User talk:XDanielx

Introduction · Review · Résumé · Contact

Hey there! I'm xDanielx (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email), a student from California and an admin on the English Wikipedia. I'll be facing some tight academic pressure until June, so I'll have a lot going on in the coming months, but feel free to drop me a line if you need something — I'm never too busy to check my talk page now and then.

I am the owner/maintainer of fuBot. If you were redirected here from the bot's talk page, please leave your message here so I'll be more likely to see it promptly.

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest XDanielx,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin

Click there to open your card! → → →

My dear Wikipedian XDanielx,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 29 supports, 1 opposed, and 3 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Special thanks to Carlossuarez46 for encourage me and nomination. Thank you and good day.

Carlosguitar

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

Continuation of discussion over notability of Ohio high school sports conferences

Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page cleanup bot

Hi, regarding Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_needed_to_clean_up_50.2C000.2B_disambiguation_pages, I'm the one who posted this thread looking for someone to do this, and I noticed that you're interested.

Question, what are your concerns about the difficulties of having the bot remove excess blue links and inappropriate piping? I think that it will actually be reasonably straightforward.

Kaldari was thinking of doing this previously, and I posted an explanation on his talk page of exactly what I believed needed to be done. I'll cut and paste it here:

The bot would hopefully be able to check all 100,000 DAB pages, removing periods from the end of entries, removing categories, converting numbered lists to bulleted lists, commenting out external links and references sections, and in those cases where it would be possible for the bot to do so, removing extra blue links and inappropriate piping of article titles.

I believe all of this could be done by following simple rules. Such as:

If a line begins with a "#", replace that with a "*". (numbered list to bulleted list)

If a line begins with a *, and ends with a period or comma or semicolon, removed the period, comma, or semicolon.

If an external link is found anywhere on the page, comment it out.

If a category is found which is not contained in (list of acceptable categories), remove it.

For the removal of piping and the removal of extra links from entries, both of these will only be done on lines beginning with a "*". In both cases, it would be necessary to look for linked terms which contain the title of the disambiguation page. So, if the page is x or x (disambiguation):

If an entry (line beginning with a "*") has exactly one linked term with x in it, and that term is piped in such a way that [[blah blah containing the word x, whatever]] becomes [[blah blah containing the word x, whatever|blah blah containing the word x]], then remove the piping. Similarly, if [[blah blah containing the word x(whatever)]] is piped into [[blah blah containing the word x(whatever)|blah blah containing the word x]], remove the piping.

The removal of extra blue links will be done in a similar fashion. If the page is x or x (disambiguation):

If an entry has exactly one blue linked term with x in it, and if there are other blue or redlinked terms in the entry, then de-link the other terms in the entry.

I'm unsure of exactly how difficult it would be to spot whether a linked term was blue-linked or not, I'm guessing it would be necessary to look at the html code of the page, rather than just having the bot hit the edit button and look at that text. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I guess handling piped links in the way you describe should be fine.

I'll post to your talk page (and the WikiProject) after doing trial edits so we can analyze and discuss them before the massive editing rampage begins. (Or possibly earlier, if I run into any dilemas before that.) I expect to be done with the programming within a few days, so the trial edits will probably be done within a week. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. There are other details I haven't mentioned yet; one is that we need to make sure the bot doesn't touch any set index articles. I don't think that will be a problem, as I think they don't use the regular disambiguation tags, but instead use {{shipindex}} and others. There are a number of categories, such as Category:Ship disambiguation, which are a subset of Category:Disambiguation and whose articles should be left alone, but then some of the sub categories would be fine for the bot to fix. These subcategories probably only represent a tiny percentage of the disambiguation pages, so if the bot missed a few it would be no big deal, whereas if the bot cleaned up some it wasn't supposed to, there might be an angry response. I think that just sticking to pages which contain {{disambig}}/{{disambiguation}}/{{dab}}/{{disamb}} would eliminate the set index articles, but I'm not exactly sure. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't thought about that yet. My plan was to go through the articles with {{disambig}} first, then go through the other templates in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. I'll be sure to inspect the templates first so that I can skip ones like Template:SIA. I think you're right that just using {{disambig}} should work, but just to be safe I'll have the bot skip any articles if it finds Category:Set indices (or Category:Set indices on __), in case some editors used a different disambiguation template but added the SIA category manually. It's nice being able to work with both templates and categories. :-) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game)

