User talk:Mushroom/Archive 10

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

Harry the Rabbit

Hi there: I know that this user is a sockpuppet; you have just deleted a number of his articles, and this is good. I am a new page patroller, of only limited experience. Is there a list which I can access of known vandals and sockpuppets? If I knew who they were, I could more easily identify their articles. Some of the articles written today by Harry were not obvious vandalism, unless the patroller or the admin recognises the name.--Anthony.bradbury 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There are three categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers, Wikipedia sockpuppets and Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. There are also some pages where vandalism or sockpuppetry can be reported and discussed: Wikipedia:Requests for investigation, Wikipedia:Long term abuse and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Wikipedia's most notable vandals can be found in Category:Wikipedia vandals. Mushroom (Talk) 21:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD page

Is there something I'm missing? [1] Looked to me like a reasonable rollback. Let me know. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't want to revert your edit. I was reverting the anon one, but obviously something went wrong :) Mushroom (Talk) 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No need for apologies :) I thought I was missing something (I tend to be clueless at times). Cheers -- Samir धर्म 22:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Thankyou for your welcome to Wikipedia, I appreciate the effort you must make to do this. I think I'm becoming obsessed, but surely that's a good thing? :) McBill 23:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course, it's good to be a wikipediholic! :D Mushroom (Talk) 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Message

Hello. May be a newbie question but while I was looking around, I had this "You have a new message" link which lead me to a IP adressed Welcome page and, well, not sure what to make out of it or if its just a general message sent to those who have made edits in Wikipedia (which I have done so occasionally, none harful I suppose :) ) so, can you inform me on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:07, 17 July 2006

It's not an automatic thing. I and other editors (usually part of the Welcoming Committee) give those messages to new users that are making good edits, to thank them and give them some useful links. I made a small mistake here, since I gave you a message for registered users, while you're not registered (or not logged in). Anyway, you can remove the message if you don't need it :) Mushroom (Talk) 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason Soroski

I am curious as to why the article "Jason Soroski" was deleted. I was asked to do this article for the artist and even though I acknowledge he is not "national", he is certainly growing in interest in the Southeast Texas area, and there are 4 million people here in Houston who he has access to. Was it because of a lack of sources or reviews? Thanks.

Arthur Kransboldt

I deleted it under CSD A7:
An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
In this case the deletion was not justified, so I apologize: I should have read the article more carefully. I have now undeleted it, so you can continue working on it if you want. But please make sure that Soroski meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, or the article may still be deleted through the Article for Deletion process. Mushroom (Talk) 04:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Notabilty on The Duberrys

They claim what appears to be a strong local following in a town. That isn't a claim to any of the notability guidelines.--Crossmr 05:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The notability guidelines (like WP:BAND) have nothing to do with speedy deletion. CSD A7 is for articles that don't assert any kind of notability. Mushroom (Talk) 05:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that assertion has to be credible, otherwise every article could be avoided for speedy simply by including "a lot of people really like it". Assertion requires more then them writing it, there needs to be some credible proof their assertion has merit.--Crossmr 05:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your interpretation. But please consider my point of view: if I delete an article that claims notability, even if it is not credible, then I will be accused of breaching the rules when the creator of the article makes a request for undeletion. It has already happened more than once, so I'm being a bit more careful now (even if it means sending some more articles to prod). Mushroom (Talk) 05:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think you're being overly careful. You can interpret the assertion of notability quite easily. This is non-ambiguous. It states they have not had commercial success and enjoy a good following in a local town. If they at least said something ambiguous like "They're really popular in NZ" I could see. But they're only asserting a local notability. Which isn't grounds for inclusion in any wikipedia catagory.--Crossmr 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but I find it too difficult to decide which articles claim "enough" notability. Even in cases like this one, where the article clearly doesn't deserve inclusion in Wikipedia, I have doubts, so I {{prod}}. Maybe I should just ignore those articles instead of {{prod}}ing them: this way I wouldn't annoy editors that make good-faith speedy requests. By the way, feel free to make another request for speedy for The Duberrys, another admin will probably delete it :) Mushroom (Talk) 06:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Thankyou for the welcoming message Mushroom. I marvel at the easiness and simplicity of Wikipedian use. Watching and copying how others use notation or mwhatever the jargon is. these thingies and the more. I did not understand that this was however a social grouping, so, cheerio friendly fellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcns (talkcontribs) 11:26, 17 July 2006

I'm glad you like Wikipedia. Happy editing! Mushroom (Talk) 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevance Gap

