User talk:Dtobias/Archive 2

(Archives for 30 Jul 2006 - 19 Aug 2007)

Want to be my friend?

Hey! Want to be my friend? :p --Hellogoodsir 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Dotla.gif

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Fibonacci 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press and Radio/TV Coverage.

Hi.

I didn't know there was an special page for Radio and TV. Now I see there are special pages for many media.

Thanks for correcting my error.

--Camahuetos 22:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at talk:anarchism

were greatly appreciated. Any time you feel like contributing to the article would be fine by me. The article is far from well-rounded and has been shaped by much POV for 2 years! :) Whis key Rebel lion 20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that... not particularly eager to jump into that snake pit again. *Dan T.* 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a snakepit -- or has been. It's being watched now by a couple of new admins (I mean new to the article). Samir and Woohookitty. Woohoo has been very helpful. Things have a chance of changing now. A good chance. Well, think about it, at least. K? Whis key Rebel lion 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

In that name of fairness I thought I'd copy this campaign message from Donnacha over to you since she/he is only sending it to those who are strongly opposed to anarcho-capitalism which biases the vote: "In case you haven't seen it, the AnCaps are trying to delete the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article [[1]]. Donnacha 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)" Big Boom 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MyWikiBiz

Dtobias, I have gone and removed the comments both you and I made on this page regarding emails from MyWikiBiz. I think the anon who said we should not be raising it on the userpage is right. The anon may be MyWikiBiz, in which the purpose of communicating with him has been achieved. Since removing other peoples' comments (such as I am doing to you) is unusual to say the least, I am letting you know that I have done so and why. If you feel strongly you would like your comment to be there in the public eye, can you recover it from a history version and paste it in a form which does not refer to my comment on MyWikiBiz' email (which incidentally seems to have been quite different from yours.) Martinp 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for images

We ought to propose one. Aqua fish talk 23:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible enhancement of template {{Round in Circles}}

For the {{Round in Circles}} template, how about throwing in [[Special:Random|find another article]] so it takes the reader who knows where? ;-) -- QTJ 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took me to the Miccosukee Methodist Church when I tried it... :-) *Dan T.* 21:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole idea. :-) To take the viewer somewhere else (anywhere!) really pronto like. Then, maybe they can find another cause to espouse, real quick, before sinking into the quicksand below the {{Round in Circles}} banner (since That way be circles). -- QTJ 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the query you made regarding Trademarks etc

Firstly may I just remind you Dan, that it's not my trademark and secondly there are many issues attached to a trademark infringement on the internet especially the ones concerning the use of meta tags, keywords, links, framing on a web page which in turn can cause things like "passing off", "dilution" and "Initial interest confusion" among the potential customers who are searchimg the web with the trademark word for example BHP BILLIT0N. May I suggest that wet give this subject a rest Dan since its becoming slightly how should I put it...Oh yes, "a pain in the ass and boring", by the way what year did you "apparently" become or should i say were accepted as a MENSA member Dan? Fact Finder 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which MENSA test did you take in 1987 Dan? Fact Finder 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germar Rudolf

Very good what you have done It is just evidencing that the German inside the Wikipedia do not know anything about what is allowed and what is not allowed. They are talking about things which they did not read and are only using sources from the www to evidence their fatal absolute "truth".--80.142.212.174 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Klenke Germany

You Recently Removed My Text from an Archive

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You recently removed my response to your question on this archive page here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22 I dont believe that it is fair or proper that you have decided to turn Fact into fiction Dan, Fact Finder 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the edit diff involved, you'll see that it was another user who did the removal, not me. *Dan T.* 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient (shakes head), Fact Finder 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: .fk; WCWM; .sl; .gs; .jo; .ne; .uz; List of actor-singers; .li; .gw; .jm; .ml; Ashlie Brillault; .mw; .pe; .kw; .tj; .ky; .ye

Cleanup: DisneyMania; Cow Belles; U.S. Route 250
Merge: John Prescott; Stewart International Airport; List of numbered Routes in Oregon
Add Sources: Callan Peach; Wardrobe malfunction; Pop princess
Wikify: New York State Route 25; AllOfMP3.com; Meralco
Expand: Bas-Lag; Network Solutions; Route 22 (Massachusetts)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Categorisation of DOND models

Thanks for pointing that out to me! It seems I left the option enable after doing another run earlier in the week, on, as you guessed - Shopping malls in Wisconsin". I've cleaned up the problems now. Thanks M a rtinp23 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOI resolution?