Glancing over Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game) without having put a drop of coffee into my body, I don't see a single sentence which references the visual style at all. Which means that in an "identification and critical commentary" sense, all three images served solely for the purpose of identification. While I agree an ingame screenshot might be useful to clarify discussions of "cell shading, blend modes, and so forth", neither of those word pairs arise anywhere in the article. In articles with more in depth discussions, Beyond this, my own experience is that I'm fairly liberal in what I see as acceptable within the tiny subset of admins who muck in on images. This may be because I have an ironclad legal defense if I make a poor decision ("you can't get blood from a stone"), I don't know. Take a gander at the captions, for instance "Hogwarts is a huge castle just waiting to be explored" and "Dumbledore locked in combat with Lord Voldemort". Neither depict some gameplay point that's dicussed, or a plot event, or anything of that nature. They're just decorative. Looking it over again, I remained convinced that my closure was right. You can try DRV if you like, but I suspect the results will be no better. Only the few admins with a burning desire to be wildly unpopular close image deletion discussions. A better approach would be to fix up the prose first (which is atrocious) and include either discussion that makes those images necessary, or find alternative screenshots which necessary for the prose. WilyD 11:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. Be aware that valid NFCC#8 is very sensitive to usage, though - apart from a handfull of examples, I don't think it's generally easy to talk about classes of cases. WilyD 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot problems

I looked at some of the bot's edits, I didn't realize you were going to be implementing it so quickly. There's something I hadn't mentioned yet, which will need to be taken into account. When fixing the piping in a link, besides the previous rules I mentioned, the bot should also preserve any italics or quotes it finds. That is to say:

If the bot sees:

• [[Voodoo (album)|''Voodoo'' (album)]], a 2000 soul album by D'Angelo

This is correct, and shouldn't be changed. As per the manual of style, this is one of the proper uses of piping, to add italics to something that actually should have italics.

Furthermore, if the bot sees:

• [[Voodoo (album)|''Voodoo'']], a 2000 soul album by D'Angelo

What we would actually like is to convert it into the first example above, to add the (album) into the piping. A complete set of rules would be something like (if the page is Voodoo):

[[Voodoo, whatever|Voodoo]] should be changed to [[Voodoo, whatever]] (this will almost always end up being place names, with [[City, country]] or [[City, state]] inappropriately piped)

[[Voodoo (whatever)|Voodoo]] should be changed to [[Voodoo (whatever)]]

[[Voodoo (whatever)|''Voodoo'']] should be changed to [[Voodoo (whatever)|''Voodoo'' (whatever)]]

[[Voodoo (whatever)|"Voodoo"]] should be changed to [[Voodoo (whatever)|"Voodoo" (whatever)]]

There are unfortunately a few more slightly more complicated things which could ideally be fixed. That is:

''[[Voodoo (whatever)|Voodoo]]'' should be changed to [[Voodoo (whatever)|''Voodoo'' (whatever)]]

"[[Voodoo (whatever)|Voodoo]]" should be changed to [[Voodoo (whatever)|"Voodoo" (whatever)]]

(Note, now that I've finished and saved the above, at least on my screen, I can't see the difference between the two single quote marks in a row, which create italics, and the double quote mark. You may have to hit the edit button to see the difference between some of the examples above) Hopefully this added complication won't be too much of a bother. What do you think? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, some of that will be tricky, but certainly doable (and probably worth it, considering how many articles will be affected). Thanks for bringing this up -- I'll get to work on implementing it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Further potential problem: here's a quote from the bot approval page:

"Where piped links are found within the description of a disambiguation item, the links are removed and replaced with the alternate text (i.e., the string to the right of the pipe) Links within the description of an item are removed unless the item has no link at the beginning, in which case the page is listed for human review"

This should only be done if the link at the beginning contains the text of title of the page, and if it's a blue link. See the following example, from Silva (disambiguation)

• Silva (Valença), a parish in the municipality of Valença, Portugal

We would not want the bot to de-link Valença, Portugal.

