saying over and over again "NO POLL NO POLL NO POLL" is meaningless--please don't take this the wrong way. Admins have no more value/voice in policy than every one else on this one. If there is support to kill Jimbo's idea, lets be done with it. Letting the MfD run a day at least won't hurt anything. - Denny 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. We certainly should discuss whether or not to kill the poll. MfD is not the correct venue. No matter what happens, we are not going to delete the pages. The question asked at MfD is not the one that needs answering. —David Levy 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Help fixing up edit conflict?

I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. --Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, that section/date would be twice over archived by now, dunno how to get it back cleanly. Post on the Poll talk page. A veteran can probably get it easily. - Denny 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Please don't get personal in edit summaries. If you check the talk page you will note several people agreeing with me. It is simply improper to remove a {{guideline}} tag while a {{disputedtag}} dispute is ongoing. >Radiant< 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Radiant, sorry -- it was based just on the edit warring that is going on over the tags. Others should step up if they agree to edit the tags--from an outsider's perspective it ends up looking like (based on edit history) that you are exerting authority over policy to a degree that gives you some special rank/authoritative position when none exists. :( - Denny 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please look a bit deeper. This page has been an accepted guideline for awhile. Some people don't like that, so they added {{disputedtag}}. I have no real objection to that, we can always discuss such disputes on the talk page. However, two of these people think that a dispute is grounds for immediately revoking the guideline, which is obviously false (per WP:POL; if a simple dispute was grounds for revocation, we would simply delete CAT:G). The general wiki principle for disputes is to retain the present version, add a dispute tag if wanted, and discuss. >Radiant< 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here's the thing: we can have discussion with polling and discussion without polling, but we should never have polling without discussion. That is why the page is called "polling is not a substitute for discussion". That title does not mean "polling is forbidden", indeed the page explicitly states that it's not. If you were to say "polling is a supplement" that would seem to imply that discussion should always, or generally, be supplemented by polling, which isn't really the case. >Radiant< 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Polling can be a supplement to discussion? Current wording makes it sound like a dirty thing to be avoided, which can give just the loudest/most frequent voices on an issue authority, which is very bad, right? Just thinking aloud, I guess, based on my experience. Dropping that silly pre-poll poll on the ATT thing was the only thing that broke the deadlock to make any forward motion and cut out half the crap. - Denny 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't quite see how "is not a substitute" is a dirty thing? The old wording was "Voting is evil", which does sound dirty (which is why we changed it). If you're saying "X can be Y", you're in essence not saying much (X can still be Not-Y, or Y can be Not-X). Note that ATT is the exception rather than the rule, and by now has hit 3.5 megabytes of discussion and counting. We usually don't do things that way. The issue there is that controversial issues are messy regardless of whether or not there is a poll. >Radiant< 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Christadelphians

Just wondering why you returned the neutrality tag to this page. The tag was originally added a long time ago and much work has been done to make the page more neutral. Please can you comment? --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The page very much reads like it advocates their positions and views, which is not a NPOV state, and will be removed (by me, when I have time soon)... we can talk about their positions of views, but NOT ever advocate them even slightly. Especially not bigotry and hate speech towards homosexuals which that Europeon gang of trolls keeps adding (also why I requested semi-protection). - Denny 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. How long do protections last for as I would like to trawl through the article and remove as much NPOV as I can. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 15:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think just a day or three(ish) or until concensus is sorted a bit on the talk page. That article definitely needs to stay under semi-protection for a long while however to keep those related trolls/vandals out. - Denny 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'll make the edits in word and paste them in later on! Thanks for your time. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! feydey 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Which was this about? - Denny 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:67.107.166.135. feydey 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors: Before listing a vandal here [WP:AIV] make sure that:

1. The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances.

The above from WP:AIV.

User:67.107.166.135 last warning on 13 March 2007 <-- not very recent huh? And it's also a shared IP. feydey 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Shared IP, yes, but still blockable for long-term abuse like any school IP. I added warnings based on the current vandalism of today, including a last based on the abusive and ongoing nature. - Denny 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope he stopped. feydey 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

double vote

You inadvertently voted twice on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Akhilleus. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the double, sorry! - Denny 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Straw polls