Hello Dtobias! In the Digital object identifier article, in April '06, you made a statement about getting the 'doi:' prefix approved by somebody, but it's not clear who has to approve it. Do you still have access to the information? If so could you add it to the article? Thanks, EdJohnston 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit ^talk on behalf of Kaldari 00:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rentamark.com screenshot

A screenshot without broken image links is available here. I don't know how to upload and replace an image with the same name, so I thought I'd let the originating editor do the honors. Jokestress 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image source

Image:Dotcx.gif has no source. please add. --Ysangkok 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dot eu.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~ Bigr Tex 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cznic.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Intelcom.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dotmobi.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina

I was a bit amused ot see that Emmalina's involvement got into your Wiki Whiners article. It actually goes back much further than that - she nominated her article for deletion, and later objected when I added her birthdate in on September 5. But I actually hadn't added it - someone else added it on July 2, and I merely added it to the {{Infobox Biography}} infobox. After all of the offending entries were removed, it went through AFD for the third time before getting deleted. Hbdragon88 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HB!

Happy Birthday! Your birthday is on the same week as mine... Anyway, just thoguht I'd say happy birthday. :) Spawn Man 06:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks... but my birthday is July 4th... do you celebrate yours every month? :-) *Dan T.* 11:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - Born on the 4th of July. Anyway, just trying to be nice... no need to get snappy! I musta gotten the wrong idea from your user box that says This Wikipedian is 43 years etc on: April 4, 2007. Lol... Spawn Man 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday.Ghosts&empties 17:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your enforcement of a non-policy

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

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

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

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

Denny Colt is an impressive mind reader, isn't he? He can see right through the Internet into your head.

But seriously, that lot is determined to pursue the senseless policy of rooting out all possible answers to the question "who do they think they are" when it is asked about WP admins. Admins should voluntarilly give up pseudonymity. Its use has already done serious damage to Wikipedia. --Pleasantville 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're about to be dragged into an RfA

User:DennyColt is taking your name in vain WRT my case concerning misbehavior in the WP:BADSITES talk page. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:DennyColt) Sorry about that. Mangoe 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration requested - you are named

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ^(talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Don't leave an aggressive note like that on my talk page again, please. If you wish to challenge the ArbCom's ruling, you're free to do so. In the meantime, it will be enforced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Colt

I have asked for mediation on Denny's talk page. His behaviouir is becoming increasingly virulent and making for an unsafe environment for the rest of us and mediation is a necessary step on a further process which I hope wont happen but if mediation fails is likely to, SqueakBox 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aaaaahahahahaha

LOL. I was tempted to reply with something about a malicious Man in the Yellow Hat affecting bans on headwear, but I wasn't sure if that would be helpful. Milto LOL pia 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your sterling efforts in trying to defend the integrity of wikipedia and treading a middle path through the Biographies of Living People and Attack sites controversies, SqueakBox 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool out

I'm tiring of your snide comments on the various discussions scattered about related to the attack sites proposal. If you are incapable of remaining civil, then I recommend you take a break. Thanks.--MONGO 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too happy with your comments either, but we can't always get what we want. *Dan T.* 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making accusations about editors, suggesting that I need to get a clue, etc. We can do without all that. I'm not your enemy.--MONGO 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMBC

I saw your note on Talk:American Mutoscope and Biograph Company#Legal threats, and also on the other site. For several reasons the editor there appears to be the same person as the fomer editor here.[2] A misconception that the editor is spreading is that he was minding his own business when editors with an agenda started attacking the article about his company. In fact, he had been engaged in his own campaigns to disparage "competitors" and to even scores with perceived enemies of his father.[3] He was community-banned for legal threats, but his POV pushing, conflicts of interest, incivility, and other offenses were contributing factors.[4] -Will Beback · † · 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Fine work in addressing his points over there. -Will Beback · † · 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: If your curious about the company's productions, a couple of their shorts are posted on Google Video. In one, "Duck Noises", I believe the actor playing the bartender is also the studio's VP and legal department. If you enjoy that there's also the similar "Fire!" -Will Beback · † · 23:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much at the end of my patience

