I moved this from my talk page to here to keep it in one thread. I will watchlist this page for awhile. Thanks for the translation. What categorizations are controversial? I try my best to follow precedents. I occasionally make unintended mistakes, and people correct them. There is discussion concerning commons and wikipedia image categorization at
Kurdistan is a controversial term. Much like Palestine, though only worse. What falls inside Kurdistan and what doesn't is not really defined anywhere. The borders are ambiguous at best. Some people seek to form an independent Kurdistan country though to this date no one has made the official claim of independence.
So putting a map on a "Kurdistan" related category is not problem free and somewhat problematic. What I mean is by putting anything into that category we are declaring Kurdistan borders - something not even CIA dares (the call the place Kurdish-inhabited region and hence cleverly avoiding a "Kurdistan" term).
(unindent) It is really not important to me either way. Feel free to categorize the Kurdistan-related maps in whatever way you want. I was following the previous naming precedents in the related articles. I did not participate in those discussions. I was just categorizing maps. From Kurdistan (disambiguation):
Kurdistan may refer to:
Kurdistan, a geo-cultural region consisting of parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan
It seems that in English "Kurdistan" means the whole region. But I could be wrong. But I will not object to any categorization scheme you come up with concerning those maps. Just go ahead and do it.--Timeshifter13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Looks good. I do want to further inquire that perhaps it may be even better to merge ethnic map categories perhaps? I mean a category for just 3 images feels a bit excessive. -- Catchi? 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There are more maps now. I keep finding more on the related pages. It kind of defeats the purpose of categorization to merge ethnic map categories. People would have to click each map to see which ethnic group they applied to. --Timeshifter15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, why not use Category:Kurdish people then? Categories can be passed values to sort all maps together. -- Catchi? 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Kurdistan is working," said Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdistan Regional Government's minister of oil and gas. "If we sit down and do nothing we are not doing our job. We are doing our job for the country."
So I think this category breakdown is clearer for the average reader of wikipedia and the news. And it avoids the confusion surrounding the old and new meanings of Kurdistan. See the geography section of w:Kurdistan. I believe wikipedia is supposed to lean toward the common names today. --Timeshifter17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no solid Kurdistan today.
There is a "geographic" Kurdistan which some people wish it to be a country. Turkey for example does not recognise this as a geographic region. Turkish diplomats will abandon any international event of any kind if a map of Kurdistan is displayed. Past such incidents have resulted in apologies of highest degrees. (hence the controversy)
There is a federal state in Northern Iraq (your example) which neither Turkish Kurdistan or Iranian Kurdistan is a part of. There is no such territorial clam by anyone. Iraqi Kurdistan claims to be a part of Iraq so it should be treated in a maner how daota is a part of the US.
Kurdistan province (Iran) (actually "Kordestan"), an official province of Iran which has nothing to do with the Iraqi entity. It is merely an administrative province and should be treated as such.
I agree with everything you said. But "Kurdistan" is still a common name representing a region inhabited by significant populations of Kurdish people. Are you suggesting that wikipedia not use the name Kurdistan because the Turkish government does not like it? The articles make clear everything you said. What exactly do you suggest changing concerning categorization? --Timeshifter19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines#8 Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; A list might be a better option.
That was what I had in mind... Kurdistan does not equal Kurdish inhabitance. There are areas that Kurds live that are not covered in the maps such as Nashville, Tennessee. Kurdistan as a term should not be used leisurely as Kurdistan is still a political and controversial term today. Anything included in it is just like a political statement of endorsement (which isn't the point of categories).
Category:Kurdish people contains no images and I do not understand why these can't be categorized under it.
(unindent) There is no statement of endorsement. It is just a long-used, cross-border regional category. From the introduction of Category:Kurdistan that someone copied from the Kurdistan article:
Encyclopædia Britannica: Kurdistan - traditional region, an extensive plateau and mountain area inhabited mainly by Kurds, including large parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia.
Columbia Encyclopedia: Kurds - a non-Arab Middle Eastern minority population that inhabits the region known as Kurdistan, an extensive plateau and mountain area in SW Asia (c.74,000 sq mi/191,660 sq km), including parts of E Turkey, NE Iraq, and NW Iran and smaller sections of NE Syria and Armenia.
