User talk:Lee Daniel Crocker: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:26, 14 November 2014

can I use Java applets in Wiki? Similar to http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/MSet/MJintro.htm Evgeny

Is your jpg really smaller than my png? Ericd

Not by much, surprizingly, but enough that old modem users would still prefer it. It's almost always the case, though, that PNG is not efficient for photographic images--and wasn't intended to be. I'm the person who invented the adaptive-prefiltering compression technique that PNG uses, and it was optimized for iconic drawings (altough we tried to make sure it wasn't too bad for photos either). JPEG is almost always the best format for photographs.

My picture was 64 gray levels to optimize size I believed ther will be no reel difference.

That's why the saving wasn't as dramatic, then. But it still went from over 40k down to 16k, and that's not insignificant.

Lee - what do we do when people are obviously ignoring our image use policy and not responding to requests for copyright information? --mav

I haven't seen any major problems yet, but if you can't figure out any way to reach someone, deleting an image or two usually gets their attention. BTW, it's quite likely that unknown uploaders are Polish/German/French wikipedians (I found Aioneko at fr, for example) so that might be another place to look. Who are you worried about? -- Lee

user:Dwhitney just uploaded an image of a engine block with no copyright info that looks like it is a scan from a cars manual. user:Isis is uploading many images -- none of which seem to have copyright info (including videotape covers). I'm also wary about the overuse of fair use -- our previous image use policy was to only accept public domain images and those covered by an acceptable open content license. This allowed somebody to copy the text and the article by using similar licenses. Now we have sound clips. If anything we need to have a very clear statement that the text of Wikipedia is covered by the GNU FDL but any images or other files may be owned by others who have not placed their work under an open content license. We are probably OK because we are using this stuff for educational purposes -- but others copying our material and trying to abide by our license may want to sell this stuff. --mav

Dwhitney was only a few ours ago. I just contacted him (he has a valid e=mail address), so give him some time to respond. Isis is a special case. She has a valid e-mail address as well, and has been very cooperative when contacted (Jimbo and I have been talking to her about helping form the non-profit). She is also a lawyer with IP experience, so she knows what she's talking about. I agree that we would certainly prefer images in the PD or licensed under appropriate terms rather than ones used under "fair use"--as you say, it means that people copying Wikipedia articles won't necessarily be able to copy the images that accompany them unless they too follow fair use guidelines, whereas our text has no such restrictions. Most of Kay's stuff is old enough to have fallen out of copyright, but obviously the videotape covers and such haven't.

I think the "fair use" material is so valuable to some of the articles, though, that it would be a shame to get rid of it, so I think you're right that a stronger statement should be made on the copyright pages that only our text is covered by the GFDL, and images might have different terms. I just can't imagine any reasonable coverage of the white album, for example, without letting readers hear the amazing diversity of arrangements and subjects for themselves.

In a way, including such material actually helps our cause a bit: for example, we would like for other non-profit educational sites to use our material. They would have an equal fair use claim to us, so they could take our material in toto. But a for-profit site that we might not want to use our material might not qualify for the same fair use exception, and so could only use our text.

In any case, I think you're right that a more detailed statement is needed, probably both on wikipedia:copyrights and wikipedia:image use policy.

Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but how, legally, are images different from ASCII-encoded text as far as our license goes? --Brion 17:29 Aug 31, 2002 (PDT)

LDC - I really like your rewrite of the Social Darwinism article. It reads much better now, the flow of ideas is much more streamlined, and the differences with and confusion with sociobiology are well highlighted. Kudos! -- April

Odd question. Under the Berne Convention, anything is copyright once it's in a fixed medium. Under the DMCA, if you bypass encryption to access a copyrighted file, you break the law. I write you an email using GPG, you decrypt it, you violate the DMCA (the email is copyright me, unless I explicitly disclaim copyright--J.D. Salinger set a precedent on this one in re: personal letters he'd sent a friend, who gave them to an author who wanted to publish them in a book on Salinger). Therefore the DMCA explodes either itself or copyright--nothing copyright can be decrypted without violating the DMCA, or encryption itself is illegal (including for DVDs). I must be missing something. --KQ 03:37 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, the contents of mail is copyrighted by the sender, but the very act of mailing should be an obvious expression of intent that the recipient read it--that's the whole purpose. The DMCA only outlaws "bypassing access controls" for unintended accesses; it certainly doesn't apply to playing a legally-bought DVD on a legally-bought DVD player, or reading your own mail, both of which require decryption as the copyright holder intended. It would be illegal for me to read your mail, or even for me to sell a program that allowed some third party to read your mail.

Hm, I knew that seemed too easy. So if I understand it correctly, the DMCA just ... uh ... doesn't make much sense. You could be prosecuted for breaking rot13 on a message? --KQ

Lee, I and 128.whoever went back and forth on the vandalism in progress page also, but of us changing unattributed comments about 128's actions and motives (at the first bullet about him), so that may be what he's thinking of. At one point I removed the "he is otherwise rational" bit and the part about his comment to Brion, thinking that might calm him down. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have--it may not have been signed, but it was still someone else's comment. I've also reverted tarquin's comment at the second bullet after 128 changed it. --KQ 18:30 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should have signed the comment, and maybe it was ruder than necessary. And removing a comment (or even editing one for grammar, putting *** over profanity, or other kinds of edits) is far, far, different from changing it to something else. --LDC

I wonder if you have been keeping an eye on the Aria Giovanni talk webpage. The situation there is out of control.

Matters have deteriorated to a highly abusive level over a website link. Of special concern is the general conduct and attitude of someone called NetEsq, who claims in his details to be a lawyer.

He has repeatedly abused anyone who opposed the idea of the website link with such tactics and traits as net misettiquete ( eg the use of the word 'you' in capitals and bold to emphasise shouting), a poor grasp of history, the unrepentant use of such provocative terms as 'Nazi' (which I hope is an example of his poor grasp of history) , out of context quotes and attempted alienation ("only YOU opppose it"). He writes of defending freedom of expression, yet cannot tolerate it from others when they give an opinion he does not like. So far three persons have been under fire by him, with the treatment of one of them especially deplorable.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his beliefs, it is very advisable to bring this most unruly and arrogant person into line.

Given that your name is on the list of persons who can ban users (you banned an IP address a while ago, so I assume you're a wikipedia person), I thought it highly advisable to bring this to your attention, before it leads to persons leaving the wikipedia - something likely to stroke Netesq's already aggressive ego.

Lee, could you kindly take a look at User talk:Isis? Also, did you ever get a reply from the CIA about using their original artwork for the flag images? Thanks. Scipius 22:22 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

You seem like you're knowledgeable about such things. I understand video and book covers can be uploaded as fair use, does the same thing apply to album covers? It seems logical to me, but I thought I should ask you first. Tokerboy 23:04 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

Album covers should indeed be no different under "fair use" doctrine than the video and book covers already here, but the RIAA is a lot nastier about threatening to sue over such things. But they haven't made any noise about our sound clips yet, so either we're still below their radar or else they realize how futile such a suit would be (my guess is the former--the latter would presume some intelligence on their part).

