User talk:Meegs

If you leave me a message on this page, I will almost definitely respond on this page so that our discussion isn't fragmented.

User talk:Meegs	2005 Nov →	2006 Feb →	2006 Apr →	2006 May →	2006 Jun →	2006 Aug →	2006 Oct →	2007 Jan →	2007 Apr →	2009 Jun →

Fuck you

A question to ask

Hey Meegs. Firstly, a Happy New Year to you. The reason I write you this is to ask you a question. Regarding my recent edit on the Popular Tamil films page. I recently updated the page, adding more films to the "2006" section. You see, I compiled the information I acquired from a webiste. At first, User:Prince Godfather reverted the edit claiming POV. My edit had no POV whatsoever, so I reverted it back. And then, Prince Godfather reverts it back claiming that the list is copyright infringing, stating that Wikipedia may be fined if the website I enquired it from. My question is, is Prince Godfather right? I certainly dont feel that way because if that were the case, the whole article should be deleted. I eagerly await your reply. -- Hariharan91 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hariharan. I have only glanced at the diffs, but it seems to me that this may be an argument that can never be completely resolved (although I don't see any talk edits by either of you, so it looks as though you have not even tried). The problem is the article itself; it's really nothing but a list, and its criteria for inclusion is neither clear nor completely objective. You're never going to get everyone to agree on which films were "popular", which ones received "critical acclaim", or on which film review websites to consider authoritative. If you want my advice, nominate the article for deletion, and then either stick to discussing the top films within the prose of real articles, expand on the all-inclusive List of Tamil-Language Films, or start a new, objective list (e.g. "List of highest-grossing Tamil films", "List of award-winning Tamil films"). If you start a new list, be sure to include citations for every entry and to utilize the article's talk page if disputes arise. ×Meegs 13:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Military brat

A few months ago, you voted to delete a category:Military brat. It has been reintroduced and once again is being nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. I am contacting you so that you can revisit the discussion, but before doing so please read the article Military brat (U.S. subculture) as the term is not POV and is a highly researched subject. The previous discussion was done before I got involved, but I think you will find out that this is a credible subject worthy of its own category. Balloonman 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was somewhat supportive in the previous discussion. In any case, I still have mixed feelings about the usefulness of the category, so I'm not sure if I'm going to comment any further this time around. ×Meegs 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I felt that since I contacted people from the page that I should also contact people who were involved last time...Balloonman 02:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Krimpet

Wow, I just checked this users contribution list and noticed that he has removed big parts and whole "Popular Culture" sections in more than 35 different pages without any kind of disscusion first. I came to you because I felt someone should talk to him, someone with autority. Thanks for taking the time to listen to me-Dark Dragon Flame | Talk 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but if you disagree with their edits, you're going to have to talk it over with them. They stopped editing an hour before you left your message on their talk page, so please be patient and wait for their reply. Honestly though, if you ask me, removing the "popular culture" sections from articles like Nikita Khrushchev [1] is a very good idea. Also, I've only glanced at their contributions, but in most cases, it seems that they merely added the template {{toomuchtrivia}}. ×Meegs 05:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We reached an understanding, din't had an idea that this was being disscused at The Village Pump wich means it was discussed, sorry for being so hasty-Dark Dragon Flame 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. ×Meegs 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Finsfan8499

Sorry about posting two consecutive complain posts, but he is starting to get on my nerves, he just went and vandalised my user page, seems like he is mad. I am not interested in having anything to do with all his vandalism so I came here since it seems you already know what he does, and I am not going to write in his talk page ever again. On a sidenote the whole Goku's height issue was resolved, it was 5'7 however I admit I should have posted the reference sooner instead of going in a editwar, that's about it -peace-Dark Dragon Flame 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just learned that he did the same to Shadowjester07, he was warned by an user but I doubt that he will listen-Dark Dragon Flame 09:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; yeah, I saw both edits. I will keep an eye on him for at least a few more days. ×Meegs 09:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:E tac

