User talk:Beetstra/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Dear Mr. Beetstra,

In the summer of 2009, you removed a number of Wikipedia links to poets included in the online anthology At first we thought this was nuisance interference, but we quickly realized that you are an editor and that there was a rationale behind your deletions -- indeed it was thanks to you that we understood better how Wikipedia policies work.

Since the summer of 2009, there has been no Wikipedia link to for any poet whatsoever, and that is perhaps as it should be. We certainly do not wish to insist (which in any case would be useless), but we would like to ask a question.

Although it includes famous poets, a very large part of is devoted to poets and poetry that are extremely little known. The Wikipedia article on Robert de Reims, for instance, currently has no link of any sort to any text by him -- and it is probably impossible to find an acceptable, legible text by this poet online, except at*

The same is true of the poems of Thomas Bastard and many others. In some cases a poem or two can be found, but is the only place where a larger (and ever-growing) number of poems is grouped. In many cases the poems in question have been typed by us directly out of contemporary, out-of-print books from the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The texts are not scanned and are as close to faultless as scholars get. is a free non-profit online anthology of English, French and Latin verse. It does not have any sort of advertising and never has had. Do you think it would be possible to permit a link to for rare poets who cannot easily be found elsewhere?

Whatever you response, thank you for your attention.

the editors at Toule9 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Toule9 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Toule9Toule9 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Toule9 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not forbid any linking to But it is not the case that all poets should have a link added to them. Please consider to see what the external links guidelines say, and consider where you a) could expand the article itself with info, b) where the links are superfluous as they don't add anything (and Wikipedia is not the place to find all the links to all the poems, that is the job of Google and the like, Wikipedia is not a link directory), and c) where is just the only source available (where there may indeed be info on the pages linked to that can even be used to expand the understanding of the subject). Please note, that having no advertising does not by definition mean that it can not be added for promotional reasons (not saying that you did it for that reason!). Please just be considerate, and go in discussion where you are in doubt, or where your edits are reverted, then there will be no problems. I hope this explains, and if you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seasonal Greeting

Thanks!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam whitelist

As one of the more regular contributors to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, I wanted to let you know that I've created MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests, which aims to pre-empt some of the more common whitelisting requests, and have linked it from the page header and the editnotice. Feel free to improve. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look, may be a good plan. Also, have a 'declined per recurring declines' would be good, as a 'specify per concerns in recurring declines'. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

thoughts on animations

Hi Beetstra, We truly want to work with the community for our courses, and as we are about to try something new, I thought that I would consult you for your thoughts and ideas. We would like to take advantage of the new media allowances on Wikipedia and insert animations for readers to better understand the arrow-pushing process of mechanisms. We create animations using a gifbuilder, and I have added one here in EAS. What are your thoughts about these animations? and How can we best insert them/make them stick and for the community to accept them? Thanks for all of your help! MichChemGSI (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is clearer than a normal drawing, on the contrary. If an editor want to see a specific step for a longer time, there is no way to stop it. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chembox SystematicName

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Chembox SystematicName has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. No, that it is original research is not a reason to remove the template. Compounds have a systematic name, see acetone and 2-propanone. Plasmic Physics, many editors are losing any patience with your edits, me included. I really want you to get out of any form of controversial editing/deletion discussions, etc. You had a vague, overturned block, you really risk worse soon. Consider what may happen if someone decides to start an user conduct RFC on you .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Guanfacine page - I'm confused

Hi -

Trying to learn my way around the innards of Wikipedia here. First time trying to communicate with someone else.

In November 2009 a "bot" (whatever that is)named Chemobot made major (massive?) changes to the page on Guanfacine. There was error in one of the changes. I'm not sure how these discussions are supposed to happen. The discussion page for the Guanfacine page itself appears to be dead. The Chemobot page in turn refers to you as its owner.

My question... this line: "Withdrawal syndrome contains confounds making it a subject for debate" was inserted into the introductory paragraph.

I'd like to fix the quoted line, but I can't figure out what it was intended to say.

Looking at the paper referenced, which is from 30 years ago, the only reference to withdrawal says that it was observed in 3% of cases.

thanks, Garry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqzx (talkcontribs) 05:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Garry - I was just passing through and was intrigued by your comment. The ChemMoBot has nothing to do with this statement. This phrase was introduced by Tiggrrnpooh at 09:21, 15 April 2009. - This appears to be the form that the sentence was originally added.

As you point out the sentence neither makes sense nor is it supported by the reference that it is based on - I'd argue that it might be better just to delete this sentence. -- The chemistds (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the sentence. Does not seem to make sense. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Beetstra, I am combating a prolific spammer. Can you have a look here to see if I have blocked this IP correctly. This guy really wants his site on wikipedia! He is responsible for almost 400 spam-actions and won't stop. EdBever (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems I am too late? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Dirk, I don't know if you saw the later comment I left on the subject of InChIs / StdInChIs Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox. I was just wondering if you intend to add support for more than one StdInChI in Chem and Drugboxes. -- The chemistds (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There is only one StdInChI for the compound that is discussed .. I did not think about that there may be cases where there are different representations .. I think I would then choose to have one as the StdInChI, and the others as 'normal' InChI's .., and fill up the rest in .. InChI_Other? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/

Hi Dirk. Is there any way you could get this COIBot feed up and working again? It stopped around December 2007, but I would be interested in knowing how this link continues to be added. ThemFromSpace 16:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Commanded a refresh of the report .. may be too many records .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 23:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • This is in mainspace?! Mhiji 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sigh .. why is this in mainspace .. ?? Stupid bot .. every one in a so many thousand you do this .. and I don't see the reason. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just searching my name on WP pages and came across it appearing on the WikiProject Spam page, reported by COIBot [1], regarding this edit: [2]. Would just like to point out that I did not actually add the link in question, but simply reverted vandalism by the previous editor, who had blanked out several paragraphs, which happened to include this link. Thank you.Susan118 talk 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see this thread. Clearly you were reverting, no worries! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Wikipedia:Wikiproject Spam/LinkReports/ Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Spam/LinkReports/ - you might like to discuss new information at [[Talk:Wikipedia:Wikiproject Spam/LinkReports/|the article's talk page]].

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Mhiji 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

? Another one .. ? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, already noticed, the previous notice you left was already archived to my talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops... sorry. Mhiji 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No probs!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And maybe I should be the one who is sorry .. I have NO clue why some of these reports end up in mainspace .. here the path is set to 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam', and on meta it is 'User:COIBot' .. why does it break the parameter. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for addition: additional hazchem information

G'day Dirk!

Was wondering what your thoughts were on my request to add provisions for including Hazchem codes, Hazard Identification Numbers and hazard class diamonds to the Chembox? I'm not exactly sure who to ask about this, but thought it would be best to ask you first, RE: ChEMBL Links, as requested by someone else. I just had the idea of separating all of this information (including the NFPA 704's and other stuff included in the Hazards section) into a separate "Dangerous Goods" infobox, so that this information can be included in areas that aren't necessarily going to need the chembox, for example: C-4 (explosive) or Dynamite? Would you be able to point me in the right direction about accomplishing this, if you think it's a better idea?

What do you think?

Many thanks!

DeltaFalcon talk / contribs 08:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the remarks. I think that can, and should, be added to the chembox, I will work on that in due time (should be incorporated in module {{Chembox Explosive}}).
Regarding splitting out .. no, I would suggest to make a new 'dangerous goods' template, which takes the necessary data, but which can be used on pages which do not have a chembox (as some (most?) explosives are mixtures which would not get a chembox per sé), but not remove parts from the chembox on the 'pure' explosives and add another infobox. It is a bit the same trick as what we do with drugbox/chembox - some obvious drugs are also important as non-drug-chemical, and hence have a drugbox, where the module {{Chembox Pharmacology}} takes the data that normally would be in the drugbox. Is this a way forward? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, lets see if I'm understanding this correctly: First of all, add the new dangerous goods information into a new section of the chembox. Create a new template similar to chembox specifically for dangerous goods (dgoodsbox for arguments sake) and duplicate some of the parameters from the Chembox Hazards section that is common to Dangerous Goods, then also include Hazchem, ADR HIN's, class diamonds, etc.
  • For "hazardous material" articles without a chembox, add dgoodsbox like a chembox, fill in all the parameters where applicable.
  • For "hazardous material" articles with a chembox, leave the parameters already set in the chembox, add dgoodsbox and fill in the blanks.
Does that sound right to you? When I get some spare time, hopefully by the end of this week, I'll start reading up on creating templates and infoboxes and start incorporating all of the information I have so far into a prototype (prelim. policy research suggests I do this). That should give you something to work with when incorporating it into the Chembox (again, if I understood you correctly). :-)
As for incorporating Hazchem et al. into the Chembox, I would suggest placing the parameters in the {{Chembox Hazards}} part, since the whole system covers flammable gasses, liquids, corrosives, radioactive material and temperature elevated materials, to name a few.
Many thanks, looking forward to improving Wikipedia with you! I'll keep you updated as I progress.
DeltaFalcon talk / contribs 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think in the cases where the {{chembox}} will do, the data will be in the modules {{Chembox Hazards}} and {{Chembox Explosive}}.
For the others, you could consider to 'clone' the chembox (just make a copy of the current code - say into {{Explosivebox}}), and make a copy of the other modules/templates that are of interest ({{Chembox Hazards}} and {{Chembox Identifiers}} - to {{ExplosiveBox Hazards}}, {{ExplosiveBox Identifiers}} (I presume some do have e.g. a CAS number or other IDs). And maybe there are some other modules which are of interest. Then you 'steal' necessary parameters from {{Chembox Explosive}} and create new modules which can be of use. And for the other modules, remove the parameters which are not useful. I would then also change the colours (there is a header template in the chembox which regulates the colour).
Looking forward to see this. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, forgot, no, what I mean:
I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly what I was going for! :)
I'm still a little busy at the moment, I'll write back here when I have a basic prototype for {{Dangerousgoodsbox}} (need to completely work out the systems at play (like UN Number, CAS, etc.), something which is a little hazy at the moment; then I'll start getting into the details of it and automate it. You should then be able to transpose parameters and data from that.
Cheers! DeltaFalcon talk / contribs 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Todo for V1.0

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Todo for V1.0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. can go I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Help improving page

Hi Dirk

Thank you for your message re. I have read the information about conflict of interest. I am an ex-employee of the organisation and feel that the foundation should have a webpage due to its growing profile in the contemporary art scene in the UK. However I recognise that this could constitute a conflict of interest. Could an independent Wikipedia editor be invited to contribute to this page? Otherwise please could the page be removed? I have in the meantime removed extraneous links to the organisation's website.

Many thanks.Umbrellaki (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Umbrellaki

You really don't see what is going on, is it. Hint: Wikipedia is NOT to promote Parasol Unit. Please read the many warnings, remarks that are left to editors with a conflict of interest here, and the many remarks in the edit history of the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read this information. Please could you assume good faith and help. As I have a COI I am clearly not the ideal person to decide whether this page is notable or contribute to its content. As I am new to Wikipedia, I didn't realise that before and now I do: I will not touch the content of this page again. How can we ask someone with a neutral point of view to get involved? I am 100% in favour of the content being notable, useful, informative and relevant. Thank you for your help.Umbrellaki (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Umbrellaki

Hi, thanks for the remark. Umbrellaki, when there are something like 5 Single Purpose Accounts who all get warned and pointed to the relevant policies and guidelines, but who still promote and further, then Assuming good faith starts to run thin. If then editors start to remove the proper references, etc. ...
Please have a look at the policies and guidelines. That you have a COI is not a reason why you can't edit, or can't contribute to it, but please keep it neutral, do not promote the organisation. Stick to facts. Moreover, Wikipedia needs it articles to be properly referenced. That means, the main body of information has to referenced to independent sources. I.e., not to information coming directly from the organisation or people who work for it - the organisation website is not the best place, neither are things e.g. a director has said in an interview - though in the end, some of the references can be primary (but if not enough external sources have written about the subject, it may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But there, users involved in the organisation can be useful - you are probably aware of what is written/said by independent sources what is written about the organisation (newspapers, magazines - i.e. articles which were not influenced by the people of the organisation), and at least point editors to that, or even help expanding the document on those premises.
For more help, I would suggest that you find a suitable Wikipedia:WikiProject - those are places where Wikipedia editors with similar interests come together - there is a list linked on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject, other ways of finding them are by looking at the talkpages of pages about similar organisations, there often is a banner. Another trick is finding editors who edit more pages of similar organisations (they may be a project member, or at least be interested and knowledgeable on the subject).
By the way, I do think that the organisation is notable enough for an article, it looks there are some independent sources already. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dirk, this is reallly helpful. In that case I'm going to attempt to edit again more neutrally and will message you here when it's done. I have looked for people to help via WikiProject but it seems the visual arts WikiProject is inactive. If you know of anyone that would be a massive help! Thanks Umbrellaki (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Umbrellaki

There are 3 other accounts, and an IP who all seem to have similar interests as you, all working on the same page - if you know them (in real life), could you please convey the message to them as well? I'll have a look if I can find s.o. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk, I will pass that on to the organisation, I think I know two people who might be editing this page too. I have made some more changes, what do you think? Thanks for your help Umbrellaki (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Umbrellaki

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts does not seem too inactive. Quite some people posted on the 30th of December, you could give it a try.

I'll have a look later, but I'm not a specialist in the area. I saw you removed quite some primary sources, some of those statements now may be in need of a proper source, so editors can verify it ... thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk, I have messaged a user called Modernist who seems to have written widely on visual arts. I see that sources are lacking and will see what can be done. I appreciate this. Umbrellaki (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Umbrellaki

Hi Dirk, another wikipedian has removed some of the tags and I have just added a source for funding information. Hope you agree this is much better now. Thanks for your help. Umbrellaki (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Umbrellaki

I had another look. Some small things changed. Still believe that the article is mainly edited by editors with a COI, but I'll leave that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

About InChI

Hi! Could you clarify a few things about InChI I couldn't find in the article?

  • BKchem produces InChIs starting with "InChI=1S/..." and Keys ending in "-N". Are these standard-InChIs?
  • Regarding the drugbox of Artemether/lumefantrine: Can an InChI describe a combination of substances? If yes, the drugbox should probably be modified to display this parameter even if type=combo.
  • Regarding the same drugbox: Should I delete InChIKey parameters if there is already a StdInChI present, or might these become useful in future?

Thanks for your work with CheMoBot! ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anypodetos! Happy new year!! I am not a specialist, but I'll try.
  • Yes, the '1' is 'version one' IIRC, the S is for 'standardized' (if I have it correct, not a specialist). I have seen that most Keys generated from StdInChI's end in a '-N', but I have also seen some which end in a '-K' .. in all cases you have two sets of a handful of characters with a dash inbetween, and for the standards they get another dash at the end, and a single character.
  • ChemSpider (which I use as a source for InChI's) does give InChI's for those mixtures, and also other parameters are there for mixtures (CASNo, ChemSpiderID ...).
  • No, ehm .. that is complicated. InChI's can (to a certain extend??) be used also to find molecules which contain a certain fragment. So if you would look for a phenyl fragment, you could find a lot of hits on the internet. However, if you would want to find a single molecule, while it could be a fragment as well, it is better to search on InChIKey. Although InChIKey is not as unique as an InChI (two different molecules will never have the same InChI, however, since the InChIKey is calculated from the InChI, there may be two different molecules with different InChI's, which have the same InChIKey (though the estimated chance of that was < 0.something %). So in a way, they are both of interest. In the end I therefore would suggest to render both into the final html-output of the page (though displaying may be superfluous).
I hope this explains, you keep up the good work as well! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A happy new year to you too! I see I didn't phrase my third question correctly; I was meaning to talk about InChI versus StdInChI (or InChIKey vs. StdInChIKey if you like) – the former is currently not displayed in drugboxes. Do we need it? Should it be displayed? Should InChI(Key) parameters be removed when I encounter them?
By the way, I downloaded some PDFs from the IUPAC site, and the last letter (-N or whatever) seems to refer to the charge of the molecule or something like that. Will have to read the documentation more thoroughly when time allows. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Hmm .. that I don't know. In a way, the StdInChI is the one to use .. the others are sometimes used. Not sure if they are useful enough to keep them. People might look for chemicals based on other InChI's ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just leave them. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am even forced to use them ... thanks for leaving them there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a good sign if Wikipedia starts forcing you to do things ;-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the important thing to remember is that the term Standard InChI has a specific meaning - indicating the settings that were used to generate the InChI - this means that you can meaningfully compare InChIs. If you do not specify the settings of the InChI generation algorithm you can generate a number of similar but not identical InChIs from the same structure - that include features such as; the Fixed Hydrogen layer, the Reconnected layer and the relative stereochemistry flag. This is is why I've previously suggested that there's a need for having StdInChI1, StdInChI2 etc. I certainly think that there is a need to avoid mixing the usage of the labels StdInChI and InChI and the use of 'undefined InChIs' and Standard InChIs.

While I don't have really strong views on this I do wonder if there would be value in using only the Standard InChI in Wikipedia? I suggest this for four reasons:

  • Consistency and ease of comparison
  • It's the most widely used form of the InChI
  • Users who are not particularly familiar with the InChI will be less confused
  • Users who understand and utilise InChIs will immediately understand the data that they are working with

Having said all of this I think that the most important thing is actually to make sure that we get any InChIs into ChemSpider records (though I'll personally be adding Standard InChIs). -- The chemistds (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

@Anypodetos - yes, true. I feel bad about it.  :-) (see below)
@The Chemistds - Indeed, using the StdInChI is indeed the best, and the most important. Point is, different representations of a molecule still give different StdInChI's, while it is the same 'compound' (and no, the algorithm is certainly not perfect).
Also, what I am doing now is linking external databases to Wikipedia, and incorporating data from them. I have a list, e.g., of hundreds of thousands of ChEMBL-numbers linked to StdInChI's. Having StdInChI's verified on Wikipedia enables me to practically automatically link them to the ChEMBL numbers, and have all (except for errors in the list that I have - I expect that to be minimal) correct on Wikipedia. With that, we are working towards having full coverage of that, and we should be able to get close to 100% 'correct' there. Very valuable, as it enables us to expand all articles with easily accessible data which is immediately verifiable to the databases.
Problem is .. not all databases are using StdInChI's .. for those I still need to use 'normal' InChI's, and know that I will be missing some .. or may make some mistakes. For now, KEGG is such a case (they have huge downloadable lists of KEGG compound and drug numbers, linked to the InChI - but not to the Std.InChI.
I do agree, that at a certain point, we should just display Std.InChI's in the chembox, and ignore the existence of InChI's there. They can still be parameters, they can even be verified - but displaying them might confuse the readers, and they are a form of 'table creep' (and they do look ugly anyway).
Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reactionbox Catalyst

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Reactionbox Catalyst has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Been there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CheMoBot's Ximelagatran edit

Could you have a look at this edit? It looks strange and also resulted in a strange appearance of the drugbox. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Going into debug mode. I have seen that happen before, and when you remove them CheMoBot happily reinstates them. Sometimes, like now, it even adds yet another one to the mix. I have not yet a clue as to why it happens, lets see if I can find it, it will need to be resolved. Cheers for letting me know! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I solved it. The bot broke on <nowiki>[[</nowiki> in the name of the compound - it just detects that as double opening brackets (as in wikicode), while they may not get closed. Then the whole system confuses and does strange things. Curious bug, but I hope I solved it. Please repair when you find wrong ones, and if you notice the bot making the same mistake again after today, please poke me. Thanks again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep an eye open. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Global spammer

Sorry for being lazy and posting it here. Please have a look at the talk page and contribs of (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Materialscientist (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(the last being a mistake ..). I'll have a look on the cross-wiki part of this, seems like it can go onto the meta spam blacklist. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The first two are already meta blacklisted, see WT:WPSPAM item. By the way, not that I want to avoid the work, you could just apply the same lazyness to WT:WPSPAM, there it will probably be handled faster. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, lazyness might just give you more work, by the way. If the spam continues and you have to clean it up ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reactionbox Catalyst - 2 -

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Reactionbox Catalyst has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, again. You might want to take a look at the newer nomination. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. I see what happens. The intermediate template does not make much of a difference, as long as the parameters are not used, either direct or indirect 'transclusion' does not show the template as being used. The problem is, that the box never gained any traction, and is not transcluded on many pages. I'll consider the whole set for deletion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sorry about that erroneous nomination - I will take more heed of the {{intricate}} message in future! Is there a suitable replacement for your reactionbox? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries.

No, there is not a suitable alternative, but there is a bit of a question whether this should really be used. It is not sure if there is enough 'hard' data that can go into such a box, how nomenclature should be used, etc. etc. Maybe I should first try to see whether there is still interest, and otherwise .. well, it is just a bit of space in the database .. if people want to use it, it is there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly B Jones

User_Talk:Blberman Hi can you help clarify how I can make a legitimate page about a creative professional without it being deleted as a "real person" article? I'm still quite new to writing an article in wikipedia. You deleted my article about Kelly B Jones and want to know how I can make it legitimate. Thank you. Blberman (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it was nominated (by someone else), and deleted (by me) because it did not give any information as to why this person is notable. No referencing whatsoever, just external linking to personal pages. There is a warning here on your talkpage which explains quite well what was wrong. Note, if there are no suitable, independent, reliable sources talking about the subject, then there should be not an article about that (living) person, as there is no way to independently see whether what is written is true or not. This policy tells you more about that, and that policy is taken very serious here. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ChEMBL Japanese Page

Hi Dirk, Who is the best person to contact about creating a ChEMBL page in Japanese? My colleague tried to create one (a direct translation) and it was deleted as they said it was a direct copy of my page (or the page I started). We have a lot of links in Japan and it would be good to have a translation of our information. Thanks in advance - Louisa Louisajb (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a good question. What I would do is to find a user who is both significantly active here and on ja.wikipedia. Users here who have it advertised on their userpage are categorised in Category:User_ja. If that person is also pretty active on ja.wikipedia, they might be able to help you there ..
By the way, did you make the japanese translation on this wiki? That is pretty surely deleted indeed, as this is the English language Wikipedia.
I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. I will let him know. No, we used the japanese language Wiki website. Thanks Louisa Louisajb (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

ChEMBL Drug Icons=

Me again - another question.