I'm not exactly sure what rules your bot is operating by at the moment, but basically, you can't assume that the link at the beginning of an entry is the proper one. I've seen pages where the links which should go at the beginning have all been placed at the end of each entry. And it's very common for editors to put the word "the" in front of many entries on a page. Here's an example of something one might see, from an old version of Sillery:

• the [[commune in France|commune]] called [[Sillery, Marne|Sillery]] in the [[Marne]] ''[[département in France|département]]'', in [[France]]
• the district (formerly City) of [[Sillery, Quebec|Sillery]], now part of [[Quebec City]], in [[Canada]]

I think the best thing would be for the bot to be able to check all the links in an entry, and if it finds exactly one blue linked term containing the article title, de-pipe it (if necessary) and de-link all the other links. If the only linked term in an entry which contains the article title is a redlink, the bot simply can't know which other terms in the entry to de-link, and shouldn't de-link anything (although it could still de-pipe the redlink if neeeded).

--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The current behavior is actually very similar to that, I just didn't describe it very well in the RFBA -- I tend to over-explain things so I left out some details. The only difference (I think) between the current behavior and what you describe is that currenty the bot doesn't de-link anything in cases where there is exactly one blue link and it isn't at the beginning. So in pseudocode it looks roughly like this:

• If a disambiguation item contains links that are not at the beginning:
  • If there is a link at the beginning of the item AND that link is blue:
    • Strip all other links
  • Else:
    • List the article for human review, noting the line number of this disambiguation item

(De-piping is handled separate, thus not shown above.) Does this look okay? I think removing links where there is one blue link not at the beginning would be useful for the "The [[link]]" and "A [[link]]" cases, but might be unconstructive in cases where the actual subject (i.e., what should go at the beginning) is in red. (For example, "A [[red link]] is a type of [[blue link]]"). I guess the difference isn't very importance since the article is listed for human review in either case. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we could probably get away with the above. It would be very rare that the first word in an entry would be a blue link which should be unlinked, although it does happen occasionally. If the bot improperly delinks something 1 time in 1000, this would not be a crisis. On the other hand, there are many thousands of entries spread across the DAB pages which begin with "the", so it would be nice to have the bot handle these, and they'd likely have to be handled in the way I had described above. (But, it would be no crisis if the bot didn't handle these at all. I would much rather have a bot that does 95% of what it could do than to make things so difficult for you in a push for perfection that you give the whole thing up!) --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Emma Taylor

I tagged it because now this is a redirect and not an article. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AmericanLegendsmoviebyWaltDisney1954

Hi, Daniel. I don't often disagree with administrators having been one myself at one time, but I feel as if I must do so respectfully at this time. User:AmericanLegendsmoviebyWaltDisney1954 is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Lyle123, a hard-banned user. In this case, even a supposedly good-faith edit has to be deleted. I refer to the near-contentless article he created about that Disney film. It's not only a clear-cut A1 and/or A3, most of the info he put wasn't and isn't correct. For example, I am unaware of Warner Bros. distributing any Disney film either here or overseas. If this film is worth an article, it's worth doing right and definitely worth doing under the correct title and without a hard-banned user in the edit history. Thanks for your consideration. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• There still isn't much there, and if it's over the A3 threshold, I'm OK with that. It's just that this guy is hard-banned and I don't want to encourage him by letting this stay. It's not much more than the infobox and a half-formed synopsis. Tell you what: I'll copy the infobox now that it's fixed and start a new article under the correct title. That way, you can delete the existing version and we'll have a good, clean start without him in the edit history. I'll get to work right now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I'd left word with him as well since I saw he was active at the blocked users page. I've just recreated it under the proper title. Technically, it wasn't even a "film" as Lyle123 would have us believe, but a minor home video presentation showcasing some old Disney shorts. Thanks for the help. I greatly appreciate it and I appreciate what you do here even more. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah...found out that two of the shorts don't have articles and boy, they need them. Can't do them today, but I will soon. Thanks aagain for the help. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gate City Bank

Hello! You had removed the speedy delete tag that I put on Gate City Bank earlier today. I just wanted to update you that I submitted the article for AfD consideration -- I thought that you might be interested in offering input in that discussion.