Dictionary.com: Kurdistan - An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia.
Many category names cover controversial topics. There is no endorsement by wikipedia. Just like there is no endorsement implied by the names for many categories covering controversial issues. People have to read and make up their own minds. For example:
Do we tag the invasion of Iraq or Normandy under war crimes? Of course not, it would be controversial to do so even if some people may agree with the assesment. Category:Torture in China: the inclusion of the torture technique is done in a non-controversial way. Existence of a dispute over a spesific territory can be established non-controversially. No one is disputing the territory dispute over Kashmir region (Pakistan-India conflict).
All of the sources define the region ambiguously and are not even in an agreement on which counties Kurdistan supposed to occupy. There is no single source that regulates the borders of Kurdistan so any inclusion should be committed with that in mind.
Even the "by country" example of yours is problematic because you are implying country status to Kurdistan by doing so. Note that the sources you found claim it to be a mere traditional region. Tradition alone is a poor inclusion criteria as you may agree.
If the intended scope is Kurdish people, feel free to tag accordingly. It is entirely possible to evade the controversial term "Kurdistan" by naming it "Kurdish people" related instead.
For example "Image:Kurdish Kingdoms of Corduene-Sophene.jpg" seems to be about Kurdish kingdoms and not Kurdistan. Tagging it under Kurdistan is not self evident and on the contrary problematic. Tagging it under "Kurdish history" however would be encouraged, at least by me.
It is currently tagged under Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions. As for Category:Kurdistan it is not controversial that it is a common name. Just like it is not controversial that the word "apartheid" is a common name. So apartheid is in wikipedia article and category names. Same is true for "war crimes" and "torture".
But some of the articles placed in those categories cover controversial subjects where the allegations of apartheid, war crimes, and torture are very much under dispute. Yet they are placed in those categories. Wikipedia does not endorse the allegations by placing the articles in those categories.
With Kurdistan it is actually a lot less controversial. Because it has at least a century of use as a common name for a geocultural region. Wikipedia is not endorsing anything by putting Kurdistan in article and category names. There is more talk at commons:Category talk:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions. It is only one name being used.
Are you at a disagreement with me or not, I am quite confused. "Kurdistan" is a highly controversial term much like "Nazi Germany" and should not be used leisurely. This is a general statement. Do you agree with it or not? -- Catchi? 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Your point? I said "should not be leisurely used", I did not say "ban the usage". Should I reference to current German president as the president of a Nazi Germany just because it is a "Common name"? No one claims that the current German president to be the head of a Nazi Germany. No one claims Kurdistan to be a country. I do not understand why we as wikipedia go out of our way to treat Kurdistan like a country. -- Catchi? 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not treating Kurdistan like a country. Neither does wikipedia. And where does wikipedia say that the current German president is the president of Nazi Germany? --Timeshifter20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying you are. I am saying that the terms should not be used leisurely. -- Catchi? 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Ah! My Goddess (TV) logo 1.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image source problem with Image:Ah! My Goddess (TV) logo 2.png
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Ah! My Goddess (TV) logo 2.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT13:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea might have some merit. However, a WikiProject is probably not the best way to go. What we're probably talking about here would be something along the lines of policy, not project. As such, it would probably be best to propose it at the Wikipedia:Village pump, possibly as a suggested policy guideline, with a page written out describing what you think the actions, qualifications, and limitations of the group would be. Be aware that a lot of people would react negatively to anything they perceive as being "beauracracy creep", and that this has a real chance of becoming that. Alternately, you might contact the people at Wikimedia Commons about setting up such a group there, as all free images are allegedly being tried to be deposited there anyway. John Carter15:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing policy is that "unfreee images must not be tagged as free". And the wikiproject was intended to reinforce that..
The images are on English wikipedia so they need to be tagged here so that they can be moved to commons. I actually am a commons admin and I do hope to set this up on commons too though freely licensed non-free media is not much of a problem on commons as they are shot on sight unlike how it is on en where they are overlooked.
I do want the project to be run by a selected group of people despite the objections. During the transaction on Spanish Wikipedia (at which the community decided to disabled uploads and moved every free-image to commons) we had to deal with so many freely licensed non-free image uploads. This transaction should not be a bother for commons people. There is no point to the tagging if it is going to be conducted by the same people who falsely use the free license. Of course the group would not be a cabal but I think what I seek with this is not all that obscure. WP:MEDCOM has elections for example.