I was wondering if you can look at the recent image uploads and insertions by E tac (talk · contribs). While some of the recent images are fine (such as Image:Pyramazeband.jpg is a promo picture from here), some of the images have been labeled as screenshots or taken from such pages as MySpace.com and metalarchives.com (like Image:Edecband.jpg and Image:Lanceking1.jpg, which is tagged as promo from official site but comes from a fan blog/news site). Thank you for your time! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you can take a look at User talk:Moeron#Dave Mustaine and User talk:Moeron#Stop removing my fair use images that would be great. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've gotten help at ANI. It would have saved me some time if you'd come back here and told me that you had asked for help there too. As for those images, whether they are tagged {{promotional}} or with some other fair use tag is one of the last things I would worry about. I'd first consider whether they meet FUC #1; it's not clear to me that any of those three do, including the one you say is fine. When it's not obvious, this should covered in the image's rationale. Second, check that we've identified the copyright holder of the images. It's not safe to assume that all high quality photographs are the property of bands and their labels. If a photo's only information is a fan page url, we can't begin to estimate the effect our use will have on its value. {{no copyright holder}} gives a more targeted message for these cases than {{no source}}. ×Meegs 08:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Hall photo

I recently uploaded and put a picture on Bill Hall witch you deleted. When I uploaded it i tried to put the copyright but it just came up unknown. Could you pelase explain the way to do it.--Bigboyhiphop 08:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems here; one is technical, the other deals with Wikipedia policy.

• The technical problem is that when you re-upload a file under the same filename, the license and summary information that you enter on the upload page is discarded. If you want to change the information on a photo that's already been uploaded, you need to edit its image description page. You can change everything for there, including its image copyright tag.
• The second problem is that Wikipedia is a free content project and only accepts unfree copyrighted content in a very few specific cases. All copyrighted images on Wikipedia that are not available under a free license must comply with our fair use policy. Since Hall is a living, active player, it should be possible to take a photograph of him and release it under a free license. As such, criterion #1 of the policy will not let us use any unfree image just to show what he looks like. Also see counterexamples #5 and 8.

There's really too much for me to explain here, but please take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use and let me know if you have any questions. ×Meegs 08:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice on Semi-protection

Hi Meegs, I was just wondering whether you can request semi-protection to a article of a item that is about to be released into stores to prevent vandalism to it? I am enquiring about the article Windows Vista which is to be released on January 30th. I just need a bit of advice because I have never done this act before. Many thanks, Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Extranet. Really, I have very little experience with protection too. The fact that the product is being released soon, though, can also be seen as an incentive to keep it unprotected, by allowing us to take advantage of the swell of interest to improve the article. If the frequency of vandalism picks up, then by all means, don't hesitate to list it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for semi protection. Posts there are usually addressed in a matter of minutes; there are instructions at the top of the page and plenty of other requests to emulate. ×Meegs 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for your help. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Image copyright problems

long post removed

Hi. There's no need to copy your reply here. I'll get back to you shortly at User talk:Lahiru k#Image copyright problems. ×Meegs 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems no one paying their attention on our case. I'm bit scared that my pictures get deleted. May I replace those with my template? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Meegs, Jeff replied on our case. So what should be our next step? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Meegs, I don't quite get what you say. But, those images are really essential for those articles. Since they are being used under fair use it can be used in that article only. I think for that purpose the images are sufficiently free. I have already scanned a lot of images for a couple of articles, but the work on those articles are paused due to this ongoing case. Is there anyway, I can make a public domain template according to the copyright law in Sri Lanka? If so that would be a great help not only for me but also for all the Sri Lankan editors in Wikipedia. I can easily help on this since I'm living in Sri Lanka. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and for your kind comment accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Meegs! Could you please take a look at this anon users contributions:- Here The you will note my message on the userpage and talk page. Regrettably the user is taking no notice and is only contributing vandalism. Would it be possible to put a long term temporary block on it for a month until I get a reply back from the Mayors Office? Richard Harvey 14:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch, and block it for another couple of months if the problems continue. In cases like these, I don't think there's much need to contact sysops; we can take care of them easily with extended blocks. ×Meegs 12:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Its much appreciated. Although I'm a WP:VP user and not an admin, its frustrating to have to take your time up to do blocks in such cases. It would be nice if WP:VP allowed its users to do a 1 hour or possibly 1 day temporary block on anon vandals after a T4 warning has been ignored. That would allow us to prevent much of the 'school dinner break' and 'Office dinner break' vandalism spree's! Richard Harvey 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about bothering me, but when you need a quick response, it's best to post to WP:AIV. ×Meegs 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

