User talk:David.Monniaux/archive3

Archives: 1, 2

Unspecified source for Image:ALLEGRE.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ALLEGRE.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. Nv8200p talk 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:93RAM 155 TR F1 16082231456651583.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:93RAM 155 TR F1 16082231456651583.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. YellowDot 01:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Sandbox

Merci pour le deletion d'un "sandbox" dans ma "userpage." Next time you wish to tinker with any aspect of my userpage, I would appreciate you atleast take the courtesy of consulting me first. This particular sandbox was used to compile a range of information about a political candidate for the Texas Senate. All information within was sourced, with much of it coming directly from the local newspaper. I am compiling this information in anticipation that this candidate may win the election, and thereby be notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your cooperation in resurrecting this soon-to-be article, as well as a brief commentary as to what you particularly may have found to be "libelous." Thank you in advance. Somnabot 06:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the article from the Wiki server, but it is still google-searchable. There is nothing I can do about google's cached pages. This political candidate has not acheived "politician status" yet, and I find it odd that a candidate be allowed to request the censorship of what might be viewed as a skeleton in the closet. If possible, I would like to view the complaint filed by his staff so as to better understand what aspect of the future article exactly should be reworded or edited. I also muse as to whether the candidate's staff contacted the local newspaper demanding censorship. Once again, thank you for your cooperation. Somnabot 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Aguilar

Can you explain your reasoning for deleting this page? Users like Azcatl did add potentially libellous information, but there seems to have been a reasonable, referenced article originally. —Xezbeth 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of King's College School Wiki Article

Is 'personal details' in the criteria for speedy deletion? [No, it isn't]. The article contained useful information and at the very least its deletion should have been discussed. Of course I respect personal details should be kept out of the history though, but could you try and make sure an admin places the article back up ASAP?)

I'm still waiting for a response.... Xeixz 8 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The deletion has left a huge number of red wikilinks in other articles, maybe the article did need editing (I don't know, as I've not had the chance to read it), but as it has been deleted we have been denied the opportunity to do so. DuncanHill 12:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is unease that some Admins employ summary deletion too readily. If this impression is to be avoided, then the rule ought to be: if there's room for doubt, discuss. The Admin may find there's sufficient reason for the article. The discussion may lead to improvements. And if the conclusion is still 'delete', reasonable process will be seen to have been employed, and the interested parties may have learned something. Countersubject 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what's happening about restoration (or not) of this article? King's College School in Wimbledon is notable for its origins as the junior department of Kings College, London (part of the University of London), and for a number of its alumni. Did the deletion derive from particular content? If so, the article could either be restored without that content, or a completely new article could be created. Please respond to my dicussion page. Countersubject 15:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No response as yet. I have no direct interest in the article under discussion, but believe there is a prima facie case for its reinstatement. However, I recognise that, as a late arrival in the conversation, I may be wrong. Please advise, or at least acknowledge the request and tell me you know nothing about the deletion. The alternative is for me to simply create an article about the school, on the basis of publicly available information. I'd rather not do this, only to go through a deletion process and discover there's good reason for not having the article. Countersubject 22:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to add my support to what User:Countersubject says above. I found the article was missing after following a red link in another article. It would be appreciated if you could at least acknowledge messages left for you. Thanks. DuncanHill 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Did the article only contain inappropriate mentions of people at the school, or was there useful/informative content too? If the latter, then is it possible to reinstate those parts? DuncanHill 12:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David, both for your reply and the steps you've taken to have the article revised and reinstated. We should attempt to establish ways of removing vandalism of otherwise acceptable articles, short of summary deletion. I recognise this may not always be possible - for example, in cases where the law is being broken and removal of the offending elements would require excessive time and effort. I don't know whether that's so in this case, but I hope you can reassure me that such action is the exception to the rule, and that your reference to the established deletion procedures as whatever bureaucratic procedure there is doesn't indicate a disregard for the ways in which these things ought normally to be done, in the interests of fairness. Perhaps it would help if Wikipedia could formalise your solution in this case by having a specific area, open only to Admins, to which difficult-case articles could be removed in the first place, pending revision. Countersubject 14:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I understand the pressure of time, espcially in cases that might get Wikipedia legal problems. However, that doesn't address the consequent deletion of other material in these articles that isn't objectionable, and may be interesting and useful. That's what my suggestion of a holding area was designed to address. It meets the requirement for immediate removal from the public domain, and also provides a means by which the article can be cleaned up and re-instated. Identification of such cases would require careful judgement on the part of the individual dealing with complaints, but hey: if the Foundation trusts them in this role, then that's good enough for me. Finally, thanks again for the effort you've taken in dealing with this matter. I see from your details that you're a very busy individual. Countersubject 15:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David for the info and help - the article is back up now, and clean of inappropriate content DuncanHill 17:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for this. Much appreciated. Any thoughts about my suggestion that Wikipedia institute a new process based on the way you've dealt with this problem? Countersubject 22:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reinstating the article. The old content can still be viewed at Answers.com, and although some of it is vandalism this is a small amount and is obvious. As is evident, this is a large article and contains much useful information. Xeixz 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chilwell School deletion

You deleted the Chilwell School page, stating that is was not notable.

However, the page contained a section entitled "Notable Student Projects" and the school has received constant publicity over the past two years. Do these things no suggest to you that the school is notable and the page should have remained?

Tom H 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation got a complaint about repeated inappropriate content on that page. This page cited no independent sources and contained a lot of anecdotal claims. In addition, as I said, it was not evident that this school was notable. David.Monniaux 17:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question: was your deletion "without prejudice"? In other words, can we recreate the article as long as we provide verifiable references to notability? I'd be happy also to address any issues that the complaint to the foundation raised. Thanks. Akradecki 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Last I saw this article, it was encyclopedic and on-topic (if you look through my editing history and the many articles I've written, you'll see I'm a stickler for this). It was also on my watchlist for anti-vandalism purposes. Is it possible to find out specifics of what the complaint was about, so that I might address them? Also, is it possible to get a copy of the deleted material put into my sandbox? I would also be more than happy for you to review the draft article before it gets put into the mainspace, when the time comes. Thanks again! Akradecki 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, never mind on the request for the deleted material. I think I'm fine without it. It's essentially ready to go at my sandbox if you want to review it. I'm waiting for a reference for the video section, so that won't be unsourced, and I'm sure there'll be more to add in the future, but I think this is a workable start. It'll probably go live on Monday. Please let me know if you have any comments. Akradecki 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:French passport front cover.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:French passport front cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Spartaz 17:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of FR passport

Your note on my en talk page was somewhat cryptic. I wouldn't hurt you to explain a little more in future as I had to go to PUI to find your comment that the FR government didn't copyright their images. In this case, how can you own the copyright to an image of a FR Government document? If there is a special dispensation concerning copyright for French Givernment - images should this be reflected in the tag? Anyway, I'm happy to withdraw my objections to the image in these circumstances. I have cross posted this to your commons talk page --Spartaz 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia

Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit&section=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit&section=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.