I would welcome if you resurrected the idea either as a policy/guideline or as a wikiproject. I want to avoid any direct involvement as it would be treated with out most hostility, something I got used to. I would prefer to "join" the idea rather than "found" it at this point.
I unfortunately am a lot less well versed regarding the policies on images than many other people, including you, so anything I wrote would almost certainly be fairly useless. It sounds to me, based on what little I know, that you are simply requesting that there be some sort of review procedure, with well defined "steps" along the way, before having a "final" tag of free image placed on an image. That does sound a bit like a policy matter to me, though, so a project without the defined policy in place, including selection parameters, would probably be less than useful. Three people who might be useful (more useful than me, anyway) for maybe trying to helping you define the details of the idea would probably be User:Radiant, User:Steve block, and User:Extreme Unction, who between them had created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines some time ago. If you could create some sort of basic proposal page for the idea, though, including whatever specifics come to mind, that would probably help a lot. John Carter17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was told to perhaps give the idea a second chance.
What do you think? -- Catchi? 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think what you're proposing is redundant to Category:Wikipedia cleanup. What Wikipedia needs is less process, not more; therefore what we need is some admins and bots with decent judgment that simply remove the invalid images - not an Official Team to Investigate. >Radiant<12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing a process. I merely am proposing a convenient way to tag good/bad images. There is too much bureaucracy at the moment, this is intended to cut back on it.
If I wanted to delete a potentially unfree image I have to nominate it for deletion rather than a tag and run. Any free image tagged like this can be salvaged under fair-use if applicable. But all this is overwhelming number of bureaucracy for a single user. Anyone can further review potentially bad images and either relicense them or delete them in a fast and efficient manner.
Moving a good image to commons itself is a lot of work. First you need to find a good image. You then have to save it to your drive, then copy the contents of the image description page (and its other contents such as image history) and upload the image to commons with all that. Later you need to categorize the image on commons. All of these steps can be handled by a bot aside from the first one (finding). A good free image category would do just that.
Some images are being repetitively reviewed. I have no way of knowing if you or someone else had already reviewed it. It would be wiser to review images that have never been reviewed rather than reviewing the same image repetitively. That is the other reason why tagging images is a good idea.
The idea is that no free image should be left on English wikipedia. That is the ideal situation. Right now the situation of the free images is terrible therefore Category:Wikipedia cleanup isn't working well. You are right though we do need more admins, good users and bots that check image copyrights. What I merely suggest is that they do this in an organized manner.
You are on shaky grounds having a selected group of people running the project, that was one of the issues with Esperanza. I'd concur with Radiant that you utilise existing clean up methods to achieve your goal, maybe raise a discussion at Wikipedia:Images for cleanup? Steve blockTalk12:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shaky grounds? For what? I am uninvolved with Esperanza. See post on my userpage why existing tools are more bureaucratic than the proposal. -- Catchi? 13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the comment was trying to connect you with Esperanza, simply saying that having chosen individuals running it would be similar to Esperanza, and maybe one of the reasons it was deactivated. If having selected people won't work, as they indicate above, maybe another way of doing this would be to have a defined process an image will have to go through, similar to the "B-class" assessment criteria of WP:MILHIST and other projects, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Quality scale. If you could define some "steps" an image should go through before being finally declared a free image, and maybe add some parameters to a template to the effect that a given image hasn't formally gone through that process, that might potentially work. John Carter13:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to not make a big deal of it and avoid bureaucracy. Copyrights are complex and you can't really have an assessment scale.
For example the photo of buildings and statues in Armenia are covered under a non-commercial FOP copyright. Hence not free enough and speedy deletable (or useable under fair-use). Or the Eiffel tower at night is fully-copyrighted even if you take the photo so it is only usable under fair-use - even that is sketchy at best. While morning photos without the lighting system is PD.
We ought to have a method on tagging good images so we do not repetitively re-review the same images over and over and over and over again. Rather than looking for bad images I prefer to categorize images as "good", "bad" and "at commons". You can actually see the wikiproject in action at tr:VP:MIT.