I can create text files, MySQL databases, excel spreadsheets, word documents, or whatever else you might need to add articles Wikipedia. It would also be grand if you had some way to change the wiki software to accomodate as discussed in the Village Pump. Whatever the case, just get back to me on what to do. I was discussing with Maverick various things on my talk page and you might find some of that interesting as well. I'm not going to run the bot at one article per minute at this point because it is too slow to be practical (see the discussion on my talk page). -- Ram-Man

Clicking on what links to United States Census Bureau? took 1 minute 20 seconds before any output, and was still rendering three minutes later when I killed it. This looks like a very expensive link to click. The Anome 08:35 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Other links that I expect to have similar behavior will be the corresponding ones for 2000, African American, Native American, km², and any other pages linked by thousands of Ram-Man's articles. This isn't Ram-Man's fault: the software should be able to cope better with this: perhaps some use of LIMIT in the SQL queries would be useful? The Anome

Yes, it takes a long time to render a page with a lot of links, so a "what links here" page with hundreds of entries will be expensive. You're probably right that it might be worth writing some special-case code for that. --LDC

I'm suspicious of the validity of adding work to Wikipedia that's not coverable by the GFDL (as described in Wikipedia:copyrights). Isn't this a basic problem? -The Cunctator

Text would definitely be a problem, and I think we're pretty clear that we don't want text that isn't free. But images really are a different case; I think "fair use" images are OK, because it's an easy distinction to make, the utility of Wikipedia would suffer greatly if we couldn't use such images, and using such images does not detract from the goal of creating our own text.

I don't know that it would suffer greatly; there are a bunch of public domain images out there, and Wikipedia is a great opportunity to encourage people to generate more. But I can see both sides of the argument.

On the other hand, I'm extremely uncomfortable about contaminating the Wikipedia feed with content that can't be used by downstream licensees. If we didn't use any GFDL content ourselves, then we wouldn't be limited by the GFDL conditions, but we do (or at least would like to be able to).

Whatever the case, it's certainly not in the spirit of the GFDL to include non-free (the RMS def.) images.

I certainly think that it's crazy to imagine a legal setup in which image use as we do would be forbidden, but we live in a crazy world, with DRM around the corner.

Finally, "fair use" is, unfortunately, a defense. If someone challenges the use of their images, we would have to prove "fair use" in court, after the injunction. The fair use defense is sadly weak. --The Cunctator

In practice, if the copyright holder of an image complained, we would have to remove the image rather than attempt to defend our fair use rights. Just as it would be a very bad idea to have non-free text, I think it would be a bad idea to have articles that depend on non-free images, and if you find such an article, it would be appropriate to call attention to that problem. An image that's just an illustration to an otherwise complete article (like the video and album covers, for example) shouldn't be a problem, although you're right that it could be a problem for downstream use (although most such downstream uses will have the same fair use rights we do).

In my expert opinion, Cunctator's assumption that "we would have to prove 'fair use' in court, after the injunction" is mistaken: The three elements a movant has to show to get a preliminary injunction are probability of success on the merits, threat of irreparable harm, and equity (or the balancing of the harms) favors the movant. The movant bears the burden on all three elements and, before the court gets to them, bears the burden of showing there is no adequate remedy at law, or injunction will not lie. Since someone complaining of copyright infringement could not make any one of those showings (let alone all four of them), they're never going to get an injunction to start with. -- isis 07:25 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

We should probably move this debate to another page... I think it's vital that "fair use" images are marked as such. For example, if we later produce a paper snapshot of Wikipedia (the idea cropped up on the mailing list a while ago), we'd need to know which images we must omit. -- Tarquin

I don't understand the concept of "'fair use' image," either by itself or in the context it's used in here. The images we use under what we call the "fair use" doctrine are not copyrighted. Here's what Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.) says, and see if this makes what I'm saying clearer (italics added for emphasis & citation omitted):

FAIR USAGE. The doctrine of "fair usage" means that the matter which was under copyright was neither copied nor adopted, but that the uncopyrightable underlying idea was used, since a theme or idea is not copyrightable.

What I don't understand is what "which images we must omit" is about -- I can't think of any situation in which any image in the 'pedia should be "omitted." Would someone please enlighten me? -- isis 11:26 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

I was thinking of album cover thumbnails & sound clips -- wouldn't a a CD or paper version of Wikipedia, even if sold at-cost, have to omit those? -- Tarquin

No, no way, never, huh-uh. -- isis 11:40 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

The only possible time such an image might have to be omitted is in a commercially sold reproduction of Wikipedia (that weakens our "fair use" position but probably wouldn't destroy it), and since we don't plan on ever doing that, it shouldn't be a problem. If we made a paper reproduction distributed in accordance with our educational purposes, the same fair use rights would apply to that.

With all due respect, I must dissent from that opinion: Under Fed.R.Evid. 1001, for example, any copy of the 'pedia is interchangeable with any other (and/or the "original" -- whatever that means in this context), so whether we charge for our efforts in producing a particular copy or not is immaterial.

I've just realized what's been bothering some Users about the videotape covers: They don't understand what a copyright on the packaging means. I should have caught on sooner and told them the fact they were missing to ease their minds: A copyright on a videotape cover design prohibits anyone else's making a videotape cover/box/package with that same (or too much like it) design, but it does not prohibit anyone's taking a picture of it to show to anyone (commercially or not) when talking about the content of the tape in that box. If it did, the copyright laws would be unconstitutional, and those statutes are intended to further the 1st Amendment, not violate it. -- isis 20:20 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

Sounds like the matter is resolved (but Isis, note that we're dealing internationally here -- 1st amendment is a local thing ;-) Wikipedia:Copyright issues seems to be a good spot to move this conversation to -- but boy does that page need a clean-up! Anyone feel like picking the information out of that huge discussion? -- Tarquin

I'm copying this great discussion over to m:Wikipedia and copyright issues. --mav

I just want to give you rousing cheers for your arguments in the talk on Naming conventions (anglicization). Gritchka

Please take a peak at User talk:Dewlaylomo/ban. I think an administrator should take some action. MB 02:35 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Lee. Brion said you have a test server which you have been known to hand out accounts to. Can I have one? To find out why I'm asking, see User talk:Tim Starling. In brief, Eloquence is pushing me to do less talk and more action when it comes to PHP code. -- Tim Starling 06:07 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Could a developer check to see if User:Eddie is loging in using User:Michael's ip range (i.e. 152.163.25x.xxx)? He has been reverting articles of User:Michael's back to user Michael's content in a sneaky way. I just want to make sure it is or isn't User:Michael. If it is him, please ban the account. Thanks. MB 17:41 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

User:Fuck is Michael, please ban and delete the account, or whatever is nessesary.