We collate information about known drugs, such as whether it's a small molecule, its route of delivery, black box warning etc etc. We show this as drug icons on the pages of known drugs. It gives the users a quick overview of the properties of the compound. An example of this is and to see the icons on their own you use So what I am asking is - can the ChemBot trawl through all the Chembl ID links and add these icons to the boxes using the URL and the ID that I and the ChemBot has added? I think it would be really informative and also look really good. For those compounds where the information hasn't or can't be calculated, the boxes will just be greyed out.

Thanks! Louisajb (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That are the type of things that we plan to roll out in the next level, indeed. It should be possible to source a part of the compound-page:
<map name='iconmap'>
<area href="" alt="Drug Class: Synthetic Small Molecule" title="Drug Class: Synthetic Small Molecule" shape="rect" coords="1,1 37,37" />
<area href="" alt="Rule of Five: No" title="Rule of Five: No" shape="rect" coords="38,1 74,37" />
<area href="" alt="New Target: No" title="New Target: No" shape="rect" coords="75,1 111,37" />
<area href="" alt="Oral Delivery: Yes" title="Oral Delivery: Yes" shape="rect" coords="112,1 148,37" />
<area href="" alt="Parenteral Delivery: No" title="Parenteral Delivery: No" shape="rect" coords="149,1 185,37" />
<area href="" alt="Topical Delivery: No" title="Topical Delivery: No" shape="rect" coords="186,1 222,37" />
<area href="" alt="Chirally Pure: No" title="Chirally Pure: No" shape="rect" coords="223,1 259,37" />
<area href="" alt="Prodrug: No" title="Prodrug: No" shape="rect" coords="260,1 297,37" />
<area href="" alt="Boxed Warning: Yes" title="Boxed Warning: Yes" shape="rect" coords="298,1 335,37" />

Get from there the 9 different vars - and try to parse them into the boxes (it would be nice to have it in a more compact format, now I have to load a whole page with a lot of bytes for every edit). It is not completely trivial, but it can be done. I would than on Wikipedia make the separate icons, and just make them appear when vars are set to 'yes' .. I think this might however need a discussion with the WikiProjects (Chemicals/Pharmacology) to see what they think is good info. One of my questions would be, is this all worldwide established? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to do any updates as they are completely linked to the ChemblID. All we would ask is that you could precede the inputted Chembl ID with the icon URL so that it brings back the drug icons that we have already set for the compound. So, like when I type in the ID, it automatically takes you to the correct URL, it would be good to do the same with the icons. The icons are taken from the FDA/Orange book information for that drug. They are not decided on by ChEMBL so the data is independent to us and we are merely putting them into a graphical, user-friendly form. Hope this makes some sense :) (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It does make sense, that would be a matter of making another link - though they are now linked via the ChemblID anyway (they are on The nicest thing would be to have the icons show on Wikipedia, but that would need the above incorporation of data into the chembox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Dirk. In November 2010, you whitelisted my reliable sources search engine.[3] But I noticed that I still get an error if I add it to an article talk page. Can this be enabled on article talk pages, too? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi A! Eh, that link should work everywhere on en.wikipedia. test: if it works here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, test worked. What seems to be the problem. Can you show me a link that does not work (e.g. leave off the 'http://' to be able to save it)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
When I tried to add a link to search results on the talk page of List of misquotations, it wouldn't let me. Instead, I had to resort to adding blank spaces to the URL.[4] Here's the URL without the http:// A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah .. your link has to start with '', and then be followed by '&client=pub-6571102184684432&' -> works. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, what I was attempting to do was link to search results. That URL works, but doesn't contain any search results. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
test: --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
But that link you pasted perfectly saves here .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That's weird. I definitely got an error message. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


About how many new links are added to en.wp each day? ΔT The only constant 18:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oi .. I don't know. I'll have a look next week. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Total: 62,421 recorded link additions (scanning approx 762 wikis).
  • w.en: 26,192 recorded link additions.

(counted the 9th of Februari). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Long chemboxes

Hallo. Amazingly, there were no objections against collapsed chemboxes. Can you implement it now? It is very annoying that they push aside images and upset layout. And excess of Plasma makes it worse. Cosmetic changes can be made later. Don't forget to move the molecular formula; this most simple and uncontroversial property can be moved directly below the title.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh .. did I miss a discussion and did I miss a proper implementation of it. Note, molecular formula is not the most easy, there is more behind it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Chembox. What is your note meaning?--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Hmm .. may need a bit more, but I created all the sandbox versions. In principle they can be used (though maybe should be extensively tested first). New note: this does not work when Java is disabled by the reader, and may result in strange results, and regarding the old note, it is not only molecular formula what then would need to move, it is also the whole of C, H, .. which would result in also the molecular weight appear there. Moreover, I don't think that it belongs in the main part of the box, the molecular formula is a property of the compound. And maybe the properties sub-box should only be collapsed in rare occasions. Hey, it would also be possible maybe to 'partially collapse' boxes. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Independence from java would be preferable, but not necessarily. I suppose it is standard in all browsers and no one will use WP without, as I think WP is already using too much java scripts. Molecular formula are very universal, but may have low priority. A repeated field for manual addition may be acceptable (like the image caption), or leave it out. 'Partially collapse' boxes are the next best, but not preferable sollution, as it weakens the goal.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
For now the problem is, that some vars seem to be broken - at least in {{Chembox Identifiers/sandbox}} and in {{Chembox Related/sandbox}} .. feel to have a go at it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
May have solved it .. but please do some sandbox testing to see if all works properly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a broad interest, but with limited programming knowledge. You may ask User talk:DMacks for help. Possibly, the sollution is a simpler code, rather than adding more.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to program, just find boxes with varying parameters, and see what happens if you change the sections to the /sandbox version (just change 'Section# = Chembox <something>' to 'Section# = Chembox <something>/sandbox' and press preview to see if nothing breaks). I found a breakage already - everything is suddenly centered :-(. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want me to test something, please be a bit more clear where to test. Can I copy a chembox to my own page?--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, you can also make pages like User:Beetstra/Propane and User:Beetstra/test. Copy the first section of, say, Benzene (chembox + some text) to a page in your userspace (or use one of mine, fine with me), and change all the sections to the /sandbox version. But you can even do it in mainspace, press edit on Benzene, change in the editbox all sections to the /sandbox version, and press preview (not save!). This will be the best to test it with the biggest chemboxes you can find. If you find one that breaks, then copy that one to your userspace, save it, and ping me (or DMacks). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Still obscure. If I add /sandbox to Section1 = {{Chembox Identifiers, I just get the normal box, not collapsed.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, with | collapsed = yes it is fine.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Copper(II) sulfate gives troubles: User:Wickey-nl/klad
Solved Copper(II) sulfate - the sandbox contained a small error. Thanks!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it can have a try. I have Firefox 3.6 on Mandriva linux. Test by other users could also be done by giving some examples on your test page and let users look at it, but I don't think that is needed.
The only advantage of different sections is the fixed order of the fields within the section, not? Headers could also be common fields in the table and sections could also be combined to one section, right? Every row can have its own formatting/background color within one section.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Testing is mainly to see if there are things still obviously broken. I think it seems to work now.
Hmm .. not sure what you mean here. Having the different sections 'groups' the information, and one could selectively choose to 'hide' some and not the others (I would be reluctant to hide the properties standard, and a bit less, but still, reluctant to hide the identifiers standard. The other info is often less common and could be hidden sometimes. But it depends on the case.
Strictly spoken, it is not necessary to have the different sections, but it keeps information a bit more grouped, otherwise one would have to go through the whole list to find e.g. an InChI in editmode, now you know the section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about the possibility to expand all at once. I suggest to remove the possibility to keep a section unhidden. It is not logical to do that and can give edit conflicts. Expanded sections are really ugly and unaesthetical. The properties sections are very large in general.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, like that. Hmm, that may be difficult. Lets first look at this, and see how it goes, if people really find it useful. We could always switch to standard-all-collapsed .. I would generally not collapse, not even long ones, as long as the box is not e.g. excessively longer than the page, or if the box is not interacting with something else. Note, people will still open sections when collapsed, which will then affect the formatting of the page as well. After all, the chembox is telling parts of the article in an easy-to-scan table form. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
A chembox is affecting the formatting of the page anyhow, as soon it exceeds the content table. I had also Commons:Template:Category tree in mind.
But this first. Also, consider general collapse, to be consistent.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot service

Dirk, is it possible to search Chemistry project articles that have tags for being too technical, per --Smokefoot (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a toolserver tool for it. There are possibilities to find the intersection of categories. I just don't know what it is again. I'll try to get back on this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be tools:~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php ΔT The only constant 02:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Δ. Smokefoot, see e.g. which takes all articles which are in both of Category:Wikipedia_articles_that_are_too_technical (and 3 levels of subcats of that) and from Category:Chemistry (and 4 levels of subcats of that). Is that about what you need? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed fields in drugboxes?

I've wanted to ask you for some time why CheMoBot keeps editing articles I've edited shortly before, even if I didn't change anything in the drugbox. Usually, the edits don't seem to do much, but this changed the tick mark in the ChEMBL field to a cross even though the id didn't change, and seems to be correct. Could you tell me what's going on? Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

CheMoBot checks after someone edits an article. If there is something changed (in comparison to the verified revid), then it will update the box accordingly. What seems to have happened here, is that the verified revid has been changed in the index, and these were the first edits since.
This specific case seems to have to do with a breakage I had in my script some time ago. I had to revert some updates to the index, and a proper update has been lost here (the current revid is of before Louisajb added the ChEMBL number, and that one was hence not verified in the older revid, and hence marked as 'changed'.
I am running my script at the moment, trying to get all again up-to-date with, amongs others, a list provided by Louisajb with all ChEMBL numbers. My script is at about 42.5%; still several days to go before it is ready. The script will, soon, get to Lopinavir I think, which will update the index to a better revid. I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I should add .. basically, if there are crosses in a chembox/drugbox, then that means that those values in the current revid are different from the verified version (there is a link in the bottom of the chembox/drugbox to see the differences). There are then two possibilities: the current value is actually incorrect and has to be changed back to the version in the verified revid, or the current values are all correct, and in that case the verified revid has to be changed in the index (of course, the combination is also possible, both the old and new version are incorrect, in that case one should change it to the correct one, ánd update the index). The latter is the case for Lopinavir. In the former case, CheMoBot should come along and adapt the fields again, in the latter case CheMoBot will come along within about 10 minutes after someone edited the page. One could solve it now for that page, though I will get there in one of the next days anyway to update the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Novice Question about Chemical Structure/Diagrams

Dirk, I very rarely have minor corrections for chemical structures (maybe one per year). My question is: when a structure/diagram is shown that is incorrect, is there a protocol of how to go about making changes and justifying. Example: Barbaturic acid has a diagram of the "resonance structures" of the ion of BA. This diagram is completely wrong and I posted on the discussion page with reasons why it is wrong. Should I somehow tag the diagram as disputed? Sorry to ask, but I've spent way too much time trying to figure out protocol and I'm astonished that WP has gotten pretty complex for the casual updater! An ideas or a direction you can point me to would be helpful. Thanks! Cheers! (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If the image is completely wrong, I would just remove it from the text of the article, and post on the talkpage why you removed it. That is especially true when it is unreferenced (if it is properly referenced, and the reference says it as well, it becomes a problem of WP:TRUTH .. in which case I would only discuss it on the talkpage). If you think that the image can be repaired, then you click the image, which generally redirects you to commons (e.g., File:Barbiturate.jpg redirects you to a page here, which states that the original is on commons), and there you can 'tag' the article with the disputed chem-template: '{{disputed chem|<your reason here>}}'. That results generally in someone 'repairing' the situation. Note that the image may have a different use on other wikis, where the 'wrong' structure is properly explained and hence the image is not 'wrong' - that may also be a solution here. I hope this helps a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot bug

Your bot is associating the wrong KEGG ID to formaldehyde. It keeps changing the correct ID to that of parafomaldehyde. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My script, probably. Let me check. Thanks for letting me know. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
My script pulls the info out of the database of KEGG .. I guess there is a mistake there in the database (or the InChI's it uses are wrong ..). I've overridden this KEGG. Thanks again! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


I'll be happy to do some testing in my sandbox. What needs to be done to use the provisional chembox? I suggest that we test one collapse at a time rather than leap into a multivariate analysis. How about starting with identifiers? Petergans (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I answered this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, though I think that this could go live.. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find the answer. If you are confident about a new chembox template then by all means go live, but let me know on my talk page, and I will monitor it as I trawl through various articles for other purposes. Petergans (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

I am proposing to merge these talk pages to Wikipedia:Blocked external links and subpages. The main reason is to remove the implication of "spam" and provide a somewhat more visible and centralized location, and a slightly more sane process. I am contacting you because you are or have been involved with spam blacklisting in the past. Please post any comments you may have at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On my way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I imagine there will be more discussions and some practicalities to be dealt with before enacting. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


{{you've got mail}} LeadSongDog come howl! 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Category:Articles without CASNo source"

Hi Beetstra, I came across this category on the phenanthrene page. I was wondering if you could give some more information Category:Articles_without_CASNo_source on how it is to be used - that way, I can help to maintain the category. Right now it just says "Maintenance cat - {{cascite}} should be replaced by {{cascite|<correct/changed>|<reference site>}}" but I don't know exactly what that means. When does it get replaced? Is CAS Common Chemistry (as found on phenanthrene) an acceptable reference site? Aren't all the Common Chem pages automatically removed from that category, anyway, since the CAS entry in the ChemBox has been validated? I know this is a bit of a pain, but we need others to be able to help keep these up to date. All the best, Walkerma (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That was purely a maintenance category for the time CheMoBot was still following CASNo's as verified. Then the category would automatically be de-populated. Now we do not follow the CASNo anymore, so that category gets populated.
I'm not sure what to do with it. I think it is best to rewrite {{cascite}} so it does not populate it anymore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

COIBot appears to be in an infinite loop

Currently in #wikipedia-en-spam:

<COIBot>  Saving a report for (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - 1 records waiting: 1 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 0 auto.
<COIBot>  Saving a report for (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - 1 records waiting: 0 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 1 auto.
<COIBot>  Not saving (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - done that 1 ago - 1 records waiting: 1 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 0 auto.
<COIBot>  Not saving (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - done that 1 ago - 1 records waiting: 1 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 0 auto.
<COIBot>  Not saving (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - done that 1 ago - 1 records waiting: 1 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 0 auto.
<COIBot>  Not saving (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - done that 1 ago - 1 records waiting: 1 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 0 auto.
<COIBot>  Not saving (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - done that 1 ago - 1 records waiting: 1 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 0 auto.
<COIBot>  Not saving (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - done that 1 ago - 1 records waiting: 1 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 0 auto.
<COIBot>  Saving a report for (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - 1 records waiting: 1 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 0 auto.
<COIBot>  Saving a report for (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - 1 records waiting: 0 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 1 auto.
<COIBot>  Saving a report for (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - 1 records waiting: 0 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 1 auto.
<COIBot>  Saving a report for (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - 1 records waiting: 0 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 1 auto.
<COIBot>  Saving a report for (XWiki spam by Pochsad) - 1 records waiting: 0 XWiki, 0 Local, 0 Poked, 0 Meta, 0 IP, 0 requested, 1 auto.

etc. Trying to populate the queue by poking doesn't fix the problem. COIBot seems to not respond to IRC commands. This happens when there is only one item in the queue. (I understand Beetstra is on holiday, returning tomorrow.) Cross-posted to User talk:Versageek. MER-C 13:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I restarted the bot. Will investigate this when I have time. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/

Hello Beetstra, I writing this because my appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ and I waswn't spaming, my case is the 26, well during 2011-03-11 23:51:25 (UTC) I was writing about the 2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami in the Spanish WP see [|diff] i put “Los niveles de radiación en el cuarto de control de la planta se han informado de ser 1000 veces por encima de los niveles normales.” (you can tranlate whith google tranlate) and then the reference <ref>Kyodo News English. [] Radiation 1,000 times higher than normal detected at nuke plant, March 11, 2011, 9:40pm (GMT)</ref> if you follow the link [] you will see that I put the same information that the news.

About, I dont't know why is mark as spam, I use to translate from English WP to es:WP and this reference was taken from there, anyway kyodonews is a Japan local news. Is natural to take it as references in the articles as 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami or Fukushima I nuclear accidents and actually is wide use it (check find "kyodo" or "kyodonews" in one of this articles). In my opinion isn't spam. How I do to erase my user from this report?, because i was not spaming. Tanks for read and sorry about my rudimentary English.--Bsea (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer to this. The bot seems to have picked it up for some reason, and prepared a report. It is from the diff and the additions by others clear that here there is no spamming involved - I have removed the reports.
Just as a note: that the bot is reporting one of your edits does not mean anything. It is the total of the actions of an editor that make the editor. Sometimes good links get spammed by site owners, while at the same time other editors make normal use of it. Having the full list of edits helps us in assessing such information and to handle appropriately (if there are no good edits, we could consider blacklisting, but if there is proper use next to the spamming, we have to be more careful). I hope this explains!! Thanks for the remark! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of external links (RES LEGAL)

I don't understand why you deleted the added external links and marked them as spam. RES LEGAL is not a commercial website! It is a public database issued by the German Ministry of Environment. It is free of charge and does not require any prior registration. To mark it as spam does not make any sense. On many Wiki-pages concerning renewable energy you accepted the external link by "reegle" a public search engine which closely cooperates with our website. So why don't you delete them as well? thanks and kind regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czechmate83 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the external links guideline and spam guideline. It is not the link I am talking about, it is the actions that you are taking. We are not writing a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia. Thanks you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On every page where I posted a link were 5-10 other external links. Maybe I shouldn't have posted them on several pages within a short space of time. But it is the most comprising database there is on the web. So in my opinion it is a very useful link.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czechmate83 (talkcontribs) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is exactly what I said, Czechmate83. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. We do not need to link to all possible external sites. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All this kerfuffle irritated me at first but in the end it was clear that your heart was in the right place. Let each of the wikis thrive or fade on their merits, and with no more linking to it elsewhere than is obviously helpful to the readers of the "elsewhere". That "Camerapedia" seems likely soon to be a redlink doesn't worry me. If you are indeed on holiday, I hope that you have a camera with you; and as long as you're not driving, enjoy a beer on me. (Here's one that has never disappointed me yet.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed this edit of yours a few minutes after writing this request to remove from the blacklist, a request that may interest you. -- Hoary (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I already responded there. I was actually the person to blacklist, for various reasons, but edits similar to the one mentioned here is a typical example. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. What you say! Let each have their faith. I must confess, I was at first also a bit irritated about the coarse of the discussion - and I may have acted a bit fast on this, sorry.

Heh, no, I am not on holiday anymore, I always forget to remove the templates. The beer you suggest is indeed a good one. Thanks, and cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

removal of peoples factual entries

Like another misguided wikipedia usser, you have removed factual content and valid http links from an information page.

instead of removing facts that you know nothing of, perhap you should spend more time sorting them out and tidying them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darzet boy (talkcontribs) 00:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See, again, WP:EL, where you have been pointed over and over. I have now given you a final warning, we are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


Wondering about dividing the medication box into two. One that is clinical and one that deal with chemistry, etc. I see you worked alot on the previous one thus would appreciate your comments. [5] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. I would be against, I think. I would even suggest to merge the whole lot into the chembox, and let all be handled there. Now there are always those borderline things, and I don't think it is worth it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi! There is a discussion whether WP:PHARM should become a taskforce of WP:MED. Since you are somehow involved in WP:PHARM (editing the drugbox and all): Could you comment there? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to answer. Been there, thanks Anypodetos for the notice! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Peace on who follows the right.Sorry sir I didnot realise that last time. I understood that I should collect reasonable nomber of the category members to create it. --حسن علي البط 15:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Sir I read the message "after" recategorizing. --حسن علي البط 15:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No, you should first discuss the categorisation scheme. Many Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry members do NOT agree with the categorisations you (and some others) perform. This re-categorisation is NOT helpful, and I want you to stop completely with it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay anyway. --حسن علي البط 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Beetstra. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I started an SPI for the user attempting to create this page. I saw you blocked both accounts so it's probably trivial at this point. Have a good day. OlYellerTalktome 10:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

They were WP:DUCKs. But still, maybe the underlying IP is static and can be blocked for some time. Or sleepers can be eliminated. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A Milestone

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Congratulations--100,000 edits! You have achieved a milestone that only a rare few have accomplished. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your tireless efforts. Buster Seven Talk 00:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. Would this be the right moment to stop?  ;-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Good grief, no!!! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
/me applies {{retired}} just to upset some editors .. :-D --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dunbia Article

Hi Beetstra, can you assist me please. I have been put in charge to update our company profile for Dunbia. Can you advise me why this keeps being undone when i make changes to the article. Ccullen77 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the remark. First of all, I would like you to read this guideline, and I already pointed you to this guideline before.
The edits you perform change the page into an advertisement, and the formatting is completely out of line with our Manual of Style. We are not working on an advertising service, we are writing an encyclopedia here. The article has been around for several years now, and there are still no independent references for it. That suggests that the information is not suitable for an own article. If you could work on that, great! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Can you convert Disulfur into an article. I tried to overwrite a redirect but .... Thank you for your help. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, was busy with a MASSIVE spam-SPA case. I see it is an article, what was the problem, you can just overwrite redirect-pages. Or did you want a clean start by deleting the redirect first (which seems a bit unnecessary)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Tebuconazole

Dear Dirk Beetstra,

Thanks for your quick response. To answer your first 3 questions, while we think there is some overlap with our information we truly believe we offer additional information regarding the product's manufacturers and formulators. We have not seen any other sources that provide a comprehensive list that we do.