Also...if you don't mind my saying, you appear to be the very first administrator I've seen on Wikipedia that never issued a block to a misbehaving editor. (Your block log came up empty.) I hope this is not rude, but is there any reason for your lack of blocking to date? Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My research showed Gate City Bank's notability was very marginal, which is why I put it up for erasure. Hey, to build your blocking record -- if you want, I can start running around making trouble, just to get you started! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Only kidding - Wikipedia has enough vandals without having me join the fracas. Thanks, again, for your feedback! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Tag or Deletion

Arriving here, the radio just started playing Elton John's Daniel. Hopefully it's a good sign. You edited the image http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3A2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg&diff=221622800&oldid=221534019 accepting the claim of being irreplacable , but the tag remaining states it will be deleted on June 30th. The Administrator who deleted it from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier actually wrote it made the person in the event look too good and removed it. Because the article is not that well known yet, there is no consensus in the Discussion for removal or restoration. The companion image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg was also removed from the article by the same Administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn. In discussion he stated the images can be restored to the article, but he will not do it himself. What happens now? The Administrator who posted the images with the tag he deemed appropriate and created the article has been away and not available to defend his work. Being new to Wikipedia I have not yet developed any friends or allies on site, and while I type with my index fingers only, I have no clue how to restore the thumbnails to the article. While these images were speedily removed within minutes, the information in this image link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg was sent to Wikipedia permissions 8 days ago, and it is still not mounted to the article. Would you or anyone please guide me in the steps to do this? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your effort, but the article is totally destroyed, but I'm no stranger to disappointment. I had hoped to be able to complete it and then find someone to help me to perfect it so it would read encyclopedic. The interaction with Trudeau concurrent to the 3 Popes was factual and prophetic, not fantasy. I have copies obtained under the Access to Information Act of RCMP reports confirming the substance of those facts. The Declaration on Remembrance Day Day 1985, in the presence of the Governor-General of Canada, Government Leaders, the Military, Ambassadors of the Nations and 25,000 people he publicly declared,

"Hear O people and Nations, even to the ends of the Earth, the Word of the Lord God who is, and was, and is to come, The Almighty. The Lord has a controversy with the people. Do you do well to honour the dead, and yet, deny the God of the Living? Why do you follow the vain traditions of men, and make of no effect, the principles of God? You come here for one hour one day a year in a great show of public patriotism, and then forgetting, go back to work and make the same careless mistakes made by the generations prior to the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Hitler was killed, but it's his legacy that remains. A Soviet-American military-industrial complex consuming $trillions of dollars every year, holding the entire World hostage............"

"Hostage" was the last word he said perched on a bus shelter roof, as police got up and grabbed his megaphone. He was arrested for shouting, causing a disturbance, convicted and fined $250. He appealed without a lawyer to the Supreme Court of Canada.[16][17][18] is exactly factual, prophetic and important, referenced and in Court documents. The world is being held hostage to the War on terrorism. What further verification is required? Since I discovered the article April 19, approximately 2500 views were registered to the page from an average of 60 views a month for the two years previous. According to Wikipedia because they did not object is considered consent to the way it read. This paragraph from the article I consider to be significantly important and prophetic. "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. There was an off site link so a user could read directly 19:11 and 9/11 from Revelation themselves. Deleting this information will not stop what is already in motion. This could have been edited to be more encyclopedic in style. I just don't understand how an article on a prophet could be relevant with the prophecies deleted. Thanks again. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

not#news

Your clarification had e.g. this effect. Would you consider clarifying your clarification? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this attempt at combining your and LessHeard vanU's variants:

While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, Wikipedia is not the place for breaking news or updates of expectably or fixed short validity period, even if sourced, since edits are supposed to be based on information of lasting encyclopedic value.

or:

While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, Wikipedia is not the place for breaking news or updates the validity of which is known or can be expected to expiry shortly, even if sourced, since edits are supposed to be based on information of lasting encyclopedic value.