Michael is back as User:Weezer/NOFX, attempts to reason with him to E-mail Jimbo have come to nothing, usual mind-games, alas, please ban the account. The Anome 15:10 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

user:My Green Dice is also Michael-- Green Dice, with spaces, not MyRedDice, without. Anyway, he's moving Hephaestos' page to different places; could you block him please? Thanks. Koyaanis Qatsi 01:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

SARS poker. heh. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:28 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Dear Lee, could you possibly add User:The Anomebot to the list of registered bots? It's well debugged and non-controversial, and has been working without causing any fuss on and off for a couple of days. If it is registered, I intend to speed it up to one hit per minute, with an extra safety back-off feature (measure transaction time, take min of a multiple of this and the programmed delay) that will stop it from being a nuisance when the server is heavily loaded. -- The Anome 22:13 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lee - since I'm already both a developer and a root sysadmin on both boxes, do you mind making me a sysop as well? Thanks! -- Marumari 20:45 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Lee. -- Marumari 16:22 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Could you ban User:67.121.169.17 (Michael) ASAP? MB 23:25, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop. I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely-戴&#30505sv 23:00, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Lee,

I'm working on a project based on the wikipedia MediaWiki engine to create a set of annotations on Neal Stephenson's upcoming book Quicksilver. It's going to be a public site. I've seeded some of the entries with text from the Wikipedia for our internal release, and I wanted to invite you to participate and also ask you whether it's OK to use some of the Wikipedia content for our public release (I realize the license is GFDL, but I still wanted to make sure we don't launch without asking). Send me email and I can give you the URL and password for the internal site. patrick@appliedminds.net --Zippy 21:32, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi there, you have been listed as "inactive" on Wikipedia:Administrators. Please remove the notice when it is out of date. Cheers, Cyan 01:36, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject Philosophy

Hi Lee! The articles to which you contributed on philosophy are fantastic -- I particularly liked Karl Popper. I'm trying to create a meeting-spot for philosophically-inclined pedians over on WikiProject Philosophy, so that we can work on articles together, and I'd like to invite you to join us. If you're interested, drop on in -- no obligation, of course. — Adam Conover † 21:03, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I could not find this issue covered in the FAQ's and would suspect it could only be fixed by a Wikitech doing a DB query directly; so I'm asking for your wisdom on this. Short version: can the update "14:07, 12 Apr 2004 . . 211.29.136.11" of Anti-globalization_movement be corrected to my user:Daeron identity?

By time I've hit the "Save Page" button, I've been logged out resulting in the change becoming anonymous. In this case as it's an article which is under a neutrality dispute notice, I would wish any concerns about my input to be addressed; as well as taking responsibility for my own input :-)

Public Domain

Since you've released your changes into the public domain, you can add {{MultiLicensePD}} to your user page to let everyone know using the template, if you prefer that. -- Ram-Man 02:22, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:Ivaraasen.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:42, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Also Image:Vo Nguyen Giap.jpg

Image:Clupeiformis.jpg

Greetings! I was wondering about the source for Image:Clupeiformis.jpg, which you uploaded. I can't find the image in the NOAA image library, and I'd like to get hold of the original scan. Can you tell me where you found it? (I've searched under "whitefish", "clupeiformis", "clupeaformis", "cisco", and "coregonus"—all the terms I can think of.) Thanks! —Tkinias 22:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

What should I do if I find a page which is been constatly vandalized? The page: Olavo de Carvalho is under severe atack. Some people are putting untrue and profanation, ofensive information and using bad language. I have fixed the page twice but I think it is not enough. Also I have added a protected template (I dont know if I did it right or not, If I did something wrong excuse me). I would appreciate if you could help me with this. -- Thank you very much. Carlosar 02:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page update problem

Hi Lee. There seems to be a problem when pages are updated: you do a whole load of edits and the page updates fine. But the next day, say, when you look at the page again the updates have not been effective and the page version many edits before is displayed. When you go to the history page all the edits are there and the 'last' version of the page is updated OK. This has just happend on the transistor page after edits yesterday. This fault has happend a couple of times before on this page. Is it something I am doing (Wikipedia rookie) or is there a system problem or is it my browser (MS IE)? I just had another look at the transistor page and it is OK now. Regards -- CPES 14:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Benjamindavis sm.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Benjamindavis sm.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

--Ellmist 18:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's no longer necessary to keep separate small images around, since the software now does server-side image rescaling, so this should be deleted. LDC 23:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mediawiki error on wikipedia

Hello Lee,

I saw your name in the FAQ so I thought it was probabely best to report this problem to you: When trying to visit this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

I get this error:

Warning: mysql_query(): Unable to save result set in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.4/includes/Database.php on line 324
Unable to free MySQL result 
Backtrace:

Database.php line 469 calls wfdebugdiebacktrace() 
User.php line 464 calls databasemysql::freeresult() 
SkinTemplate.php line 254 calls user::getnewtalk() 
OutputPage.php line 417 calls skinmonobook::outputpage() 
OutputPage.php line 614 calls outputpage::output() 
Database.php line 360 calls outputpage::databaseerror() 
Database.php line 309 calls databasemysql::reportqueryerror() 
Parser.php line 3005 calls databasemysql::query() 
Parser.php line 195 calls parser::replacelinkholders() 
OutputPage.php line 243 calls parser::parse() 
Article.php line 795 calls outputpage::addprimarywikitext() 
index.php line 127 calls article::view()

Any idea what's going on? Sander Marechal 15:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back :) I hope you find Wikipedia has changed for the good. - Mark 06:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Acrobat web capture

I habitually use Acrobat web capture to save web pages of interest because it preserves links and lets me save additional pages that are linked from the initial pages. This doesn't seem to work with Wikipedia. I've looked in the robot.txt file and FAQ's and didn't see any mention of Acrobat Web Capture as being some that is discouraged or blocked. Is it a local setting on my machine or the application or is there a policy on this that I failed to find, maybe my search technique was inadequate? Is this question common enough to be worthy of mention in the FAQ's?

Scott 7-18-2005

If your problem is links dissapearing then it probablly means acrobat web capture is using the print stylesheet. Otherwise no idea. Plugwash 21:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interlacing

Adam7 algorithm claims that adam7 was based on an earlier very similar 5 pass algorithm by you. Was your algorithm simply

or was there some other subtule differance between your algorithm and adam7? Plugwash 21:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Sulfates category

Hello, I don't know if you are the appropriate person to help with this, but I ask anyway. Plase take a look to the sulfates category, it shows a lot of fluorides, compounds that do not belong to that category. The problem is that none of the fluoride articles indicates that it belongs to the sulfate categories; in other words there are no links within those articles (as fas as I can see) to the sulfate category. Neither there is any link in the sulfate category page to any of those fluorides. How can we fix that, is it a bug in Wikipedia? Sorry, but I'm still not familiar with categories. Best regards, I appreciate your help. --Paiconos 15:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird history problem

I've got a semi-non-cache problem. I reloaded my history page ( 68.110.171.226 ), and got new entries - but not all of them...

23:13, 3 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Freeze distillation (~ender - fix s) (top) 23:12, 3 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Freeze distillation (~ender - add fusel alcohols) 22:57, 3 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Eddy-Current Testing (~ender - creation: some random

But it's missing (at least) this one from Talk:Freeze_distillation:

23:10, 3 October 2005 68.110.171.226 (~ender - thx for the lead, but I still like to know more...)