To answer your last question, we feel the ideal placement for the link is under the external links heading.

Looking forward to your response. Judygt (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy this to User talk:Judygt, answer there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Gallery-of-art

Dear Gallery-of-art. I assume that you have a huge repository of data to your disposal, and a lot of knowledge. And that is just what Wikipedia needs. But your edits seem to focus on having links to your organisation on Wikipedia, and that is what you have been warned for now for a quite a couple of times. May I ask you, once again, to help expand our articles with the info you have, instead of insisting to add external links? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mij gaat het om het gedrag van hem. Hij bepaalt wat goed is en niet de gebruiker. Komt vaker voor ook in forums, eerst waren er goed bedoelde oppassers en ineens worden het intolerante haantjes. Sprak vandaag nog iemand erover. Schijnt behoorlijk bekend te zijn. Ook reden dat, zo vind ik, de qualiteit te gering is. Nieuwkomers komen gewoon niet aan de bak. Natuurlijk heb ik ook van belang zijnde content op mijn site. Het zijn niet alleen musea en edu die ervan weten. Die meld ik in het discussie deel en .. geen discussie, meppen. By the way, paar weken geleden kwam de Duitse TV bij mij langs. Interview over Van Gogh, leuk hoor. In 5 talen vertaald. En moet ik me dan met zo iemand gaan meten? Groetjes --Gallery-of-art (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nee, Gallery-of-art, dat hoeft niet. Maar er is nu een aantal keren tegen je gezegd dat je niet alleen externe links toe moet voegen, we zijn hier niet een linkfarm aan het schrijven. Dat jij een pagina op je site hebt die over hetzelfde gaat als het onderwerp hier op Wikipedia betekent NIET dat je die link daar dan zo neer kunt zetten. Dat is je nou een aantal keren verteld, eerst vriendelijk, en dat is nu dus op. Het is dan misschien een editor geweest die er mee begint en jou welkomst-templates en andere dingen laat zien, maar het is een kwestie van tijd en dan komen er anderen. Dan wordt het inderdaad 'meppen'. Je loopt zometeen de kans dat je site volledig wordt opgeruimd en dat je site dan op een blacklist komt (en wellicht niet eens alleen op en.wikipedia, als je op meta komt gaat het heel hard, er zijn duizenden wikis die dan niet meer gebruik kunnen maken van je link!).
Nieuwkomers komen hier zeker wel aan de bak, stel vragen als je ze hebt, als editors problemen hebben met je edits, ga dan met ze in discussie. En ga niet door met hetgeen iemand problemen mee heeft terwijl je in discussie bent, of negeer die persoon compleet, dan heb je gelijk, dan wordt het meppen. Maar tot gister (zie lijst) heb je nooit geprobeerd te communiceren met de editor die problemen had, en maar een paar dagen terug begin je met opmerkingen op de bespreek paginas (zie lijst). Terwijl je al op 16 maart bent verwelkomd, en vanaf 17 maart komen er waarschuwingen binnen om je stijl aan te passen.
Nogmaals, ik denk dat je heel waardevol kunt zijn (en Modernist, die de meeste waarschuwingen heeft gegeven denkt dat duidelijk ook!!), maar dat je moet stoppen te denken in het toevoegen van links in externe link secties. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hoi, hoi,

Sorry hoor. Toen ik begon was ik volledig te goeder trouw. Had er een paar dingen uitgehaald die over de tijd waren en wat toegevoegd wat, mi erbij hoorde. Toen kwamen er waarschuwingen, wist ik veel waar die het over had. Wikipedia is toch van iedereen? Alsof er een koning klap bezig was, laatste waarschuwing dit, laatste waarschuwing dat. Ben ik vervolgens naar de discussie deel gegaan, volledig in de veronderstelling dat er een discussie zou volgen, maar nee hoor direct meppen. Jammer ook want discussies vind ik juist leuk. Zeker als het om de inhoud gaat. Ik vind of beter het is een linke omgeving Wikipedia. Zal maar niet herhalen wat anderen mij daarover zeiden. Jammer, echt jammer, maar ik stop. Groetjes en verder veel succes --Gallery-of-art (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ik twijvel er ook niet aan dat je dit ter goeder trouw doet/deed. Maar het probleem is, dat zelfs als edits ter goeder trouw worden gedaan, ze tóch niet volgens de regels zijn. Normaal wordt je daar dan op gewezen (en de eerste opmerkingen aan jou waren, volgens mij, vriendelijk genoeg - geen dreigementen daar).
Ik ben eigenlijk wel benieuwd. Ik hoor dat soort geluiden wel meer, maar vaak is het zo dat mensen niet door hebben dat er wordt geprobeerd om met hun te communiceren. Je bent zeker niet de eerste. Sorry hoor, maar mensen komen hier als specialist in het vak, en doen wat edits. Vaak zit daar heel goed werk bij (zoals bij jou!), maar als er kritiek is op iets, of zelfs, als er vragen worden gesteld, of mensen worden ergens op gewezen (het hoeft niet eens negatief te zijn!!), dan komt er geen response (!). En als dat dan toch iets is wat niet volgens de regels is, dan wordt er niet gevraagd (zoals jij deed!!) 'wat bedoel je?', 'doe ik iets fout?', 'wat is er aan de hand?' (terwijl het toch duidelijk moet zijn dat als je die oranje banner boven je edits ziet 'You have new messages' dat er iemand iets tegen je zegt, je iets vraagt, of whatever). Nee, mensen gaan door. En als er dan iets harder wordt gevraagd om even een stapje langzamer te doen, dan komt er nog steeds geen antwoord. En nee, het is niet alleen dat we hier waarschuwingen brengen, ik heb het zelfs met mensen die ik echt gewoon een vraag stel. Er is iemand bezig met goed werk, die een database heeft die immens handig is. Ik wil echt HEEL GRAAG die lijst hebben van hem waar hij van werkt - ik werk de hele tijd met database-lijsten en doe daar heel veel werk mee. En externe databases zijn vaak/altijd betrouwbare informatie, en het is echt heel waardevol om die data te hebben. Niet omdat we dan die database OVERAL moeten plaatsen .. nee, er kan veel meer mee gedaan worden. Ik heb die editor nu een aantal keren gevraagd om response, maar nee .. niks. Niet dat ik reden heb om te klagen bij hem, hij doet goed werk, geen reden om hem te blokkeren, om zijn website te blokkeren, nee, helemaal niet. Geen enkele reden om te waarschuwen. Maar weet je .. veel specialisten komen hier, en zeker sommige groepen hebben dat, en willen in geen enkele vorm interactie vertonen. Alsof ze in een stoffig archief zitten, ergens achter een stelling .. en het is eng om te praten. JULLIE ZIJN WAARDEVOL, JULLIE HEBBEN GEEN IDEE HOE WAARDEVOL JULLIE ZIJN!! .. <zucht> .. maar alsjeblieft, toon wat interactie met de Wikipedia community, en reageer - als er vragen zijn, als er problemen zijn, als er mogelijkheden zijn om meer samen te werken .. maar reageer. Maar nee, ik zie heel veel dat dat niet gebeurt, en dan hoor je via-via .. 'Wikipedia is hostile', het zijn control freaks, ze blokkeren je bij het minste of geringste. Sorry .. ja, op je eigen website heb je regels, wij hebben hier ook regels. Bepaalde dingen kunnen hier, volgens de wet, NIET. Andere dingen zijn, sorry, maar gewoon niet helpvol. En in andere gevallen kunnen jullie zoveel meer helpvol zijn, maar zelfs daar wordt niet naar geluisterd ..
Sorry voor de frustratie .. het komt er elke zoveel week weer eens uit. En gelukkig, er zijn zoveel waar we wel me samen kunnen werken, en al die andere .. tsja .. het is een verlies (voor beide!). Of het nou de bedoeling was, of niet. Maar of dat nou alleen aan ons ligt .. ik betwijvel het! ... Sorry dat je weggaat, en ook jammer voor al die anderen die nooit terug komen .. weer zo'n dag :-( --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Zal erover denken. Wat ik wil oppakken is Toulouse Lautrec. Ben al 2x naar Albi geweest, zelfs daar zijn nichtje over hem gesproken. Maar als het alleen discussie met die ene persoon wordt doe ik niets. Kijk maar eens naar de activiteit daar. Waarom blijven de mensen weg?

Ga nu naar mijn boot. Moet er volgende week in. En maar schilderen en maar .... klagen dus

Groetjes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallery-of-art (talkcontribs) 08:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hoe bedoel je? Welke discussie, en welke mensen blijven weg? Ik weet dat veel van jouw collegas wegblijven, maar er zijn er ook een aantal die ontzettend productief zijn hier. Waarom blijven die dan wel? Wat ik niet snap is, dat als we hier tegen iemand zeggen 'dit is niet helpvol', of zelfs 'dit mag gewoon niet' dat mensen dan direct gaan klagen en weglopen (in plaats van een 'oh, dat wist ik niet, ik zal er rekening mee houden'), maar als we tegen ze zeggen 'je mag maar 50 km/h in de bebouwde kom rijden' dat ze dan niet allemaal direct hun auto verkopen, maar zich, over het algemeen, wél gewoon aan de regels houden .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We hebben het over de maat. Wist ik veel over een waarschuwing, ineens zag ik iets bovenin het scherm, even later laatste waarchuwing. Ik dacht wat een mafkees.

Discussie? Zie maar bij Van Gogh. Had het netjes neergezet en als antwoord op een discussie plek: spammetje en even later op mijn talk page van we gaan je vernielen als je nog één keer ... Over die 50km/uur. Dus als je een paar keer te hard rijdt word je door de politie het kanaal ingereden. We zijn niet in Khadaffi land hoor.

Kan jij ervoor zorgen dat al die waarchuwingen verdwijnen (en dat ik een ticket krijg voor een heerlijk dagje strand natuurlijk). Met een schone lij kan beginnen. Dan zal ik proberen te begrijpen hoe het moet. Dat wat op die discussie pages komt niet bij voorbaat door die Moderne man wordt beoordeeld. Maar eerder dat het wat breed wordt bekeken. Anders is het zo eenzijdig en zal de qualiteit niet ten goede komen. Hij kan er ook geen tijd voor hebben, want als ik zie hoeveel beroemde kunstenaars hij benadeelt dan zijn dat er wel een stuk of 50.

Wie plaatst het dan op de normale page overigens? Als dat dezelfde is hoeft het van mij niet zo. Maar als jij dat doet dan kunnen we en met anderen rustig over praten. Mijn insteek is Toulouse Lautrec. Heb af en toe contact met de conservator in Albi. Een lange tijd was hun site onbereikbaar. Heb hem aangegeven hoe die weer in de lucht kon komen. En zowaar binnen een paar uur had ie het gedaan. Leuke vent ook over andere dingen. Ik spreek ook Frans dus dat ken goed gaan. --Gallery-of-art (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Volgens mij wordt je nog niet het kanaal ingereden. Je bent nu tenslotte aan het discussieren. De waarschuwingen mag je zelf verwijderen, je mag op zich bijna alles met de user en talkpage behorende bij je account doen (er zijn enkele uitzonderingen, maar het verwijderen van waarschuwingen of andere normale discussies is daar niet bij).
Iedereen kan dingen op de normale pagina plaatsen, ook jij. Maar ook iedereen kan het weer verwijderen als het niet in lijn is met onze policies en guidelines. Ik hoop dat dit helpt. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Leuk voorbeeld. Ga ik wat serieus antwoorden op de discussie op de Van Gogh page, vind ik ook beleefd een soort nette afsluiter en met zelfs een laatse melding van jullie doen er maar mee wat je wilt en volgen er 2 totale bedreigingen. Zie --Gallery-of-art (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Wat moet ik daarmee? Zal wel ergens iets tegen de strikte regels hebben gedaan maar dit is toch wel erg streng.

Gallery-of-art, ga er nu eens even voor zitten, en lees door enkele van onze policies en guidelines heen. Zie hier voor wat voor externe links er op een pagina horen en wat (liever) niet. Veel van jou voorstellen zijn niet direct verbonden met de pagina, ze zijn één stap verwijderd. Voorbeeld: op Van Gogh linken we niet extern naar het Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam, we linken intern naar het Van Gogh museum (in Amsterdam), en op die pagina komt een externe link naar het van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. En zo zijn er verdere regeltjes. Het spijt me, maar het lijkt dat je in je onwetendheid hier op deze site heel veel kleine regeltjes aan het breken bent, en het is dus beter dat je even rustig er voor gaat zitten. Zie het zo .. als je zonder gordel rijdt, kun je nog wel bij een vriendelijke politieagent zonder bon wegkomen. Hetzelfde als je zeg net te hard rijdt op een rustige buitenweg. En ook als je niet hands-free belt, met een vriendelijke politieagent kun je dat ook nog wel goedpraten. Maar als je niet hands-free belt, geen gordel draagt en net te hard rijdt op de buitenweg, dan moet je aardig kunnen praten tegen diezelfde vriendelijke politieagent .. hetzelfde geldt als één politieagent je eerst net te hard ziet rijden (en je komt er met een waarschuwing vanaf), en hij ziet je de volgende dag weer zonder gordel rijden .. Hier is dat ook zo .. je loopt tegen waarschuwingen aan, je doet er niks mee en gaat door .. niet begrijpende wat er gebeurt .. en dan wordt het inderdaad langzaam erger.
Wikipedia is niet een plek om overal extern naar toe te linken. Dat is niet het doel van Wikipedia. Zelfs als een externe pagina een hele bak info heeft wil dat nog steeds niet zeggen dat we daar naar moeten linken. Ik zie dat je hier een duidelijke lijst hebt gekregen van onze principes en zo, ikzelf laat altijd {{welcomeg}} achter op user talkpages (als ze nog niet verwelkomd zijn), als je hier kijkt, zie je dezelfde tekst, en heel veel links naar onze dingen.
Ik zie beneden dat je ergens informatie direct gekopieerd hebt van een andere site en op Wikipedia hebt gepost - dat is een copyright overtreding, en dat zijn dingen die echt niet mogen (en als je zelf de originele copyright houder bent, dan moet dat nog officieel gemeld worden).
Wees alsjeblieft een beetje voorzichtig met wat je doet. Ik ben bang dat je anders snel tegen een blokkade aanloopt. En ik ben nog steeds van mening dat je veel nuttige kennis in je zak hebt. Zie de waarschuwingen die je gekregen hebt als dingen die je kunt verbeteren, niet als 'ze gaan direct meppen'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the categories?

Hello, you have removed the categories from a some compounds of xylidine, e.g. here - please explain why? --Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. why did I remove the anilines cat .. that I should not have done. Alkylbenzenes I did remove, putting anything that has an aliphatic group connected to an aromatic system in there is going to overflow that cat, and it just does not make sense. For more on that, please see WT:CHEM, there is a discussion there regarding overcategorisation. Thanks for notifying me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

On 5 April 2011 (UTC) I wrote in “Hi Dirk Beetstra, this website has never been intended to be a commercial site and is a non-commercial one ever since. There is no advertising in it at all. The unfriendly abuse in 2006 was obviously unexpected. Please whitelist this valuable site. Thanks,... I ask you Dirk, to please react here so I get your message. Cheers, --Spartanbu (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look one of these days. The blacklisting was after one diff - which was evading other spamming. Maybe before the current site existed, it was owned by someone else? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't say whether or not this site was owned by someone else. I only realize that it is clean now. By the way: Within some WP-articles this URL is still linked and functioning e.g. --Spartanbu (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Its removed now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks indeed, --Spartanbu (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Gallery of art

Hi Dirk, I have just warned him/her again. They do not seem to have a clue. By the way I noticed that one of the edits they made that wasn't spam - into the article Charles Laval [6] was a pure copyright violation, they took the words verbatim from another website [7] and left it unreferenced. I wound up referencing that inclusion, changing a few words and rewriting the entire article. I am out of patience. These guys have to learn the rules or they gotta go. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye. They seem to find us harsh etc. I'll comment here and/or there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

From THESE GUYS: Very nice and helpfull to make an correction. So must it be, the copyright violation. Now I will go on with Toulouse Lautrec and after Pascin. They are my favorites. Wow, what an artists! I will use all the stuff The Modern have send to me to make right corrections and will discuss it with the others. Txt again, and voor Dirk, als ik er weer eens geen b.... van begrijp dan kan ik je mailen hoop ik. Maak eens voor de lol een analyse van de externe links, je zult versteld staan, hoeveel commercie er tussen zit. Groetjes en fijne week --Gallery-of-art (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We are doing that, Gallery-of-art - we are looking at what is being linked to. Yes, we do link to a lot of commercial stuff, but that is not the point. If a commercial site gives information that is useful, or it is thé commercial site for the subject, then sure, we link to it. All that with common sense. The official homepage of a car-brand is a good external link on the page of the car-brand on Wikipedia, even if that site is purely commercial and aimed at selling that product. A link to a dealer somewhere in a small village above Groningen which is an official dealer for the car-brand and which is also purely commercial and aimed at selling that product is NOT a good external link.
Forget external links - that is NOT our primary aim. And yes there is a lot of other crap out there - but that does not mean that we have to add other external links as well. And mind you .. even sites which are NOT commercial in nature can be plainly spammed, and they are sometimes plainly spammed. Again, please have a look through our policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I will do. And I hope we will have a Modern cooperation. --Gallery-of-art (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Great!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Mostly everything's dead

<MER-C>   whoadded
<COIBot>  Sorry, No records on
<MER-C>   whoadded
<COIBot>  Sorry, No records on

No reports of new links coming in. Earlier today, links were being reported as having (0, 0, -4). It's as though the database has gone away. Oh, and stuff from the German Wikipedia was appearing in #wikipedia-en-spam. MER-C 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that COIBot is doing the mass report purge, but still the database has gone away. MER-C 02:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

doorlink artikel over Meister Eckhart, Blavatsky etc.

Dag Dirk

Bedankt voor je berichtje. is een doorlink naar Alles van is daarnaar toe verhuisd. De linken bij Meester Eckhart, Blavatsky etc. kloppen dus niet meer.

Ik gebruik nog steeds als de hoofdnaam van de site, omdat dat misschien de lading beter dekt. Kijk maar welke je wilt gebruiken.

Je kunt me altijd mailen op

Dank voor je aandacht voor dit probleempje,

Jan Brouwer Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest links

I noticed that there are some possible conflict of interest links from edits I have done.

Two are from my user pages (en, no) and one from the Norwegian "Operativsystemer" to a published lecture by me (which I don't added myself but queried a responsible about and he added it) and one from "Folding editors" to a directory on my home page where legacy and free source code (not by me) and executable reside.

I have no financial etc. interest in these links. Neither does any third party. The link from my user pages are there to show exactly who I am.

I would certainly hope that these usages are not conflicting with Wikipedia's rules. How could this be resolved? Øyvind Teig (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing really to resolve. The conflict of interest guideline states, roughly the rules on this. My take on this is quite simple - if one has a conflict of interest, then that does not forbid that person to edit on a certain page, such an editor is only asked to take due care. Also, having links on your userpage to show who or what you are is not a bad thing. It all has to be seen in the context of the edits or the whole. Linking to your homepage or giving your email address on your userpage is fine (although the latter is a bit unwise as email addresses can be harvested externally, resulting in you being spammed). However, if the text is 'visit this page, or email me on if you want to buy my stuff' then those same would be bad.
When editing in mainspace, the correct action would be to go to talkpages first, or sometimes ignore the rules and update the info immediately. If no-one challenges your edits - fine. If someone challenges - then discuss with the editor, and go to the talkpage. The key is to discuss when challenged, even if the site is non-commercial (for every site there are ways that people can get better from linking to it - whether by selling products, by links being followed, by leading people to a certain cause, ...). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Good to have had it discussed! Øyvind Teig (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:Hazchem Infobox

G'day Dirk!

Just letting you know that I have not forgotten, have been swamped with work. It's like quick sand! I'll get around to it soon.

Cheers mate. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaFalcon (talkcontribs) 15:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 :-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

server issues

The external hard drive enclosure key got switched to 'unlocked' again.. which is sort of like removing the drive while the system is trying to write it. I pulled the key this time, so it shouldn't happen again. Hopefully I won't lose the key :) . To get mysql to start up & stay running, I had to set innodb_force_recovery = 4 in the configuration file. A second stop & restart after that one let innodb do its auto-recovery from .bin logs thing. At some point, I think we need to comment out that innodb_force_recovery line & restart mysql. --Versageek 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I am back now, lets talk later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC) request whitelisting.


It's been nearly 5 years that our site has been blacklisted on Wikipedia. --> Blacklist added by Maxsem, Aug 2006 So, it's been pretty long time and we would like to ask reconsideration for our website, for being removed from spam blacklist. Here are our explanation :

1. Our staff didn't realize things that has been indicated as spam by wikipedia at that time. They just submit our website to several directories and wikipedia periodically. Submit to a directory was common things at that time, and one day starting at Aug 2006 our site is listed at spam blacklist.