Do you think The Links, Incorporated can be a featured article? If so, or if not, how can I improve the article? Thanks. Real96 08:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Real96. I made a bunch of improvements to the article and suggested a few more at Talk:The Links, Incorporated#A few suggestions. Best ×Meegs 11:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image deveshwar.jpg

Hey..I got the image from the Economist...this is the URL.. http://images.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.economist.com/images/20040605/2304WB0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.economist.com/people/displayStory.cfm%3Fstory_id%3D2725013&h=226&w=240&sz=10&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=eHjnL_c3LV1GPM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddeveshwar%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff

if the image is freely available on google image search doesnt it mean tat its free to use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shreyas310 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[2] I am not an Economist subscriber, so I can not view the page. As I said here, the image is very likely not compatible with Wikipedia regardless of who owns it, though I was hoping that the image caption might identify the copyright holder. To answer your general question, no, publishing content (such as putting a photograph on a web page) does not grant others the right to use it. Unless the copyright holder says otherwise, published works retain full copyright protection. ×Meegs 00:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Emulating the master

Are you familiar with the olde tyme saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Why do you ask? I think I'm missing something. ×Meegs 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see; very stylish. Surely you know, though, that flattery will get you nowhere. One suggestion: either make the last cell "2007→present" or just "2007". Starting that cell with an arrow leaves "2006→" without a proper bookend. ×Meegs 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

I have been told you are one of the most respected fair use image decisionmakers. I am considering FAC2 on Campbell's Soup Cans. There were vocal complaints about my fair image usage. I have revised all image pages and captions and would like your opinion on my fair image usage before renominating my article. Please respond at my talk page. TonyTheTiger 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look a bit later. ×Meegs 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers in your response. Currently, I have a written request (cc: permissions at WP dot org) of Artists Rights Society (http://www.arsny.com/) for consent. I am hoping to add Campbell's Soup Cans II to with consent. The Museum of Contemporary Arts, Chicago will send image if I get consent. The ARSNY will probably render an opinion on the 8 current image inclusions soon as well. I also may request an image from the Andy Warhol Museum depicting phase 3 if they have one once ARSNY gives me an understanding of their perspective on consent. TonyTheTiger 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC

P.S. Do you have any general opinion of the qualification of the article for FA now? TonyTheTiger 11:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: rm covers from the chronology

I'm surprised to see that many of them around! They should be gone in few minutes. Regards, Jogers (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: my conduct toward bruce

Okay meegs I won't edit your talk page or bruce dickinson. I had no idea you had power. Please do not block me. I contribute to other pages I care about. I just thought it was funny.

But please do me the favor of not adding anything to my talk/discussion page. I did not know this would be taken so seriously and I don't want other to impune me for not knowing the consequences of what I though was a harmless joke. If you feel Bruce Dickinson is worth your protection, then go ahead. But please don't tag up my page with your feelings.

You have to admit a lot of people think this now. Steve Buscemi played him so convincingly on MadTV. What about an addition to clear up the confusion. something like:

Trivia: Contrary to popular belief, Bruce dickison did not produce BOC's don't feear reaper in 1976. (reference needed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.230.131 (talk • contribs) February 11.

I don't think you are, but if you're interested in improving the article, please consider posting your ideas to its talk page. ×Meegs 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But since you hold so much sway their shouldn't I be having this conversation with you? Eventually Bruce will have produced the album. ++++70.231.244.149 06:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither I nor anyone else is going to allow you to knowingly introduce inaccuracies into an article. Please take your trolling elsewhere. ×Meegs 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Garion96's RFA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Meegs

---

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Lawrence Taylor Mugshot

I'm researching the question you asked me. I emailed the media relations person at the police's website:[3] I'll continue to look into it and try to find the policy there. Incidentally Mel Gibson has a mugshot under the exact same license, that's what gave me the impression I could use it. Quadzilla99 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with your inquiry. If you're not successful, please be sure to list the image for deletion on Commons. ×Meegs 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the email I got back from the media relations officer of the Myrtle Beach police department:

RE: Mugshots 
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:26:28 -0500 
From: "David Knipes"
   
At this time we do not make them available on the internet because of a
cost issue with being able to purchase the necessary computer software
to interface. The photos are available under freedom of information, to
the public. If you want some random photos let me know, I should have
some stored on my computer, that I have forwarded to the press. 