So, I think it's not a problem on my end, but not sure where to track it down.

~ender 2005-10-04 01:02:MST

Image:Johannes-brahms.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Johannes-brahms.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Cb queenside.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cb queenside.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Cb knight move.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cb knight move.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Cb kingside.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cb kingside.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ignore All Rules

Mr. Crocker, you are the oldest listed editor of the Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules article. I believe the IAR is getting so convoluted that it needs clarification, particularly in the philosophical area of "What is the purpose of rules?" If you would add your thoughts to discussion, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for any insight you can give. --Zephram Stark 13:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Property

Lee, the Intellectual Property page is a mess - I think it has been pulled this way and that by various POV-oriented editors. On the Talk page, I've proposed a lead paragraph that puts the fact of controversy into the definition of the term. With the controversy on the table, perhaps the various contestants can describe the varying views accurately instead of vying for space. But honestly, most of the article is nonsense -- I think it's the worst article I've encountered in Wikipedia. I would appreciate your looking at my suggestion and I'd very much like to hear from you. And thanks for creating such super software! Bryan 03:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker's Rules

You might want to take a look at the article and AfD discussion of Crocker's rules. Do you have a good description of what they are, what they mean, how one uses them? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cb checkmate.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cb checkmate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Cb stalemate.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cb stalemate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Cb start.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cb start.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

The above three images are all orphans -Nv8200p talk 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DavidCary

Ah, how embarrassing. I've forgotten my wikipedia password. This is the first time I've tried the "e-mail new password" thingy. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work. (I don't remember if I ever entered my email address in ... or perhaps I did but mis-typed it).

I suppose I could just make up a new user account ... but that seems so wasteful.

Are you one of the people that Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_the_password? suggests might, possibly, be able to help me? -- DavidCary http://david.carybros.com/

p.s.: I was using the same password for Wikibooks:User:DavidCary -- would you reset that one as well? --70.189.75.148 17:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please

I'm sorry to bother you Mr. Crocker, but the help page said you might be able to help me. I recently created a new page titled 'Big Five (Yugioh)', and upon saving the page, the top of the page listed a message saying it could not save my edit (which is itself is strange, since the page was right there), and if the problem persisted, to log out and log back in. Now when I go to my contributions page, not only am I not listed as having created such a page, but Searching turns up nothing. Do I need to rewrite the page entirely, or is there another problem? User: Drake Clawfang, April 19, 2006. 12:31 AM EST.

Düsseldorf Coat-of-Arms

On 29 July 2002, you said about the image at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dusseldo.jpg “This is a really awful image...if you can find a better one in some other format or size, I'll trim it down to useful size and right format (PNG)” There is a better one at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/3/3a/Wappen_Duesseldorf.jpg Bejnar 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffling

The "unsourced" sentence you removed from Shuffle is mine. It is based on my 15+ years of personal experience as a professional poker player and dealer. --LDC

I appreciate that, and I respect your personal experience in the area, but remember Wikipedia's policy of No Original Research. I would feel far more confident about including the information in the article if there were a reliable third party source which could be cited as an origin for the claim. It is by no means common knowledge that people are good enough with cards to do that many shuffles in so brief a time, so it might be best if we were able to find a source for it. Thank you, however, for your attention to the article. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 08:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but assume from your userpage and history that you're operating in good faith here, so instead of removing it pending a source I've just tagged the statement with a {{citeneeded}} template. I'll try my hand at looking for a resource for dealer speeds, but won't be disappointed if you find and add it before me. Thank you, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I've a passing interest in several card games, and I suppose I've just never been lucky enough to see a professional dealer do his thing. Like I said before, when I get a chance I'll see if I can't find any resources about this. Sorry if I came off as pedantic, but my (limited, certainly) personal experience would put a feat of doing that many shuffles that quickly into the category of legend and myth, haha. :) Happy editing, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link

You may want to know that the link to "your personal wiki" is broken (I got 404'd). You may want to fix/remove/change it. MichaelBillington 09:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sg botw.ogg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Sg botw.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Virus from Wikipedia?

Hi, is it possible to get a virus from viewing the Wikipedia?

Not with any version of the software I released, but I haven't been actively involved in software development here for a while, so it's possible that some security leaks have sneaked in that I'm unaware of. But doubt it--Brion Vibber, who leads most of the development now, is a sharp guy and I'd be surprized if he made that kind of mistake.

Early admins

Thank you for your comments on my early admin page. I replied there, feel free to visit it anytime you think of some tidbit about that period :). NoSeptember 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Help Please (underlined links)

Hi, it said on the 'contact us' page that you can help with lots of problems. Occaisionally, wikilinks start underlining, instead of just showing in blue. I can't find an option in 'preferences' for this, and I find it very hard to read the underlined text - especially in link-heavy articles. I've tried refresshing, but that doesn't seem to help. What should I do? DuncanHill 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan, I don't think this is the right place for this type of question, I would try the village pump next time. That said, underlining hyperlinks on web pages is controlled by the web browser. So I would check your web browsers preference settings first and see if that makes a difference. --Paul E. Ester 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul, perhaps you'd tell whoever runs the Wikipedia 'contact us' pages to stop telling people to ask lee Daniel Crocker. Anyway, I had tried the Village Pump before coming here, didn't get any response. I've since found that the underlinings disappear after I edit a page, and as I haven't changed any browser settings, it all seems a little bizarre! DuncanHill 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Beatles twist shout.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles twist shout.ogg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ellsworth bunker.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ellsworth bunker.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bridalveil Fall from Inspiration Point.FDL.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bridalveil Fall from Inspiration Point.FDL.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Zebra.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zebra.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Fred-Chess 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

double suited

Hi, I noticed you removed my definition of 'double suited' from the List of slang names for poker hands page. I just thought it belonged in an article somewhere, since its a common omaha term and it doesn't seem to be defined anywhere on wikipedia. But it isn't really 'slang', I'll give you that. Do you think it should be included somewhere else, or do you think its meaning is self-evident? —Kymacpherson 03:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty self-evident to me, but my judgment shouldn't be the only one--if you really think it needs to be somewhere, I'd put it into the glossary article (along with "suited"). --LDC 18:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:C Question

The September 25, 2002 version of WP:C show that you had made a statement "It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page." What was your intent in that statement, and are you aware that it is now gone? --Hackajar 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was probably a more appropriate statement back in the days when we were still experimenting with just what Wikipedia policy was going to be, and our major focus was recriuiting content creators, not editors. I'm sure that since then we've reached a more detailed consensus about such policies, and good editors are more valued than content creators, so my statement isn't really relevant anymore.

Good to know, thank you Hackajar 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of links to www.youtube.com in wikipedia

Answers?RoddyYoung 11:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia time...

Hi LDC, great to get updated on your life. I'm still around, and I even hear from JHK occasionally.