I am curious as to why the article Relevance Gap was deleted. I am interested in the subject of reframing personal and organizational conceptual systems and found several articles about the topic is other languages. I did not attach the links to the external articles because they are in Hebrew. I understand that no original research is allowed on Wikipedia and I have not done any original research; it was for this reason that the article was deleted last time. I re-read my entry, revised it, and resubmitted it as I felt it complied with all Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Why was it deletes this time? Thanks.--AvivaS 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make a judgment about the article's content, I just deleted it as per CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material) since it was very similar to the old one. The original article went through the Article for Deletion process and the general consensus was to delete it (see the debate here). If you think the deletion was not appropriate, you can go to deletion review and request an undeletion. Mushroom (Talk) 21:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Mi amico,

Why on earth did you delete the image Image:ArabPeople.jpg from the Arab page. Of course it had a proper license; You quoted that it didn't. I got each of the four images from Wikipedia, all of which had proper licences, and stuck them together on Adobe Photoshop. I gave links to each of the photographs which were on other Wikipedia pages, about an HOUR of work. It was the same as this Image:Itl.JPG.

I am ENRAGED and I think it is YOU who should do my hour's work for me.

Next time, before you delete an image, put a tag on it, let somebody else check it!

--Jaw101ie 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not the same as Image:Itl.JPG. Your image included two public domain images and two fair use images. Fair use images can't be modified, so attaching them to other images may be illegal, and furthermore:
  • A {{promophoto}} can be used only in an article specifically about the subject, not in an article like Arab.
  • An {{album cover}} can be used exclusively to illustrate the album, not for other purposes.
So the whole image was a possible copyright violation and an improper invocation of fair use. The image was tagged by User:Pyb, it appeared at Candidates for speedy deletion, and after about four hours I deleted it. If you want the image back I can temporarily undelete it, but it can't stay on Wikipedia. Mushroom (Talk) 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) spamming again

Please could you see the talk page for this ip - User_talk: Once more, after your first warning and a reason for the rv on the history page of the first article, this user has once more added the same spammy link to another article, which I have now reverted. Details left on the talk page for this user. Crimsone 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I have left a message on the user's talk page, and I'm monitoring his/her edit history. Next time this user adds spam to Wikipedia I will block him/her from editing. Mushroom (Talk) 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Protman Image

Hi. Can you please explain your reasoning for the Protoman image...? It posessed data the original lacked- such as source information, fair use rationale and an appropriate tag. Please see WP:SPEEDY#Images/Media. -Randall Brackett 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The copyright tag and fair use rationale were ok, but the image didn't have valid source information. The links you provided were secondary sources that had no information about the original (primary) source and author of the image. I deleted it as CSD G4, recreation of deleted content. Mushroom (Talk) 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing this page for us. Was I correct in thinking that the process was to delete Rationalism, move continental rationalism over to rationalism, and then undelete the necessary dif? I'd like to know for future reference! Banno 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the correct procedure. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves for more detailed information. Mushroom (Talk) 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a go when another easy one is posted. Banno 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your copyvio edits to a bunch of Philippine articles