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:41 AM
To: David Knipes
Subject: Mugshots

Are your mugshots in the public domain? I'm asking because I want to use
one or two in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance reading my email. 

Quadzilla99 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. He's telling you about accessibility, not copyright. In other words, we have the right to demand access to a photo, but not necessarily the right modify or publish it however in any manner that we like. The department may not have anyone who is both qualified and willing to answer that sort of legal question via email. An affirmative answer would probably have to reference a state or city law, or a department policy. ×Meegs 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. This was his response to my follow-up email:

RE: Mugshots 
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:55:17 -0500 
From: "David Knipes"
   
There are no copyrights on a mug shot.

-----Original Message-----
 Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 9:35 AM
To: David Knipes
Subject: RE: Mugshots

So they're public domain then right? I have Lawrence Taylor's mugshot,
which I got off the internet, and want to make sure it's not
copyrighted. If it is used in Wikipedia it has to allow to allow
derivative works to be created and it has to be allowed to be used
commercially. 

Quadzilla99 08:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that Ronnie Lott pic by the way. I couldn't figure out how to get the image size to work as the technique is different on different templates. Seeing how you did it I know now. Thanks. Quadzilla99 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I checked the template's code to find the correct parameter name. Great job finding that photo (and the many others), by the way. On the LT image, I can't tell what you're saying. Do you agree that we should have it deleted? Are you going to pursue it further? ×Meegs 10:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I was just showing you the other email, what do you think I should do now if I want to keep the pic? Also would you delete the Pippen pic please? I think either the flickr user changed the copyright status or I just screwed up because it definitely says copyrighted. I later uploaded it to Commons and I asked an admin to delete it over there. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Sorry that it was orphanbot and not me that brought it to your attention. By mistake, I'd sent the notification to User talk:BigBoyRubio, the filename's pervious uploader. On LT, I don't know. A lot of people have tried to find a legal carte blanche for us to use mugshots, and failed. I'm not comfortable overriding their research based on what is probably just an off-the-cuff remark by a police officer. Unless someone tells us something extremely precise and verifiable about mugshots in general (probably caselaw), or something specific about their local law or policy, we should not treat mugshots as PD. If there's doubt, they should not be on Commons. ×Meegs 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind doing me a gigantic favor and emailing him yourself and asking him for the specific info needed or where to find it. I've sent him several emails and he appears to be becoming somewhat annoyed with me. Not that he wouldn't respond but he might not take the time to look it up. I need this because as weak as the photo is, I've done a collossal amount of work on Taylor's article lately and will probably submit it for FAC soon and without a pic it won't look right. Thanks in advance if you do decide to help me out. Quadzilla99 13:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but my feeling is that his annoyance will only grow by being pestered by another. I also think this a dead horse, but if you want to contact him again, please. I'm not going to be around for a while, but I urge you, barring any new info, to have the image deleted. ×Meegs 11:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll contact him again this time by phone on Monday or Tuesday. Quadzilla99 09:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You know my feelings, but I'll trust your judgement and leave this to you from here out. If you decide to keep the image, be sure to provide all of the details of your investigation on the description page. That way, others in the future won't have to repeat your work or seek you out for clarification. We also don't want others generalizing your findings inappropriately to other classes of mugshot. Best of luck ×Meegs 10:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson shot

Greetings, I called the Sheriff's Dept. directly about that. Officer Duhn informed me that all "mug shot" type photos from the L.A. Sheriff's dept. are public domain. I welcome you to call them yourself for verification. The numbers I would suggest you try are: Court Services Information: (323) 526-5541 and General Inquiries: (323) 526-5541. If you have any additional questions don't hesitate to ask. Cheers. (→Netscott) 16:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but for the benefit of others in the future, please add this info (and anything else you have) to the image's description page on Commons. Thanks ×Meegs 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, by the way, this is an impressive shot. :-) (→Netscott) 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks. You can't beat minor league baseball. ×Meegs 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Holmfirth