Now...I was browsing nostalgia.wikipedia.org, and checking the history logs. Apparently I get the credit for the creation of Scientific Method (!) Much as I'd love this to be true, my memory suggest that this was one of yours originally.

Conversely, I get no credit for Paul Erdos, which annoys me as I worked awfully hard on that one (you even put me on brilliant prose as a result - here's your comment on my user page).).

Now putting my fragile ego aside (an effort, to be sure), this discovery appears to suggest that the history logs at Nostalgia are somewhat unreliable. As I found some people trawling around looking for "History of Wikipedia" info, I felt the need to warn them about taking the history logs as gospel.

Is there any way of correcting the history logs? Or have they been lost to time... anyway, all the best :) Manning 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sone of the very earliest history of Wikipedia is lost, because Clifford's software didn't keep article histories indefinitely. We also didn't do a complete job converting article histories when we updated. In fact, the earliest record for the Poker article shows an edit by Larry Sanger, which clearly wasn't his area of expertise :-) It's possible that the some of the history records that survived Clifford's software but that weren't converted in transition may still exist on a backup tape somewhere, waiting to be converted. You might ask Brion or Tim about that. --LDC 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

extropy-chat misses you

Lee,

Do you remember Me, Brent Allsop from the Extropy chat list?

I met you at the Extro-5 conference back in 2001. And we've had various talks on the Extropy e-mail list about qualia and such. We had a conversation back in 1999 about working on the extropy.org web site for Max More (we had e-mail problems to start with). I seem to be having e-mail problems again and many varied attempts to send you e-mail have failed. I asked about you on the exi-chat list. Spike said he had recently similarly tried to contact you in vain, and asked me to tell you that he and others miss you on that list if I get a hold of you. BillK suggested I try contacting you here, so I hope that is OK that I do.

I particularly remembered the paper (I thought was brilliant) you presented at extro-5 entitled: "Fighting for Less Privacy: The Transparency Option" (Is that paper available anywhere? I can't seem to find it online, and the extropy.com site's search seems broken.)

I’m thinking of creating a wiki system that I think will better handle POV information in a structured debate kind of way. If you’ve got a chance I’d love to chat about it. Or if you're not interested just let me know and I’ll stop trying to bother you.

allsop at extropy dot org

Thanks!

Brent Allsop 03:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Topic in Disambiguation

Hi,

I noticed that you wrote the original naming convention guidelines in WP:D regarding the situation when one entry is a primary meaning. I wanted to get your opinion on how you determine whether one meaning is the primary meaning relative to other meanings? For example, if there is a topic XYZ and multiple meanings for XYZ, but one stands out as the primary meaning to me, what necessary and sufficient evidence would you require to be convinced of that, if it's not obvious? Thanks in advance for you consideration of this issue. --Hamsacharya dan 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think salience is an inherently subjective, culturally-dependent, and dynamic thing, so I don't think one can--or should--make a fixed set of criteria for it. I can say, though, that's it's important to keep the goal in mind: imagine a typical user typing the term into a search box; which meaning is he or she most likely looking for? Making judgments like this is part of the process or witing a good article.

Thank you very much for the input. --Hamsacharya dan 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the same user as commons:User:Lee Daniel Crocker.

Spelling: Jewellery VS. Jewelry

Dear Lee Daniel Crocker: I am emailing about the Jewellery category. I believe your might be the original author of the category and I would like your feedback. I have posted the issue on WPO" Pump as well as manual of style. I am wondering if you would be willing to consider the use of the American spelling. I personally have no issue with the fact that we have 2 different spelllings on WP - both English and American - as I am aware there are 2 different spellings and for me, it is not a problem. However, I do feel we are having a siginifcant issue here on WP about the English VS. American spelling and I feel I have a good case to revert to the American Spelling. So - here it is. I am a graduate student at Bard here in US. I have read and researched literally hundreds of published titles on this topic. To that aim, I am endeavoring to beef up this category and help WP. However, in the act of reading many titles over many years, I have come to conclude that the American spelling is more dominent in published works on this topic. I don't have a reasoning behind why, I just know that it is so. Because of this, I feel it is neccesary to switch back to the American spelling. Even though in OED, it is jewellery, in every major book on this topic with the exception a few published in UK, it is spelled jewelry. For example - see what is known as "the bible on jewelry," the title is: Jewelry Concepts & Technology by Oppi Untracht. The spelling used is jewelry. Another example: On Amazon, you type in both. For jewelry there are 83,868 Results, for Jewellery, there are 61,300,000 Results - that is a significant difference in published works. I am more than happy to provide a complete bibliography if need be, but in the interest of being user friendly, I ask that you consider this and let me know what you think. Thanks, Archie, archimartinArchiemartin

I was not involved in the creation of the jewelry articles, but I was involved in the creation of our usage standards and the articles about British and American English. In general, it is acceptable here for any article to use either British or American spelling and grammar, so long as they aren't mixed in a single article. I don't believe we explicitly dealt with the issue of a category name itself or a collection of related articles. I don't doubt that American usages generally predominate the world of published works, and not only in this category, because of the larger publishing industry here, larger Internet presence, and our cultural imperialism in general. But I'm not sure that's really sufficient to justify changing well-written articles that happen to use the other dialect. I don't think book titles are helpful either: the color articles are pretty consistent with that spelling, even though there are standard works like Hunt's "Reproduction of Colour..." Do you have some reason to believe that use of British English in this case hampers quality of the articles, say by making searches less useful of something? If not, I don't see a clear reason to change any particular article's usage. One thing that would justify changing an article is if someone who makes significant changes to it is not comfortable editing in the other dialect, and so changes the whole article to be consistent. --LDC 17:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, Thanks for your kind reply. I appreciate the response. I agree that it is not all that important in general as one surfs along to have the two different spellings. However, my concern is twofold. One concern is that I myself as I go along working in this category am writing in American English will encounter problems and hostility, (I already have) with other editors who don't like me inserting the American version. The other is that I don't think it looks good for WP, plain and simple. When I began here, I had a very difficult time finding things in this category because of the two spellings. I have noticed that now there is a redirect which helps but the areas are not conjoined and there is not alot of integration. To remedy some of this, I just started writing and editing my own things using that spelling, but I did get a few nasty reactions as I did so. I just think at the end of the day, choosing one in this instance will make sense long term because unlike words like color/colour - jewelry/jewellery is a noun. It is quite problematic. Let me know what you think. Archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

WP:DAB

Hi LDC, one more question for you about disambiguation. I have a situation in which there is call for a "dual" disambiguation: Kriya Yoga. Can you take a quick look at the disambiguation structure and let me know if you feel that this is appropriate or inappropriate? I feel that this structure is most instructive to the reader as it directs them with more clarity and specificity. Thanks. --Hamsacharya dan 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid making the right choices here would require an in-depth knowledge of the subject that I just don't have.