Have a read of the essay at WP:ESPERANZA, which should explian the issues with a closed shop leadership. I still think you're best off setting it up within the Clean-up remit, as Radiant indicates, but reading your posts leads me to believe you're going to plough your own furrow, which is fair enough. Steve blockTalk16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not seek any kind of leadership. I am uncertain what you mean by "plough your own furrow". I do not mind if the idea is incorporated with any existing system. -- Catchi? 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You stated above you wanted "a selected group of people running the project", which implies a leadership, hence my points regarding the issues with such a closed shop leadership/group of people running it. I'm not sure what it is you do not understand regarding the phrase "plough your own furrow", but doubt there is any mileage in continuing this any further. I was asked for input and have provided it. It's up to you to decide how you want to go forward, you don't need me in your ear for that. Good luck with it. Steve blockTalk09:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the Eiffel tower suggests that these images are not copyrighted in the United States Eiffel Tower#_note-15. These byzantine country-specific copyright laws are still confusing for me - could you explain exactly what are the relevant issues for photos of "copyrighted buildings" and Wikimedia commons? I need some help understanding this area. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder you are confused, so is everyone! Copyrights are really complex :)
On Wikimedia Commons we respect local laws first. All images are intended to be "Free for All" or "Free for Most".
US Copyright law is meaningless for photos taken inside France soil as per Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in theory. You can legally take a free photo of the Eiffel tower at night outside of France (French soil and French waters) (to be more specific outside of EU as per EU laws which complicate the matter further). This is of course an extreme case and is a mess inside France alone.
Some countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan do not have a commercially free Freedom of panorama (more info commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama). Meaning even if you take the photo of a building, unless its author died over 70 years ago, it is commercially unusable and hence not free enough for commons.
Of course international copyright disputes are the nastiest and most complex kind.
Here's why I'm confused about the Berne convention (quoting from that article):
"The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals, which means that, for instance, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created."
That seems to imply that if the picture of the Eiffel tower is published in the US (and our servers are in the US) then US copyright law applies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Eiffel tower itself is published in France. Think of it like a statue. Photo of it is a derivative work. That at least is one side of the argument. -- Catchi? 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not, I'd rather be indef blocked... At least tolerate the damn signature. Even my signatures bother you people! -- Catchi? 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to tell us why you'll not amend the anchor part of your sig to prevent the redirect? It's why, for instance, SineBot is resigning your sigs - to it User:WhiteCat/07 != User:WhiteCat. I cannot see that you gain anything by the redirect, and so your preference for an indef block seems odd. --Tagishsimon(talk)17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason why I should explain why and how I sign. I am sick and tired of people finding this convenient excuse to bother me with. I am desperately wondering what next nonsense will be about...
As for the bot, it seems to be buggy and fixing this issue isn't all that hard. My signature does not even have to link to my user or user talk page.
There's no reason, beyond courtesy, why you should explain your /07 sig. Your choice. You say "", but WP:SIG says "At least one of those 2 pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talkpage and contributions log"--of course, your sig does satisfy this condition, albeit through a redirect. You could, if you like, consider that the point of someone like me asking this question, is to gain a better understanding of the way wikipedians use wikipedia, so as to iron out issues such as that you complained to SineBot's owner about. Or you could could choose (your own words) to be a dick. I'm sure you're not. And meanwhile, fwiw, I'm genuinely interested in the /07 thing, because you clearly do it for a purpose, yet I cannot fathom that purpose. Face it; encyclopedia-heads tend to be obsessed by seeking out information. --Tagishsimon(talk)07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, it is just that I am tired of some people (not you) making a big fuss over anything and everything I do. They just find "problem" out of thin air. I apologize for the semi-hostile tone.
As for your actual question IIRC after a discussion with (I think) pathoschild, he recommended a userspace redirect to clear "what links here." I originally used User:White Cat/sig just like pathoschild but later decided to switch to User:White Cat/07 to sort by year as what links here is useful to me to follow discussions I have been a participant of. The need actually arose when I was dealing with User:Diyarbakir/User:Moby Dick/User:Davenbelle for a third time. Finding past discussions had taken too much of my time. It also helps me follow any mention of my username. For instance the latest WP:ANB/I thread already appeared on it. Fundamentally this is its use, at least to me.