Office actions

David, I've been following the King's College dialog, though I'm not involved in it, because it appeared similar to the Chilwell situation. Now that you've explained the situation, both the complaint issue, and the time limitations, and the need to protect the legality of the project, I fully understand the pressures. Because I've what you wrote, I went and made myself familiar with WP:OFFICE. With that policy in mind, can I then ask you a favor? When you summarily deleted Chilwell, the deletion reason left in the log was "non notable; no sources; vandalism magnet". That really gives no hint as to the fact that it was a serious issue. Because you've been busy and not available for replies, I almost asked another admin to get involved and undelete it. Now, maybe at the admin level, they would have seen something that would have stopped them, but if all they see is what you put in the log, they would have undid an office action and might have been harshly disciplined, as the policy warns. I would have felt terrible that I put an admin in such a position. So the favor: when you do such a summary deletion, could you note in the log that it was an office action so that those of us peons out here will have a better understanding and won't jump to wrong conclusions. Thanks! (Someday, when I become an admin, that selective undelete chore would be one of the mop-and-bucket tasks I'd be willing to do.) Thanks!! 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management

Would you please expound on your reasons for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management? In the edit summary, you state that it "contains inflammatory comments and is no longer needed". I know you've been around a long time, but we don't generally delete AfDs without a very strong reason to do so as they provide the basis for future speedy deletions of recreated content. I'm highly inclined to restore this AfD but wanted to have an opportunity to discuss this with you. What in particular is so egregious from your viewpoint? --Durin 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We got a complaint on OTRS: apparently, this debate in which demeaning comments were made on the topic of the article shows up quite fast in Google. (When I do seemingly "random" deletions it is generally from an OTRS complaint.)
In many of our deletion debates, participants say things that they perhaps should not say in this way in public. I remember in particular a debate about a bio on somebody who didn't write it (a well-meaning colleague did it), but was publicly accused of being an unimportant little boss seeking notability through Wikipedia. Needless to say, the guy was not amused. David.Monniaux 23:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. I saw your response about the OTRS issue. Perhaps a stub could be created that just has the results of the AfD vote, and says that the text was deleted for OTRS reasons? Can't you create a new AfD page without restoring the history? I've just spent quite a few minutes searching for the missing AfD. (I'm not a fan of the article itself). As Durin observes, someone could recreate the IIM article and there wouldn't be a record of the preceding AfD decision. EdJohnston 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{afd-privacy}}. Normally adding that template and hiding the previous contents in history (instead of deleting) is good enough since Google doesn't index them. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-17 18:46Z

I've previously suggested a limited-access holding area for articles that need to be removed from the public domain, but which contain information that might conceivably be restored after a clean-up. This would allow authorised users to deal speedily with privacy or legal issues when it's not feasible to do so in a simple edit, yet stop short of immediate deletion. Admins would then be invited to discuss and edit articles on the list, until they are either deleted or restored. Your thoughts? Countersubject 07:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S'il vous plaît? :-) Countersubject 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, deletion fits your purposes, since deleted articles are in effect put on special storage, and can be read by admins... David.Monniaux 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There are three main problems with simple deletion. Firstly, ordinary or occasional users of Wikipedia will have no idea why the article was deleted, and this can result in the kind of irate conversation seen above. That becomes a problem for both user and administrator (how much time have you and others had to spend on this kind of thing?). Secondly, it lacks the presumption of restitution, which is where we should begin with articles that include seriously problematic material, but that otherwise contain interesting or useful information. Finally, it is possible to imagine admins hesitating to immediately delete such an article when immediate action is required, because of the content that isn't problematic, or concern about others' reactions. A solution that hides the article from general view until a decision has been made to delete or clean would be win-win for all concerned. It would take some of the heat and light out of the process, allow for prompt action short of deletion, and be better for Wikipedia's content. Countersubject 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the above suggestions, I prefer Quarl's idea of {{afd-privacy}}. This makes the page disappear for all casual readers of Wikipedia. Does OTRS often get complaints about something still being visible in the PAGE HISTORY? I know if we were sued for defamation or copyvio we would want to get rid of everything, but surely a typical OTRS complainant wouldn't require such drastic removal. EdJohnston 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most complainants are concerned about e.g. discussion pages being archived by Google and shown in the first results in Google when they search for their name. Still, we have had complaints with history pages, especially when some external site links to an old version. David.Monniaux 06:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

change tag

Did you ever see the request here Image:McCondom dsc06781.jpg to update the tag? --evrik 13:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Andre_Vingt_Trois.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Andre_Vingt_Trois.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dieffenbachia dsc07295.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dieffenbachia dsc07295.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.

Image:Dmonniaux DSC02256 Miyajima floating gate.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dmonniaux DSC02256 Miyajima floating gate.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.

Image:DSC00732 Notre Dame Paris from east.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC00732 Notre Dame Paris from east.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.

Image:Notre Dame Paris gate DSC00697.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Notre Dame Paris gate DSC00697.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.