Sample Space

Dear Lee,

Could you please clarify something in regard to your Sample Space page? I agree that a sample space can be described in different ways, but I don't believe your example says what you want. What you are really giving two different experiments: 1) drawing a card and observing the suit vs. 2) drawing a card and observing the rank. The different sample spaces should really be with respect to the same experiment, such as flipping two coins and observing the outcomes. We could then describe the sample space as either:

{ hh, ht, th, tt } or { two heads, two tails, a head and a tail }

All possible outcomes are still covered, and the sum of the probabilities still add up to one. I hear you now - a head and a tail is really not one outcome, but two! I hear you, but from what I've seen in the literature, this appears to be generally accepted. What do you think?

Thanks,

Markysdad 18:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Duck_thumbnail.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Duck_thumbnail.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles all my loving.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_hide_your_love_away.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_hide_your_love_away.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_yesterday.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_yesterday.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_yellowsubmarine.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_yellowsubmarine.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_gently_weeps.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_gently_weeps.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_sixty-four.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_sixty-four.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_till_there_was_you.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_till_there_was_you.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_taxman.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_taxman.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Strawberryfields.ogg

I have tagged Image:Strawberryfields.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_something.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_something.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_bathroomwindow.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_bathroomwindow.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_sgt_pepper.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_sgt_pepper.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_revolution_1.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_revolution_1.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_please_me.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_please_me.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_pepperland.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_pepperland.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pennylane.ogg

I have tagged Image:Pennylane.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_obladi.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_obladi.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_nowhere_man.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_nowhere_man.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_norwegian_wood.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_norwegian_wood.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_mother_nature.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_mother_nature.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_money.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_money.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mysterytour.ogg

I have tagged Image:Mysterytour.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_lucy_sky.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_lucy_sky.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_in_my_life.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_in_my_life.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_loser.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_loser.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_im_only_sleeping.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_im_only_sleeping.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_follow_the_sun.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_follow_the_sun.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iamthewalrus.ogg

I have tagged Image:Iamthewalrus.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_herecomesthesun.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_herecomesthesun.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_helter_skelter.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_helter_skelter.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_help.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_help.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_hard_days_night.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_hard_days_night.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_into_my_life.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_into_my_life.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_enddrumsolo.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_enddrumsolo.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_eleanor_rigby.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_eleanor_rigby.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_eight_days.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_eight_days.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_drive_my_car.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_drive_my_car.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_dont_bother_me.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_dont_bother_me.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_secret.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_secret.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_day_life.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_day_life.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_cant_buy_me_love.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_cant_buy_me_love.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_blackbird.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_blackbird.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_and_i_love_her.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_and_i_love_her.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles_allyouneedislove.ogg

I have tagged Image:Beatles_allyouneedislove.ogg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing missing rationale tags

Do not remove missing rationale tags unless you actually provide them. Please note that the tag "non-free audio sample" is not a rationale, just a biolerplate template, and thus does not quailfy per fair use. — Κaiba 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think the same thing. I thought the template provided the rationale perfectly, but now standard practice is that we have to create them like on Wikipedia:Fair use rationale examples. I honestly don't know the point of those templates anymore, but I guess it's just to make sure the text "...under United States copyright law when used on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation..." is listed on every non-free image. — Κaiba 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry if I came on a little strong with the first message. — Κaiba 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Beatles something.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles something.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about the song contain someone else's sample, which is fine. --LDC

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ta crucify.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ta crucify.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More audio files

There are some more audio files that need rationales Lee:

I'll bring more by if I see any. Cheers! — Κaiba 23:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of more:

Image:Jk beatles ringo.jpg

— Κaiba 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki

How come you don't do development stuff anymore or have an SVN account? Just curious. Voice-of-All 05:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Beatles enddrumsolo.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles enddrumsolo.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Image:Tetraodon-hispidus-thumbnail.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Tetraodon-hispidus-thumbnail.jpg, by Alex valavanis (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Tetraodon-hispidus-thumbnail.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Tetraodon-hispidus-thumbnail.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article you created

I believe you also created the article on Lee Harvey Oswald. You can add that to your repertoire. Chuffable 08:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entry deleted

Hello! I saw you delete the entry Broadway from the List of poker terms. Yes it´s maybe slang but as long as there is a redirect to from the "poker slang" entry to the "list of poker terms" in my opinion it should be there. Elconejo 16:38, 18. Sept. 2007 (UTC-6) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang names for poker hands

per your comments on Elconejo talkpage, I just thought I would clear things up on what happen to the article List_of_slang_names_for_poker_hands.

List_of_slang_names_for_poker_hands was deleted and then redirected to Glossary of poker terms, [1] see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_slang_names_for_poker_hands_(2nd_nomination) for debate, it was closed as no consensus by the closing admin, a DRV then came up here (see debate), then move to wiktionary and deleted afterwards, I saw that there is a b:Poker section on wikibooks don't know if they allow slang terms or not, hope this helps ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 03:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thx, I will have a look there --Elconejo 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sg book2.ogg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Sg book2.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Papa November 11:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sg wm3a.ogg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Sg wm3a.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Papa November 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles and i love her.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beatles and i love her.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. Papa November 17:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles hard days night.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beatles hard days night.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. Papa November 17:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles loser.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beatles loser.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. Papa November 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Beatles day life.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles day life.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Beatles eight days.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles eight days.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Beatles lucy sky.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles lucy sky.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Iamthewalrus.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iamthewalrus.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

User:ComputerGuy890100/Jimbo Edit

I would like to present to you the I Edited Jimbo Wales' Userpage Barnstar! — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 23:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty silly thing to get an award for. You'd think something like, oh, writing the software that runs the site would be worth some kudos, but I guess I'll take what I can get. :-) --LDC (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Disability etiquette

I have nominated Disability etiquette, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disability etiquette. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Leonard^(Bloom) 02:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki coding

Any change of you making a small return to coding? :) Aaron Schulz 13:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but probably not MediaWiki--I don't really like PHP much. I'm currently working with Django. --LDC (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux

On your linux page, I would recommend that you put some popular distros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micr***fts*cks (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning your edit of Poker topic

I admit I'm new at Wikipedia editing, so I might have done something wrong. I see you're a long-time expert. However, I'm uncomfortable with your editing of my paragraph discussing poker versus gambling. You eliminated the sources, which makes the remaining paragraph appear to be unsupported assertion. Of course, we cannot put the citations back in, because the new paragraph is not what the books said. Who is vouching for the edited paragraph?

Wouldn't it make more sense to leave the original paragraph, and have you provide the counterpoint? In that case, it obviously shouldn't be in the summary section at the top, but in another section entitled, perhaps, Poker versus Gambling. That's an important issue that goes to the core of the game, in my opinion, and it has generated a lot of discussion in the poker literature. The cited books, as well as other sources, have argument and data supporting the idea that the outcome of each hand has more to do with the choices of the players than the luck of the cards. Of course, the cards determine who would have have the best hand if everyone stayed in until showdown. But they don't determine who wins how much money. It is the betting and folding decisions which determine that. If the poker hands were dealt out and a fixed sum awarded to the best one, it would clearly be a pure gambling game. But that is not poker.