Denny, sorry I haven't gotten a chance to give a good look at Registerfly but in the meantime considering the "hotness" of the whole polling issue I've decided to make an effort to reestablish this above page to guideline status as such a thing is greatly needed. I would like to invite you to join in editing and discussing this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Hi, this edit wasn't appropriate, as it is unsourced, inflammatory, and self-referential. Thanks, - Denny 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important that the article reflects this nature of the Wikipedia-Watch website. I understand that the fact could be inflammatory, but there is at least one page in the Wiki-Watch site that lists editors who have committed some sort of offense. I suppose that the line I added could have been worded better, but I think that the article should at least mention that Wikipedia-Watch displays information about wikipedia editors, as well as criticizing them for their individual conduct. Do you think it would be appropriate to add the note back in with better wording and a source, or are you opposed to even mentioning it? Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Not completely, no, but given how heated it is, I would guess that a concensus on language like that should be reached. Besides his endless legal threats, my understanding from what I've learned... is he was blocked also for stalking/harassment tied into that stuff. Thats why I was thinking to slow down and see what the group concensus is for that. Check out the new thread on the talk page of his article about this. :) - Denny 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd struggle to find evidence that Brandt has stalked or harassed anyone on the wiki. It seems to be a theme with you, Denny. Grace Note 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Could you explain? Could you show me where I said Brandt stalked people on-wiki? - Denny ^(talk) 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked, so far as I know, for entirely onwiki behaviour. I have no problem with his being blocked for the offwiki bullshit. So far as I'm concerned, apart from his article, Danny isn't welcome here and never should be again. Nor should anyone who makes it their business to harass and "out" editors. Grace Note 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Issue

Grace, do you have any sort of a problem with me, or are you following and reviewing my edits? You seem to follow in the wake of much of what I do since I commented on the Brandt matter with scorn and hostile or excessively questioning tone, and I am concerned about it. Please let me know. - Denny 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you think I might have an issue with you. Why do you think I might? I've previously worked on WP:Attribution (check my contribs if you like) and WP:BLP (ditto), and I occasionally look at editor review (again, this is clearly visible in my contribs). If you are active on particular pages, as you seem to be, you have to expect to run into the same editors.

There's nothing hostile in asking you whether you have previously edited. You asked to be reviewed. That's what has struck me about you. You can email me if you want to discuss it further. There is also nothing hostile in suggesting that an editor with only a few weeks' experience does not invent new policy or new instructions/templates/bullshit to clutter up pages with.

Now I will tell you something. Posting passive-aggressive whining to my talkpage does aggravate me, particularly when it is manifestly not assuming good faith of me. Try not to do it again and I'm sure we'll be best of friends. Grace Note 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You had (rather out of the blue) vigorously countered me--which is fine--on my edits on the Brandt issue, my addition of WP:FORTHEPEOPLE on the deletion arguments to avoid page, on the ATT polling, and then with negative comments on the BLP category idea. All of which is quite fine, but I was concerned that after never having seen/interacted with you before I disagreed with you re Brandt, that you were perhaps seeing what I was up to. For example, you had never once edited Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before 03/22/2007 23:25, a full ten days after I had first touched the page. No worries, however. Happy editing. - Denny ^(talk) 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find I edited the Danny Brandt article long, long before you turned up, and have vigorously supported its deletion on several occasions. Your appointing yourself saviour of the Brandt article does not give you licence not to be disagreed with. As for the deletion thing, I'd forgotten that was you. I'd suggest that unilaterally deciding what arguments people can use in deletion debates is not seemly in a "new" editor. And I followed the link to the deletion page. Someone had used it as though it was policy and I checked it out to see what someone had invented this time. You'll find my edits all over deletion pages, policy on deletion etc. I'd suggest once more that if a "new" editor turns up and starts rewriting policy as soon as his feet are under the table, he's going to meet some opposition from editors who have previously been involved. That's just natural, particularly if you are going to make a beeline for controversial articles and policy areas. Grace Note 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up; I understand now. - Denny ^(talk) 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls

I saw it on your talkpage and thought it looked interesting. Whenever someone comes and whines about nothing much on my talkpage, I have a look and see who else they've been talking to. I think you'll find that's quite normal. So I followed the link. Now, I have to ask you to stop wasting my time. I have better things to do than read your conspiracy theory about me, and I'm sure you do too. Isn't there a policy that needs your input somewhere? Grace Note 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll find one sooner or later I want to learn more about. :) - Denny ^(talk) 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