2. Five yours gone by, we do our effort, works hard to establish and develop our website and we have good reputation and popularity right now. You may visit here : http:*// Just additional info that we've already interviewed Lady Gaga by our internal writer :-). I believe search engine today especially Google will not provide us good position by doing spam or blackhat seo. And also I believe that no sites able doing spam to Wikipedia today without get detected by your system. I've seen many pages at Wikipedia that list our website with no active links among several/many sites that their links active normally.

3. What we need for your help is delisted our website out from the spam blacklist. You know exactly that there is IMPOSSIBLE for our website doing things kind like spam to Wikipedia today and even this thing is hate by Google. By delisting my website from blacklist let my website compete NATURALLY with other great sites and let all Wikipedia editors will be THE JURY for each page that could be listed on Wikipedia just like the normal mechanism. So it would be fair to judge my content page by page instead based on things that happen on Aug 2006, I think it is reasonable, do you think ?

Please consider that it is really impossible for our website doing things deemed as spam on todays world. You see that our website already gain popularity in last 5 years. Please consider wisely. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcomp (talkcontribs)

Lets discuss this at the appropriate pages. But note, since no-one except you requested de-blacklisting does suggest that the site does not get used much on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ordering elements in chembox formulas

Could you check {{Chembox Properties}} for ordering rules. As Plasmic Physics suggested, it apparently uses alphabetic ordering, which is unusable for anything containing an inorganic element. Is it possible to code the IUPAC stoichiometric system, where the elements are listed in order of their position in the periodic table, read from bottom to top, left to right, and hydrogen between groups 15 and 16? Materialscientist (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the ordering that e.g. the chemical suppliers use, C and H first, then the rest alphabetical. Specific choice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we ignore the suppliers and set up the ordering which scientists use? :-D Materialscientist (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Theoretically, yes .. but me, as one of those scientists, would type online the formula as sorted by a supplier, and expect to find the suppliers and Wikipedia. One of the points is, what would the public use .. maybe we should bring this to WT:CHEM? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Scuba Set link removal

The link I added talks about the scuba diving equipments and its development which definitely relates to scuba set, so why are you removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we do not link to everything that is related to scuba sets etc. Moreover, the site really likes its facebook fans, doesn't it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
But by the looks of it, you do know quite about Scuba diving, why not add information or knowledge you have to the page? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

COIBot at de-channels

Hi Beetstra!
What's the reason for COIBot not staying at #cvn-wp-de anymore? -- seth (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh .. no clue .. did I change the settings? On my way to m:User:COIBot/Settings and m:User:LiWa3/Settings. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thx! :-) -- seth (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, COIBot is there (#cvn-wp-de) now, but doesn't seem to listen to me (e.g., if I ask "whereadded link <whatever>"). Yesterday there was the same problem. Do you know, what the problem could be? -- seth (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the db is broken .. :-( --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If I may help in any way, please let me know. -- seth (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
.. If you know how to figure out which innodb is broken and how to repair it (MySQL is now running in recovery mode 4 ..), could you then please contact Versageek to get passwords to the shell and to PHPMyAdmin? Help would be appreciated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, ehm, I know a bit of sql, but I don't know, how to cope with repairing tables.
I googled a bit and found [8], [9], [10], and [11]. But probably you know all that already.
However I contacted Versageek on en-user-talk-page. -- seth (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I managed to dump the tables which I expect to be broken, I might get a step further in this way. But any help would be appreciated there anyway.
Sigh .. why did we not start off properly in the beginning .. I started with zero knowledge of SQL, and by the time I started to get problems the tables were already too big to handle ... and it only gets worse (part of the problem was that we were busy actually parsing the data into a correct and easier to handle format ..). Well .. we'll get out of it, I don't think we will loose the 30% of the data that seems broken now .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Jmol links

Hi Dirk, I hope you're well. I was just looking at Rutin, and I notice that the Jmol link is broken, and it may also be making the Chembox much larger than it should be. Can you take a look at what is causing this problem? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an extraneous symbol in SMILES, which I removed, but can't connect to the image. Materialscientist (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
'Broken' SMILES are indeed a problem, they should be in the field in their normal format. I have the same problem, can't connect to the server, maybe it is down? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that, MS. Yes, the server seems to have been down for a couple of days - I've emailed Dr. Hanson about it. ALl the best, Walkerma (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrections in English version of "Juan Terranova" entry.

Hello Dirk,

I have been trying to correct the links in the English version of Juan Terranova's entry. In the external links section, the links listed are incorrect. The link that points to his personal site is defunct. I have been trying to add a link to his actual personal blog, exactly the same link that appears in the Spanish version of the same entry. So, I don't see why the link can appear in Spanish and not in English.

Please advise,

Thanks and kind regards,

Sparhawk1961 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The rules do not have to be the same here and on es.wikipedia. Blogspots generally fail, but in this case might be suitable. I have however removed other links added, as they do fail our rules. See the external links guideline for more info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for considering and correcting this.

Sparhawk1961 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Article on diallyl disulphide

I am trying to find the source article for the diallyl disulphide rat oral LD50 that is quoted in the wikipedia article for this compound. I see you have been involved in editing some of the references. I have not tried to query articles before so I was wondering if you could help me find whoever wrote this. The reference section points to a data sheet containing an article reference (Moreno, 1980), but there are many Morenos and I cannot find the actual paper.

Best regards, K. J. Researcher, Norway (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That could be very difficult, but this list does not have too many edits, you could try and see who inserted the info, and ask that editor - I did not see the reference. I hope this helps a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


Hoi Dirk,

Heb wat klusjes afgerond en wil me bezig houden met Wikipedia. Nu zou ik het op prijs stellen om direct e-mail contact met je te hebben. Hoe en wat en ff aan elkaar voorstellen. Ook leuk toch. Mijn e-mail is info at trendsguide dot com. Hopend dat je mij mailt. Daarna haal ik dit er weer af.

Groetjes Loek --Gallery-of-art (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Will get back to you when I have time. Thanks for the remark! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

ChEMBL addition

Hi Dirk, Thanks for sorting out the ChemoBot for ChEMBL. It's really helped with our hits.

I was wondering if there is someway that we could have 2 ChEMBL ids for some of the compounds? I know that you can have 2 CAS Nos in some cases and there are some compounds where we have two entries - say for a stereo version and a non-stereo version. It would be good to point users to these.

Thanks in advance, Louisa. Louisajb (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can be done, would need to change the code in {{Chembox identifiers}}. Will try to get to that one of these days. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
May have done it. Please test carefully. They are called ChEMBL, ChEMBL1, ChEMBL2 ... (can have 5 I think). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


Sorry, edit conflict/s. I'm signing off, so feel free to clean up my mess! Moondyne (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, no problem. The article has been deleted over and over, and keeps reappearing. I have moved it into userspace for now, this is not ready at all for Wikipedia. Sorry for the conflicts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Moondyne (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello Beestra,

I am working on an article about FXstreet as I strongly believe its incredible valuable for readers around the world. fxstreet is one of the worlds most credible currency trading newspapers with an immense value for traders. Please take a look at the article, references and writing style prior to making a decision. It appears that the main reason for deletion was the use of a blacklisted reference which has been removed. Please help in bringing this article to life.

Thank you User_talk:Michaelpillos

I have undeleted the page, and userfied it, you can find it here: User:Michaelpillos/FXstreet. It was tagged by User:Inks.LWC with {{db-web}}, and I am afraid, that I agree with that seen the quality of the references (see the reliable sources guideline and the verifiability policy - blogs etc. do not show notability. You may want to work on that before moving it back to mainspace (or ask Inks.LWC for input, and/or ask a Wikipedia:WikiProject interested in this type of subjects). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Beetstra,

All in good order now. I have updated all the links with high ranking reliable sites including Google and money show. Please check and if OK please move site to a live status.

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpillos (talkcontribs) 09:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a bit and moved it back. Lets now wait what the community does with it (I am not particularly knowledgeable in this specific subject). Hope to see you around, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and have a good day.

Athanaton Koramgame

Hey Beetstra. Fufufufufufufuf (talk · contribs) has moved this article back to mainspace. I see no references that satisfy WP:GNG (the only reference that could be considered a reliable and independent source is Gamespot and the reference is a link to a forum with a description and links to the game). I saw that you previously userfied (userfyed?) the article and before I went nominating it for any type of deletion, I thought I'd let you take a whack at it. I'll probably nominate it for a speedy or AfD later today if you don't feel like dealing with it. OlYellerTalktome 11:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw. AfD it, please. Your more familiar with the subject, and I've now done enough deleting and userfying (however you spell it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Calcium stearate

Hi, Just a word to thanks you for your article on Calcium Stearate and also I corrected the E number to E470. The previous E572 refers to MgSt. Philippe —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

External links

I've replied to you on my talk page. George Dance (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dirk, sorry that I was not around earlier to support your corner - I have been away from my computer. Thanks for taking patient action and sorry you took personal jabs. Span (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted and thanks. I've done some more cleanup. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello... I noticed that you'd also been asked for an interview by Mr. Kohs, and that you were replying on his Wiki account talk page. Not sure if you've had a chance to do this, but I looked at the articles he's posted on the Examiner site and they seem to be very POV and sensationalistic. Also, with respect to his block, it appears to be related to his attempts to use Wikipedia for profit (see MyWikiBiz). Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 16:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC) + + Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MyWikiBiz/Archive + 3rd party meatpuppet request =  It looks like a duck to me--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
You may want to take another look at WP:MEAT before you call a contributor with more than four years and 40,000 edits, including a vast amount of work on quality content and BLPs, a meatpuppet. As an administrator, you shouldn't be ignorant of what a meatpuppet is, and you should realize that your use of it here breached the civility policy. Way to go there, chief. That said, you either have legitimate reasons for blacklisting a website or you don't. If you do, state them. If not, he'll simply state you refused to comment and build his story without your input. (Ah, the glory of transparency.) At least he's bothering to request your input. Not every freelancer has that sort of journalistic integrity. Lara 18:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
While I'm sure your statement, "Way to go there, chief", was for the purposes of taunting or baiting me, be aware that to some, it can be construed as a derrogatory ethnic slur towards Native Americans. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to wikilink common English words for me. And you're reaching. Lara 11:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the history, Ckatz. Hu12, a better term would be a proxy of a banned editor in this case, certainly not meat puppetry. Jennavecia, in return 'you either have legitimate reasons for blacklisting a website or you don't' is not necessary either - every user has a right to request why - I am more worried by the bad faith assumed on the editors on the blacklist, even in suggestion .., that the blacklist gets abused for improper reasons - in that light, there is no reason to make that remark either.

I am glad that I can give my side of the story, and have chosen to do so in a very transparent way for en.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestion of bad faith conveyed by my comment would be directed at the refusals to answer questions and what such refusals themselves suggest (your classic, "if you have nothing to hide..."). Though, if the comments made above are any indication of how some editor-admins could let histories color their edits (and judgment), I don't think the sort of bad faith assumption you seem concerned about is far-fetched. That said, I think it's quite a good thing for the project, Beetstra, that you're taking the time to transparently answer questions. Lara 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

C'est la tone qui fait la musique, Lara. Sure, if you have asked an editor-admin repeatedly to explain their actions, then yes, that might be a reason. However, if it is the first remark on a certain domain, and the admin in question did have a proper, good reason to blacklist, then using that tone is not making the admin more prone to answer. And often the editors who come to request a de-blacklisting do first start with the assumption that the blacklisting admin did the blacklisting in bad faith. And that is, repeatedly, true for de-listing and whitelisting requests of, which was, plainly, spammed, and is (was?) a huge spam-risk (as was shown in at least one delisting request .. why do editors link to this domain), etc. Yes, I do expect admins to repeatedly be friendly, even when it is the umptieth attack on a defendable action they took, but I also expect admins to be human, and I can fully understand that when that umtieth-and-one attack is coming in, that they do 'refuse' to answer directly, and point backward to the many, many, many refusal-explanations given. Hu12, like any other admin here, is a human (I haven't seen a bot-bit ..), and Hu12 may make mistakes, but 'you either have legitimate reasons for blacklisting a website or you don't' - I have not seen many mistakes by Hu12 in blacklisting a site, and hence, Hu12 simply has legitimate reasons for blacklisting a site. Maybe I am reading a different suggestion out of 'what such refusals themselves suggest' than you do, Lara, for sure I hope that you do not suggest that admins on the spam-blacklist blacklist site on some hidden agenda or for personal pleasure, while for any domain they can not show a reason. If anything, maybe sometimes we are a bit too quick, but like blocks .. we do not do indefinite here.

And that is also the reason why I do respond to the questions, but also in my responses to User:Thekohser I clearly say that this type of suggestions should not be made in any form in a request or discussion on these things (and maybe you understand what 'I do not like the suggestions that I read from that' in my first post to User:Thekohser alludes to), even when the blacklisting admin is (repeatedly) unresponsive in giving the proper reasons (and just as a note, we do have WP:BEANS - I am not alluding to all possible tricks I apply in finding spammers, and sometimes I do blacklist sites on a first offense where there does not seem to be uncontrollable spam .. believe me .. often there is. And likely one is not getting a proper answer (from me) when starting with 'you are abusing the blacklist'. Don't forget, spamming is not vandalism, it bears no comparison to vandalism (except that both disrupt our mission). C'est la tone qui fait la musique. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation of the situation. If I may, I'd like to elucidate my side of it. I delivered messages (stating in the messages why I'm the one delivering them) and I got reverted for most of them. But, hey, that's fine. People are allowed to do that, and it's not my problem since I'm not the one wanting interviews. But then I get called a meatpuppet by an admin with no manners. At that point, actions have given cause for me to make observations about the situation. If you don't appreciate my observations, I understand. However, I made no accusations, despite accusations being made at me. I had no preconceived assumptions about the legitimacy of the blacklisting at the start of this. Didn't know (or, to be honest with you, care), but after being shot (as messengers too often are), an impression was made, as explained above. So, I started with an assumption of good faith, but it was exhausted. That's what I'm saying.
This is really a waste of kb, though. I don't care that much. I just wanted to make clear that the accusation of meatpuppetry was not only false but ignorant. Then I wanted to make clear that I wasn't making assumptions on the blacklisting, rather observations on the refusals to answer. The fact that I have had to make so many clarifications, ironically, indicates a remarkable lack of AGF from the admins in this situation! Regardless, if they (or someone else) have already answered these questions before, then I can understand a current unwillingness to repeat themsevles. Of course, they could diff to previous discussions and all would be served better, especially considering this is for a media article; which, by the way, I have no influence on or involvement in save for the delivery of the interview requests.That said, I again would like to thank you for taking the time to answer the questions (this from someone who edits WP and has no involvement with because I believe you're doing this project a great service by doing so. Though others on your team are a bit... counterproductive. Lara 11:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. I understand. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
To clarify;"But then I get called a meatpuppet by an admin with no manners...accusation of meatpuppetry was not only false but ignorant." Ok then, Jennavecia, perhaps the better description might have been "proxy request" rather than "3rd party meatpuppet request". My intent was meant as descriptive of the action (being that you were in fact recruited, actively canvassed multiple admins[12][13][14][15] on behalf of and for the adjenda of a banned user), rather than 'literally' about your account. Understand that the lack of GF and sorted history surrounding khos (rightly or wrongly), in addition to not being the blacklisting admin, ignoring such broad and vague 3rd party request would seem quite appropriate. Tendentiously attributing malice or motives in accusations such as, "..the refusals to answer questions and what such refusals themselves suggest.", is wholly misguided; Blacklisting records are publicly there for anyone to read, entirely searchable and transparent with evidence to ensure the records are correct and factual. Consider first, before asking, that any reasoning for why a site was blacklisted, is evidenced in the origional blacklist case report and in the various discussions that have occurred in the past. Perhaps your acting as proxy, was done in good faith, but in poor judgment.--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ChEMBL Addition

Hi Dirk, I didn't realise that you had answered my question so apologies for not testing this until now. I have tried to add multiple IDs but it doesn't seem to work. I tried to add the salts to the Morphine page:

| ChEMBL1 = 70 | ChEMBL2 = 556578 (Morphine Hydrochloride) | ChEMBL3 = 422878 (Morphine Sulphate) | ChEMBL4 = 1200603 (Morphine Sulphate Hydrate)

With or without the text in brackets.

Thanks for your help on this....Louisa

Louisajb (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(hides behind rock - sticks out small sign, reading "I've only done the {{chembox}} .. sorry .. will work on that later!") --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha no problem - my fault for not reading your post properly. I think I was too excited that it had been done :D Thanks!!! Louisajb (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, IMHO, {{drugbox}} should be taken over by {{chembox}} anyway .. (but others may disagree). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(Intruding) As far as I see, the only obstacle for the merger is that there seems to be no one to close the discussion at Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Would you like to stop by over there? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. not necessary, I think someone should consider to discuss this on WT:CHEM or Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox .. PP is wrong in 'it is the preferred data on Wikipedia' (it is the current one, it may not be the preferred one anymore (especially since the rules have changed')), nor is it a reason to remove the P/H-set while updating the R/S set. May drop a line to PP about that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my user page about conflict of interest

Hi Beetstra, thanks for your message and your feedback! Wasn't quite sure where to respond so I hope you don't mind my replying here.

My intention was to update my company's wikipedia article with updated information. When I saw that there were several companies listed under the Social Media Newsroom article, I thought we could add our newsroom there too - as that is our main service: setting up social media newsrooms for companies. I realize that this was against policies and saw that you had removed all external links.

But how should we update the information in the future? I wanted to use my own username to avoid anonymity, but I see how a conflict of interest might arise. I can remove the internal linking from Mynewsdesk to Social Media Newsroom. But is it OK to keep the updated info about the main employees and the # of employees and such? These are facts that people should be able to find elsewhere on the net quite freely.

Thanks again for your feedback! A bit new to this and don't want to do anything wrong!

/Mike.rooseboom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.rooseboom (talkcontribs) 11:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, having a conflict of interest does certainly not forbid you to edit subjects you have a conflict of interest with. The warning is pretty generic, it uses terms as 'avoid' or 'use caution'. Generally, I would suggest indeed to use common sense to see what is in line with writing a neutral encyclopedia, and be bold. In case one does pass a line, editors will revert, or start discussion about such parts. Then let that discussion come to an end, and see what consensus brings there. If you do that, no problems will arise. Problems generally only come when COI editors push their edits, or promote their organisation everywhere and fail to discuss, but for what I've seen, your editing is far from that.
The article has some tags at the top, any chance that you can do something about that? If no independent sourcing is provided, notability may not be easy to proof, and the article runs the risk of being deleted.
Fijne dag verder. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Point group

Hi Dirk,

I imagine this has been discussed before, but could we have a field in Template:Chembox Structure for the point group of a molecule?

I thought of the issue during this edit, as a result of this discussion at Plasmic Physics's talk page.

Hope you're well,

Ben (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No probs .. will add it anyway (actually surprised we don't have it yet).
All fine here, how are you? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

NFCC image removals

Why are you removing images from articles without dropping a line at Talk before doing so? It's obvious that these images belong in the articles but just need someone to add rationales. It seems quite discourteous. ElKevbo (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The images are non-free, there is no fair-use rationale. So they first need to be removed. Whether you see that at the talkpage, or in the edit does not seem to make a difference to me. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. You could have effected the same change by communicating with editors. ElKevbo (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
And leave the violation stand? No, I could have removed the image ánd communicated with the editors, but if there is no fair-use rationale, it fails a policy with legal implications. Sorry, the image has to go until a fair-use rationale has been written. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Which removals are you actually talking about - I've removed some where I think that a rationale is easy to write, others where I don't think it is that easy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


I'm responding here because it has little to do with Δ; it might be a good idea to start this discussion at WT:NFC.

Anyway, what you point out is quite true. There is a very large double standard. I think there's multiple reasons for this;

  1. Pop media is responsible for the lion's share of non-free media here. Something like 1/3rd of all non-free media files are album covers. If you toss in character images, book covers, sound files, etc. pop media easily exceeds 50% of all non-free media here. This makes sense; Wikipedia's best coverage is in pop art. It also helps explain the situation when you consider the population that would be interested in pop art; fans. Everyone has a favorite band, book, series, etc. It's very easy to feel defensive of whatever subject a fan likes. You don't have anywhere near the devotion levels to external links that people have to pop media in the form of non-free media files.
  2. A picture is worth a thousand words. True words. In the 21st century, a furtherance of that colloquialism is a link isn't worth the electrons its transmitted with. People are people; in today's world, people don't read, they look/drill/explore. Pictures a must in that environment. So, images are pushed. Externals links, not so much. It's not so simple as little kids having to 'read' see-spot-run with pictures. But, the principle bears a lot of similarities. I've seen sooo many arguments from people that boil down to; we have to have pretty pictures else there's nothing to 'read'.
  3. Editors tend to be very devoted to files they upload. It's almost religious. "YOU challenged one of MY files!?!?!? SACRILEGE!!! KEEP AT ALL COSTS and sanction the nominator while we're at it!!!" I can't tell you how many times I've seen this sort of crap. It happens every day. There's some allegiance bit that gets mentally flipped when someone uploads a file. If it were anyone else's file, it wouldn't matter so much. When it is a file they uploaded, they will fight to the death to keep it on the project. Part of the reason for this is "I can't possibly be wrong!". People don't like to feel they're wrong. They like to feel they're right. That effect is heavily magnified on uploads. With external links, it's usually absent.