To put it another way, I spend a lot of time thinking about what the other player has, what the other player thinks I have, what the other player thinks I think he has; I spend no time trying to guess whether a heart or an Ace will show up on the river. I know the probability of that, and factor it in to my calculations, but I don't try to make money thinking I can guess better than random chance.

I think there is a big difference between a gambling game and a strategic game with random elements. I'm not sure of the nature of your disagreement. Is it that any game with random elements must be a gambling game? Or that the random elements of poker so dominate the strategy and psychology that it is no different from roulette? Or that the distinction from gambling is not fundamental to the nature of poker?

I think poker is a game of strategy and psychology, in which the prize is sometimes money (when the other players fold, or put their money in the pot when you have already won the hand) and sometimes a gamble (when your play "wins" you a gamble to, say, win $10,000 with 2/3 probability and lose $4,000 with 1/3 probability). To me that's similar a basketball team passing and running to try to get a good shot; if they play well they may get an 80% shot (short, open shot by a good shooter); if they play badly they may get a 20% shot (off-balance, rushed, long shot by a bad shooter with a hand in his face).

Of course, you can gamble at a poker table. You can go all-in blind. You can bet hoping to get a good card on the board rather than figuring the situation. I would call that gambling at a poker table, not playing poker.

In any case, whether you agree or disagree, I think we've ended up with an unsatisfactory middle ground. I don't think the edited paragraph represents anyone's opinion. When I wrote it, I was not aware there was informed objection to the claim, or I would have noted those objections and placed it further down in the article. I also don't know of any credible source for the half-and-half version that is left.

I'd be happy to try my hand at a rewrite that notes your objections, and move it farther down if appropriate. But I need to know what those disagreements are. It would help to have citation for them, or at least pointers to where I might get a citation. I'm pretty well-read in the poker literature, I think I could find something if you give me some help.

AaCBrown (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may well fit more within Wikipedia's editorial policies to have a better-attibuted paragraph, and I'd have no problem with you )or anyone) replacing my text with something easier to cite, but the sentiment expressed by the original is clearly a matter of opinion (with which I disagree strongly), and not really descriptive of the game itself, so I don't think it belongs in the article, and certainly not at the top. I don't disagree that poker is, in the long run, a game of strategy--I'm a professional player myself, and I couldn't make a living if it weren't--but that long run is at least months, if not years. Poker is absolutely, unquestionably "gambling" by any reasonable definition of that word, and to say otherwise is propaganda. The original citation sounds far more like the kind of justification a bad player would give his wife than something written by someone who really understands the game. Those of us who actually play the game full time understand well that you can play continuously for many days making perfect plays and being a huge favorite every time you get your money in--and still lose. The ability to outlast such swings (both financially and emotionally) is a big part of what makes a successful player, and is exactly the same as other professional gamblers such as horse handicappers, sports bettors, blackjack counters, and others. Poker has a lot more in common with those games than it does with other strategy games. --LDC (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nice citable quote for you: "Poker is gambling. Anyone who says it's not or states that when he plays he doesn't gamble, does not understand poker as well as he should." (from "Small Stakes Hold'em"; Ed Miller, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth)

Reply

I probably should defer to your superior experience in Wikipedia, but I'm trying to learn how to edit correctly. I'm not going to change anything in the article without your okay, but I want to be sure you're really overruling me on the basis of Wikipedia standards. If so, I want to understand those standards. And, for the record, my wife doesn't care one way or the other about whether poker is gambling, only how much time it takes and how much money I make.

I didn't know you were a professional poker player. Do you play under Lee Daniel Crocker? I'll keep an eye out for you and maybe we can discuss some of this in person.

I have that book of course, but with all due respect that statement sounds far more like a matter of opinion (and one that rules out discussion from the start) than the extensive and reasoned discussion in the texts I cited. I'll use it as the counterweight if you think it's acceptable, but I would prefer something that gives reasons rather than simply insults everyone who disagrees. I assume you know David and Mason, and would agree they are given to opinionated overstatement, despite their unquestionably huge contributions to poker theory and popularization. There are extensive discussions in Theory of Poker and Gambling Theory that take the other side of this question, sharply distinguishing poker from casino gambling. Ed is usually more reasonable, but I suspect he didn't write that sentence.

You may recall that my paragraph begins with "Many poker players feel. . ." which I think is accurate. I'm not even sure you disagree. Your counterargument seems to be that there is significant randomness in poker, which no one disputes (although I think you overstate it in your enthusiasm; while it is possible to lose for a long time while playing well; if you really are a huge favorite every time you put your money in for many days it is highly improbable that you could be behind; the problem, of course, is even with great play you will not be a favorite every time).

Both your reply and the quote focus on the meaning of the word "gambling," which is also not the point. The question is whether poker is an essentially different activity from all non-poker forms of gambling, such as roulette and craps. It's true that some definitions of gambling include any game played for money, or even any risky activity. But in other definitions, gambling applies only to guessing and betting on random outcomes. Thus someone might say investing in stocks in "only gambling," and another would answer that it is a form of risk-taking distinct from gambling; although I think by your definition the second person is clearly incorrect regardless of reasoning. I honestly don't understand why allowing the second definition proves that someone doesn't understand poker (a claim you make directly and in the quote). Maybe it means they don't understand English (although I disagree with that), but you don't need to know English to play poker.

I don't dispute that poker involves risk, however well it is played. But risk is not the point of the activity, at least it doesn't have to be. As I said earlier, you don't spend time trying to guess what cards will be dealt, you spend time thinking about the other players and what they hold and think and will do conditional on what they hold and think. Neither what they hold nor what they think nor what they will do is random. In fact, in straight poker (five card hands are dealt and there is one round of betting, no blinds or antes) no money is wagered while there is any uncertainty of the deal. I think straight poker is more like common forms of poker, then common forms of poker are like roulette.

If this were not an essential part of poker, poker would have no special standing. It would not be the only game in the casino in which the house only charges rent for the seats, it does not participate in the gambling (Baccarrat is not really a counterexample to this, the house takes a random percentage of the amounts bet depending on outcome, although it is accounted for as a tax on the dealer, and all bets are made before any cards are dealt, and no actions by any players can affect the outcome). It would not be the only game in the casino to be played with checks, with real cash value, instead of chips. It would not have a world championship (can you imagine a roulette or craps world championship?). It would not be played by Presidents in the White House, or at least they wouldn't admit it.

For most of human history, gambling games were either bilateral or players played against a single banker. There were professional gamblers, but they played by the same rules as everyone else, they did not run commercial establishments with built-in edges for the house. Games were played for cash or bilaterally extended credit.