Hi Meegs! Just a spot of advice and your judgement needed please. the Homfirth article has been edited with a small amount of the info in it split off to form a new page Holmfirth Flood. Personally I don't feel that there is sufficient requirement to justify splitting the page. I have seen other article each larger than either of these merged together to form a single article, here its the reverse. Would you please be so kind as to take a look and advise accordingly. Richard Harvey 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Well, he didn't take any content from the town's article, which is good because it doesn't have much to spare! Obviously he thinks the 1852 event makes a good article and you don't, so unless you want to try to bring him around, it might be best to just leave it for now. A talk post would be worthwhile if you feel strongly, though. I'm not taking a side, but my general feeling is that the flood stub is only worth keeping separate if there is potential for growth beyond its current state. If you can't evaluate its potential now, put it to the test and let it be for six months.

Some unrelated advice on the same article: get rid of the clear=all tags that you added. Depending on a web browser's conditions, they can cause quite a bit of whitepace in the middle of the article. Without them, the one thing you need to try to avoid is using left-aligned photos before you're pretty sure that any reasonable browser will be clear of the infobox (even with a small-font and a wide-window). The layout would be easier, but maybe not as pretty, if moved the top photo out of the infobox. It, together with the map, also pushes a lot of the quick-reference stats off the bottom of the screen. ×Meegs 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for deleting my accidentally duplicated image Image:Governor Bill White.jpg so quickly! —RP88 01:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Any time. ×Meegs 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

covers in the chronology again

There are some of them left in Tupac Shakur's album articles. I think that the editor who put them back would respect administrator's action more than mine. Regards, Jogers (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on License2Kill's talk page; I hope it helps. I'm not going to be around for a while, so you're going to have to handle any followup yourself. Best ×Meegs 11:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! License2Kill removed the covers in question voluntarily. There shouldn't be any more left according to the latest database dump but it is quite old so I'll check again as soon as a more recent one becomes available. Regards, Jogers (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Cars' solo albums

Hello. You and Mike Selinker appear to have reached agreement at the CFD debate, so I closed it. My reading of it is that there is a consensus for reorganising and deleting per your nomination. I am now "pinging" you to carry out the split, please, as you offered in the nomination. At your convenience, when the category is empty, can you let me know on my talk page? - and I will delete it for you. Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In this connection, can you cast your eye over the subcategories of Category:The Diplomats albums? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. I'll handle both of these shortly. I'll also perform the deletion myself, on your authority. ×Meegs 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Covers

Wouldn't covers in chronology be the same as having them in a discography License2Kill 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

the soft block

(regarding this block)

im going to let you know that i am NOT the one doing these things. i wish to let you know that the school district is run from the high school and i am in middle school. (k that was out of wack) and that if maybe if you could PERMANENTALY soft block this ip adress so only i can edit this. thank you if you wish to continue this further please tell me what you think or w/e on MY duscussion page. --Xana Tarantula 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding at User talk:Xana Tarantula, as requested. ×Meegs 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

How do I?

How do I discuss it? FromtheJasonater 14:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic that I started is in a section called "Category:Band Members" on this page. You can place opinions under mine within that section. If you start your line with an asterisk (*), your comment will be indented with a bullet. You can sign your name be ending your comment with four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Please let me know if you have any more questions. ×Meegs 14:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fauna merge proposals

I have several proposals for fauna categories ready for review at User:Dr. Submillimeter/Sandbox. Feel free to edit the nominations as you see is appropriate. I will post these on 8 Mar 2007. (Please ignore the other items on the page.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your comments on my talk page. I think reattempting the Europe proposal as a precedent for the other categories may be a good idea. Also note that the subcategories of Category:Birds of Africa were discussed previously with no consensus to merge to the continent category itself but with more support for a split between North and Sub-Saharan Africa. I am also skeptical of using the talk pages to discuss restructuring. People usually do not pay attention to category talk pages except for brief reorganizational work. Either a direct nomination at WP:CFD or a discussion on the CFD talk page would be more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 13:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, category talk is where discussions go to die; cfd's talk is more what I had in mind. The WWF's 8 ecozones is a far better division than continents, in my opinion. It may be better to go directly there, but even if that is where we end-up, unifying Europe will at least have been harmless, as Euope is completely contained in Palearctic. I'm sorry I did participate in the two birds of Africa debates last month. ×Meegs 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I submitted the merge proposal for Category:Fauna of Europe by region and its subcategories. Regardless of whether we sort animals by ecozones or continents, this merge still seemed like an appropriate step. If we decide to sort by ecozones, we can always merge Category:Fauna of Europe into Category:Fauna of the Palaearctic later. Thank you for your feedback and discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fauna of Europe follow-up

The "fauna of European country" categories were all deleted. Thank you for your assistance on these categories. I have made some clean-up nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15; please go vote on the proposals.