Image:French Gendarmerie Mobile riot control.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French Gendarmerie Mobile riot control.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Edward 21:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:French Gendarmerie motorcyclist.jpg

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

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Edward 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breton Wikipedia

You might wish to consider your remarks regarding the Breton wikipedia that you left on the Breton language talk page last year [1] in the light of the fact that Breton is the Celtic language with the most articles by far on the Wikipedia and is soon to move up to the 10,000 mark. Neal: Breton Wikipedia Moderator

Image:XlePichon.JPG

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

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 00:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:IEEE logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:IEEE logo.gif. 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. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:4RCh Afghanistan burka 130524501473834340.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:4RCh Afghanistan burka 130524501473834340.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. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Philippe de Villiers 2212.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Philippe de Villiers 2212.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. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned public domain images

The following images were uploaded by you, but are currently not in use. They have been tagged as public domain (PD), either as PD-self or other PD claim, or equivilant. These unused PD images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, tag them for copying to WP commons {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} or if they are no longer needed, they can be nominated for deletion by following the easy three step process at Images and media for deletion. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Áine Chambers

Hi. It's been requested that the last version of an article you deleted, be userfied. Since you deleted it noting WP:BLP : criticism, no independent sources, OTRS complaint, I don't wish to fulfil the request, as I have no knowledge of what OTRS complaint means. Is it a reason for not userfying? I'd appreciate it if you could comment at WP:AN#Deleted content request. Thanks for your time. Steve block Talk 21:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I see. Would it be an idea worth considering to make the ref to OTRS complaint in a deletion summary or edit summary a piped link to Wikipedia:OTRS? That might save a little confusion. Steve block Talk 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lword13.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lword13.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. Oden 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei RFC

David, after lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I think the new page is better, but there are a lot of single-purpose accounts who have been edit warring with me over it. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 11:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Litvinenko in intensive care.jpg

Bonjour, David. I am surprized that the Foundation received a complaint about this image I uploaded, considering how widely it was distributed, and how our use was consistent with use by news organizations. Do you mind sharing with me the nature of the complaint, or perhaps fwding the email to (email). Thank you. - crz crztalk 18:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Makes sense. I doubt it's the Foundation's position that fair use is only available on media made in the U.S. tho. I am sure that U.S. law permits us to fairly use media created anywhere... Do correct me if I'm wrong. - crz crztalk 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redeleted the image, which was re-uploaded by someone shortly after you deleted it, FYI. - crz crztalk 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck a note there and tweaked the page to open it for when someone might try again. —Leather_is^tough 03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real World London

I understand (now) that these changes were made due to a complaint made to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I would not have reverted your change, if the edit summary had contained a note to that effect. Ckessler 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Administrative Appeals Tribunal

If you look carefully at the edit history, it wasn't actually me who reinserted that large chunk of text recently. enochlau (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, thanks for sorting it out

In this edit I accidently reinserted the vandalism when I thought I was removing it. My appologies. I have removed the test warning I posted on that anon user page. --Comaze 09:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Ty Zantuck:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 12:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think Edits

Could you please stop by the discussion page for Think (book) and summarize your edit [3] and why you made it? KevinPuj 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More replaceable fair use images

—Chowbok ☠ 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block of Rookiee

I have no personal interest in this matter, and the user has not asked me to intervene on his behalf. My main involvement with him is that we've both edited the artice on Justin Berry. I'm just trying to be useful where I can. I noticed you had indef blocked Rookiee due to proselytizing on his userpage. I was wondering if you were aware of the following and if it would prompt you to revisit your decision to block.

Rookiee had been indef blocked before for "pedophile trolling," but the block was reversed in the administrators' noticeboard.

In this case, Rookie was indefinitely blocked due to his soapboxing from his userpage. The policy's guide to blocking times states: "However, indefinite blocks should not be used . . . . . against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." That seems to apply to this user.

The section on disruption states that "obvious cranks and users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary." Based on your description, it sounds like he did transgress against WP:NOT on multiple occasions. Was there a consensus reached among uninvolved users?

From the section on controversial blocks: "Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for controversial blocks is:

- Check the facts with care.

- Reread appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

- If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.

I don't know whether this was done, but I'd be curious to have a link to the discussion, or the gist of it.

- Place the block, exercising due care in the wording of the "reason" message, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.

- Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.

- Be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians."

Discussing this block is why I'm here. I want to either see the block released, or to understand how this block fits into the framework of Blocking Policy. Be assured, I don't think any terrible wrong has been done here. I'm just not currently seeing where this block fits into the policy framework. If it's a lack of understanding on my part, please educate me. If not, then please consider unblocking his account. I'd be happy to leave a message on his blog to that effect.

Anyway, as I said, this is of no personal concern to me. I'm asking about this block partly to understand how the administration of the project works, as well as because of the concerns I have about the block. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! --Ssbohio 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply, David. You referred me to the Foundation. Should I take from that that this was a Foundation-level action? Is this something you, as the blocking admin, can discuss with me? I'd really like to understand this situation. If it was an out-of-process block on behalf of the Foundation, and you were the one who carried it out, I can understand that. Also, if you reply here, I'll continue the discussion here. If you reply on my talk page, I'll consider the discussion moved & reply there. Thanks again for taking the time to explain this situation to me. --Ssbohio 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed what happened, and I think it would be better if you enquired to the Foundation directly. David.Monniaux 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan Dog

FYI ... I feel the AfD discussion for this topic should be restored. The topic and the article will more than likely come up again, and we will need the previous AfD discussion as a reference. Much of the nastyness, in my opinion, has come from Blufawn or their IP 80.223.126.199 1) being a new user unfamiliar with the wiki world and 2) a user who is highly emotional (and not necessarily rational) about this rare breed of dog. Yesterday I received inappropriate comments from Blufawn on my talk page about how I should remove idiotic comments that were there. Little did they realize at the time that what they were complaining about was not written by me. Anyway, please restore the AfD text. Thanks for your consideration. Keesiewonder 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, December 17, 2006 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog" (protests on m:OTRS about nasty comments)

Sure, I can take a stab at cleaning up the page. Just let me know the procedure so I don't make any enemies along the way. :-) For instance, do I clean it up before or after you officially restore it? If you'd like to send it to me via email, that is fine with me. Keesiewonder 14:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've restored it. Shall I just edit away, putting a disclaimer at the top about what happened? I've saved a copy locally and made a first pass in my private copy of what I feel should be deleted to make it cleaner and slightly less controversial. Keesiewonder 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other administrators have directed me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Courtesy_blanking and I will follow this procedure within about 24 hours. Thanks for your patience. Keesiewonder 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taran Rampersad (2nd nomination)

I restored and courtesy blanked the above debate. Please don't delete discussions which I've closed without notifying me. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation receives dozens of emails every day. A significant part of emails from individuals concern deletion debates containing inappropriate language. Admins who close discussions should systematically blank them if these discussions contain demeaning comments. David.Monniaux 11:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy blanked discussions aren't deleted, they are stripped of the discussion (so that the discussion is still readable in the edit history), on request by the subject, and not within 24 hours after the closure. There is no problem with the fact that you did it, but how you did it. Please put a minimum effort into trying to follow procedure. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Brian Eno

Cher David,

Je lis dans la page "Discussion" sur Brian Eno :