For an image of a living person to be allowed on Wikipedia just to show what he or she looks like, the image must be under a license or other condition that allows anybody to reuse the photo in any way, including commercial works. The only restrictions that Wikipedia allows on photos are that the photo may require attribution, and that the photo may require that any derivatives be relicensed under the same license. Since official photos of Canadian politicians disallow commercial reuse, the image is permissible if and only if a similar work that achieves the same purpose is impossible (e.g. the person is a fugitive like Osama bin Laden, looks very different compared to what the photo looks like (e.g. had his face disfigured or is much older than when he or she had that photo taken), or is a prisoner like Dennis Rader a.k.a. the BTK killer, where prisons probably do not want people taking photos of their prisoners because some of them, like Rader, are media hounds who get their jollies by getting their images taken by either still image or television cameras). For us to keep the photo, we must receive explicit permission to use the photo under one of the licenses listed here. Permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough, and photos used with permission where a free alternative could be created are disallowed. Jesse Viviano 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I retagged for speedy myself, and will find a better free one. - Denny ^(talk) 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very grateful that you understood instead of reacting negatively when he or she is shown that he or she inadvertently violated policy. It is a refreshing breath that you understand and comply with policy unlike others who violate polciy like R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (this user failed to meet the burden of proof that the images he uploaded are permissible reacted negatively to anyone who called him for this failure) and Primetime (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (this user committed unrepetant mass plagiarism and copyright violations). Jesse Viviano 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no problem at all, I didn't realize I had asked for the wrong permissions. I rewrote them and the PMs office as well to ask for a better one under GFDL. :) - Denny ^(talk) 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This is for understanding and taking action to correct your addition of works disallowed under Wikipedia policy, and for reacting positively when notified. Jesse Viviano 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the kind words Denny :) Gwen Gale 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're a human, think like one...

Hey now, if we were going to have all vandalism patroling done by mindless bots, ... we'd cut out the middle men. :) I'm blathering about this revert. You managed to revert the covering edit but not the initial suspect edit. Watch out for stuff like that.--Gmaxwell 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a man! Oh, wait. Sorry! That was amateur hour by me, good eye. :) - Denny ^(talk) 06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Casey Serin

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Serin. The whole article is just a glorified attack page, as far as I'm concerned. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to my user page.

Thank you for helping to make sure my userpages follow wikipolicy.  :-) Lawyer2b 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your enforcement of a non-policy

Your essay WP:BADSITES, by its own admission, is not a Wikipedia policy. Thus, you have no business "enforcing" it by altering other people's comments on talk and project pages. *Dan T.* 13:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I not the page made any "admission" of its merit. New pages start as Essays, move to guidelines, then policy, I believe? The essay/guideline/policy 'status' is fluid, and the true status is what reflects actual practice and precedent. Anyone can enforce anything that is applicable and 'right'. We do not support hate, or attack sites. Do you support in any fashion websites that can cause personal harm to editors here? - Denny ^(talk) 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That last question has a vaguely McCarthyist sound to it, like "Are you now, or have you ever been a communist?" And it seems like your campaign to suppress links to such sites is a witch-hunt. Personally, I think we ought to "know our enemy", meaning that it is sometimes necessary to read and discuss the things they write on anti-Wikipedia boards. It does us no good to suppress such discussion by banning such links. *Dan T.* 14:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Events can be discussed, but can you think of a single, solitary good reason to link people BACK to revealed personal info of editors here? NONE. - Denny ^(talk) 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel like editing userpages to conform to your essay is poor form. Consider simply dispensing advice about links you find offensive on the users' talk pages and soliciting feedback. Vees 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

Denny, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cla68's question

Cla68 raised an important issue here, and I would like to hear your response. Assuming a reliable news source like the NY Times publishes a story in which it links a user to a real name, exposing him (or her) and/or mentions the name of an attack site: May that article be linked to? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got me there. Yes, it's purely hypothetical as of yet, but it's not too farfetched and may happen any minute now, considering the media attention the Essjay story received. Wikipedia has become prominent, and prominent users may gain sufficient mainstream attention. I'm asking this question because if and when such an article appears, the information published in that article would be suitable for citation, effectively circumventing any attack site policy. Then we'd have a whole new conflict at our hands: We could not censor a reliable source, but the article would still pose a threat to the mentioned user/s - either through linking to an attack site or by publishing real names (or talking about agendas and whatnot). Again: Yes, it's still hypothetical, but it could happen real soon now and I believe we should be prepared for the impact - and hope it never comes to this. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

AGF

Please do not confuse AGF with criticising your lack of experience. Seeing you lack experience is not the same at all as assuming you are not coming from a good faith space. I suggest you wait till you have 6 months experience before starting to write policy as you inevitably still have a very poor understanding of wikipedia due to not even 3 months here and even coming from aa good faith space you have a tremendous capacity to unintentionally damage the project, IMO, not due to bad faith but due to inexperience and hence a poor grasp of how wikipedia actually works, SqueakBox 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)