These are just a few of the reasons. There's plenty more. It all generates a situation of heavy, heavy animosity between the uploaders and those policing media. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted it there to make people think - people are bashing down on Delta, but it avoids the real problem. Some comments:
  1. Yes, absolutely true - but writing a rationale is in most cases really, really easy.
  2. Don't be surprised, external links are pushed, sometimes with exactly the same rationale. (bad faith warning) We have a web department from a huge library who needs incoming links, and starts spamming Wikipedia with hundreds of links. The anti-spam crew comes and removes them all, and what do you get - 'but those links are useful, to the point' .. if you then ask 'but what do they add' .. who cares, it is the biggest library from Far Far Away .. of course these are good links. Total neglect of WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT. Same goes for youtube. The number of incoming links to illegally uploaded clips from bands .. sorry .. but we can not link to it (never had much objection to removal of those, though) - people see the link, follow it, think it is on topic, correct, useful .. as was the case for the copyvio blogspot link that I mention. But yes, the images are important, and I am not saying they are not - but there is very, very often not a big issue to actually write a proper rationale. But people complain. They don't just write it (if it is really so simple ..) and revert ... no, just revert and complain.
  3. Most images I now removed don't get deleted, there are still appropriate transclusions. The issue is not often that the image is deleted in the end - I think that is a (maybe significant) fraction, but far from always. And, if they want to feel to be right - then
Re-thinking what I wrote - most feel right when they do edits enforcing policy or guideline - but they don't like to feel it themselves when an image from a page on their watchlist is removed by someone else enforcing policy or guideline. Difficult situation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh I know I'm right whenever I'm policing images. I've never been wrong! ;) Seriously, I suppose I'm just as susceptible to any other human in the desire to not be wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


You contribute much to this template and thus I'm posting here. I'm going through chemicals (updating images) and find that too many articles use "|ImageName" for caption, and thus the caption is hidden because the supported format is "|ImageCaption". I guess ImageName was supported and then deprecated. Anyway, is it possible to re-enable it? The motivation is this - many salt images are actually of hydrated forms, which is said in the image file and hidden caption. Surely I fix that when I see, but only for those few articles I edit. Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this next week. Thanks for bringing it up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Beetstra, you recently removed File:Fairtrade.png from a few articles as it was missing rationales. I've restored the rationales, is it ok to add the images again? jonkerz 20:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, then you can add them back. Thanks for solving this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I checked, all fine! Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Neat tool :) Thanks to you too, jonkerz 15:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whitelisting, please!

Would you mind whitelisting (and And please delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/ and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/!

The links to go to entries for successful applications in the project database of the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), a government agency supporting research in various forms. Where I have used these links, they verify that Swedish scholarly journals, one in article space written two years ago and another one I am working on in my sandbox, have received financial support -- and thus recognition of their quality -- from the SRC. All part of that "assertion of notability" thing, of course. --Hegvald (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I read up a bit on the blacklisting business. I realize now that the link can't be whitelisted, as it hasn't been blacklisted anywhere in the first place. But how am I supposed to feel comfortable using this database for verification and sourcing purposes when I get a mindless robot following me around and creating pages accusing me of being a spammer? I don't actually find this acceptable. --Hegvald (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the bot is not accusing you of spamming. And normally I could whitelist it on the bot, except for a minor problem with that which I am trying to fix at the moment. I will do that as soon as possible. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this! --Hegvald (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey Beeststra I have begun implementing the clinical info update to the drugboxes per discussion. So far have updated atorvastatin and lisinopril. The bot seems to have some problems as per here [16]. I guess for now will just do the update on the main article page rather than templating.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy .. yes, this is going to have curious problems with the bot. I thought that we first would update the template, but leave mainspace as it is and see what others think first (but as I said, I see advantages and disadvantages any way - and either way the bot should be able to understand it - This is going to need some rewrite in the bot, I am afraid). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oi .. no, that is not the problem .. it will need a complete update of the indices - can you try to take out a box, move it to template space, ánd update the index (Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index) to the page in templatespace (within 10 minutes)? If the mainspace page is not indexed it will not update that, and when it is indexed in template space it should update it there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure thanks. Done for atorvastatin Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
that may actually be a pretty brilliant solution for this - it will now compare the current one in the template with the one in mainspace. Later on I, or others, can update it to revids of the template itself. Nice work! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
'handledelay' is set to 600 seconds .. CheMoBot might come after 10 minutes to update the templates. I'm going to 'vandalise' the one you updated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
We could than create a bot to make all these moves to templates yes? Also could we get a bot to fill in some of the clinical data? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Doing the moves by bot would be great, it would then: move the template to template space, and make sure it updates the index at the same time - that would be pretty non-controversial, and would work pretty well with CheMoBot I think.
Updating the clinical data is less easy, as it would need a proper edit of the drugbox, but if you know how to do it, then that could be done as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree that would be ideal. Also could we get the bot to organize the template in the same order that it displaces such as I have done here [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
As discussed here I was planning to update the clinical data and at the same time, I could also move the templates and reorder the fields. The only problem is that I don't have time at the moment. If someone else has time to complete this now, I won't object. If you can wait a few weeks, I can complete the job myself. Either way is fine with me. Boghog (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bolding of brand names

Brand names already start with a capital an IMO do not need to be bolded. We end up with sections like this when they are. Is there a bot / script that is able to remove bolding from an entire section? Is this something you would support? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support it, that for sure. No need for the bolding. Removing it automatically may be difficult, maybe one could ask for AWB to have an option for it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Never used that tool. Should probably learn how. Where would one propose such a thing? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Beast - Shock.ogg

Hello, Beetstra. You recently removed File:Beast - Shock.ogg from the Beast article as it has no rationale. I just edited the File:Beast - Shock.ogg page and added the name of the article in which fair use is claimed for. Could you look at it and tell me if what I did was correct and if I can place the file back into the article? I'm quite new to this so I might not have understood the policy much. Thank you.(: --Mightysetout (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the rationale, in principle that is sufficient (except if someone would question the rationale itself) - you can add it back, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Thank you. :)--Mightysetout (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

2nd opinion

While Forbes links certainly meet reliable sources guidelines, I recently ran across two SPAs adding links [18] [19]. I've warned both, but haven't reverted much. Your thoughts? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Plain WP:REFSPAM and plain WP:SPAM .. I upped it to {{uw-spam4im}}. Consider to clean it, much of it is inappropriate or non-encyclopedic ('blahblah is #55 on Forbes list', 'blahblahblah is #56 on Forbes list' .. etc. etc. Primary sourcing of that data - is it notable that blahblah and blahblahblah are on that list?). If they continue a block may be in order. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the feedback. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't overreacting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case perp walk image

Hi Beetstra.

You deleted this image because the non-free rationale didn't reference the article. I've done my best to address that as discussed on the talk page here and perhaps you can mention any further concerns you might have there.

Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is not the right place. Non-free images need a rationale on the image description page. It is described in the information already there how that needs to be done. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Licence plates

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Presidentman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- [[::User:Presidentman|Presidentman]] ([[::User talk:Presidentman|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Presidentman|contribs]]) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 12:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Presidentman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- [[::User:Presidentman|Presidentman]] ([[::User talk:Presidentman|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Presidentman|contribs]]) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 10:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Presidentman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Presidentman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is my page being blacklisted?

I would like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heksagon Lavish (talkcontribs) 15:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not blacklisted, the bot detected a likely conflict of interest between your username and the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ajulemic acid

I am trying to follow up on the status of development (or lack of it) of ajulemic acid (IP 751), a page that you contributed to. It belonged to Indevus, a company sold to Endo, but I don't know whether ajulemic acid went with it. Do you know who has the rights now and if it is being pursued? Ohmeded (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Pooh .. I have no clue. Maybe you can ask here: WT:CHEM, enough chemists there who follow that page, maybe someone knows the answer? Hope this helps! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Nederlander.

I've apparently wandered into the middle of a dispute over the use of the old SEC conference logo on the Southeastern Conference article page. You've deleted the old logo, indicating that its NFCC rationale is improper or inadequate, and another editor keeps restoring the old logo without explanation (as well as futzing with the dash coding on the page).

I've just reviewed the current NFCC rationale on the logo's file page. If you explain what your issue is, I will attempt to address it in rewriting the rationale. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The file File:SEC Championship 2009.gif does not have a valid rationale for use on Southeastern Conference. The file is non-free, and every non-free file does need an own rationale for each use. It would be good if you could write a suitable rationale (why is this image needed there etc.), after you've done so, it can be reincluded. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Beetstra, does the newly added rationale satisfy the NFCC requirements, in your estimation? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems quite reasonable. I would re-include the image for now, if you're not sure, maybe ask for a specialist on the specific subject (or the uploader). I only removed it because the rationale for this page was completely missing. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:VChernykhandBukreev.jpg, File:NikolaiGres.jpg, File:SIvanovPDBogachev.jpg

Urgent: Please could you kindly sort out the speedy deletion tags on these files. I had asked you to temporarily protect these files as I feared that this would happen before I could deal with the rationales, but you cannot have seen my request and now they are tagged.

Meanwhile I have corrected the rationales. The images can go back in the article now, so they will no longer be orphaned. If there is still a problem with the rationales, please let me know asap so that I can deal with it before speedy deletion occurs. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

it will be 7 days before they can be fixed. If you address the issues before then you can remove the tags once they are no longer orphans. ΔT The only constant 09:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Just revert the removal with 'rationales written' after you wrote them - they are then not orphaned anymore. Sorry, did not see that request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for your kind assistance, and for reinstating the images. It has taken a couple of years and a team of three international people on Wiki a tremendous amount of hard work to create or expand the Ensemble articles, so I am very grateful for your assistance in seeing that that work is preserved for others to read. Thanks again.--Storye book (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, always willing to help. Thank you for providing proper rationales, unfortunately that is a requirement for display. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Your help has been appreciated.
Urgent again - sorry. However there has been a further complication for the three screenshot files listed above. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 14. The files have been listed for deletion because someone thinks the rationale is still not worded correctly. I've corrected the wording of all three by adding an extra section to the rationale, and added an unnecessary extra copyright tag in response to the wording of the deletion tag. I think it's all correct now, but would appreciate your advice asap. Sorry for the hurry, but don't want to lose the very necessary images after all our hard work. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgeable enough in these images or the subject on them. Maybe a Wikipedia:WikiProject can help? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC) and

Hi, I've noticed that COIBot is reporting link additions for and as spamlinks, I assume because the urls include the word "prize". However, these are the official sites for the Art Fund Prize (formerly known as the Gulbenkian Prize), the major award for museums and galleries in the UK. These are not spam sites, and are linked to in order to reference the prize short-list and prize winners for each year in the Art Fund Prize article and elsewhere, so please could you whitelist these two urls. BabelStone (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it marked them as links needing attention. A bot noted that you seem to have a preference for that link, and that you are the only user - that does not mean that they are automatically 'spam', or bad. As long as they comply with our external links guideline all should be fine. I'll look at this later in more detail. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Dear Beetstra, I try to add a link in an article to the newest edition of Cahier d'Art http://polyhedra (DOT) co (DOT) cc/images/CAHIERSDART%20-%20CATALOGO%20-%20ALEPHALPHAOMEGA.pdf , and now the place where the catalogue is hosted is blocked (black list).. Is there something I can do? Thank you in advance: Rodrigo Perez Garcia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to ask for whitelisting, which should be easy if the site is not a redirect site ( Defer to Whitelist). I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Links marked as Spam Links

Jcaneen (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Hi. some of the links associated with an article that I created have been marked as spam. Could you please advise as to what I need to do to remove those links from the list. Thank you.

They are marked as 'needing attention', not spam per sé. Which links are you referring to? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Jcaneen (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)The links provided here:

  • [Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ (links)]
  • [Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/ (links)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Coins of the Australian dollar


I see you have reverted Coins of the Australian dollar. I was wondering if you can help. I have added the correct (i think) copyright tags to the images. They are the same ones used on other australian coins.

Please can you help?


--JetBlast (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

They need a rationale for each use, for now they only have the rationale for one page, they also need one for the other. When you have supplied that, you could revert (though I should warn, to me it looks like overuse, they are on Coins of the Australian dollar purely ornamental and I don't think that any rationale will suffice). For more info, see WP:NFCC. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh i see i didnt know i needed one for each. Please accept my apologies. Is it a case of making a copy of the existing rationale but change the article to Coins of the Australian dollar like shown here: File:Australian 1c Coin.png Many Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No, that is absolutely NOT enough. It needs a description why the image is needed. And that is for sure not the same reason as on the articles of the coins itself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Removing non-free content in a rude & lazy manner while trying to start an edit war is bad faith editing. Further, leaving threatening messages that someone will get blocked if they don't do what you say (nevermind that it's a template message) just goes to further demonstrate your infinite capacity to act in bad faith. I am going to report you to WP:AN/I and demand you be banned from the project for a period of forever +1 year, with additional sanctions that you never think about Wikipedia again!

(insert smilies as necessary if the humor isn't apparent :) )

This crap is beyond out of hand. Δ has become everyone's favorite punching bag, and since he has a past it is impossible for him to ever...ever...escape it and be treated in a respectful manner. It's like he's under a permanent RfA, replete with a zillion unsubstantiated and blatantly incorrect claims, without any hope of exonerating himself. Surely I am biased, but I can't think of any other editor under as much constant insidious pressure as Δ is. He's the coolest cucumber on the project for putting up with all this crap and not going postal.

Not looking for any action on your part (and please don't take the above as such). Just venting. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And people wonder why I snap, once every year or two. And when I "snap" its nothing really that big, just responding with my true thoughts and calling a spade a spade, (often considered a personal attack, but normally spot on) ΔT The only constant 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think your block is wrong, I'm not seeing (unless I'm missing something) any personal attack after this personal attack (which he was warned for but even the edit summary in his warning removal isn't like the other one left on Nford24's userpage), two weeks seems excessive and you have failed to but a block notice on Pdfpdf's talk page[20]. Bidgee (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
My full explanation is there, it took some time to write it down. He continuously goes on with insisting to call Delta's edits in bad faith - while he has been warned over and over. Earlier remarks like 'rude & lazy Delta' in itself already are grave enough, and he continues, does not retract. I saw an earlier block for NPA of 72 hours (3 days) - one week would have been the bare minimum if it would have been one isolated personal attack which was not retracted. I am sorry, it ends somewhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Still two weeks is excessive, blocks are to prevent disruption and "not intended as a punishment" (WP:BP). Bidgee (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, continuous personal attacks on an editor are plainly disruptive - they do not help in any way to build this Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
See above "This crap is beyond out of hand. Δ has become everyone's favorite punching bag, and since he has a past it is impossible for him to ever...ever...escape it and be treated in a respectful manner." (Hammersoft) - these are several edits with insisted personal attacks by one editor. I am sorry, the fact that Delta is on civility parole does not, in any form, mean that people can attack Delta at will, especially not on cases which are clear-cut violations. What, Pdfpdf finds it necessary to actually agree that the image that Delta removed should be removed, but does that with a continued, and pretty grave, personal attack. I am sorry, this has to stop. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The edit summary after the warning was borderline, a week is sufficient but two weeks seem more like punishment since it is their third block [second for NPA, first was in 2010]. Bidgee (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Bidgee, Pdfpdf is not a newbie - he should not even need a warning, he should know that NPA's are not allowed here, especially after a block for that. And I see now that I did not even see the whole of the situation. I am adapting my statement, and may adapt my block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Be careful

DOn't put warnings about blocking users when it's YOU who removed a legit image! Mathewignash (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not a legit image, it did not have a rationale when it was removed. Inserting images without rationale is a blockable offense. And saying Image has a non-free rational now. Look at it. - we do look, but if you first re-insert it, and then add the rationale - then the image did not have a rationale when it was removed, did it? It was not there to see. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope you are careful, the rationale you provided is absolutely invalid, it is just a copy. I have reverted the rationale, and will remove the image again. Please provide a valid rationale before re-inserting. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Retaining non-free content while under dispute

And another editor believes retaining non-free content in violation of policy is what we should do while discussion happens (edit summary). I think perhaps a modification to the WP:NFC guideline is in order, making it clear that non-free content must first clear the NFCC and NFC hurdles before inclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here the problem is that it would never pass WP:NFCC, it fails #8 - but say that it would only fail WP:NFCC#10c - I am fine with a 'remove - re-insert and immediately write rationale' sequence. This editor did not run to the image to write a rationale after re-inserting, no, they did other things first. And that is often the case - editors are told that there is no rationale, they re-insert and go do something else. In a perfect world, first write the rationale, then re-insert, in an almost perfect world, re-insert ánd write the rationale - but we are not even near a perfect world. It is unfortunate that editors now run away. But well, this has unfortunately gone on long enough and now everyone thinks that everything can be done. Painful. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


I think the better thing to do here would be to add the damn FUR yourself. I mean, it's a freaking title card, something found in nearly every TV article; how hard is it to write the rationale yourself? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you do know the relevent policy, TenPoundHammer. But if you think that it is easy, this is a good start. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Would the correct course of action not be to alert the creator rather than just remove it? Others have had the courtesy to do so. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh .. are you sure that the creator of the image included the image? Maybe in this case, but I assure you, there are many images which are used by other editors than the uploader. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


I think a two-week block was a tad harsh for exactly three reverts and little accompanying discussion surrounding the image. Couldn't a short full-protection of the article accomplished the same goal? If he had continued after that, then obviously a block is warranted. Anyway, I'm of the mind that the block should be reduced to 48 hours or so and was going to do that, but I didn't want to inadvertently wheel war with you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll also note that of the "four blocks" you refer to, three were in 2008 and the other in 2009. That's quite a long time ago... hell, my real contributions only started in 2008, and I've been here for what seems like a lifetime. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is block number 4, for an editor who a) was earlier blocked for edit warring, b) had as a longest block (though overturned) a one week block and c) is a long-term editor (edits dating back to 2006, though probably more serious since 2007). Such editors should know the trick of the trade. I am sorry, there is a problem with those images, the lesser one that they did not have a rationale. It is on the editor who wishes to include or retain that rationale to put that rationale there. That was not done, the editor edit warred to include the image, after being warned. There was no acknowledgement of 'I know, I will solve it', or 'I don't understand, what is wrong with the image', no .. we keep the image there and then we discuss. No. The Foundation requires a rationale for non-free images.

Were that the only problem, it was noted to the editor that the image fails more, it simply can NOT be used there. We are not keeping copyright violations in while discussing whether it can stay, no it goes out. Just below this edit window, first line, it says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." .. this is content that violates a copyright. This is not fair-use of the image, even with rationale it is not fair-use. And yes, 3RR is a bright line, but edit warring does not need to go over that bright line to be blockable. This is about persistent copyright violations, a blockable offense, unfortunately. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think RfA takes blocks that far back into account, Dirk. There was an obvious need for a FUR, yes. He reverted one minute after your personal message (thanks for that), so he may not have even seen your message before being blocked. Then, before he breached #rr or understand why the image was being removed, you blocked him. I'm hoping this isn't a common experience at NFCC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

He reverted more than one time, Ed17. And adding a FUR was not possible, that image can NOT be displayed on that page. It is not fair-use. And then, he was warned, he reverted the warning (so he knew that there was a problem), reinserted the image, started a post on ∆'s talkpage, (the image was removed again) and he again reverted it back in. Don't give me 'he did not read the warning', he is an experienced editor, he knew what could happen if he edit-warred, and we are talking here about something that is part of a Foundation Resolution. One does not have to cross the bright red line of 3RR for something to be edit warring.

And note, what does seem to be standard practice is that editors push and insist (and some even go into plain personal attacks or other incivility - which here did not happen) to have the images included. People do not care whether they are in a plain violation of a Foundation Resolution. People have been warned over and over and over that things had to change, the resolution is over 4 years old (it has not been changed for over 3 years!!). Editors get blocked over policy violations all the time, so yes, if people insist in violating NFCC policy over and over, then yes, that is standard practice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Arrow River (New Zealand)

Did you even read my edit summary ? [21]. Please explain what exactly is wrong with the "rationale for use" ? and what exactly needs improvement ?Mlpearc powwow 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There isnt a rationale at all for Arrow River (New Zealand)?? ΔT The only constant 15:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • 05:37, 23 June 2011 Mlpearc (talk | contribs | block) (+130) (Undid revision 435744919 by Δ (talk) I will work on rationale for use) (undo)
  • 16:47, 23 June 2011 Beetstra (talk | contribs | block) (-130) (All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for more information; one or more files removed due to missing rationale) (undo)

There are 11 hours and 10 minutes between your re-insertion and my next removal. In that 11 hours and 10 minutes there is no rationale. Images without rationale should be removed, and not be re-inserted before a rationale is written. I will undo again - please write a rationale first, then re-insert the image.