If you notice copy violations it's recommended that you edit or delete the offending section rather than destroy the whole article. Many of the articles that you vandalized had sections that were NOT copy violations and were original content, further, some of the sections that may have appeared as copy violations could not be reworded. If you have no plans of improving the quality of the articles, then please just keep your hands away from them. --Edward Sandstig 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions:
If all revisions have copyright problems blank the page and replace the text with {{copyvio}}.
All revisions of those articles have copyright problems (because all edits by User:Chewygum are copyright violations), so I'm just following the standard procedure. Please don't remove the copyright notice. If you wish, you can use a temporary subpage to rewrite the articles. Mushroom (Talk) 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It just seems counter-productive to blank out a whole article if only certain sections contain copy violations:
That's it so far. So, can those pages that have been fixed be returned? --Edward Sandstig 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I would gladly do that, but the policy states:
You must wait 7 days from the time the article is listed before you may delete it.
So I can't. After seven days another admin (not me) will examine the situation, delete the articles and replace them with the temporary versions. Mushroom (Talk) 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's cute. The statement is if all versions but most of those articles clearly existed prior to the copyvio edits, thus it should be a simple matter of reverting to a "last good" version. If the copyvio existed in the very first version of the page, then it would be in "all" versions, but if it's a section incorporated later, that just is not true. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you're right, I was a bit too precipitous. I have reverted Philippine Air Force, Philippine Navy, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Oakwood mutiny and Philippine Military Academy to their last non-copyvio versions. The other five articles were created by User:Chewygum (the violator), so I can't revert them. Mushroom (Talk) 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm glad we found a workable solution. This is most fair to the editors previous to the problem. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The Special Action Force article was initially created by an anonymous user (IP: The last version not including the "Functions" section can be found here. I'm still of the opinion that the "Functions" section can be left as is, otherwise you should probably mark Pledge of Allegiance as copy vio as well. A better example however might be the General Orders article. --Edward Sandstig 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, there is a big difference: most works of the U.S. Military and U.S. Government are explicitly released to the public domain, so they can be freely used, whereas works by the Philippine Military are not. The original article by is copied from another site. Mushroom (Talk) 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Greetings! I was wondering if you could revisit the deletion of JustinBerry.jpg? As I understand it, it was a photo uploaded by the person who took it, who tagged it as a release to the public domain. Am I misunderstanding? With the image deleted, I can't double-check my facts, so please don't take this as gospel. Somehow, in my editing the Justin Berry article, I never put the image page on my watchlist. I apologize for not knowing about this issue & contacting you earlier. I would be happy to update the tags on the image to show its correct status, if need be. Can the image be undeleted so I can research it & make updates? Thanks in advance for your assistance! --Ssbohio 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The image description page said "Justin Berry pic taken by his friends", and the uploader was User:Sakuyaslove. This user made only one edit, adding the image to Justin Berry. The edit summary said "This is a non copyright picture. My friend was his friend so he had a picture". So the photo wasn't uploaded by its author, and the {{PD-self}} claim is invalid. This photo can't be used on Wikipedia unless the original author is found, and this seems quite difficult. But I can temporarily undelete it, if you want. Mushroom (Talk) 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it. I'll copy it offline & see what I can do to get in touch with Sakuyaslove. The thought occurs: even treating this image as copyrighted, could it be retained under the fair use rationale, as an illustration of the subject of the article? The use would be educational & noncommercial.--Ssbohio 01:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have undeleted it. Unfortunately it can't be used as fair use, since we don't know the original author and copyright holder. Furthermore, the fair use criteria say that the image must have previously been published to qualify for fair use. Mushroom (Talk) 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for all your help. I found the guy (I think), & emailed him. Hopefully, he'll come through with the information we need. That image is the most illustrative of the ones Ive seen, as it pictures the subject during the time in which he became notable. --Ssbohio 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Now I'll delete the image again, until you have that information. Let me know when it's time to undelete it. Mushroom (Talk) 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Message

Thanks a lot for the friendly welcome message! I originally had planned not to join Wikipedia and just make a few anonymous edits, but your message really convinced me. Hopefully I'll be able to greatly help the site. Thanks again. Medititan 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to create an account. If you need anything, feel free to ask. Happy editing! :) Mushroom (Talk) 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


who are u i just made a small edit no big deal astaroth showing heart i just get grossed out and use his second costume — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyubidude (talkcontribs) 17:17, 20 July 2006

It was just a welcome message, to let you know that I appreciate your edits :) Mushroom (Talk) 17:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral/Diocese of Portland

I will edit pictures for copyright. Please do not delete. Also, all are copyright-free, as they are public domain or publicly owned due to the Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex90b2008 (talkcontribs) 23:39, 20 July 2006

Thanks. You have to provide a source for all those pictures, and a correct copyright tag. Please consider the fact that Catholic Church material is generally not public domain. Regarding the text of Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of Portland in Maine, it's copied from This site's copyright notice says "All Rights Reserved", so you need permission to use it. See also Wikipedia:Copyright#Using copyrighted work from others. Mushroom (Talk) 23:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So where do I get permission?? Why is it my job to get permission if all it contains is info about a church? Seems like you're being a little too scrupulous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:55, 21 July 2006
I'm not being too scrupulous. This is how Wikipedia works: we respect other people's copyrights and don't use their work without permission. I have deleted Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of Portland in Maine, but it can be undeleted if you obtain permission from to use their copyrighted text. Mushroom (Talk) 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I think WP:CSD G7 (or at least the wording of {{db-author}} changed recently; the article has to have been created by mistake as well as the author wanted to delete it. I was writing a hangon reason when it was deleted. Maybe this should be restored and taken to AfD instead. (I'm not that interested in keeping it; I just don't think it's a speedy.) --ais523 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have undeleted it and {{prod}}ed it. Mushroom (Talk) 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi there.