I will probably push forward with nominations for Central American and South American animals next. I will let you know when the nominations are ready. Dr. Submillimeter 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My proposal here, here, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15#Category:Extinct animals of the United Kingdom will fail if it does not receive more support. Please go write in support for the proposal. (One of the users does not like my proposals.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

New discussion at Category talk:Biota by country

In yet another round of discussion, the issue of whether or not to merge animals by country into animal by continent categories is being discussed again at Category talk:Biota by country. Your commentary there would be welcome. Dr. Submillimeter 08:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of the discussion at Category talk:Biota by country, I am withdrawing from all work on these "fauna by country" categories. It is not worth my time to repeatedly answer KP Botany's questions when he/she will simply ignore me and then complain that his/her questions are not being answered. Dr. Submillimeter 11:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please vote

See Template talk:Infobox NFL player#Retired players. --Bender235 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back! Hope you had a pleasant wikibreak. Are you ready for some more WP:PUI fun ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kralizec. There's not really much of a backlog at PUI, so I'm guessing that you have something particularly sticky on your mind; lay it on me. I still going to be away a lot, so you may need to be patient with me in the near future. ×Meegs 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an old friend of ours re-uploading images that have been deleted before, plus a slew of new ones tagged {{PD-self}}. I would be inclined to believe his {{PD-self}} tags, were it not for the wildly divergent image quality (from professional looking aerial photos ([4], [5]) to "teenager with a camera phone" ([6])) and a startlingly large variety of sources: some appear to have been taken via a camera phone ([7], [8], etc.), a Fujifilm FinePix A330 ([9], [10]), some have metadata suggesting they are scans ([11], [12]), others looks like they are thumbnail images ([13], [14], etc.), and several have no metadata at all ([15], [16], etc.). Unfortunately, except for one (Image:Lasvegastower.jpg is obviously from [17]) I have not been able to find the "real" sources for any of these photos. Combined with my lack of evidence on the previously deleted photos (judging by the file names and descriptions, I assume that Image:Bryan co crthouse.jpg is same as Image:Bryan county courthouse.jpg, that Image:OKC at night.jpg is the same as Image:Okc @ nite.jpg, etc.), I am pretty much at a loss on what to do here.

My intention is not to drop this whole mess on your lap, however I presume you have access to admin tools (previously deleted images, etc.) that can prove beneficial. Any guidance you may have on how I should proceed with this is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We've put up with this for long enough. To recap, some of these images have now been uploaded 3 or 4 times without details or explanation, there's been no response to our talk messages or PUI listings in October and December, and without much effort we have identified images from here, here, here, here, and here. I'm going to go ahead and delete them all and leave Native Boy one last message. Good work. ×Meegs 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All zapped. I'll try to remember to check myself, but let me know if you see any more suspicious uploads from this user. Thanks again. ×Meegs 06:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I really appreciate all of your help on this tricky issue!! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hakeem

Nuke it. I uploaded that back in my less informed days. If I knew it still existed I would have requested deletion. Quadzilla99 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Zap. ×Meegs 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request

(copied from the Bot request page)

Despite instructions asking them not to, new users often include categories in their submissions to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Because all submissions from a single day are located on one page, it is the daily archives (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-04-17) that end-up in categories alongside mainspace articles. It would be very nice to have a bot go the AfC archives and linkify every category. Something like:

[[Category:Living people|Smith, John]] → [[:Category:Living people]]