I'll have a look at the rationale, back in a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As I expected, there is no rationale at all for the use on Arrow River (New Zealand). I am also not sure if it can be written - the movie shot does not show anything regarding the subject that could not be shown with a picture taken from the same angle, but which is not part of the movie. Please check WP:NFCC to see whether it passes all point completely. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Homage to Catalonia

when you took out the photos you deleted the words, like under muggeridge, could you put the words atleast back in the article. its only polite.Sayerslle (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I took out the images with the captions as not to break the page. You re-inserted the images again, but did not solve the problem for what I removed the images in the first place - they do not have a valid rationale for the display on that page. Could you please first add a proper rationale, and then revert my edit? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Waht do you mean - a proper rationale? they are there to aid the article. as someone has written below - the purpose is to improve articles , not degrade them. Sayerslle (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Have you followed the link I used in the removal edit-summary: WP:NFCC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The words with the Muggeridge photo go in the aftermath section - if you insist on degrading the article at least re-type in the words you lazy tosser. Sayerslle (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File:The National Archives logo.png

Hi, you recently removed File:The National Archives logo.png from The National Archives (United Kingdom) on the grounds that it "did not have" a rationale for its use there - perhaps in future you might just spend a few more seconds looking at the background? It's perfectly obvious that all that needed doing was adding "(United Kingdom)" to the end of the article name in the rationale, because the article's title had changed. If this hadn't been picked up as quickly as it was, the image could well have ended up being deleted. I appreciate you probably do these kind of removals en masse and it can slow things down sometimes if you dwell too long on a particular article/image, but there are some things that are worth just spending a few extra seconds on, because then everyone benefits. Cheers! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Beetstra is not required to produce a valid rationale for the use of any non-free item anywhere on the project. Per WP:NFCC, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". If the image was deleted as a consequence of his actions, it could have been undeleted, or re-uploaded from the source. This case is not as clean as you might think. To a person who is uninvolved in this, the image could be representative of the archives listed at List of national archives. One would have to investigate to be sure it was the proper logo for the article it was used on. It's not trivial. When there are thousands upon thousands of improperly maintained images like this, the request you are making effectively causes an order of magnitude increase in the work load. You might consider contacting the people involved in moving the article to correct their mistakes in not properly reattributing fair use rationales when they conduct moves. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I know he's not required to, and I didn't say that he was! I did consider the fact that The National Archives redirects to a list, and it would be unnecessarily arduous to go through all of the articles listed there to find the right one, but also considered the fact that removing the image means going to The National Archives (United Kingdom), so it would have been perfectly obvious that that was the article to which it related. TNA's website is also listed in the rationale and simply clicking through to it would have also confirmed the providence of the logo. This isn't about blame, I was just trying to point out that although it might seem arduous to have to stop and break the cycle, sometimes it's just the better thing to do. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Not really. To me, part of the process of NFCC policing is the impact it has on editors who use NFCC. There's nothing inherently wrong in using NFCC, but if you're going to use it hoops must be jumped through. The more editors using NFCC are aware of these hoops, the better. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't read the other discussions on this page before I started this one, but it seems like there's a bit of a theme appearing here. To quote a slightly more relevant point from WP:NFCC, "the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added" (my emphasis). Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but if I was doing what Beetstra was doing, I would like to satisfy myself - as much as anything - that I had made at least a brief attempt to correct an bad rationale - especially when the mistake is as simple (and instantly obvious) as this. I do see what you say about the "impact" that removal has on editors, but to my mind any action that is itself unconstructive (although it may absolutely have constructive effects) is not a good one, especially when a constructive action would have been so easy. Again, maybe it's just a matter of opinion, and it's not like it's the end of the world either way. Just thought it was worth mentioning! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ninetyone, here is a list of all non-free media which lacks a rationale. That rationale is required per a Foundation Resolution, and that problem has existed now for years. Editors had all the time to solve the problem, editors have been asked, editors have been warned (in some cases) that there were cases with problems. Nothing has been done over the years. It is our obligation to have the fair-use rationales there (again, per Foundation Resolution), and it is the obligation of those wishing to include the images to write the rationales - it certainly is not required from me. Off course, everyone is free to start adding rationales for the images on the list I link to, but until I do see a collaborative effort to do so, I will continue to remove images from display.
On a similar note, here you remove a negative unsourced sentence. You do not notify the editor, you do not discuss on the talkpage, you do not first add a {{cn}} for some time. I hope you see that you are doing exactly the same as I do, bring pages in line with policy. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I can understand that you feel a need to clear up what is an awful backlog, and I fully support you on that. I also can see why you might see it as "this has to be finally cleared up, now" - and I don't disagree with you on that, either. In fact, if there was no rationale for a particular image at all, I would fully support removal. It's just in cases like this specific one (and I'm not attacking your work en masse, let me be very clear about that) I find it hard to understand why you wouldn't simply correct the article link.
With respect to the comparison you made: yes, I can absolutely see why that might appear to be a bit of a discrepancy, but I think you're maybe missing the point - I'm not saying it's wrong to take firm action per se, such as the removal of infringing content, I'm saying that it's worth taking a second or two to check to see if we can actually fix the situation and save a whole load of potential hassle down the line. And especially as in this case, the fix was so easy to have made.
"Bringing pages in line with policy" doesn't have to be a black/white issue - we don't always have to choose between two stark options. Sometimes it is generally better for the project, and indeed for the execution of the policy (which after all is here to enable image use, not prevent it), to slightly vary our particular course of action. But as I said a while further up, it's not the end of the world, and (as Hammersoft says below, quite rightly) it's probably a matter of opinion at the end of the day. All the best, ninety:one (reply on my talk) 17:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the polite note (I disagree with it :), but thanks! ) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really thinking now than an essay on why attempting to repair rationales isn't a good solution for NFCC enforcers is needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect file deletion

Your recent deletion of images at List of LGBT characters in video games is incorrect. Do you actually read the pages for the files you delete? Both files had rationales for its usage in the article. Diego Moya (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither file has a valid non-free use rationale, and have been removed again. ΔT The only constant 14:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Then what's that thing there in the "Fair use rationale for LGBT characters in video games" section of the FinalFight2.gif and FinalFight2Sega.gif file pages? Your assertion in the edit summary that the file had a "missing rationale" is simply false. In case that the existing rationale is not valid, you should state the reasons why it's the case (so that somebody else can fix it), not simply delete the file without a real explanation. Diego Moya (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My edit summary was 100% correct, please check your facts before commenting. Both files had rationales for LGBT characters in video games and where being used on List of LGBT characters in video games which is a different page. Thus they had no rationale for the article they where being used in and removed. ΔT The only constant 15:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
My fault. List of... was recently forked from LGBT characters in video games for which the rationale was provided. Isn't people supposed to fix errors when they spot them instead of deleting content? Diego Moya (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
LGBT characters in video games is not List of LGBT characters in video games .. I don't even know what the difference is, and maybe they should be merged, but they are two independent articles. And how am I to know that you meant List of LGBT characters in video games and not LGBT characters in video games .. still, the former is where they were, the latter is where the rationale is talking about. I am sorry, the rationale is invalid, I don't know what was meant etc. Maybe you can fix it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And now the images are being edit warred back onto LGBT characters in video games, despite being clear violations of WP:NFCC #8, as explained to Diego at User_talk:Diego_Moya#June_2011. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to fix the rationale. You say it's a violation, I say the rationale is valid. This discussion would have been much more productive if the editor that deleted the file had stated from the beginning the reason why the rationale was not considered valid. Also having several people commenting in the talk page of a user who's not answering back is not helpful. Can we please move discusion to Talk:LGBT_characters_in_video_games where it belongs? Diego Moya (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Diego, the discussion was started here, and deflected to other places. The original edit summary said that the rationale was not valid, you could have asked what we meant, and we would have answered (though it was said in the edit summary "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page" - it did not have a specific rationale for use on this page). What was exactly wrong, we could not know, if we would have looked, there would have been a rationale for one page, and a display on another .. we only knew that the rationale did not point to the right place, we could not know which one was correct. Anyway, lets move on, it is solved now, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The original edit summary said that the rationale didn't exist; I reverted after checking that the files indeed had a rationale, it was just pointing to the previous location of the file. You should have looked at the file page to find out that a misplaced rationale did exist; it would have prevented this lame edit war. Do you think then that the current rationale is enough for the files to be shown at LGBT_characters_in_video_games? (Why do you delete files from articles without checking their file page anyway, is it because you use automated tools? In that case your tools would be improved if they showed the file page to check for this situation). Diego Moya (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, the NFCC #8 issue remains. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That's why I suggested moving discussion to the article's talk page, to not spam Beetstra's talk. Diego Moya (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unmasked (Kiss album)

Can you please explain this? The image seems to have a perfectly good rationale. Am I missing something? --Muhandes (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good enough, not perfect. It was not perfectly clear (but indeed pretty clear) that the fair use rationale was talking about the page Unmasked (Kiss album). I have adapted the rationale, sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, even if an album cover is lacking rationale, adding {{Album cover fur|Use=Infobox|Article=Unmasked (Kiss album)}} will improve Wikipedia much more than removing the image will. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
From WP:NFCC Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created it falls on those who want to include non-free files, not those who remove them. ΔT The only constant 17:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Did I say anything about required? Did I say it is a duty? I said it improves Wikipedia more, nothing more, nothing less. You can choose to do the right thing and improve Wikipedia rather than make it worse. You just choose not to. --Muhandes (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Muhandes, making an accusation that Δ is illiterate is a personal attack. If you can't be civil in your interactions, then don't comment. There are some people like you who believe people patrolling NFCC should (even if not required) provide/fix rationales. There are some that don't. Policy is on Δ's side here. If you want to see that policy changed to require people to create/fix rationales for non-free images where they are used, you can make your case at WT:NFC. Regardless, be civil. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed that comment even before you made your post, you can check the article history. But now you are reading things I never wrote. I never claimed people patrolling NFCC should add rationales. All I said is that there is a second option, at least in the case of album covers, and that it is a better option, making Wikipedia a better place. It takes two more seconds of an editor's time. You can choose to spend that two seconds, or you can go the easy way. It's not a matter of policy, so stop lawyering (see, I can quote too). It is a matter of deciding if you want Wikipedia to be a better place, or a place where someone making an honest suggestion on how to improve Wikipedia in a fellow editor's talk page is immediately attacked by two other editors who have nothing to do with it. The choice some people made is very clear. --Muhandes (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You believe that editors doing NFCC would make Wikipedia a better place if they wrote/modified rationales. I don't. We disagree. That doesn't make you right and me wrong, or vice versa. You are of course welcome to your opinion. I have not attacked you. If I have, please point it out and I would be happy to apologize for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Bah, forget it. Look at it from my point of view. All I did was make an honest improvement suggestion to Beetstra. Read my comment to him again and see if I didn't. Beetstra could have said, that's an interesting idea, if I had the time. Or he could have said it's an awful idea. Then Δ and you budged in and started talking about duties, and quoting policies. There wasn't even a disagreement before you started it. I'm sorry I even tried, should have known better. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Muhandes, thanks for the honest improvement suggestion. However, the Foundation Resolution is 4 years old, 3 years unchanged. Nothing has been done to bring everything in line with that Foundation Resolution. And there are massive number of discussions, questions to editors, etc. etc. to help out with that. here is a list of articles with missing rationales. Everyone is free to help out and start solving the problem. They have had all the time to do so. Until the moment that there will be a collaborative effort to get the rationales there, I will simply take all images out of articles which do not have a rationale for the article. You are not required, I am not required, I may do some where I see that the error is too obvious, but for the rest it is on the editor who wishes to re-include the image. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As a matter of fact, your answer was much more helpful atn explaining the situation than the other editors who from some reason feel they have to answer in your name. I quickly went through the first hundred or so articles in the list and found quite a few albums I could fix in two seconds each (one of them lacked an opening parenthesis for the rationale template for instance). I'd be happy to help doing this constructively, at least for album and song articles. What would really help me would have been a list of album/song articles with this problem. I'm completely ignorant of the technicalities, could such a list be created? For now I search for "album", "song", and "EP", which catches just a very few. A list based on wikiproject would be great. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that could be done. There are tools which make cross-sections of categories, maybe they can do the same for a list of article names with certain categories. You may want to ask - he creates the first list, and may be able to help with the other half as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm going on vacation soon and will not be able to do anything about it, perhaps I will check it when I'm back. Hopefully not too many images are removed by that time. --Muhandes (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the images that get removed get repaired afterwards. The real damage is generally minimal - if it is non-free, it is still available, so even if it is deleted from the server, it can be uploaded again. And a lot of material involves 'new' material anyway, which is abundantly available. Have a good trip! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

non free logos

Hi Beetstra

When you find an article for which there is no fair use rationale for a logo, instead of removing the logo, please add the fur to the image. This is easily done with the {{logo fur}}. The purpose here is to improve articles, not to degrade them to comply with a policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, here is a list of all the images that do not have a fair-use rationale, something that is however required per a Foundation Resolution. However, and I am sure that you are aware of that, it is on those who wish to include the image to make sure that that rationale is there. We are now years after that resolution, and no-one took up the task, after asking for a long time, to solve the problem with the articles on that list I link to. I have seen the argument that it is really easy now also for years - if it is that easy, then why is there not a collaborate effort to get them there. Until then, I will be removing them.
On a similar note, do note that here you revert some unreferenced material. Sure, it is negative, but a) why not ask the editor to supply a source, and b) why not just leave it and add a {{cn}}. I hope you see that there you do exactly the same as I do - bring articles in line with policy. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • @Graeme; there are some people that believe it would be better for people conducting NFCC enforcement to write rationales rather than removing non-free content from articles. There are those that believe the opposite. Policy and resolution support removal. Now, you can say that's a suicide pact; walking right off the cliff in the name of policy. It isn't. Beetstra is absolutely correct. People just don't take it seriously. They'll happily revert war (recent example) until the cows come home even when specifically told what the problem is multiple times. Well, it IS serious. People hate it when they bump into walls regarding NFCC. It creates animosity, edit wars, endless debate threads, and people wiki-self-immolating. I wish it were otherwise. I wish people would quietly comply with NFCC policy. But, the reality is very much otherwise. Nobody here is out to make anyone angry. Nobody is out to degrade the encyclopedia. Characterizing NFCC enforcement as degrading the encyclopedia is inappropriate. Now, you could say (as some do) "the time you took removing the content and explaining it to the editor could have been used to add a rationale!". This is wrong. Let's take the Homage to Catalonia example again. The editor wanted to include two images, File:POUM Obreros.jpg and File:Malcolm muggeridge.jpg. Does Beetstra know anything about the subject? Do you? I don't. I expect most of us don't. I never heard of the book until today. How do I know what is and is not appropriate for this subject? I don't. I could, but I would have to spend considerable time reading the article and possibly doing additional research in related articles before I arrive at a conclusion of whether the content is even appropriate to begin with, and then get to a point where I could write a rationale that made any sense. Too many people believe (as you recommended) if they throw a {{logo fur}} at the problem that the image will have a rationale, and tada it complies. That works for album covers, book covers, etc. where there is a cover art piece that applies specifically to the subject. We have that for the cover of this book. It's entirely inappropriate for the two images the editor wanted to include on this article. There is no boiler plate template to explain the purpose of the use of these images. The template furs have done a lot to improve book covers and album covers and what not. In other cases, they have been a massive, massive disservice to the project, applying incredibly weak rationales all over the project. They effectively boil down to "I'm using this picture because I want to use this picture". So to write a proper rationale, rather than further breaking the project by adding a template rationale, an NFCC enforcer in this case has to take considerable time to even get to the point of being able to write a rationale. There are more than 10,000 images in use on the project that lack a rationale for the use for which they are used. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got another one: diff .. how are we to know that the image contains Thomas Clarkson, and not Thomas Clarkson .. It is simple to solve for those that know, but for me? But it should be clear to me that this logo is for IBM and not for IBM, and it is clear that this logo is for DSM (or is it for DSM, no, wait, it is for DSM. Nooo .. I got it .. it is for the DSM - oops, no, that one does not exist anymore .. then it must be depicting the DSM .. you've got me here. I am at a loss, obviously I get it all wrong (but these are not non-free logo's anyway, what am I rambling about?)). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  • You're still wrong. That logo is for the Union of Dom-Sub Mistresses. I didn't know you were so kinky ;) Seriously; people reply to this by saying things like "Well, it's obvious isn't it? It was used on DSM (company) before you removed it!" No, it's not so obvious. How do we know the editor is right? Without doing some research, we don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now I've got you, Hammersoft. Of course, you have to assume good faith on the editor who inserted it. They knew it was correct on DSM (company), so all you have to do is make sure that the rationale is adapted accordingly. And in the unlucky case that the page was moved (and the FUR not adapted), the resulting redirect from the original address deleted, and re-created by a redirect should just point you to the deleted history of the disambig page (where you as a non-admin do not have access to), and .. aargh. Why not just ask the uploader (who of course uploaded the logo in 2005 and has since been banned by ArbCom, and subsequently used his RTV) .. no, that does not work either .. I know, lets just leave the violation stand, and ignore the Resolution of the Foundation as we did for the last 3-4 years. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • On the moving article issue; why is it that nobody who breaks rationales while conducting moves is ever brought up short for their mistake? Because they aren't removing images from articles, that's why. It's ok to assault people who remove images. It's not ok to caution the people who induce the problem in the first place. Gah. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the comments above, another benefit from explaining the situation and not doing all the FUR work for other editors is that the encyclopedia would be better off if other editors learn how to comply with NFCC policy. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What I was proposing was the very simple case of logo file:a is used on article b with no fair use rationale. Rationale for file:a can be written for article b very easily. I am not talking about multiple use or non free files that are not used. Or non free files that are not logos. As Hammersoft says album and book covers are easy too, and adding a fur is easier than removing the image and warning. But you are doing the correct thing for those images with no obvious reason for use by removing them. You guys above are making it harder than I was imagining. :-) On the topic of my undo on Jack O'Connell the failure of me to warn the user involved is my own laziness. The warning would be reserved for a second go at it. This case was probably an attempted political smear campaign. Perhaps I whould be using an automated tool for these undos. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Graeme. There are blatantly obvious and simple cases. But if I have to examine every one, then though I may have 10% of cases which I solve within a couple of minutes, I will have to spend significant time on a majority of them. Cases which however, for those knowledgeable in the subject will take less than the same couple of minutes. And the blatantly obvious cases will be solved by the ones who are knowledgeable in 10 seconds. I will try to keep an eye on the blatantly easy ones (note, we filter the extremely blatant obvious ones already, I will not touch those), but I can't promise that there will never be cases where it is actually blatantly obvious, but I missed them (and I am sorry, complaining or discussing about it takes more time than just solve it).
Regarding the 'the failure of me to warn the user involved is my own laziness' - I am not saying that you were lazy, that you should have warned the editor, or that you first should have tagged it with a {{cn}}, etc. etc. I would also remove unsourced negative information like that. Our WP:V/WP:RS policies/guidelines are clear: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.". The point is, you are bringing this Wiki in line with policy, on the other hand: we have warned editors of pending actions, the Foundation put a Resolution down, I do notify editors when removing the image again, etc. etc. This is not 'out of the blue'. Just as you are bringing there in that diff stuff in line with policy - these edits try to bring stuff in line with policy, what, a Foundation Resolution. And though the majority of these cases is a case of 'it is fair-use, but there is no rationale there', some of the cases are 'it is not fair-use of this materal, even when there would be a rationale' - in other words, 'this is not fair-use of this material, this is hence used in violation of the original copyright'. And 'Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted'. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

About this foto 35 px

Are you the man who can remove the image I have uploaded? If you are, well, I want ask you about this. If I upload a new variant of this foto with a small resolution 150 px, will a new foto be saved and useable for the article. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You could overwrite it with a free version. E.g. a picture that you personally took of the entrance, and which you release under a proper license. You can not use any non-free image for this. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This photograph is copyrighted. Please see WP:NFCC #1, where it says we do not use non-free content where a free image "could be created". Since this furnace is still in existence (proven by your desire to add the image to "List of preserved historic blast furnaces" (emphasis mine)), a Wikipedia editor could photograph the furnace and release the image under a free license. This image is not acceptable in any form, regardless of size, on Wikipedia. It must be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am Michelle. You removed a picture of Susana Gonzalez from the article about her. Why?--Mychele (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This Moment images

Hi. You removed two images I had on the article about the album This Moment. Both images are alternate covers of two Special Editions. I re-edited the summary and the non-free rationale of each, removing any reference to stores or any other business (Wal-Mart or Amazon) from where I got the image, and verified it with the summaries of similar images (like These Days and ...Baby One More Time). Let me know if that was the problem, so we can remove the tags and reinstate the images to the article. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the sourcing or whatever - that should actually be there. For every use of an image on a page you need to describe on the image description page why that image is needed on the page (and that needs to be done for every page where one uses the image). If that is there, and that rationale is valid, then you can re-insert the images. I hope this explains. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block of user Pdfpdf