In an interview to Le Monde (August 16, 2005), Brian Eno lauded Wikipedia (announced in bold title) and said that he had edited the article about himself. David.Monniaux 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Si tu as gardé l'article, je veux bien jeter un coup d'oeil, Eno est un de mes musiciens favoris. Merci ! Fr. (contact)

Government of France

Bonjour, je voulais simplement vous dire que la page est excellente. Felicitations pour vos importantes contributions. j'ai rajoute qq modif mais le point me semble aujourd hui de rajouter plutot des choses aux pages plus detaillees genre "president", qui n ont pas la qualite de cette page. c est une oeuvre utile pour faire connaitre la france dans le monde anglo saxon Alain10

Unspecified source for Image:Xavier Leroy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Xavier Leroy.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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:27BCA Cote dIvoire 2004 110322471058610464.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:27BCA Cote dIvoire 2004 110322471058610464.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 0604372617302.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 0604372617302.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 040534301458462354.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 040534301458462354.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2REG EFA 0604440929111.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2REG EFA 0604440929111.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2REG EFA 0604440929111.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2REG EFA 0604440929111.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. — MECU≈talk 17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 040534301458462354.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 040534301458462354.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. — MECU≈talk 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 0604372617302.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 0604372617302.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. — MECU≈talk 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:27BCA Cote dIvoire 2004 110322471058610464.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:27BCA Cote dIvoire 2004 110322471058610464.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. — MECU≈talk 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:7BCA Afghanistan 0604353018476.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:7BCA Afghanistan 0604353018476.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. — MECU≈talk 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:7BCA VHM 13060447971781446.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:7BCA VHM 13060447971781446.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. — MECU≈talk 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France

We have recently activated the WP:FR and need support on various technical levels. Perhaps you could be of help. You are more than welcome to help the project. STTW (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gavin Field

Just thought I'd let you know that I found this user on again at User:Gavin Field1. Same page, so I blocked him again and deleted the user page. I don't think it was self-promotion though. The tone of the user page read as though it was an attack page. Best, Irongargoyle 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your photos of B.Mandelbrot at École Polytechnique

Hello, David. I may have made an error by adding a link to École Polytechnique from your photos of Benoît Mandelbrot in the Wikipedia commons (1, 2). As a new user I apologize. Do you possibly have a minute to double check? Thank you either way. -Susanlesch 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC). edits at :30[reply]

Image:Andre Vingt Trois.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cutmore

Is there any way you can protect the above page with a message that says it is being protected to stop further creation of the article? It just looks a bit stupid having a blank page and should be speedied for having no content RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 11:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

phob

Such huge deletions are inadmissible without discussion in talk pages. Also, you seem to have troubles with reading details. The section is referenced, and any "editorializing" is easily removable without wholesale deletion. `'mikka 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor

Hi David,

Noticed you added a "no sources citated" box to the Anchor page and also removed the links to each manufacturer's website.

In case you do not know, a brief overview of anchor types can split them into the older more traditional types, which have been around a long time, and the more modern designs, which is how the Wiki article has evolved. The modern types are typically patented and so (for the time being) their manufacturers (and associated brand) are synonymous with their type.

An aside: For every anchor type, sometimes unfortunately even the supposedly protected ones, there are a multitude of copies by dozens if not hundreds of companies worldwide. I do not think that the Wikipedia Anchor article can hope to be a comprehensive list of all copies, legal or not, and nor should it try.

In any case the "modern designs" section is very simple - they just exist, and a brief description of each is provided. Most of the original text was written by myself, and since edited by others. It seems fair and balanced. Accordingly may I ask you what would be appropriate sources? There seems no information which requires supporting material.

Lastly, I feel the links to each manufacturer's website is quite appropriate, as it is at those sites that readers will find more information about the type in question. Do you feel it is inappropriate that a Wiki article on cars might have links to the car manufacturers' websites?

Your comments appreciated.

- Bad Monkey (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2007 (GMT)

Anglicisation

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with many French articles. A few have undertaken the task of "Anglicising" French terms in Wiki articles (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement") - there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about this, so your point of view would be welcome. I think a good place for this discussion would be the WP:FR page. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is taking place here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste

Did Celeste (porn star) go through AfD? Whatlinkshere doesn't show one. I don't care about her notability, but was curious because I had moved that article from Celeste to make way for a DAB. --Christopherlin 15:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I was confused at first because the edit summary said 'red link' to nn, but the article exists and is blank. I remember seeing protected deleted pages as red before, though, but I might be confused. --Christopherlin 16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{deletedpage}} was the template I was looking for, and am now suggesting. Blank is kind of confusing. --Christopherlin 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article: Jack Schaap

Your deletion of the article concerning Jack Schaap. Jack Schaap is a fairly well-known Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher. He is also the Chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College, and the son-in-law of Jack Hyles a now deceased famous Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher. I don't understand the reason for the deletion of this article. Jack Schaap may not have been nationally known like Jerry Falwell is, but he is a fairly infamous(or famous, however you want to look at it) individual among Independent Baptists. What is the reason for the deletion of this article? IFBScholar 06:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 0604372617302.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2REG demining Afghanistan 0604372617302.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. Nv8200p talk 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Renaultsport 5 Diamond Club" artical

It has been brought to my attention that the Renaultsport 5 Diamond Club Article page has been deleted from Wiki due to an unhappy individual making a complaint after they were refused admittance to become a club member when they did not meet the requirements to join.

I would like to discuss the deletion and possible resurrection of the 5DC article. Failing that a copy of the final edit of the txt so that it may be hosted else where would be most appreciated.

The "5DC" is a legitimate owners club administered by and for Renault Sport owners. Other owners clubs have pages about themselves and their activities hosted on Wiki that have been left unmolested. The 5DC is a growing organisation of like minded individuals that have a passion for motor sport and most notably a healthy appreciation for Renault and its 100 years of motor sport history.

The 5DC provides information and help to both owners and prospective owners of the Renault sport range and is becoming a recognised group of reliable individuals that help to plan meets, events and other activities devoted to Renault and its sporting activities.

I have been reading the growing number of reports that some Admins employ summary deletion far too quickly where a discussion about the direction and validity of the page would have been a good way to help shape the growth of Wikipedia instead of having hacked bits out of it with no or little feed back.