What with friendly missives like this, I'm giving up. Mangoe 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Pickler picture

Their is no evidence that the original author gave permission to use the file. The original author (Joel Telling) posted the pictures to flickr but I don't see any evidence that he cleared them into the public domain. If you look at the Commons page, a user named IWonderBR uploaded the image. And I see nothing saying that he had the permission to do so. I must admit. I don't have alot of experience with flickr. But I don't see any special permissions. Some of the flickr stuff has the Commons liscence but I don't see that on telling's flickr page, which is here. Looks like he's a professional photographer. And generally, they are pretty prickly about releasing their stuff into the public domain. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it'd be better to restore the picture and put it up for ifd instead, I can certainly do that. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mensa-logo.jpg

Hello Dtobias, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Mensa-logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Dtobias. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 13:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RhodiumMiner

Dan, I don't understand how you can call Jeff's edit vandalism while ignoring RhodiumMiner's edits. Can you please explain this? Thanks --Duk 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Dan, your edit to the admin noticeboard wasn't acceptable. Dredging up unrelated crap, picking and choosing, all to harass and run down another editor. You should know better and I shouldn't have to explain this to you. I won't warn you again. --Duk 16:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You are listed here: User_talk:Duk/SPTA 12.158.190.38 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I invite your comment here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey I like your argument on RFA, would you like to be nominated yourself? You have 7000+ edits, and definitely if you don't want to self-nom I can nominate you. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I'm not sure I would be able to pass one of those... I might have accumulated too many enemies in all the controversies I've gotten in the middle of. *Dan T.* 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is an excellent opportunity to reach editors who don't take part in the actual discussions. They need to realise that sensible people can take non-orthodox positions--WP:the bastion of stereotyped thinking. I can say say it safely; I got through just in time :) DGG 05:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning! Really bad attempt at alleviating atmosphere with dubious "humour"

Hi. I just noticed you removed a duplicate reference in your BADSITES essay. I presume you have recently had breakfast because you have just had "ex a Bacon"! LessHeard vanU 10:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Please don't ban me...[reply]

But I will not eat Green Eggs and Ham. *Dan T.* 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)I can't ban anybody... I'm not an admin, and there's no way I'd ever pass an RfA now![reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Biz logo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. CountingPine 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dottel.jpg

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dotpro.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dotph.jpg

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dotmx.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dotjobs.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dotca.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dotbs.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Educause.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Munic.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dotgr.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Dotgr.jpg, by Geraki, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Dotgr.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

replaced by Image:Dotgr.gif

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Dotgr.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Dotgr.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Civility

Have a look at that policy before you make another comment as you did here. Thanks!--MONGO 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay and your report on ANI

Your essay is just that, an essay, and one which people clearly disagree with. Please don't try to use it as a policy and please don't follow MONGO around. Stalking is a blockable action. Nick 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does MONGO get to do whatever he wants, be rude to whomever he wants, and act like policy is whatever he says it is, but anybody who opposes him gets threatened with blocking? Is he an "untouchable" caste or something? *Dan T.* 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard and fast rules on removing links to these so called BADSITES. There is a policy on stalking. MONGO can remove links to sites he feels may attack him and/or other Wikipedians as appropriate. You may not indulge in stalking him. Nick 19:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that seems like an unfair policy... he has special rights to censor anything that, solely in *his own feelings* is bothersome to him? *Dan T.* 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, anybody can edit anything - we're a Wiki. If you don't like it, go change the policy - we're a Wiki. MONGO has been badly victimised by these attack sites as have several other users. He also has ArbCom on his side here. Waving your essay about isn't helping anything here. I and fellow administrators have a duty to help protect any editor from harassment on-wiki and where possible, off-wiki. That's why ArbCom supports the removal of links to these sites and that's why I'm prepared to allow MONGO to remove these links. Right now, you following him around is much more serious. Nick 20:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Anybody can edit anything"... except to undo anything MONGO does, because that's "stalking". Now, I bet if I decided that something offended me (like noncommercial sites using .com domains... an idiotic misuse of the domain name system!), and then started rampaging through every article, talk page, archive page, and so on, and suppressing all links to such sites because they bother me... how soon before somebody else starts "reverting the vandalism" by undoing my edits... and would they be labeled a stalker for doing so? I doubt it. (Not that I'm about to start doing something like that... that would be a WP:POINT violation.) So it does seem like "some animals are more equal than others" here. *Dan T.* 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much how I see it. Anyone can edit anything, as long as the clique permits it. Mangoe 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(KC rolls eyes at the MONGO issue) Wikipedia also has conflict of interest rules but they don't seem to be applied to pseudonymous folks with admin privs out to protect their own interests.