No that doesn't work. That doesn't display which ANI archive my post is in for example. Accessing archived comments take up too much time otherwise. It isn't a life and death situation but is useful to me. Also I am more interested in pages linking to my userpage or talk page directly as those are discussions concerning me. Such as the recent ani post. -- Catchi? 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I have closed the discussion and redirected all of the episodes, but not the "movie". Please accept this outcome. If you do find reasonable sources to establish notability of specific episodes you are of course free to resurrect those articles and add the sources. If you do so, please also work towards a less plot-summary, in-universe format. Thank you. --Jack Merridew09:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another victory! I hope this makes you very very happy because it certainly does not make me happy. -- Catchi? 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and about the "not personal" thing, please do not insult my intelligence. I have no reason to believe your presence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott or on this very issue was a mere coincidence. Your (plural) attempt to get even is disruptive and I will leave it at that. -- Catchi? 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that after I posted the comment above, you "fixed" these again. I'm going to block the bot from editing if it keeps doing this. Redirects points to pages labeled "redirect with possibilities" using the standard template should not get "fixed". Michael Hardy16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot was acting in accordance with Wikipedia standard's on double redirects and under an approved RFBA. It should not have been blocked as it was doing the correct thing and I have unblocked it. -- JLaTondre17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, double redirects are problematic to the end user, the readers. The bot processes Special:DoubleRedirects page in accordance with Wikipedia:Double redirects. You are welcome to break the "double redirects" using the method mentioned above or by the use of {{softredirect}}'s to avoid the double redirection problem. Special:DoubleRedirects is a maintenance page almost completely processed by bots so anything showing there will be processed. I am not the only person operating a double redirect bot. Even if I did adjust my bot, someone else's bot would preform the edits. I hope this helps. -- Catchi? 18:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the images. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description pages and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
functionwpTextboxReplace(){varstr=prompt("Enter string to replace:","");if(str){varrepl=prompt("Replace \""+str+"\" with:","");if(!repl)return;vartxt=document.getElementById("wpTextbox1");txt.value=txt.value.replace(str,repl);}}addOnloadHook(function(){if(document.forms.editform){addPortletLink('p-tb','javascript:wpTextboxReplace()','Replace','ca-replace','Replace for the edit window');}});
You just fixed double redirects on Dick Donato. However, the Dick Donato article is under deletion review and the consensus is leaning strongly for restoration. When it's restored, would you please undo your changes to the redirects? Thanks. Wryspy17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to fix them. Which spesific redirects are we talking about? Double redirect fixing is not a topic-specific task and bot's preform the edits in a mindless manner. So I would have to manually fix them. -- Catchi? 18:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the images. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot13:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits do not require a justification last time I checked. This isn't a court. -- Catchi? 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You inappropriately removed another user's relevant and good-faithed comment. It's against policy, so please don't do it again. — [ aldebaer ]08:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is canvassing. That is what is against policy. The post was not made in good faith either and there is evidence supporting this. -- Catchi? 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not canvassing as in WP:CANVASS. I suppose you indeed have somewhat strong evidence if you're not even assuming good faith with him. But please please tell me that evidence, it's what I meant when I asked about justification for removing the comment. — [ aldebaer ]09:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I cannot assume good faith anymore is because of the evidence presented here and at the Ned Scott RFC. User has a strange fascination with my edits. Advertising an AfD to a delete-prone environment that has a good chance of turning into a flamewar can't be a good thing. -- Catchi? 09:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