I did this manually from about Jan-June last year, and it wasn't much fun. What we have now is about 300 pages, plus one new one every day, that needs this treatment. ×Meegs 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This could be done with AWB, though I can't think of any way to remove the sortkey like that. As these are all archived pages (except for the today's page) does it really matter that much how they look after the category is turned to a link (ie. would [[:Category:Living people|Smith, John]] which would look like Smith, John be fine)? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(responding at WP:BOTREQ) Thanks, Z-man. ×Meegs 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Advert

Hi Meegs! Could you please advise if this article [18] and external links are OK or, regarded as Spam? Richard Harvey 11:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard. The tone of the article and its links seem ok to me. The label itself is pretty borderline on notability, and the article has no secondary sources, but I [think] it would be kept if you nominated it for AfD. It's a new article; give it time, and perhaps slap a maintainance tag on it. ×Meegs 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Done! Richard Harvey 09:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

the 48 laws of power OR 48 NOTHING MORE PRECISELY

hi there, very sorry you removed the rephrasing i did, took me lot of time to change everything. i think you did it wrong, i mean what use would be the 7_deadly_sins page without expression of any of them??? ==> same point for the 48 laws of power!!! i did rephrase the 48 laws so they don't "look" like the original copyrighted content. And as long as though are not copyrighted i personnaly think it's fair to express world's knowledge into wikipedia! but in this case i really think it's shit (sorry, i've confess i've drunk a little tonight) and what's the point of wikipedia? being a meta-meta-meta-knowledge-website with no content? if it's the case then i rather stop wasting my time contributing to it!! So please compare the original 48 laws as expressed and my own rephrasing i did not copyrighted it!!! Neantbriceen 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(responding at Talk:The 48 Laws of Power, where this was cross-posted) ×Meegs 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok then you're probably right, i'll wait for 2145 then copyright would be expired, ;) more seriously, is there an "official" flag that we could put on such article to clearly point out article are far from being complete because under copyright?? a bit like the "featured article" flag? if nothing like this exist, where/to whom may i suggest it? Neantbriceen 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think most readers understand that we are an encyclopedia and not a receptacle of all manner of information. Even when the book does enter the public domain, wikisource or wikiquote might be a more appropriate place for the entire list. ×Meegs 08:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NFL Draft

Thanks for the links, why do I need the transactions? Are those supposed to be listed also? (please respond on my talk page) Trevor GH5 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(responding shortly at User talk:Trevor GH5) ×Meegs 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Trevor GH5 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Double check?

If you could double check some of my recent WP:COPYVIO reports, I would really appreciate it. I have an article and report; nine image reports; and the final user message. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kralizec. Everything you did was just fine. Everything I'm about to say is just to make things easier in the future.

When you find a likely copyvio in text, first look back through its history. If there's a clean version, just revert back there and notify the contributor (and check the rest of their contributions). When even the first version is dirty, and the copyvio is obvious, you can tag the article for speedy deletion under criterion 12; if there's something complex about the case, then use WP:CP as you did. There are instructions for both methods at the top of WP:CP.

For an image, I'd recommend first looking at whether the uploader has identified both the image's copyright holder and license. If they haven't, consider simply tagging it with {{subst:nsd}} and {{subst:nld}}, respectively. Those templates expand to {{no source}} and {{no license}} and are both markers for speedy criterion I4. Functionally, they feed Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status, which are checked and deleted after about seven days. They also have their own user notification templates. Using WP:CP is fine too, but these processes are lighter-weight and always less backlogged. If you have tracked the images down yourself, simply add that info directly to the image page. In the case of these images, the Mediawiki software already tagged them with {{no license}} based on the uploader's selections on Special:Upload. They'll almost certainly be deleted based on that before your WP:CP listing.

As you know, image licenses that you suspect are bullshit go to WP:PUI. If there's no doubt whatsoever, though — like a big fat Getty watermark and a {{PD-self}} template — don't hesitate to rip the fraudulent tag off right there and replace it with {{no license}}. Oh, and notify the contributer and check their other uploads, naturally.

There's more to tell, but that's already quite a lot to read. Feel free to hit me with questions any time. ×Meegs 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great information on criterion 12, {{subst:nsd}}, and {{tls|nld}; I will be sure to use those avenues the next time I run into an issue like this (especially if these processes have shorter backlogs!). I noticed that after the message you posted on the editor's talk page, he reverted your changes to Mark VI monorail and changed all the images to over to {{fairuse}}.