Kind Regards

5DC Admin

Ok thank you for the reply. It seems that wiki is obviously not the correct place to host such information even if it is of interest and benefit to other people. So at the next Renault World Series when people ask about the 5DC and the collectors club I won't be pointing them here for information and links to other Renault sources.

Please can you supply me with a copy of the articles final draft before deletion so that it may be hosted else where.

Dual in-line package

Nice picture. I count 32 pins on the side that's visible in the photo. Unless there's only 30 pins on the other side, it's probably not a 62-pin package :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ardsley High School

Today I noticed that you deleted the Ardsley High School article. You cited "CSD:A7: no evidence of notability, mention of non notable people, etc." I urge you to reconsider this deletion. If this article is non-notable than the same should be said about all articles about High Schools. If there is a concern with a particular aspect (e.g. no sources), I think that it should be discussed on the talk page to allow users to fix this article. At least consider recreating this article and creating a AfD for it. Thank you. --24fan24 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chilwell School page was deleted for not being notable, before being recreated. Since you are writing an article about a school, you need to mention any notable projects/events and, in addition, give sources (ideally publicity the school has received) for these, as the Chilwell page does. Feel free to check it out for an idea of how to improve the article and get it to fit the notability criteria. Having said that, I haven't seen the article, so don't know if this is possible. (Sorry for butting in, by the way). Tom H 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I just took a look at the deleted article. While I agree that it's pretty worthless as an article, I think I'm in agreement with 24fan -- it probably does not meet CSD A7. It does (at least indirectly) assert notability in that it has notable alumni. Also, the fact that the article has been around for over a year tends to make me think that a speedy delete was a little irregular. Would you consider undeleting it and bringing it to AfD? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you personally want to patrol this article and avoid inappropriate content being posted. Inappropriate content includes unprovable factoids, incidents, allegations citing staff at that school. The OTRS staff has far too many problems with non-notable school articles being vandalized by students without anybody willing to patrol them. David.Monniaux 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be edited to make it notable (as Roy mentioned above) and backed up by relevant sources, would you accept it then? Tom H 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody accepts to patrol it, yes. We just cannot have unpatrolled school articles, they're just too inviting for students who want to speak ill of teachers or classmates. The Foundation gets tons of complaints about article on US highschools, and most of these schools are non notable. David.Monniaux 00:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has taken an interesting turn. I don't see any way that "gets a lot of vandalism" is a criteria for speedy deletion. Maybe it means the article should be protected, but as WP:CSD stands now, there's no justification for a speedy delete just because it gets vandalized a lot. I'm not going to undelete it myself because I don't believe in wheel warring, but I urge you to reconsider your position. I'd be all for a policy that says high schools are, with very few exceptions, non notable, but that debate has been going on for years and it seems unlikely to end soon, or at least not with the result I'd like to see. Until that time, however, as far as I can tell, your deletion of the article is contrary to established policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Roy's comment. Tom H 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may second all you want, you're not the one fielding the complaints. David.Monniaux 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David.Monniaux: You mentioned that we would need someone to patrol this page. If you check out the page history I have been patrolling this article for quite some time and would be happy to continue to do so. --24fan24 01:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore if recreated, I am certain that I would be able to provide sources to assert its notability. I just did a quick search on the escob database (newspaper archives) and there are plenty of articles in relation to Ardsley High School. Also in regard to the the complaint that wm received about the article, I gather it was in relation to the "School Dance and Homecoming suspension" section and I would be happy to provide a reference asserting the factuality of that section. --24fan24 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify your position -- are you claiming that this is a WP:OFFICE action and thus above discussion? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. However, this arises from an email that I processed on the Foundation's behalf. We normally do WP:OFFICE (that is, call Danny or similar) only when there's no other way. David.Monniaux 08:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't as the office action policy page states: "Currently only two people are authorized to execute such actions: User:Jimbo Wales and User:Danny. Danny has stated he will use User:Dannyisme when invoking this policy." --24fan24 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article has been recreated. Thank you! --24fan24 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I advise all participants to this discussion to read Wikipedia:Schools. I read as a criterion, for instance: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself, including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, television documentaries, and public reports by schools inspection agencies and consumer watchdog organizations David.Monniaux 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Schools also says, This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so.. David, I agree with you 100% that most high schools are not notable (I just read the article on my own school, and can't for the life of me figure out why anybody would care). I also agree with you that vandalism is a real problem, and articles about high schools are magnets for vandals. Thirdly, I also agree with you that we should not let slavish adherence to rules let us get mired in bureaucracy to the detriment of the greater project; that's what WP:IGNORE is all about. But, this is not an instance of cutting through some red tape to do what's obviously the right thing. The issue of notability of high schools has been debated for a long time. Attempts to form policy about it (such as you cited) have repeatedly failed. Over and over again, AfD's of high school articles fail (as it appears, alas, that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardsley High School is going to). By saying I'm going to speedy this school article, and don't want to hear any more about it, you're not just ignoring the rules, you're ignoring long-established and well-tested consensus of many, many editors. That's being a, well, you know what it's being. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let these editors field the complaints of the 'schools' queue at the Foundation, and I'll care about their concerns. I respect people who take responsibility, not who argue on things that others will have to clean up. David.Monniaux 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading a bit about OTRS (thanks for pointing it out; I never even knew it existed). One thing I found interesting on m:OTRS/introduction was this quote: OTRS is not a badge. You must still follow the rules for each project and work to build consensus. It doesn't sound like you've fully bought into that concept :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my main concern is about writing an encyclopedia. There are articles that are barely encyclopedic, and get us well-founded complaints because we're not responsible enough as a group to patrol properly for libel, even though we know that these articles are at risk. What's the responsible course, then? Either we remove most of the school articles, either the school project (and all the people who insisted in the first place that we have these articles) patrols them. I really dislike it when the bucket is passed. David.Monniaux 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal take on school articles is that with very few exceptions, they should be deleted, but I accept that there is no consensus which agrees with me. My personal take on vandalism is even more radical -- I think anonymous editing should be banned completely, and admins should have much more latitude to block vandals on sight. None of this, "four strikes and THEN you get a slap on the wrist". One or two warnings should be enough to warrant a 24 hour block, and then 2nd block should be indefinite. But, I also accept that my personal view on that is WAY outside the group consensus. But, I don't go around doing whatever I think is best knowing that the consensus is against it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion

Er.. ok. I had forgotten this existed and I have no idea what it was. Inter\^Echo 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Greer