A deletion prone environment?! I guess you haven't been following up on the discussions on WT:FICT lately. If I had a fascination with your edits then why is it that all of this happened only after you posted on WT:FICT? Why are all these things directly related to the discussion at hand, which you started on a talk page that I was already active on? Could it be that the AfD was in direct relation to your complaint about things not being listed for AfD, and just redirected? -- Ned Scott09:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this is related to my complaint. Among 2 million articles you just had to choose the one I edited less than a day ago. I suppose you are going to call this a random coincidence. Your second edit today had been related to the Porthos article. The following dozen edits were also related to it. You have no edits to the Porthos article or to the Johnathan Archer article so the page wasn't randomly on your watchlist. You aren't just stalking me but also maintaining a highly uncivil tone on the mentioned discussion. -- Catchi? 09:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What on Earth goes on in your head? Of course I selected that article because you felt it was notable. The discussion on WT:FICT is about notability of fictional elements. -- Ned Scott09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you nominated it strictly because I edited it and felt it was notable. This logic is well within WP:HA. You could have picked an unrelated test case, but that wouldn't cause annoyance or distress to me... -- Catchi? 10:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap, Cat, if you are getting distressed over Archer's Dog then you need to take a WikiBreak. Had it not been such an obvious candidate for deletion, I probably wouldn't have chosen it, but it was the easiest way to address your stance on notability. Take the article to a fair AfD and let the community decide. -- Ned Scott10:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the non-stop distress you cause me, I need lots of wikibreaks. Why should I take wikibreaks when you are the source of the problem? -- Catchi? 10:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No the problem is you dedicating your time to cause annoyance or distress to me. It has nothing to do with the article. You keep running into me on at least two occasions since the closure of the RfC. And I would like to note, this is despite me being very very inactive. -- Catchi? 10:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And you suddenly decide to join IRC... -- Catchi? 10:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"No the problem is you dedicating your time to cause annoyance or distress to me." WHAT? And, like I keep pointing out, you ran into me on WT:FICT, which is how this all started. But I don't have a problem with talking about things with you simply because you have a different opinion than I do. You, on the other hand, would have the world believe that I have raped and beaten you. -- Ned Scott10:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) yeah, I joined IRC right now because I felt like venting to some like minded individuals, something I commonly do. Get over yourself, Cat. -- Ned Scott10:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A great many editors on WT:FICT are there because they felt the guideline was too strict (in regards to sub-articles created for style reasons). It's hardly a place that backs up my own view 100%. Part of the reason I mentioned it there was to see how others felt about it, something I attempted a few sections up with another AfD, but it got side tracked. I also mentioned the AfD on the target article of the merge suggestion, and added it to two delsort pages. -- Ned Scott09:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Scott, do you think that maybe the edit summary you used when you nominated the article for deletion was highly inappropriate and added to the tension here? Newyorkbrad09:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal, Brad. If I give a chuckle because we have an article on Archer's dog, are you going to arrest me? -- Ned Scott10:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it was unhelpful because under all the circumstances it was obviously going to be inflammatory. If I ever see anything like that again in a nomination, I may close down the AfD. Newyorkbrad10:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, he does. Every member of the community has that kind of authority where they are free to contain bad-faith activities and disruption. I am not implying anything here, just asking you to be reasonable. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}10:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To return to the original topic for a moment: I didn't know about your history with each other nor was I aware of the RfC. However, removing that comment wasn't the most diplomatic approach either. — [ aldebaer ]15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that the articles have been mass blanked I hope. :) -- Catchi? 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't appeared on my watchlist. But i did revert one case of Vandalism on the Belldandy article. --Dynamo_ace 10:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
See the talk page of the episode list. All the episode articles have been ruled non-notable (and hence removed) until out-of-universe information could be found. I am looking for this information. I welcome you to assist. :) -- Catchi? 10:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that many Anime episode lists have had their episode articles removed, so this isn't a AMG problem. Sadly, i can't really help you on this apart from one thing. I think there were two voice actors for Belldandy in the Dub, if that helps.