Such people could start to gain a bit of credibility of the subject of attack sites by first dealing with Wikipedia entries on and links to the sites that invented the attack site genre. Until then, thier efforts are a clown show. --Pleasantville 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, I've never stated or implied that my essay was anything other than an essay; I'm not attempting to cite it as "policy", but just providing it for information where relevant. I purposely put it in my userspace rather than the Wikipedia: namespace so that it was clear that it was intended to state my own opinion, not be some kind of general statement attributed to the community as a whole. *Dan T.* 22:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly never mistook it for anything but a well-informed opinion. --Pleasantville 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation at Talk:Cherokee

Hi Dan,

I'm contacting you because you recently commented your position regarding at the Mediation currently undergoing at Talk:Cherokee. I thank you for taking part in the discussion, and I wish to notify you that we're moving on to a stage of proposed solutions. Your input, either to suggest new proposals or to comment on the ones being made is welcome and will be appreciated. Best regards, Phaedriel - 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet

I thought you can only send message and receive them to Usenet, and it's not like Wikipedia, but why you said EEP2 did the same thing in Usenet? How is that possible? (by the way, I'm not an avid Usenet user, just sometimes use Google group to access some groups). Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the exact same thing (the line length issue on Usenet doesn't apply to Wikipedia, where wiki-markup automatically wraps lines), but the same general attitude, where he thinks standards don't apply to him. *Dan T.* 01:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was meaning to ask a technical question. How can one user change the line length of a whole Usenet group (I use google groups, so probably it's different). Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, but you can adjust configurations that affect how your own outgoing messages are formatted (correctly or incorrectly). *Dan T.* 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get it, thanks. Personally one reason I don't like Usenet much is that the interface is awkward and the other is that using Microsoft Outlook to get those news it would clog up my hard disk. One day probably Usenet would be totally superseded by Web Forums and blogs. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rant on your essay's talk page

Sorry for that rant in the "support/oppose" section on the talk page of your essay. I wrote that late at night when I was in a foul mood. I would delete it but it might come back to haunt me if I do. CLA 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for ranting... it's a pastime I engage in myself. *Dan T.* 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Munic.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round In Circles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Round In Circles, by Drumpler (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Round In Circles fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

On the grounds that said template is contentious and can be used as a personal attack on article talk pages when one feels something is repetitive.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Round In Circles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:Round In Circles itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet peeves

I just read your user page and wanted to let you know that I share some of those pet peeves. To bring in a secret little obsession of my own: I can't stand that "(Redirected from )" on redirected pages. It goes so far that usually, when I search for a page onwiki, I go back to find the precise search result that leads me directly to the page. —AldeBaer (c) 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on the "Redirected from" link, then click on the redirect link shown on that page, and then you wind up on the page in its unredirected form. *Dan T.* 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it's cheating... —AldeBaer (c) 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can just click on the "article" button (or its equivalent in other namespaces) to get the clean article. NoSeptember 01:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, never tried it. —AldeBaer (c) 11:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