I was wondering why you have deleted the Analog Kid page? i do not see how it violated any copyright law?

thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analog Kid (talkcontribs) 14:29, 21 July 2006

It probably failed WP:BIO. --Chris (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I deleted it for two reason:
  • The article contained no assertion of notability.
  • Part of the text was taken from with no assertion of permission or fair use.
Mushroom (Talk) 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How can i resolve this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analog Kid (talkcontribs) 14:36, 21 July 2006

...become more notable? --Chris (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
sorry i dont understand. can you give me an explanation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analog Kid (talkcontribs) 14:38, 21 July 2006
Read the guidelines at WP:BIO -- do you meet them? --Chris (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As Chris said, you're not notable enough. If you want to create an article about yourself, you can use your user page. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How do I upload a picture correctly?

I tried uploading a picture and it was deleted, probably because it didnt have the right copyright tag or whatever. So I was wondering how i can upload it correctly without it being deleted? Its a picture I took myself at a volleyball game. What should i put for correct information so it doesnt get deleted?

-dcirish7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcirish7 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 21 July 2006

You have to release it under a proper license, possibly {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL-self}} or {{No rights reserved}}, and explicitly state on the image description page that you are the author. If you upload the image as "with permission", "non-commercial" or another non-free license, it will be deleted: these licenses are not accepted on Wikipedia. Mushroom (Talk) 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think i uploaded it correctly this time, thanks for your help. Dcirish7 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's ok now :) Mushroom (Talk) 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You removed this image supposedly due to an "improper liscence". I created this image myself and am happy for the image to be used on wikipedia, which i stated when uploading the image, why has it been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.m.mcclean (talkcontribs) 15:48, 21 July 2006

See the answer above. Mushroom (Talk) 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I think you edited the 'Vincent Larusso' page. I created that one and I noticed there's something added to it, and I just wanna say 'Thanks' for adding something to it! =)

You're welcome. Happy editing! :) Mushroom (Talk) 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mushroom - Thanks for your help!! - Samjohnson

No problem, I like to welcome new users :) Mushroom (Talk) 12:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for deletion of "Image:Orthodox-Church-in-Banja-Luka.jpg"! --Pockey 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. :) Mushroom (Talk) 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pietro Frua


Why do your remove the picture frua_1965_06.jpg from 'Pietro Frua'? I have the publishing rights and it can be used by the Fair use paragraph, because it is a press photo.


Hi, I have undeleted the image and fixed it for you. Somehow it was listed at CAT:CSD, but it's perfectly useable as {{promophoto}} and {{withpermission}}. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

John Duthie image

Please can you tell me how this image was improperly licensed? Do I need to reference the place on the site where it says that reproduction is permitted? Thanks. Essexmutant 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, then it won't be deleted. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

New York Yankees Images

Look, I don't understand this licensing stuff. I got these pictures from a website, yes, but I emailed the guy and he said I could use them as long as I gave the source, AND I DID. What the hell is this policy with the pictures??? ---Sportskido8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportskido8 (talkcontribs) 00:37, 22 July 2006

See Wikipedia:Uploading images. You have to provide a valid source and copyright tag for the images. If you upload them as "with permission" or "non-commercial" they will be deleted since these unfree licenses are not accepted on Wikipedia. However, if they qualify as fair use you can use them, provided that you specify a fair use rationale. But in this specific case, the two images you took from can't be used unless you know who is the original photographer, and the image from can't be used anyway because it's copyrighted and it doesn't qualify as fair use. Mushroom (Talk) 08:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Restored deletions

Hiya! Just figured it'd be polite to drop you a line and say that I undeleted a few db-authored pages you deleted earlier. He asked me to restore them on my talkpage, and ... ah, looks like I forgot to not undelete the revision where he put db-author. Whoops! :D So, anyway, thanks for being on top of it! ~Kylu (u|t) 15:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for telling me. :) Mushroom (Talk) 19:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps you could let people know you are deleting articles they created before deleting them. Give me a chance to asess notability. You deleted it within 24hours of creation. Maybe show a bit more courtesy?? Maybe request it for speedy deletion? Don't just outright delete it. --Graveenib 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was a candidate for speedy deletion, and the deletion had been requested by User:Crossmr. Maybe I could have warned you, but would it have made a difference? The article had to be deleted anyway, per CSD A7. Mushroom (Talk) 12:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning

So how did you first come across wikipedia? (Sahands) 23 july, 06

Um... I don't remember. It was in December 2003. Probably I was just reading a blog or something and I happened to follow a link to Wikipedia. I remember I was surprised at first, but then I tried to edit and I liked it. My first edit was to Italy, of course :) Mushroom (Talk) 12:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversed vandalism to your user page

Just to let you know, I reversed a number of vandalism edits done to your user page by User:Qwesa. You had blocked him a couple of times in the past. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember, he's the one with the "Emo Elmo" obsession. I have now blocked him indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Thanks A LOT! Mushroom (Talk) 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)