I have undeleted Stuart Greer (except for the most recent revisions which were obvious vandalism). Can you explain why you deleted it? Clearly, the article, in its vandalized state, needed to be be fixed. The correct repair would have been to just revert back to the previous non-vandalized revision. If you felt the article was going to be a target for further vandalism, you could have applied some level of protection. If you felt the vandalized versions were sufficiently egregious as to be a liability to the project, you could have just deleted those revisions. A speedy delete of the entire article was inappropriate and entirely outside the guidelines of WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicisation bis

I would like to ask you again for your input in this - literally thousands of articles have been sloppily "Anglicised" already (changing "région" for "region", for example, without modifying the phrase around it in the least to provide the proper context/meaning of the term) without any prior discussion at all. For certain words whose most-known English meaning is different than its French counterpart, the French italicised style has been used from the start for for both its similarity to the English wordform yet precision of meaning - yet there has been no case to date made as to why these terms should be 'translated' - it was just done. As you are major contributor to France-topic articles, so your input in this case is even important. Please help. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian article

Since you're evidently involved in sorting out image problems, A picture paints a thousand invoices might interest you if you've not already seen it. .. dave souza, talk 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

Fyi, and thanks for the support. --HailFire 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:French Navy Le Triomphant.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:French Navy Le Triomphant.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. Superm401 - Talk 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Superm401 - Talk 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated Image:French Navy commandos 52.jpg, Image:French_Navy_combat_divers.jpg, Image:French Navy Jeanne dArc 1.jpg, Image:French Navy Jeanne dArc 2.jpg, and Image:French Navy Ouragan 1.jpg. Superm401 - Talk 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is not a catch-all fallback for when we can't otherwise use an image. I don't think promophoto is appropriate when they've specifically attempted to limit distribution to ~~non-commercial~~ internet-only. I also don't think simply having more photos of one topic subverts POV. However, the place to object is IFD, not my talk page. Superm401 - Talk 02:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with User:R9tgokunks

Hi. I saw you were involved with several France related articles. I have a problem currently with User:R9tgokunks (aka Hrödberäht). This American user is trying to "germanize" several Lorraine and Alsace related articles, notably by deleting the French names of cities such as Wissembourg, Mulhouse, or Strasbourg, and bolding their German names, as if somehow their German name was the real one. He's also changed the history section of these cities, as well as the history sections of Metz and Alsace, trying to present their return to France in 1919 as an "annexation". I already informed User:Olivier about this (Olivier had himself problems with R9tgokunks in the Metz article), but he seems to be busy recenty and didn't answer me. I thought maybe you could help. After I wrote messages on Olivier's talk page, R9tgokunks wrote a very angry message on my talk page, saying that somehow I had been acting "in his back". In his angry message on my talk page he also mentioned that (I quote) "ALSACE WAS INDEPENDANT UNTIL THE ARROGANCE OF FRANCE KICKED IN". I think you get the idea. This user has also done the same with articles of Polish cities formerly part of Germany, such as Wroclaw or Gdansk. Is there something you can do about it? In particular I suggest checking the articles Strasbourg, Mulhouse, and Wissembourg in the coming days. If you don't have time, can you recommend someone else I can ask? Thank you. Godefroy 12:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions of McLouth High School and Ari Nyman

Hi. You recently speedy deleted McLouth High School and Ari Nyman. Under which section of wp:csd do you believe this was justified? If they were being vandalized, the vandalism should have been fixed, and the articles protected if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Intellegence Network

Hey, I noticed you deleted this. Was this done by PROD or AfD? Not that I want to contest it (trust me, I don't, its POV, and unsourced by its very nature), but rather I'm curious if there is an AfD around, or alternatively if there is some record of its deletion reason than just the edit summary in the deletion log. Was there a summary on the talk page? I'm looking to reference it for something else...thanks...--CastAStone|^(talk) 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the info!--CastAStone|^(talk) 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel P. Asensio

In December you deleted the article on Manuel P. Asensio, based on "WP:BLP: no sources + complaint to the Foundation on m:OTRS". The last revision was a short, factual stub which stated well-known and acknowledged facts. What was the basis for the complaint on m:OTRS? If the problem is missing citations, I can easily provide links to sources. Is there a valid reason to remove the article or are we just yielding to legal pressure? Owen× ☎ 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, it has been a month since I requested clarification as to the reason you deleted this article, but I haven't heard back from you. If you have no objection, I'll proceed to undelete the last version of the article, add the required citations, and s-protect it against anon attempts at defamation. Please let me know if there's a reason to hold off. Thanks. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Case Involving you

I've started arbcom proceedings regarding Fred Bauder's recent indefinite blocking of Silent War and Zanthalon. As I was looking into the surrounding circumstances, I found that you had indefinitely blocked a user named Rookiee under similar circumstances. I ask that you drop by and toss in your two cents. Arbcom Link Chris Croy 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fr-Bordeaux.ogg

As a test of Audacity, I just applied noise reduction to this file. If you have got better equipment since you recorded, you may want to look into fixing other files yourself. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flavored condom image

There was recently a debate over on the condom article over whether Image:McCondom dsc06781.jpg was a picture of a condom package or a vending machine. The result seems to be removal of the image altogether.

As you seem to have taken the picture, I'm hoping you will pop over and resolve the issue. If not, I'm afraid the image will stay deleted. Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories Deletion

Bien le bonjour ici! Voilà je viens vous voir Monsieur David car j'ai un problème mineur. Je fais partie du wikiproject fashion et dans le cadre de celui-ci nous avons lancé une refonte des catégories models. Malheureusement, mon modus operandi n'étant pas encore parfait j'ai créé quelques catégories inutiles que j'aimerais bien voir effacées :p Pour être précis, les voici listées ci-dessous :

Elles sont totalement vides et donc tout à fait inutiles pour le moment. Si vous pouviez les effacer je vous en serais très reconnaissant. Enfin, en vous remerciant d'avance pour votre sollicitude, je suis désolé pour le petit dérangement et vous souhaite une très bonne journée! Thiste 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Hello! Not a very important issue, but you put three different licences (Copyright, GNU and Creative Commons) on [4]. They are not compatible, ASFAIK (at least not copyright & the others). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns and your will to make it obvious that the author should be cited. This, however, is included in the GNU Free Documentation License and also in Creative Commons (which you can specify). Copyright is not, that I know, compatible with such copyleft licences. What you should normally do is maybe only to specify "this work can not be reproduced without mention of the author" (and you can add: "neither can it be modified"). On a purely judicial level, I wonder how a court would judge the matter seeing both a standard copyright and the use of copyleft licences (which explicitly state that they are compatibles and that the user may choose the one he wants). Tazmaniacs 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WMLZ-LP