For what I said on the mailing list about you. It was a bit rude and after digging a bit further I can see that any attempt to engage these people in reasonable discussion is incredibly futile. And God it is SO EASY to get pissed off with them. As it is, I think you've shown remarkable restraint. Kamryn Matika 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite all right, and you did have a point too; I need to strive to keep my cool no matter how peeved I am, since that is, as you observed, more effective in general than being angry or sarcastic, especially at gaining the sympathy of those whose minds are not already made up. *Dan T.* 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although I think the people that haven't made their minds up about this already probably don't care about it or have other things to do. One thing I've noticed whilst browsing policy debates, ArbCom cases, etc, is that it seems to be an incredibly small group of editors that do most of the 'discussing' and arguing. The other 99% of the editors of Wikipedia actually get the work done. Getting involved in those kind of debates is exhausting and time-consuming - frequently I've wanted to make a comment, but not had the time to stay around and ~~argue~~ discuss it with people. I suspect that most of the editors whose opinion would be really helpful often have their comments overlooked because they're not well known, or don't feel motivated to add their opinion at all, whether it be because they feel that their opinion won't be helpful, they don't want to challenge popular users or they don't have the time or energy to keep involved in the discussion. Kamryn Matika 03:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the armpit message here Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BADSITES

This is an example of a good case that sets bad precedent. The original case involved deliberate attempts to promote a site that was actively harassing Wikipedians. Some more recent examples may involve sites engaged in fair (even if misplaced) criticism.

To the extent that BADSITES is being used to deal with sites that are encouraging harassment, I support the use of BADSITES. Examples of means by which web sites encourage harassment include:

Indiscriminately publishing non-public information about Wikipedia contributors, such as addresses, phone numbers, employer names, phone numbers, IP addresses, and photos.
Documenting techniques for collecting such non-public information.
Advocating such harassment.
Coordinating or mentoring collection of non-public information for the purpose of publication or harassment.

Harassment of editors is real. There are people being hounded off the site for no good reason by people who they have had no contact with prior to coming to Wikipedia. There are people being blackmailed. And this is being done anonymously and across jurisdictions which means that there is little interest from law enforcement. These activities are not fair criticism. I have pro-actively spoken with my family, my boss, and my employer's marketing department to warn them that someday someone might call up with a sensational story about me which they should not take at face value without checking facts. Not everyone can do this, because some people are in sensitive situations family-wise or professionally where the presence of allegations even if unproven or untrue poses a problem.

On the other hand, those sites which criticize Wikipedia and expound upon its faults (which I think we agree are legion) should not be listed in BADSITES. We should not blacklist a blog just because we might disagree with its conclusions, or even if we might consider some of the content untrue or even libelous.

The problem, of course, is that many sites are a mixture of these. There are only a handful of anti-Wikipedia web sites that limit themselves to fair criticism. Some, for example, are lightly moderated and will permit posters to encourage harassment even though the overall focus of the site is fair criticism. Many of these sites have evolving content that may feature fair criticism at some points and substantial encouragement of harassment at others.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dotlk.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, Dtobias/Archive 2!

-BigBrotherIsWatchingYou 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Zadna.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tiffany-danny.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tiffany-danny.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Consensus

You put it so nicely, that I just had to make a redirect of it: WP:The stuff I and my friends have been doing and getting away with, because we intimidated all our opposition into backing down from edit-warring about it -- Petri Krohn 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong

I see you're one of the many wikipedians that has had rough encounters with Ryulong The Admin. Check out my outside view in wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong discussing his behavior. Support if you must.0reteki 21:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look here for ways in which you can voice your comments on him. 0reteki 21:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Seven-deadly-enemies-of-man.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Suzi_Quatro_If_You_Knew_Suzi.jpg

I have tagged Image:Suzi_Quatro_If_You_Knew_Suzi.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary.

Your concerns are understandable but this was totally out of line. If I'd wanted a diagnosis on my mental conditions, I would've asked! Please don't do this ever again! --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 01:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:UKERNAlogo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marvel-lost-generation-12.png

I have tagged Image:Marvel-lost-generation-12.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case for SevenOfDiamonds

As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re that case, I'm a little troubled by your statement "This group has clearly been out to get SevenOfDiamonds, and tried a whole series of possible sockpuppet users until they could find one that would stick." I haven't to my recollection been involved in any of the prior sockpuppet cases involving SoD, and to my knowledge some of the others involved in this arbcom request haven't either; e.g., Theresa Knott. (If I'm wrong please correct me.) I'd be grateful if you could revise your comments to be more specific about who you're referring to than a broad "this group." Thanks! Raymond Arritt 03:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]