I'm not sure how best to phrase the part follwing "breaking news or updates" (not a native speaker here), but I think you get the picture of what I'm trying to express. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Information concerning recent developments should be included only if it has lasting encyclopedic value. is very elegant, I like it! Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:XDanielx/RfA review

I think you forgot to finish one of your answers; the answer to the Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience? question seems to end abruptly. seresin (public computer) 01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Daniel. I've replied to some of the concerns raised by you and other editors. Please see my RfA. Regards,Masterpiece2000 (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom history

You said (somewhere): "We have never seen a successful reelection bid". Have a look at Wikipedia talk:ARBCOM#New arbitrator, where I said: "Technically, I think Raul and Fred Bauder both regained seats after an election, though not after sitting for three years previously. Raul in July 2004 and December 2004 was "directly elected" (if you think using that term is correct when all are technically appointed), while Fred was one of several appointed with "community support" to terms of less than three years, after the elections in January 2006." In the case of Raul, I had thought he was on the committee before July 2004, but I now see that he was initially elected at that point. His December election was for three years after serving for six months. Fred's reappointment was for two years after serving for two years previously. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Images tagged for deletion

Daniel my brother, You interceded once in support of retaining this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg by saying, valid claim of irreplacibility given -- image primarily depicts an event, not just a person. I was so appreciative for that and I thought the dispute was resolved up until today when the ADM who first removed it has now tagged it for speedy deletion again. Being new here with no friends or supporters, would you please help me? I am suspect of the user NPOV because in his profile he claims to be strongly atheist and how can he be 100% objective about an image with that title? I can't post an opinion because it's an image of me 32 years ago. I really need other users to post an opinion or it will be deleted soon. Thanks with appreciation. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your post re image deletions. Actually I did ask The Citizen for permission to post the images and they just flat denied it. I contacted the reporter from the Edmonton Journal who wrote a story on my 4000 mile hitchhiking trip from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon. 27 years ago in 1981. She's still there and loved re-reading her own work from when she was young. The administrators removed all reference to that trip, but mention my trip 5 years later East to complete my Canada wide mission. It doesn't make sense as it is, and I recused myself from making any edits to the article which is proper. I'm active in discussion. The information is in history for others to convert to Wiki language. I'm looking for volunteers.Sadly the reality is all the referenced newsreports are owned by the same Holding Company and they all say no. Giving permission wouldn't diminish the commercial value of it at all after 31 years. They see no profit promoting a prophet. Thank God for the internet. It's still news for people in Ottawa and beyond today if they weren't there in 1977. While I'm trying,I haven't made any friends on Wikipedia yet so I need help. The article is about me and I only discovered it April 19 started by someone I met once two years ago. He researched my talk and confirmed it by creating it. I'm going to try and make peace with J Milburn. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images of living people

Daniel, Foundation policy as expressed at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy expressely prohibits the use of non-free media to depict living people. This is such a core principle that there's virtually never any doubt about it. We simply don't do it. I've re-removed the fair use images that you put back onto the various baseball player articles that I removed them from. Please do not put them back on again as this is very, very clearly against Foundation policy. There's even a highlighted case that is quite similar at Wikipedia:NFC#Multimedia #7. If you think this is wrong, take it up at WT:FU. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Trevino

When closing AfDs, the {{subst:afd top}} template goes above the header, not below it. Just a reminder... —Kurykh 22:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my view on the ArbCom RfC...

The reason I want to see at least two "tranches" (call them shifts, groups, or whatever), is so that we don't have a situation where we lose institutional memory of recent issues. Lets say ArbCom have been very unpopular/stressful over the last year, and a vast majority of the ACTIVE Arbitrators either decline to re-run, or are voted out in one fell swoop. You lose institutional memory of past issues that comes from having the same group hear issues a second time.

The way I had it explained to me, is "If someone convinces the Arbitrators that they're the good guys on one ArbCom case, but comes back again... someone might note that this person has been here before for these issues, and they might not be so willing to take this person at their word the second time around."

Also, again, it takes some time for new members of the Arbitration Committee to get up to speed with the various procedures, and it's good to have an existing group kinda smooth the newcomers way when starting. Again, if a vast majority of the Committee is voted out at one go, you don't have that buffer.

And finally, let's look at the current issues surrounding the ArbCom. Let's be frank. If all the arbitrators re-ran today, for an election, how many of them do you think would be voted out right now? In December, (the next scheduled ArbCom election), this will LIKELY have faded into a distant memory by then.. (I can never speak for the community, we tend to hold and cherish our grudges, don't we?) By not having all the ArbCom elections at one time, we run the risk of the Wikipedia version of a Moral panic having too great an effect on the composition of the Committee.

Hope you don't mind this lengthy view on where I'm coming from... SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)