I'm in the process of cleaning up and creating the remaining stubs for radio stations in Michigan and when I got to do a stub for this station, I found the article protected against recreation. I glanced at the logs and read that there were some kind of complaints. Could you give me a little more info on the situation? If at all possible, I would like to create a stub for this article similiar to the rest. Thanks! JPG-GR 22:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks! JPG-GR 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again, but it looks like you removed the protection against recreation, but left the article protected so it can't be editted by non-administrators. If you could fix this, it would be much appreciated. Thanks again. JPG-GR 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oromo Liberation Front

Hi, you mentioned on Talk:Oromo Liberation Front that the Wikimedia Foundation is receiving complaints about the article. Would you please elaborate, if possible? For the past week or so, the article has been subject to heavy vandalism on the part of someone (now blocked) with an apparent pro-OLF bias. Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:ESA-Kourou-spaceport-port-02222.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ESA-Kourou-spaceport-port-02222.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Ariane 5 to launchpad DSC 0430.jpg. --Sherool (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Ward links?

Those links were relevant and even-handed; I'm not sure why you deleted them. Especially the IMDB link, which is pretty standard for any actor page. I won't just revert you, but perhaps we can discuss it?—Chowbok ☠ 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I mean, of course, that they're even-handed in total; obviously some of the links are individually either pro- or con-.—Chowbok ☠ 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind, I see you brought this up on the talk page. I'll respond there. —Chowbok ☠ 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agriprocessors

Heya,

It looks like you might not have looked through the history when deleting the article - there are several independent references to various controversies regarding it.

Cheers, David Mestel^(Talk) 22:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't realise that. Do you think you could e-mail me a version of the article including the criticism section, so I can see about finding some better sources? David Mestel^(Talk) 22:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote something at Talk. The deletion would seem political. Yes, I will be banned and all of my comments will be deleted, in conformity to the Wikipedia norm of supporting a lie.--MarkTwainOnIce 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Of course it's not "political". David Mestel^(Talk) 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have retrieved an earlier version of my article through Google cache. I sent it to the Waukon Standard ([5]) with a fun explanation. I doubt this will reach the AP, but it is fun to catch and publicize Wikipedia abuse. Yes, I will be blocked by you for saying such things, but then, all wiki admins need getting blocked.--MarkTwainOnIce 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't care about this. You are of course free to write to the Waukon Standard. (I suggest pointing them to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room should they have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation.) David.Monniaux 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that websites like "GoVeg.com", are not reliable sources, but things like the EPA, the USDA, and the various newspapers certainly are. David Mestel^(Talk) 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, looking through the cached version, it seems that the majority of claims in the "criticism" section were well-sourced. Remove the first and second sentences of the second paragraph under "Animal abuse controversy", and we should be fine. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My article was fully sourced. I even recently improved its appearance and grammar. Why was it deleted? This is a matter of local interest, but attained world interest through that inappropriate PETA video. And how I worked on the categories! Why has this article been deleted!? --MarkTwainOnIce 07:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, it's not *your* article. See WP:OWN. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course, but I originated it, maintained it, and defended it against vandals. There were others who slightly improved it, and I maintained their improvements. So. When are you going to restore it, Mr. Admin? --MarkTwainOnIce 07:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

things like the EPA, the USDA

Yes, these are reliable. However, these are primary sources. Normally, on Wikipedia, with respect to controversies, especially involving living people, primary sources are used to precise claims rather than to point out to them; there should be a secondary source to show the claim is notorious (see WP:BLP: Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source.) The idea is that Wikipedia is not a place where people would report, out-of-context, material from courts etc.

the various newspapers certainly are I saw few citations from newspapers and they seemed extremely local. The problem there is that Wikipedia is essentially getting used to promote a controversy between a group of local activists and a company, without any kind of attempt at being fair and balanced. David.Monniaux 07:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. However, I disagree with you that the EPA and the USDA are primary sources like the examples in BLP, because the article cites press releases from those organisations, rather than actual primary data. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you agree? David Mestel^(Talk) 08:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Agriprocessors is a major employer locally, and whatever your politics, they dump lots of money into the Allamakee County, Iowa system. The prancing idea that every mention of them should be for the greater Wikipedia good (is the person here receiving bribes from the Rubashkin family?) sounds corrupt. My letter to the Waukon Standard stands.--MarkTwainOnIce 08:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"is the person here receiving bribes from the Rubashkin family?"

Are you really suggesting that I would be receiving bribes from the Rubashkin family? David.Monniaux 08:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I propose to reinstate an earlier version of the article, which I think for which you will block me. Shortly.--MarkTwainOnIce 07:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't unilaterally recreate the article. It won't help. And if you really want to get the article undeleted, try to be less confrontational and more polite. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2REG EFA 0604440929111.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2REG EFA 0604440929111.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. David Mestel^(Talk) 06:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood your use of the word "of" in the fair use rationale. As an aside, you might want to consider reviewing the source link, since it currently seems to give a 404 not found. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuff. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agriprocessors

I will not unilaterally recreate the article, but hey, this corporation is gonna get mentioned de novo, if not by me. I personally regard my last edit as rather much in the favor of the Rubashkin family, and their glatt kosher facility. They create jobs locally. You have still refused to explain why you deleted the article. Are you on the Rubashkin family payroll?--MarkTwainOnIce 06:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, excuse me, but you seem to lack common sense. I'm professor of computer science in Paris, France, I've never set foot in Iowa, and I don't know these Rubashkin folks. However, I happened to help the Wikimedia Foundation deal with a complaint received on OTRS and I determined that this page was essentially an attack page against that business (exemplified by your attitude), alternating with a page posted by the business itself. Neither of these versions clearly asserted the importance of the business by using independent, undisputable sources (like a major newspaper).

Man, excuse me, but I do have common sense. My father was a professor of Social Work, and I got a free degree in English. I never ever paid a cent in tuition.--MarkTwainOnIce 09:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please explain to me why and how I would be in the pay of that company from that agricultural neverland. :-) David.Monniaux 10:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David.Monniaux 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for French, I like Quebeckers (I even support Quebec as a nation). You still have to explain why you deleted the article. Your wonderful English claims to work in Paris; my French likes Quebecois, a la Montreal.

Complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation through OTRS. David.Monniaux 10:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jews and their Lies

Hello David. You posted an edit summary pointing to an OTRS ticket that is password protected. Could you please clarify on that article's talk what OTRS action is this related to? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infringing webpage has again been linked to [6]. This needs to be addressed.--Drboisclair 00:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agriprocessors

You have still not explained why you deleted this article. I do not think it is apparent that you are financially involved with the Rubashkin family. Hey, I live in Allamakee County, Iowa and previously, did the bus up 13th Ave in Brooklyn, with the transfer up to Eastern Parkway. I know Lubavitschers. They need to meet me, insomuch as I respect them. The Rubashkin family has problems, far more than my own family has problems. This is really local, David. --MarkTwainOnIce 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint through m:OTRS about this article. This article, in edit history, seemed to oscillate between a page that did not state the importance of the subject, except by talking about some controversies, which was sourced to a bunch of activist sites and similar. There was little press coverage indicated, and, to the best of my knowledge, no statewide or national newspaper mentioned. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information (news reports). The mere fact that a company faces a local controversy (you yourself stated that it was local) is not a sign that this company is notorious enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. But, more importantly, such an article should not be understood as a "soapbox" to merely collect criticism.

It was also evident that the owner of that corporation, or an employee or associate thereof, was trying to change this article to some typical "public relation" praise. This is also untolerable: an article claiming that this company is very important in such or such place, etc., without any serious source.

Thus, I deleted the article because of the complaint, because the article was inappropriate in any case, and because the complainer was apparently ready to go into legal threats. I hope they have cooled down.

You may of course restart an article, but, please stick to Wikipedia guidelines:

No original research.
Personal sites, blogs, self-published documents, and activist sites are not proper sources, in general. See WP:REF.
Please find national and nationwide newspaper clips talking about that issue.
The article should make a reasonable attempt at WP:NPOV and not be a loooong attack.
The article should try to be synthetic. As WP:NOT says, Wikipedia should not conduct news reports.

!*Sources like technical reports from government administrations are probably to be treated as primary sources rather than secondary sources. Short extracts from them are perhaps not tolerable as the only source for such or such claim. One reason is that such extracts will typically ignore a wider context, or technical knowledge, necessary to understand them.

This is not your personal article (sse WP:OWN).

David.Monniaux 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are not "technical reports", they're press releases, from the USDA and the EPA. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a recall release. Software manufacturers issue "patches" every so often, car makers issue "recalls", etc. I'm unsure whether this is really relevant. Wikipedia tends to take the view that news that was not echoed by some media of non-local importance is in general not suitable for Wikipedia. Was there at least a statewide newspaper that mentioned possible hygiene problems at that plant?

The thing is, we simply cannot have an article about each and every company that manufactures products that have had some defects! Especially if the objective of the article is to attack the company, do a hatched job! David.Monniaux

It's spelled "hatchet job". I did not expect this pilpul to go this far, so let us make it a real pilpul. Hey, I'm publishing locally, and have no reason to have Agriprocessors shut down, whereas others posting here seem to do so. Agriprocessors is the local embarrassment that promotes local prosperity (and I kept most mention of the illegal aliens working at that plant out of the article) (local knowledge). I agree the article needed a rewrite, and I was doing it. I gather from your previous comments that you are amenable to me myself restoring the article. But it would be big of you to restore my last edit. --MarkTwainOnIce 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Stokke

What CSD did this article fall into? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the rationale behind deleting an article that was undergoing AfD? Lampman 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting the Allison Stokke article, although I would have preferred you closed the AFD rather than delete it to prevent any further debate on this topic. Please reconsider. Burntsauce 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the google news hits like [7], she's broken multiple national records, and is one of the best in the country, likely headed to the olympics. That's definitely worth writing an article about, and this article didn't sink into the lewdness that made the internet phenomenon so bad. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus she gets press coverage that doesn't even mention the internet thing, see [8]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only second Night Gyr here. Either you have completely misunderstood the WP:CSD rules, or this is a blatant abuse of admin powers. If it is also so that you refuse to even discuss the matter, I see no other solution than to submit the case to Arbitration Committee, and at the same time suggest you be removed as an administrator. Lampman 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is as follows: WP:NOT and WP:BLP. This young lady is known for a so-called "Internet phenomenon", a short-lived craze based on lewd remarks... Is this encyclopedic? This is the matter of things that are usually reported by tabloids.

I've indeed read Google News, and all I see is that basically she's just a teenager who has been propelled to tabloid celebrity against her will. I see tons of titles talking of the poor young woman in a "web of trouble" and complaining of harassment.

If I read WP:BLP I see:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry.

If the reliable sources only cover the person in the context of something else, then a separate biography is probably unwarranted.[...] Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual

Also applicable policy:

News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography.

To summarize: she's notable only for an Internet phenomenon, apart from that her personal achievements, while good, would normally not have obtained a Wikipedia article; as I said we don't do articles on every student who's particularly gifted in some area and could perhaps one day reach a top career in his field. Furthermore, it seems that this undesired celebrity hurts her. Thus, following policy, there is every reason to delete.

And send me to the ArbCom all you want. David.Monniaux 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not speedy delete. This should be decided through AFD, not your opinion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then get another admin to undelete! David.Monniaux 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. She is an athlete on a national level, and as such certainly has "independent notability", but more importantly:
2. This is no basis for speedy! If you think so, I suggest you read A7 in WP:CSD again. The article was undergoing AfD, and I suspect you deleted it simply because you feared the outcome. If you refuse to let the process take its due course, I will indeed take this somewhere else. Lampman 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel welcome to do so. As I said, undeletions can be obtained from any admin, and you are also free to go to the ArbCom. David.Monniaux 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page and the AfD have been re-opened. There is no reason to bring in the ArbCom now, all I reacted to was the disregard for community consensus and your apparent unwillingness to discuss the matter. Lampman 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you speedied Allison Stokke, but what I don't undestand is why you also deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that given that the thing was speedied, there was no need to keep that page. Sorry if I did wrong and feel welcome to undelete it (you did already). David.Monniaux 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored both the article and its deletion debate. I wanted to get your comment before doing so in case I was missing something. Just remember to close the debate, rather than delete it, if you speedy an article in the future. Otherwise it looks really bad and ticks people off. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-deleted the article, and I'm going to properly close the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]