As a long term Wikipedia acquaintance of User:Pdfpdf, I would like to ask you to reconsider his indefinite block. Pdfpdf is well-know for his dry humor - he is not malicious. When he is frustrated, his humor approaches rudeness (as has happened in this case). The other user is involved in other wiki drama and edit warring [22]. Pdfpdf has been a very productive editor - I would ask you to reconsider if the indefinite block is for the best of Wikipedia. Thank you! jmcw (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I issued a 2 weeks block for the personal attack/incivility issue .. but seeing the total lack of respect for WP:NFCC (which is not only reflected in the issue for the personal attack/incivility, but earlier) I decided to upgrade this to indef. That does not need to be 'infinite', but I do hope that Pdfpdf does reconsider, and notes this properly.
I strongly disagree that the edits of Delta are 'wiki drama and edit warring' - these are plain, clear-cut violations - it can not get any clearer than this. There was nothing inappropriate about the removals from Delta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I do note here, again, a user as Pdfpdf, a long standing user, should know to be careful with personal attacks. If you throw in one, that could have been .. fine, I would not have bothered too much, I would just have remarked/warned not to do it. But several editors noted the plain rudeness of several edits, and Pdfpdf kept on being rude after some of these editors remarked on it, repeating inappropriate remarks aimed at Delta. I am sorry, it can be 'dry humor', but this not 'approaches rudeness', it is plain rude - bordering on malicious. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I presume that this is also 'dry humor', and not a plain personal attack. Same violation, by the way .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Please excuse me if I exaggerated the role of Delta - I have not been following the discussion - I only note that the other user is being discussed by the community (with apparently strong emotions). I want only to ask if you are interpreting Pdfpdf's humor as total lack of respect. I agree 100% that Pdfpdf should often be whacked with a trout: do you think he should give up his humor to continue as a Wikipedian? jmcw (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said, of course humor is fine. But this is not being humorous. Pdfpdf here violates (in the very first inclusion of the image on the userpage) WP:NFCC#9 knowingly, he ran into WP:NFCC#9 violations before, he should know it was a violation. They a) creates an image which in itself is a violation of copyright (that image would not even be 'fair-use' in mainspace, not even with a rationale), and b) includes it outside mainspace in violation of WP:NFCC#9, c) something they should be aware of. If you call knowingly violating copyright on multiple cases 'humor' - well, I am sorry, I do not. Persistingly calling names, being rude then does not help the situation. I am interpreting Pdfpdf's 'humor' (as you call it) inappropriate here (and not 'a lack of respect' (general), but 'a total lack of respect for WP:NFCC', quite a difference). I am looking forward to Pdfpdf's response. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Jmcw, do you really consider this 'humor', and if so, do you think that this is appropriate humor? Maybe you could ask ∆ whether he considers it humor, being called 'a vandal', 'rude', 'acting in bad faith' over and over (and over). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I see a lot of emotion here. I see a very heated discussion of Delta and NFCC issues. Pdfpdf with his provocative style has wandered into a forest fire. I do not think dealing with Pdfpdf issues in this heated environment is appropriate . Do you think this incident should be the straw that breaks the camels back and ends Pdfpdf 4 year/30k edit Wikipedia career?. jmcw (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Jmcw, first you are dodging a direct question, but well. Secondly, I do not think that continuous personal attacks, rudeness, lack of good faith, etc. etc. is a way forward with ∆ either. You seem to think that this incident should not be the straw that breaks the camels back and end Pdfpdfs career, and I agree, but I also think that this should not be the straw that breaks the camels back and end ∆s career. Incivilty by ∆ should stop, but incivilty towards ∆ should stop as well. Pdfpdf had a good chance to stop in time, they did not have to push it this far, they could have stopped and asked what was the problem if they did not understand. But yet that is not the way chosen. I am sorry that their career ends this way (and the dry humor in that post is well taken) but I refuse to accept that I am the straw that breaks thát camels back.
Let me be clear, ∆s edits here were totally appropriate, the image violated multiple parts of our policies, yet was the one being yelled at. This may have resulted in ∆ being pushed over the limit (after all, ∆ is under civilty restrictions). Are you sure that this incident should be the straw that breaks thát 'camels' back? I am sure many are waiting for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
RE "Direct question": I do not think that drawing the world in black and white improves complicated situations. I do not know Delta - I will not attempt to judge someone I do not know or understand. I apologize for disturbing you. Thank you for your time and effort. jmcw (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You're not disturbing me - Well, I don't think that I know Pdfpdf (we may have encountered before). But I hope that you do understand that I judged here the actions of Pdfpdf, which I deemed inappropriate (and I have not been convinced otherwise). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It never came across me until now, haven't you had past dealings with Delta (going by User:Beetstra/listing)? I feel an Admin who hasn't had any dealings with Delta and Pdfpdf should have made the call on whether an indef block was warranted. Again we loss another long term editor who yes was in the wrong (never said they didn't breach NPA) but the whole situation was handled poorly. For your information, I don't know Pdfpdf personally and only had the odd discussion. Bidgee (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not have any significant dealings with Pdfpdf in the past. I did not judge Delta, I judged the copyright violations and rude remarks by Pdfpdf. And indef is not 'for ever and ever' .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Most Admins I've dealt with would get a another view from another fellow Admin who hasn't had any dealings with each editor. Its the first time ever that I've seen an Admin block a long term valuable editor for "copyright violations and rude remarks" for indef (may not mean forever but not the point). Sadly this is one more editor we have lost due to Wiki politics. Bidgee (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Uh, you should take another look at the dictionary, Pdfpdf's actions go far, far beyond rude, they are grossly uncivil, nasty insulting derogatory comments with the sole purpose to attack fellow editors. You said you are worried about loosing an editor with 4yrs/30k edits what about me? Ive been here 5yrs/120k edits.... Personal attacks regardless of who it comes from need to be stopped. ΔT The only constant 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't insult me by telling me to take a look at the dictionary, I know what his comments were, I'm re quoting Beetstra and I never said Pdfpdf's comments where not personal attack. I just feel that this wasn't done the way it should have been. I can only see that you've been here for about a year with 20k of edits, how am I meant to know. Bidgee (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, things were not done the way they should have been. People should stop editors early on when they are addressing unfounded personal attacks at others, and people should consider that when an image gets removed because it unquestionable fails parts of WP:NFCC, that they then first solve the problem, and then re-insert it. Pdfpdf handled the situation poorly indeed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Delta or any other editor watching could have asked Admins sooner to look at it. Sadly I'm seeing more and more that the indef was a poor block, worse then the two week block. Bidgee (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It is always interesting to see that people are worried about the loss of one editor, but don't seem to care about others. I hope you do realise that these continued personal attacks and insults addressed to ∆ might have had just the same effect (I am not editing happily when I am treated this way). But you apparently judge Pdfpdf a more valuable editor than ∆.
Bidgee, it is not my point to drive people away, I strongly feel that I stopped disruption here, an editor who is unnecessarily insulting another one, ánd who is knowingly violating policy. And I hope you do understand, that if I would see disruption by ∆, that I would act in exactly the same manner - blocking the editor for disruption. There was no need for the repeated insertions of that non-free content, there was certainly no hurry in doing so - it could have been decently discussed before, and there was also no need for the repeated insults and rude remarks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You've failed to address my concerns on having an third uninvolved party to look at your actions. Well you have, other action could have been taken before this escalated to where it has now but no one really did anything other then revert and maybe the odd comment on the user talk page. Delta never threatened to leave, but they shouldn't have to put up with NPA yes. Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

'no one really did anything other then revert'? That is a gross misinterpretation of the edits by both Delta (who clearly explained what they did, clear edits) or by Pdfpdf (who early on started with insults, rude remarks, and calling the removals 'bad faith') - 'the odd comment'? note that Delta here clearly did not insult, did not make rude remarks, did not edit in bad faith, however the remarks by Pdfpdf were plainly rude, insulting and personal attacks (certainly not addressing the concerns that Delta has stated in his removals). Editors do not need to threaten to leave, some just leave after these plain, unfounded, personal attacks.

I am glad you see that Delta shouldn't have to put up with NPA. Maybe you are willing to have a look through User:Beetstra/listing and think about the remarks aimed at Delta, and maybe next time when another editor comes in and addresses Delta in such a way, you are also saying that these NPA's are not necessary?

Regarding comments from uninvolved editors - I see at least 4 editors commenting in the same way as I acted - clearly they do not agree with the comments that Pdfpdf was making - you think still that my blocks were ill-adviced? And do you think that copyright violations are not worth a significant signal (have you read the first line under the edit box? It says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" - it is not something that Wikipedia thinks lightly over). And I do expect a long-term editor like Pdfpdf to know such things. Pdfpdf was knowingly violating all this, not just '.. anything other then revert and maybe the odd comment ...'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No we haven't had an Admin take a look at your block, do you indeed to ask another Admin? Please to not misinterpretation what I have said, someone should have stepped in sooner and taken action then and we wouldn't be where we are now. I'm not saying Pdfpdf is not responsible for what he said and did but saying that action taken in the early part would have likely sent a message. A bit of good faith would be good about the copyright vios, we have editors who have been around for just as long who may not understand the process and guidelines for fair-use, when reverted or placed under deletion they disagree (I know, I've done a few noms for living people or buildings that still exist in countries who have FOP). Mustn't forget that what policies we had in 2005 are different now, not a lot of people really read them (when they should). Bidgee (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Editors did step in. I did not misinterpret your comments - I do notice how and what you say, and I think you have a very clear view of what the situation was. We only look at other sides of the situation. I believe that the actions by Pdfpdf were way beyond reasonable, and I think that an indef block here was warranted per "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy."/"Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems."/"Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue." (vide infra).
Note, Pdfpdf has been pointed to WP:NFCC for example on the 3rd of May 2011. NFCC has not changed much since then, things like overuse and plain violations like lacking a rationale or not being in userspace where there then, and are still. I do believe that Pdfpdf was quite aware of the restrictions when he uploaded the last image under dispute on the 17th of June 2011 (and Pdfpdf has uploaded a lot of images!). They filled in the information block for that non-free image. I do not think this was a case of 'I did not know the situation changed since 2005'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:OVERUSE is only an essay which itself is over used. I don't believe that he had a true understanding of fair-use (I seen how he did them). Clearly you're unsure yourself about how much polices have changed. Bidgee (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, as a pretty neutral party (non-admin, worked with Pdfpdf but not with Delta), I agree that a block was appropriate for repeated accusations of bad faith (which amounts to a personal attack) and repeated violations of NFCC. I'm curious though as to the length of the block. 2 weeks seems excessive if you are incrementally increasing the blocks (previous was 72h, so surely 1 week would be more appropriate). As for the indefinite block, the increase appears to be regarding the NFCC violations, can I ask what you would be expecting before unblocking? WormTT · (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)NFCC violations should have been handled by a different Admin who hasn't worked with Delta or Pdfpdf for a fair outcome (since they became involved when blocking the first time). I think conditions should be placed on Pdfpdf via ANI (community consensus) with them agreeing not to breach NFCC, CIVIL and NPA along with reading the policies and guidelines to gain an understanding on what is right and wrong. Bidgee (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocks are indeed supposed to be incremental, I chose 2 weeks since a) the insults were pretty grave, and continued after multiple warnings. I did also take into account that this was not the second block of the editor, ánd that the editor is here for longer, so I expect them to actually know WP:NPA - but despite that ánd 4 remarks (of which 2 or 3 were replied to / reverted) Pdfpdf considered to continue with it.
For the NFCC block-extension to indefinite - I feel that there were multiple cases where Pdfpdf violated copyright here, he did not only upload a replaceable image (a clear violation of fair-use), he also placed it outside of mainspace (another violation of fair-use). Then it includes edit-warring to keep the image included despite the multiple violations of WP:NFCC (seen the upload log of Pdfpdf, I do believe that he is aware of the rules for non-free media). To me, these are continued violations of copyright, which warrant an explanation before further editing takes place. Applying a 2 week block, or a 2 year block does not do that, the editor could sit out the block, never explain the reasons, and continue. That is what we have indef blocks for, to ensure that the situation gets discussed first before editing continues. Unfortunately, Pdfpdf does not seem to be willing to explain the situation.
Bidgee, indef blocks are to enforce discussion and to stop disruption - something that clearly happened here. There is all space to discuss and Pdfpdf has the ability to request unblocking using the regular channels, moreover, he is able to read all of Wikipedia to gain an understanding of what is right or wrong, the block does not stop that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I still think the 2 week block is excessive, but certainly within your remit. As for the indef, that's the answer I was hoping you'd give. Thanks. WormTT · (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the 2 week block, I'm afraid that others may even have blocked longer, but I think that "Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith" (a plain personal attack), "Revert bad faith edit. You have been asked, politely, to explain yourself. Stop trying to start an edit war." (another personal attack, and an assumption of bad faith), "What that lazy & rude Delta didn't explain is that NFCC says non-free images can only be used in the articlespace" (personal attacks, and it was explained), "And if you continue to be rude, arrogant and act in bad faith, so will you" (more personal attacks), "Delta's ongoing and continued bad faith behaviour is not conducive of a harmonious editing environment. Please solve that problem before whinging here." (another personal attack to Delta, and saying that 2over0 is 'whinging'). This is not just a bit of rudeness, these are not just light personal attacks, this is repeatedly attacking the editor.
I am not sure what you mean with "that is the answer I expected you to give"? It implies that I might have given another answer? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Quick comment before I head off for the night/morning. Pdfpdf has never been blocked for copyright violations in the past, other editors have done much worse (claiming an image as their own or uploading after multi able blocks). No one ever asked him if he understood the policies and the allegations made are just that. Bidgee (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That is an argument alike 'WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS', Bidgee. Yes, there are way worse violations, and such editors are also indeffed. I indeffed here to get an explanation before the editor could continue editing. A 'sorry, I did not know that WP:NFCC said that, I will review the policy and take more care next time' would have convinced me to revert the block to the original 2 weeks - and also that block could have been shortened after a proper explanation and (probably) an excuse directed at ∆ (as all the remarks by Pdfpdf were totally unfounded). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, wait, Pdfpdf has never been blocked for copyright violations, that is true, but they were warned for violations of WP:NFCC, or reverted edits mentioning WP:NFCC quite recently (less than 2 months ago). Again, below this edit box is stated 'Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted' - copyright violations are not taken lightly, otherwise that sentence would not be right under the edit box, it would be somewhere else. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum. Bidgee, you say "No one ever asked him if he understood the policies and the allegations made are just that.". Pdfpdf first re-insertion stated "Undid revision 434964091 by Δ (talk) - Not good enough Delta. As far as I can determine, they comply precisely with NFCC. If you disagree, please explain.", Δ explained already in the first removal, but again "remove non-free content per WP:NFCC#9", Pdfpdf proceeded with Undid revision 435076884 by Δ (talk) - Revert bad faith edit. You have been asked, politely, to explain yourself. Stop trying to start an edit war. - Δ did explain, if Pdfpdf did not understand, also they could have asked. Pdfpdf just alledged that it was a bad-faith edit. Δ is more than willing to explain, or others, there are policy talkpages available. It is clear that Pdfpdf did not understand, it was tried to explain it to them, they could have asked as well. Point is, the copyright violation needs to be removed until the issue is cleared (again, see below edit window: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted") - Pdfpdf did not want to discuss the insertion, they just re-inserted. It is not Δ not wanting to explain, or anyone else, it is the multitude of editors not wanting to ask what could be wrong. And that goes for things that can not be repaired, and which should not be just as well as for things that can be repaired. Editors do not ask how to solve the problem, they just care to have the copyright violation stand. If you know of any way of making it more clear to editors that when their image is removed as a WP:NFCC violation to first ask and then do .. please tell us. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess I need to ask you to reconsider here as well. My concern is that Pdfpdf had already admitted that he was in the wrong with his interpretation of NFC, almost a day before you gave the first two week block, so there is no preventative role for the block there. The accusations of bad faith were a problem, but at the same time - to go straight to an indef block for a well established editor with an almost clean block log over a single heated argument seems like an overreaction. I think Pdfpdf may well have needed a wake-up call, but he's been a productive editor for many years, so to loose him this way seems like a bad way to proceed. The original two weeks was tough, but surely that would have been enough? - Bilby (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Bilby, the insults did not stop, and it is a repeat from earlier (for which they was stopped), and there are similar diffs in the past where strong words were used without reason as well (but not as continued and excessive as here)
For the indefinite, yes, he agreed that there was a violation of WP:NFCC#8, he understood that, but that was not the only failure there, there were several failures of WP:NFCC on the images. Moreover, he was repeatedly pointed to WP:NFCC in the last months, he is a regular uploader, and I found more images where similar questions could be asked. For me, having an uploader and user of non-free material who shows multiple times that he violates WP:NFCC while being pointed to the exact reasons for violations is a reason to block indef, and make sure that the editor does understand WP:NFCC before allowing to edit further. That is what indefinite blocks are for. Note that Pdfpdf has since said that he does not understand WP:NFCC - hence there is a continued risk of copyright violations being uploaded or used by Pdfpdf on Wikipedia, which that block is purely preventive - avoid damage to Wikipedia by someone who does not understand WP:NFCC. Note, there is a 2 week block for the heated argument, the indef is for a totally different cause (though it came to light through the heated argument). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, he acknowledged that he was wrong. In which case the need to prevent further NFC violations seems covered. Thus I'm not sure why an indef was warranted, given the existing acknowledgement of a mistake, and no evidence of an ongoing problem in the day that followed that acknowledgement. He was impolite and demanding, but did seem to get the point in regard to policy. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem was ongoing over a longer time, Bilby. It is not this one thing that he now acknowledged, it are repeated cases of not understanding WP:NFCC. I am sorry, we need to be sure that he does understand not only #9 (which he now acknowledged), but also #1 (which was not acknowledged or understood). This editor has publicly stated that he does not understand NFCC, is making several mistakes with it, and in that process if violating copyrights. And that already for 2 months. Indefinite is to make sure that the editor acknowledges that he now will take care, and I will be the first one to lift the indefinite block then (though any admin can). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like we're going to have to disagree. Pdfpdf stuffed up. Where we disagree is that I would have prefered to see a far less confrontational approach that would have allowed us to retain the editor while still making it clear that he had to learn to follow NFC. I respect that you see things differently, but from my perspective we appear to have lost a valuable editor over a problem that could have been fixed. Anyway, I guess this all moot now. - Bilby (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I also would have liked it to end differently. 'A far less confrontational approach' - I agree totally, but note that the 'confrontational approach' was started and continued by Pdfpdf, he made 7 edits with a, to put is mildly, confrontational edit summary / talkpage notice. And in case you didn't notice, Δ is under an almost constant string of such confrontational behaviour - Δ is constantly being yelled at. And not only Δ, I get also yelled at for exactly the same edits as Δ. Sure, we do not want to loose editors, we do not want to loose Pdfpdf, but we also do not want to loose Δ, or me, for the constant stream of personal attacks. The knife cuts both ways, Bilby. I admire that you want to retain Pdfpdf - but do understand my perspective includes that we do not want to loose the equally (or maybe less, that does not matter) valuable editor Δ. But let me be clear, if a very established editor is persistently yelling at a newbie, then I will also block that editor, what, I will even block Jimbo if Jimbo is persistently yelling at a newbie ánd continuously uploading and using images which blatantly fail NFCC. No matter how experienced Jimbo is - what, I will block Jimbo earlier, because I expect experienced users to know that that WP:NPA and WP:NFCC exist (and Pdfpdf was pointed there before he got blocked, repeatedly). Are you suggesting, that established editors can make multiple violations of multiple policies and guidelines - well, note that that was not the leeway that was given to Δ by ArbCom - and I find that suggestion shocking. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you equate my saying that an editor is valuable with the claim that only established editors are worth protecting. In saying that Pdfpdf was a valuable editor, I'm not saying - or even suggesting - that he required special treatment, but only that I felt he warranted a different approach, as I would do with any editor who is generally editing in good faith. (As an aside, I was careful in my wording - I used "valuable" over "established", as I don't see that hanging around for a long time should give you any special consideration over a new editor: a personal concern is the treatment of new editors, who often bring valuable perspectives and knowledge to the project, but then get jumped on before they have a chance to understand how things work). I also have no problem with the two week block for incivility - it seemed a tad harsh, but I'm of the opinion that NPA is one of the more valuable policies, and I don't have a problem with seeing it enforced. At any rate, I understand that we'll differ on this, and that's fine. You're certainly more than entitled to take a different perspective, but I did feel the need to express mine, and I meant no disrespect in doing so. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I do not mean that I would protect a long-standing editor over an IP or newbie either (I would block an admin if they would repeatedly personally attack an editor, even when that editor that was yelled at was vandalising in a rude way - Do note, if ∆ would personally attack an editor in an unambiguous way, I would block ∆ also for that). But here, Pdfpdf, was unilaterally yelling at ∆ - there is nothing that ∆ said or did that would need excessive yelling about - the edit was correct, ∆ pointed to the relevant policies. Not that there is EVER a reason to yell at another editor. And here there are 6 of such remarks (some clearly over the line, others less). I agree, 2 weeks may be harsh, but using unfounded personal attacks is also. And don't come with 'but editor A is valuable' - that is or may be equally true for editor B, and while maybe editor A suggest to retire upon being told, editor B may as well just put '{{retired}}, scramble their password and go. Maybe my block should not have the first effect, but the edits of editor A may have (had) the same effect (already). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My Experience with Pdfpdf

This is long overdue action on User:Pdfpdf and should serve as a warning for other regular editors who think that this type of snarky edit commentary riding either side of the border of WP:NPA.

I've had conflicts with User:Pdfpdf in the past, at Talk:Xavier_College, where he rode the borderline on WP:NPA in so many ways: (a) his and User:Hilo48's attempt to turn around my admission of not personally knowing the school into an ad hominem attack (demonstrating a lack of understanding of the founding ideology behind wikipedia); (b) snarky edit summaries such as "Undid revision 405467070 by Danjel (talk) a) Archiving is NOT refactoring. Get your facts straight, b) So much for This is my last post here." (emph. added) (c) describing my objection to his ad hominem attack as "waffle" and archiving/refactoring it to hide it.

...and again at Concordia College (South Australia) and Talk:Concordia_College_(South_Australia)#Student_Leadership: (a) abusive edit summaries, evidence of WP:OWN and came perilously close to WP:3RR; (b) a pointed refusal to play a constructive part in discussion at the talk page; (c) even where he got to the talk page, his tone was abusive.

After that particular incident, and despite a mutual agreement brokered by User:Worm_That_Turned to leave each other alone (User_talk:Danjel#User:_Pdfpdf), he continued with the petty schoolyard bullshit at [[23]]. The agreement was nullified at this point, and I considered going through an WQA, but didn't have the time or energy to joust with the mutually defensive group that has formed around such users as him. Discussion on these points were at User_talk:Worm_That_Turned/Archive_2#Pdfpdf and User_talk:Danjel#User:Pdfpdf..

As a side note, the counting of edits for a user, and acting as if the amount of edits that a person has defines their worth to wikipedia (and that the rules should be "bent" for users with many edits) smacks of an arrogant and infantile attitude. Bloody hell... I can't believe adults are actually mentioning edit counts as if they have anything to do with anything. The rules apply to everyone regardless of how long you've been at Wikipedia.

Further, the herd mentality, where long term personally acquainted users jump to the defence of each other when they are clearly in the wrong is a real problem on wikipedia. The fact that the same sort of thing happened when another of the participants above, Bidgee, was subjected to an RFC/U (at WP:Requests_for_comment/Bidgee) says that this is an issue particularly for this group.