Beginning in the late 17th century and only in Europe, commercial gambling evolved from the older games. I believe (and admit this is speculation or opinion, not accepted history) that the same movement gave rise to poker. It was a fundamentally different form of play. Betting was multilateral, all players bet with each other. At any showdown, all remaining players had contributed the same amount to the pot. There were no involuntary bets, no bets made before cards were dealt, no cards dealt after the betting. Early games were never played for money or bilateral credit, they were played for checks (not like a modern check, drawn on a bank, but in the older sense of any IOU, usually marked with a stick or token). At the end of the game, players netted their checks, and it was the winners' responsibility to collect from the losers. This is a different form of obligation than a traditional gambling debt, and people treated it differently. None of these features can be traced back to any game older than poker; and few of them have been imitated by non-poker games (although casinos adopted the chip from poker checks, but chips have no cash value and are supposed to be used only as markers at a specific gaming table).

Early poker theorists were passionate about these differences which distinguished poker from mere "lotteries" or "gambles." Poker was a conscious rejection of commercial gambling. To say they are the same based on some definition of gambling is to mistake the word for the fact.

The modern game has deviated a little from these strict principles, but I still think it is more like the old game than it is like commercial gambling. I think the essential nature of poker is historically and philosophically distinct from gambling. I think most serious players and writers agree with this, in fact I was surprised to find someone who disagrees so vehemently. Nonplayers often equate poker with craps, and on-line poker with on-line roulette, but not many serious players or poker writers.

AaCBrown (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're too far apart, really, I just hate the particular quote as originally given. I wouldn't object at all to a brief section on the question of how poker is characterized with quotes from both sides, properly cited. There are indeed differing opinions here, and it's fine to document a controversial subject by citing both sides. I'm not really an expert on present Wikipedia policies and guidelines; I'm an old timer from before there were many guidelines; I even wrote a few of the early ones. But just like the software, they have grown far beyond my initial vague ideas of what works well here. Indeed, I've had my edits removed with quotes of policy many times. Don't feel the need to vet any of your contributions through me--just be aware that your original quote was just as opinionated as I can be, and I won't be the only one objecting to it.

The major difference between poker and, say, craps (as a player), is that it's possible to have a positive expectation. That doesn't make it any more or less of a gamble--the casino, for example, is gambling every bit as much as the crap shooter is; they just have a positive 1.6% expectation while you have a negative 1.6%. In the long run, that small difference means they have a big hotel and I don't, but it's still the case that the outcome of the game is determined by dice rolls for them just as for you, just as the outcome of a hand of poker is determined largely by the shuffling of a deck of cards (I admit there are a few times you can actually affect the outcome of a hand by your play, such as successful bluffs or protection plays). I also agree that many people look at poker as something different from gambling. Many of those are people with an agenda, such as those trying to get poker legalized where other forms of gambling are not, or people trying to popularize the game among those who would be otherwise resistant to gambling. And don't get me started about online poker--that's not gambling either, it's theft. If you play poker online, you ARE being cheated. No ifs, ands, or buts. Well, one but--the idiots outnumber the cheaters by such a margin that a good honest player might still be able to make money. But you'll never catch me online--I work with people every day who tell me about how they cheat online and wonder why I don't jump on that gravy train with them.

But back to the point at hand--none of this really has much to do with the description of poker as a game, though perhaps it merits discussion about the social aspects of the game as played today. Just be aware that there are differing opinions as to the social nature of poker.

P.S. You'll probably never see me playing on TV--I don't play many tournaments, and don't play for big stakes, but just eke out a living playing live games in small clubs to supplement a part-time job (in my case, as a casino "proposition player", or kind of shill who plays with his own money rather than the house's). --LDC (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great

I will take another crack and try to stay away from words that seem didactic rather than expository. I'd like to work some reference in the definition at least to the difference between poker and a pure luck, negative expectation casino game; because I do think poker is essentially different. Three-card poker, for example, is clearly a casino game; and would be even it expanded to five cards and used full poker rankings. The same is true of video poker. On the other hand, people sometimes use poker betting rules for non-card games, I'm willing to call those poker.

But I think any extended discussion that quotes two sides needs to be in a new article, perhaps something like "categorization of gambling games" or "luck versus skill in law".

Maybe I can find a natural place to put something in either history or theory of poker.

History of the page move function

I've been doing a lot of history merges to fix old (circa 2002) cut and paste moves and I'm curious about the history of the page move function. It seemed to be only available to admins for quite a while, but you apparently made the function available for all logged in users some time in late August 2002. Was there some kind of discussion about this change, or did you just go ahead and do it? Was it logged anywhere? I've checked the mailing list archives and early revisions of Help:Contents, but I haven't been able to find any indication of the change besides this edit. I'm trying to clarify the old history of page moves at User:Graham87/Page history observations. Thanks, Graham87 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found the message on Wikipedia-l where you mentioned enabling moves for non-sysops and the creation of a deletion archive. Graham87 11:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poker question

I noticed a deletion of Big Stack Bully under poker terms I've added over time. Since BSB is a common term (and I even provided references following the first deletion), I request an explanation (rather than revert the revert and wonder why).

Thank you.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bully" is an old and common term at the table--but the specific term "big stack bully" is a fairly recent variant, and just a subset, IMHO. I don't think it merits an entry of its own. I did clarify the "bully" entry. --LDC (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg

Thank you for uploading Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. β^_command 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg

Thank you for uploading Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. β^_command 21:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:SLR.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:SLR.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create or upload this image--I probably just did a file format conversion at about the time when we lost history records, making my upload appear to be first. If it's not being used, by all means delete it. --LDC (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File:Clupeiformis.jpg

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Please also consider checking Commons for other media that you may have uploaded locally, but which was subsequently transferred.

Special:Log for uploads can help in this.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Beatles day life.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles day life.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of TtH

I have nominated TtH, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TtH (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. BLGM5 (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SLR.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SLR.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 00:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Arachnidstartingscreenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arachnidstartingscreenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Defense (poker)

The article Defense (poker) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and a stub since 2009, unremarkable and small poker concept better suited to larger discussions about poker strategy in general.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Simon and Garfunkel - The Sounds of Silence.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Simon and Garfunkel - The Sounds of Silence.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Beatles allyouneedislove.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles allyouneedislove.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Snowball (The Simpsons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snowball (The Simpsons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowball (The Simpsons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Chess Barnstar for you!

	The Chess Barnstar
	Many thanks on your contributions to the article Chess. --Mr.Goblins (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Lee,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Beatles sgt pepper.ogg)

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles sgt pepper.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus

FYI, I've un-redirected Magnus Manske. Since you know a lot of the early history, please take a look and fix anything that needs fixing, and add anything (esp anything you can source). Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-American playing card listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anglo-American playing card. Since you had some involvement with the Anglo-American playing card redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Beatles sgt pepper.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles sgt pepper.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Beatles taxman.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles taxman.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Beatles im only sleeping.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles im only sleeping.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Beatles im only sleeping.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles im only sleeping.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 991: / Line 991: @@
 Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 19:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
+==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity==
+[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]
+Following a [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins|community discussion]] in June 2011, consensus was reached to [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators|provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year]] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return&nbsp;if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated&nbsp;should this occur, please post to the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]] and the userright will be restored per the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Resysopping|re-sysopping process]] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at [[WP:RFA]]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->[[User:MadmanBot|MadmanBot]] ([[User talk:MadmanBot|talk]]) 23:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)