I have been having to revert a big flaming on the CC article as well by the way. --Dynamo_ace 10:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Cat! I couldn't help but notice from your user page that you "make tons of edits" to a number of language wikipedia's for which you don't seem to have knowledge of the language. Could you tell me how this works? The only reason I ask is that I think that wikipedia might be a good tool to learn new languages. Also, if you don't mind asking, what do you mean by that phrase at the top of your user page, the one that has aiur? Pocopocopocopoco03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I edit mostly with my bots on those wikis. The idea is that "edits" do not have a weight and I am holding my contribution equal. The Aiur quote is from StarCraft by a Protoss dark templar. -- Catchi? 10:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to Belldandy there is no way I can miss :). By the way you into the series? -- Catchi? 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah megamisama? Yeah, I've been into the series. I noticed the misspelling of "modus operandi", so I figured that I might have a little fun with it. — Rickyrab | Talk21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC) you?[reply]
I have been working on the related articles. Do you know of any sources that has critical comentary and reception related information? -- Catchi? 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was originally working on the episode articles. They had been mass blanked over notability concerns. So that is an area you could help me with. Character articles also need some work. -- Catchi? 22:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I would have considered this an acceptable compromise had it been mentioned once on that discussion. People preferred a forceful and covert deletion request instead... I think it looks fine as it is now. Though the "voiced by" section is a bit charmed and I really would like to seperate the Japanese (original) and English (later) voice actors just like how it was on the original template. This would resolve most of the redundant repetitive (English)/(Japanese) referances in the infobox as well solving the problem I just mentioned. -- Catchi? 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this better for the 'voiced by' lists? It's a bit hard to tell because with the template deleted I can't line the old and new formats up side by side like I normally would. Sorry people didn't discuss these formatting options with you beforehand. If this looks good I'll try to help update the other infoboxes in the series. --CBD11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. On the older infoboxes fields were separated with a field. As it is now it is a bit hard to tell which one is "seiyu" and "voice actress". Take a look at http://www.answers.com/topic/belldandy for example. I really like the new "Profile" and "Information" seperators. I cannot express my gratitude enough, I thank you again for your efforts. -- Catchi? 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I almost like it as much as the original if not more. There are 6 minor things I would love to see fixed. One the width of the infobox should be 250px. Two the text should be aligned right "Species" "Seiyu". Three same text should be <small>ified to save space. Four the "Species" should contain a colon (':') at the end (looks nicer IMHO). Five same text should occupy a single line and not warp to a next line (with previous fixes this should be easier to achieve). Six the same text should link to the relevant articles (ex "Elemental Affinity" linking to Classical element). If these are done it would be perfection. If these are done the end product will be much better than the original. -- Catchi? 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is closer. I couldn't put links on some of the fields without impacting the appearance of other templates, but I think I got most of the issues. Also copied over the shading on the left column from the original template. --CBD00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed two more things. Could the text be bold too... and the back ground colored (you mentioned it). I know I am being picky. I hope I am not being too much of a bother :( -- Catchi? 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There may be an intermediate template for Oh My Goddess for all these "fixes" so that we do not need to repetitively pass the same parameters perhaps? -- Catchi? 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Which text do you think should be bold? The 'header' cells (left column and three 'title' sections) are bold by default. The right column could also be made bold if that is what you mean. I added the background shading to the left column with the prior set of updates. I had been thinking that an 'intermediate template' would make sense, but wouldn't be surprised if there were pushback on that. --CBD18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the text on the left. It looks different from how it looked on the former template. Also consider archiving your talk page. :) -- Catchi? 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I was distracted. We can continue. -- Catchi? 12:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference in the text on the left is likely due to the size. The old template had this text at 95% and then enclosed in <small> tags. The new template has it at 80%, which looks about the same on my browser, but the HTML 'small' setting varies by browser and screen configuration. It should be possible to tweak the formatting parameters to get to the same look as before. People seem to have stopped futzing about with the changes now so the template should be stable. --CBD06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove categories like this, thank you. -- Catchi? 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
When categories will no longer be used, remaining items are removed. There are no longer any episodes to populate the category, so after the orphaned images are deleted, the category will be placed for speedy deletion through the empty category path. TTN20:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the category is no longer going to be used for episodes. Having a movie and five images (the rest are orphaned) in a category marked for episodes makes no sense, so they are being taken out. TTN21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the episode articles so I kindly ask you to leave whats left alone. Please do not complicate my work more than it already is. Thank you for your understanding. -- Catchi? 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The category can be recreated once you have gotten five or so episodes back up. There is always the chance that you will not improve them, so leaving it until you do is not very reasonable. TTN21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Empty categories end up getting deleted eventually. Please give me more time. -- Catchi? 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Leaving unrelated topics to keep it around is not the way to go. Anyways, how does having or not having the category in existence make anything easier or harder? When the first article comes back up, all you'll have to do is click the red link and recreate it. TTN21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion tools are not toys. Deleted pages cant be recreated like that. Please forget about this mater for a while. I am more than capable of nominating an unused category for deletion. I even have an approved bot for the task. -- Catchi? 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AKurdish_Kingdoms_of_Corduene-Sophene.jpg&diff=155294708&oldid=155294430){kind=link}
_logo_1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo_1.png){kind=link}
_logo_2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo_2.png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