I know that there are other editors who have had problems with Pdfpdf and others. So, Beetstra, ∆, you both absolutely did the right and courageous thing, to show that we at wikipedia are not going to put up with abusive behaviour. Pdfpdf's way forward from here is clear, but I have no confidence that any improvements will actually happen. -danjel (talk to me) 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit counts mean nothing to me. Shame you had to make bad faith comment by bring up that past, at least Jeffro77 and MelbourneStar1 have moved on, I thought and had hoped that you had done the same but seems that my thoughts were wrong. I've never seen any personal attacks (PAs) from Pdfpdf towards yourself (not saying that there was no PAs) so some diffs would be good, and I'm not saying that Pdfpdf should get off with the PA's, I just thought that the block was excessive. I still think an Admin who has had no communications with both editors should make the block. With the NFCC, I support ∆, Beetstra and no doubt others are doing. It has been a long term issue, main dislike I have is replaceable images that are used under fair-use which have gotten heated and then we have have people (Anons and users) place a unfree fair-use file on a number of pages. Bidgee (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Bidgee, I had no interaction in this dispute, and I did not block because ∆ was the receiving party. Pdfpdf was throwing insults at another editor, and continued with that while he knew that the other editor was right - there was absolutely no need for the insults. There are simply no need for any insults anywhere, whether addressed at ∆, or at me. Pdfpdf was repeatedly warned, but even removed the warnings with insults. I am sorry, Pdfpdf went way too far with the insults here. He should not have started, he could have stopped and said 'sorry' when he figured out that he was actually wrong with the use of that file, he could have stopped when he was warned. And he clearly knew what the result would be, he was blocked before, and he told Delta that Delta could be blocked when Delta continued to be rude. And note, just as an indefinite block is not meant to be indefinite (but just as long as the block is needed to prevent further disruption), that same goes for a 2 week block (which can also be overturned after 10 minutes when an unblock is requested). I have yet to see any acknowledgement of the reasons the editor got blocked .. and we are still well within the same 3 days as that the first NPA block was, and certainly within the first 7 days which I think would have been the bare minimum for the personal attacks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
"Move on" in your view, Bidgee, must mean "ignore bad behaviour". "Bad Faith" (besides being slightly problematic as has been noted in this situation) must mean "pointing to a similar problematic circumstance in the past". I would have thought that after your retirement to get away from the difficulty of changing your behaviour after an RFC/U, your behaviour would have improved. Alas. In this case, you are part of the circling of the wagons around your friend (despite what you say at [[24]]) Pdfpdf. It's not OK. It's not something I'm going to ignore.
I've provided a bunch of examples above. Read them if you like. And clearly you are interested in edit counts demonstrated with your edit at [[25]]. -danjel (talk to me) 10:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I've left aside the issue of NFCC completely because it is just so blinkingly obvious that discussion should be the first step in a dispute on copyright problems that I have no idea what to say. Pdfpdf knew what he should have done, but didn't. -danjel (talk to me) 04:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for the heads up. I might consider to use some of these diffs if this situation continues. Thanks!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're being terrifically patient with this discussion, before I add more tangential rubbish to the mix. -danjel (talk to me) 10:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is getting more like a WP:RFC/U. Perhaps it should have been discussed at WP:ANI. Anyway I expect that we should await an unblock request from pdfpdf, or else the time of the first block before talking more action. My opinion is that the indefinite block is excessive and a formal warning would have done since the problem was already acknowledged. And I also give an apology for saying that Beetstra did not use a standard block template. It is just a different one to the one I would use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett - the problem was not acknowledged. The 'you can't use non-free material outside of mainspace'-problem was acknowledged (an issue very similar to a situation the editor ran in months ago as well, they could have known it here anyway), there were multiple issues with the use of the files (with this one, and with others) - most of these were plain copyright violations. The editor mistagged images, used them in places where they should not be used, ánd edit warred with / was personally attacking the editors removing the copyright violations - Seen that WP:NFCC was brought to the editors attention months ago, that the editor is a regular user and uploader of non-free material, and that there were multiple copyright violations on the documents showed me that the editor did not know / understand WP:NFCC (and the editor later acknowledged the same - they did not understand WP:NFCC) - to me, that shows a risk of continuing with copyright violations - something that clearly harms wikipedia. To protect Wikipedia, I indeffed the editor, enforcing discussion by the editor regarding the copyright issues and when administrators would be satisfied that the editor did understand NFCC and would follow it then we unblock. Having a 2 week block in place does not give Wikipedia that protection, having a 2 year block would not give Wikipedia that protection - that is exactly what indef blocks are for, protecting Wikipedia until the editor who is blocked sees that what they is doing is damaging Wikipedia. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A review of the situation

Hi Beetstra. I've waited for a few days before posting this, to allow any dust to settle. Firstly, I would like to state that I believe extra care and thought should be given blocks of established editors, in the same way that extra care is given to BLP articles. So, I hope you don't mine that I look for a little more information per the blocking policy - "The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."

Now, the situation as I see it is that Pdfpdf is subject to two blocks currently. A 2-week block based on personal attacks, and an indef block based on copyright violations. I'll deal with each of these seperately. The personal attacks made by Pdfpdf were accusations of bad faith and what I would consider "gentle" insults ([26], [27], [28], ([29], [30]) - I would certainly not consider these insults as "grave". Three seperate editors confirmed that Δ was not acting in bad faith, and he was told that accusations of bad faith was a personal attack, but carried on. I agree that this warrants a block, as I've mentioned above - however I do not agree that these personal attacks warrant a 2 week block. His previous block was nearly a year ago (again for personal attacks) was for 72 hours, so I feel a maximum 1 week block would have been sufficient.

Regarding the copyright violations block. I agree Pdfpdf has demonstrated that he did not fully understand NFCC. I am aware that you and Δ work significantly in images, and so understand the ins and outs of NFCC. Certain issues you will see regularly and so you will may have an expectation that experienced users (especially ones who have 1500 edits to the File space) would have an understanding of these fundamental concepts. It is clear to me that Pdfpdf does not have the same level of understanding, he makes it clear with comments such as "As far as I can determine, they comply precisely with NFCC. If you disagree, please explain". In this case, the issue in question was WP:NFCC#9 - the location of the image. Linking to the policy does explain the edit... but with the amount of policies and links that are thrown around, it's not impossible to to miss something. Pdfpdf clearly had. At NO point did anyone write "non free images cannot be used in user space", 9 words which would have completely explained the situation - instead Δ reverted with exactly the same edit summary. Pdfpdf eventually spotted the issue and acknowledged his mistake. No further mistakes were made in this regard, and I believe we all agree that a line can be drawn under the issue.

You assert that an issue remains with Pdfpdf's handling of Non-free files. The only examples I can see that you have provided are File:Nathanael-2011.jpg (something I cannot see, due to the fact it is deleted) - Where he stated the replaceability as "Possibly, but I don't have access to it. Further, it is a photo of a unique event - that is not replacable" - You focus on the "possibly". I'd focus on the "unique event". Again, I haven't seen the file in question, but I see it as a communication issue with Pdfpdf, not understanding that he cannot be wooly on image rationale. Either it is replaceable or it isn't and he should focus on writing clear rationale explaining which. The other example given is regarding File:Hall's Stonie ginger beer.png, where he uses the word "unlikely". Again, this is how someone would talk, allowing other options. Explaining that he should focus on clarity in rationales will solve this problem.

I do hope this has not become too long, and that you will take the time to read it. In light of the fact that Pdfpdf has been stopped from writing on his talk page, I am unsure about whether he is requesting an unblock, nor whether he would return were he unblocked. However, since 4 editors have objected to the block I do request that you review my comments and even if you still feel the block is required that you ask for independent review. Regarding wishy-washy comments such as "an issue very similar to a situation the editor ran in months ago as well, they could have known it here anyway" and implications that this is an ongoing problem, I ask that you provide diffs so that they can also be reviewed. Finally, if it helps and Pdfpdf agrees, I would offer to mentor him, to ensure we do not come up against such problems in the future. WormTT · (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I see many people arguing in the same way, and I do have the issue still under review. Don't worry, discussion is still going on.
Regarding the personal attacks - I am sorry, but I do not see that calling someone 'rude', 'arrogant', or 'lazy' "gentle" (I wonder what you would call "grave", or where you put the line between gentle and grave) - and note, if it would be one single remark it would have stayed with a warning, maybe not even that. But this involves 6 edits with all remarks which address ∆ in a negative way. And all without any reason, what, even when the perceived reason was taken away, Pdfpdf continued. I have said earlier, that I was thinking about 1 week, but Pdfpdf continued after being warned did not show me that they were intending to stop. Note, I would have unblocked here if it Pdfpdf would have said something along the lines of 'I lost my temper, sorry' - but that was not done after Pdfpdf figured out that they made a mistake (which, IMHO, they figured out because Delta explained that to Pdfpdf), and also after being blocked Pdfpdf shows no signs of understanding that these are personal attacks.
Regarding the copyright violations. If a non-free image is replaceable, maybe replaceable, probably replaceable, or whatever, then it is never fair-use. Furthermore, non-free images can never be used outside mainspace. Now, if you do not understand fair-use, and you see an image removed, you may revert, saying 'I don't see the issue, I think it is fine' - if it is then re-removed, you do not re-insert it again, then you consider that maybe there is an issue with it. And here, there were three issues with WP:NFCC - it is simply replaceable (so it was mistagged as replaceable), it is used outside mainspace (while non-free media can never be used outside mainspace) ánd it did not have a fair-use rationale (which would not have helped here, but which is a requirement for non-free media per a Foundation Resolution, not a requirement of some local policy). Then, as I said, it is repeated: 15:54, 3 May 2011 - reinsertion of non-free media outside mainspace, while the removal also there points to WP:NFCC - note, also there suggesting the removal is vandalism, and as you say File:Hall's_Stonie_ginger_beer.png - usage of the word 'unlikely' - it should be 'no' (like in the other rationale on that page). This shows to me, that Pdfpdf is not understanding the requirements of WP:NFCC - creating and keeping problems with it while being told that there are problems with it. I am sorry, to protect Wikipedia, I think that Pdfpdf should first have a better look through the appropriate policies and guidelines before being allowed to edit again. And that is what I have been saying a couple of times now.
I have asked Pdfpdf (off-wiki - they may not have read this email yet) whether they will take more care in the future (IMHO, the only requirement to lift the indefinite block for copyright), and whether they will stop to immediately start with incivility when something is being said that they do not like, or do not understand (which would be a requirement to have the other block lifted). That said, if Pdfpdf agrees, I would certainly encourage some mentoring, though knowing that they should be discussing issues when issues arise would suffice.
I hope this explains, hope to hear more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, regarding the personal attacks, the reason I'd call those "gentle" is that had they been levelled at me, I would have ignored them. Completely. Rudeness is culturally subjective, so I feel it's not worth worrying about. Laziness, in Delta's case isn't actually laziness, it's an awarenes of quite how much work there is to do on images - he appears to do it with less customer service than I would, again it's about perception and I'd ignore it. Arrogant, I must have missed, as I would consider it more than gentle, but less than grave. Unfortunately, this is where the difficult lies in the subjectiveness of personal attack blocks, and I do endorse a block.
Wikipedia's culture of linking to explain things is unique. Can you think of somewhere else in the world where you can walk up to someone, say "you shouldn't do that" and then point to a sign on the wall amongst hundreds of other signs? Continuing the analogy, if someone comes back and says "I don't see why not" would you tell them to go and read the sign again?
What's more, NFCC is unique within Wikipedia, as it doesn't really match WP:BRD. If Person A boldly removes text from an article, Person B would revert and they'd discuss. Not so when dealing with non-free images, for good reason, but it is understandable that Person B believes Person A is trying to edit war if they re-remove the image. As for his previous work in images outside article space, the complaint made by Delta was regarding overuse not NFCC#9 (even though NFCC#9 does apply).
Anyway, I'm glad you're reviewing the situation, and I hope Pdfpdf replies to you though I find it difficult to believe you've endeared yourself to him as the blocking admin. I would still ask that you find another admin to independently review the situation as well. WormTT · (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Just as an aside... Saying "you shouldn't do that", then pointing to a sign, is something that teachers from preschool upwards to early high school all over the planet do all the time. In my main classroom, it's possible to see 8 separate copies/renditions of the same ruleset depending on where you're sitting around the room. You literally can not face any direction in the room and not have a copy of the rules in a child's visual field. -danjel (talk to me) 12:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Note about the personal attacks - there never is any reason to issue any personal attacks at an editor - being it 'I think you are lazy' or ' I think you are a bastard' or 'you are a lazy tosser' or something really insulting. My point here was more the continued string of insults and incivility, all of which totally inappropriate, as there was not even the beginning of a reason to use them, there was nothing bad done to Pdfpdf personally (and then still - as I said, there never is a reason to use insults).
Regarding the NFCC#9 - that use was overuse, the images had links to the articles, articles where they would be fair use - they did not have to be on a 'list-like article' (it would be overuse if such a list would be in mainspace), more since they were in template space and there was no control as to where they were placed. To me, this was a case of overuse and wrong namespace. And even when the removal was for the wrong reasons, they should never have been re-inserted. Point is, there WP:NFCC was mentioned, to me, if I am pointed to a policy, I would consider the idea that there may somewhere be restrictions on certain things.
Indeed, NFCC is a bit unique, it is not subject to 3RR or BRD. You say here "Can you think of somewhere else in the world where you can walk up to someone, say "you shouldn't do that" and then point to a sign on the wall amongst hundreds of other signs?" - I don't think that the excuse 'I did not know'/'I did not understand' is a particularly good one - I am pretty sure that it is ignored in a real court, especially when a user is pointed to the one sign amongst the hundreds of others. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the "sign" issue. I don't think it's a very good method of communication, and try to use it as little as I can, but it's certainly not something I'm going to be able to change (and Danjel, I take your point that it's used in classrooms, didn't think of that). I do wonder though, if someone is clearly not understanding something, how does repeating exactly the same thing, in exactly the same manner going to help? An assumption of good faith that the user tried and failed to understand would be something that I expect.
I also agree that the personal attacks were out of line - especially as they continued after a warning, and that a block should have been put in place for them. I am not disputing this.
I also agree that putting images on the template was incorrect for both overuse and wrong namespace - again, I'm not disputing this fact. The only item pointed out to Pdfpdf though was the overuse issue, so implying that he would understand about the wrong namespace is step too far.
Finally, I don't dispute that "ignorance of the rules is not an excuse", if you are working in an area, you should make it your business to understand the rules. However, it should be a mitigating factor and it was clear that Pdfpdf did not understand. WormTT · (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As an addendum, I don't think that comparing blocks and adminstration should be compared to courts and the legal system. WP:Wikilawyering is a negative concept, blocks are not a punishment, there is no jury, just the admin. Any block should be backed up with sufficient evidence that an independent admin would do the same. My request for which (an independent review by another admin), by the way, you do seem to be ignoring. WormTT · (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
One perfect example of where pointing to a sign is perfectly valid, you are going 100Kph in an 70Kph zone, the cop isnt going to hand you the drivers manual and politely tell you what the problem is. They are going to say, see that sign there it says 70Kph, how fast where you going? (100Kph) and then either arrest you or give you a citation for violating traffic regulations. If say 3 months later you get pulled over for the same thing the odds are the cop isnt going to take it too well because you have obviously either ignored the law (posted speed limits) or failed to understand, either way you probably shouldnt be driving any longer. (Uploading/using nonfree content). Its not the cops job to teach you how to drive responsibly, its your responsibility to ensure that you dont cause problems. Pdfpdf has had multiple warnings about NFC issues in the past and has ignored them, So dont be surprised when the authorities take your drivers license until you can prove that you are no longer a threat to others. (blocked until you show a willingness to understand/follow policy). ΔT The only constant 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If you don't mind me extending your analogy, if I was pulled over for doing 65Mph in a 70Kph zone, and the officer pulled me over, pointed to the sign and just said "you've broken the law" - I might be confused if I didn't notice the K. If I say, "no, as far as I can tell, I was within the speed limit", I would expect the officer to say, "you were going over 100Kph in a 70Kph zone", not "look at the sign again, you broke the law". It doesn't change the fact I broke the law, and how I react might get me in further trouble, if he explains and I agree and drive off at 100Kph, that might also cause issues, but the comment that the officer makes could help the situation significantly. WormTT · (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec/ec/ec)That is indeed a good point, Worm That Turned - what if someone does not understand the rules - but still, I am not sure if that is an excuse for that user to revert to their preferred version, over and over. The removal pointed to the correct part of the correct policy (and not to a general sign amongst many - it pointed to WP:NFCC#9). Note the edit summary is now rewritten, and it now points also to a FAQ. If you do not understand that something is wrong, then you should ask if it is said again. It goes all ways. Point is, it is a clear violation here, it should go and then discussed, but some editors don't seem to understand that certain things just have to go, no WP:IAR, no WP:BRD, it has to go first.
A point on the 'review' - 2over0 was the administrator who warned for the personal attack, 2over0 was reverted with yet another personal attack, ánd a remark to 2over0 to stop whining. Ánd Masem early on already notified Pdfpdf that the remarks by Delta were 'polite and correct', and Delta himself said that the edits were 'not being rude, nor is it bad faith'.
Yes, I agree that he would therefore know the rest of NFCC is a step too far, though one could expect an editor who is pointed to a policy they are (apparently) not familiar with to also have a look at the rest (but then not necessarily read it in full), or that if a new issue arises with another case over the same policy (or, again an issue over images), that the editor then recalls and thinks 'hmm .. maybe there is something here, maybe I should read again / ask / whatever' (added after ec, see also point made by Delta).
Yes, it is both a mitigating factor that Pdfpdf does not understand ánd a problem. Not understanding something that you work in however can seriously damage Wikipedia, and blocks (as you state later) are not to punish, they are to protect. I hope it is clear, that I with the block am trying to protect Wikipedia from insertion of violations of WP:NFCC/the Foundation Resolution until the editor understands - not that I block to punish Pdfpdf for not understanding (after ec: again, as Delta says).
No, I was not ignoring, I forgot to answer. Note first, above there were already 2 administrators in the situation, one of which warned Pdfpdf for the personal attacks. Another editor and another administrator posted after Pdfpdf's last edit to user talk:Delta - commenting along the same lines - I did note that Pdfpdf may not have seen these last remarks. Pdfpdf had all the opportunity to ask for an independent administrator to look into it (via a {{unblock}} request, e.g.) - until Pdfpdf started to abuse his talkpage for non-block-issues. For the rest of the info, the discussion is now on - where I first let other administrators respond, I have now responded as last in that discussion thread.
I think that Delta's remark here says the rest. Regarding the miss-read of the traffic sign -> it is still clear that you did not understand. It still is not an excuse to go on and drive 65 Mph, the officer may say 'hey, it is in Kph, not Mph', but the responsibility is still yours. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If the matter is being discussed at, I'm satisfied that a review is ongoing (as I cannot see that list) - I'd appreciate it if you could note today's updates to this section there.
Pdfpdf asked what an indef block was, something we both responded to, it's not unreasonable to assume he was unfamiliar with {{unblock}} - he also made comments about you blocking his subpages - clearly he was unfamiliar with being blocked. It is therefore not an unreasonable assumption that he was unaware he could request an independent review, which is why I was requesting it.
I'm not going to continue the speeding analogy though, as it is likely to become a strawman argument. Pdfpdf did wrong, I acknowledge that. Had I been in his place, I would not have handled the situation in the same way. I understand NFCC images need to be fixed before replacement, and I'm not condoning his actions in edit warring. I just believe, for the reasons I have set out above, that enforcement level is excessive. WormTT · (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if I can reproduce the contents of the emails, so I will not. I do note, that I will grant an unblock if I think that the issue is sufficiently resolved, and I will leave declining of the unblock to others if I do not think that the issue is resolved (may respond, but will not decline - I'll leave that to an independent administrator).
Maybe it is excessive, but (I'm sorry, going on with the driving license analogy) when you are drunk and you get caught driving for the first time, the police may take the drivers license (and your car), and leave you to sober overnight. The next day you can get both your car and your drivers license back (if you are sober, at least; and of course you will get a fine later). If you repeat that a couple of times, you loose your drivers license because of multiple violations which show that you should not be driving, you probably are not allowed to drive for a prolonged time, and afterwards you first have to do a new exam. I see this situation as similar, this involves copyright violations (note, if you are now in edit mode, you have "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" right under the bottom line - it is serious enough to have it embedded in the edit-interface of Wikipedia, its not just some guideline) - I don't think that we should risk that editors, who have repeatedly shown that they do not understand the non-free content policy, to continue editing and risking more copyright violations. Do you see anything on Pdfpdf's talkpage that shows that he acknowledged that maybe there was something wrong - the only thing I see is that he confesses that he does not understand, not that he is showing that he will try to understand, or that he will try to avoid the issue in the pastfuture. I withdrew talk-page access 4 days after the block, and no sign - editors do agree with me that there was a problem - OK, they say the personal attacks were not so bad - though still there and excessive - they say that the NFCC violations are not so bad - but still there - but they all find the block length excessive. What would a 3 day block have prevented if the editor is not understanding after 4 days, and you may note that we are now 7 days after the block and the block is still in place. If the administrators off-wiki (on would find that my block was excessive or wrong Pdfpdf would be unblocked already, maybe Pdfpdf also off-wiki did not manage to convince? So the minimum (or maximum, as you suggested) block length of 1 week would already be gone but without understanding. OK, I could not have anticipated that one week ago, and could have chosen for 1 week - I did anticipate that the personal attacks would not stop without a block. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I leave it there, I'm not sure I have much to add at this point. Thanks for your patience WormTT · (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)