As to the Mark VI monorail article itself, I did not revert it to an earlier, copyvio free version because all of the Disney-specific info had since been moved ([19], [20]) to Walt Disney World Monorail System and this article was just about the trains themselves. Did I presume too much? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The images don't meet item 1 of our non-free content criteria, and so can not be used. There's a template for this problem too: {{subst:rfud}}, which expands to {{replaceable fair use}}. It's also likely that the website that you dug-up is not the photos' copyright holder, another piece of info that we require for all images. One way or another, they will be deleted.

Not reverting the article was good, for both your reason and for the unforseeable reason that this user has choosen to fight tooth and nail. Without the CP listing, the argument might well be taking place on your talk page! Whether the copyvio is real or not, things usually go much smoother than this, believe me. Given the alleged inaccuracies, the lack or sources, and size of the pre-copyvio version, I suspect the best thing to do from here is to wipe the article and wait for a better one to be created anew. ×Meegs 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear [21] that s/he did not believe you [22]. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for continuing to recreate the copyvio, and now that all doubt about the text's origin is gone, deleted the article. If you're able, could you whip-up a one sentence stub replacement to get things started on the right foot. A solid reference would, of course, be great. ×Meegs 03:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're awesome. ×Meegs 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your help, I really appreciate it! One of these days I will make admin and be able to fix these things myself without having to bother you. Per your request, I re-created the article as a stub, but you might want to go ahead and nuke the old talk page. As many times as the old talk page was archived and de-archived, making any sense out of it is nigh-impossible. Thanks again, Kralizec! (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More Bother

HeadMouse is now calling names and being incivil. Could you consider an indefinite block? I am not looking forward to dealing with him/her again.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all three of you for helping out with this - Kralizec! stepped in when I put the original issue over on WP:ANI, but even then I didn't expect it to continue the way it has after the issue I had was resolved. I appreciate everyone's calm response and assistance. Ellbeecee 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. As for blocking, no, things don't look good to me either, but let's give this person another chance. ×Meegs 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by his response [23] and subsequent edits ([24], [25]), I have come to the painful conclusion that he just does not get it. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they've been reblocked. I would've choosen such a long duration, but at least it gives us a long while to worry about other things. ×Meegs 04:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

probably should have let you know about this debate

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 11#category:Procol Harum Musicians. It's ending in the next day or so, so if you have a case (pro or con, not sure how you feel after our last discussion), you should make it.--Mike Selinker 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Xenu

''+ __NOGALLERY__ becuase of non-free images'' -- Um, non-free images cannot be categorized on Wikipedia? Smee 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi Smee. They can be categorized, but they must not be rendered outside of the main namespace (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9). To me, it doesn't seem right for articles to share their cats with images, but that can be discussed another day. ×Meegs 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I have seen this done in other places, however. Smee 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I've seen it too, though it's really not very common. It's always bothered me, but never so much that I've pushed for a guideline. ×Meegs 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, interesting. Perhaps others will think differently in the future. Meegs, I must say thank you for being so polite in clarifying this for me. Your input is welcome and your tact is most appreciated. Later, Smee 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Wow, if you think my tact is remarkable, I hope I never meet the jackasses you're used to dealing with ;) Take care ×Meegs 23:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Days peer review

Right now, I'm editing the Days of our Lives article to move it to good or featured standard. When you have a chance, can you respond here (and at my talk page) and tell me what you think of the article thus far, and if you want, can you comment on the peer review linked at the Days talk page? Thanks! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hot debate going on at Template talk:Infobox NFL player

Appreciated your valuable input during the last flame up at Template talk:Infobox NFL player. I was hoping you would weigh in on the current one. — x a n d e r e r 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People by former religion

I noticed that you are busy closing with categories for deletion of 23 July 2007. The past few days I tried to deal with the most frequent stated reason for deletion for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please do not close but vote to keep based on my very recent edits diff diff. I am busy informing contributors who voted for deletion about my recent edits. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. In addition please review my arguments voiced there, among others that we should not remove the category former Muslims etc. because it is not a defining characteristic of some people, though it is for e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Following the same reasoning we should not delete the category:painters only because it is not a defining characteristic for some people, like Adolf Hitler. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the discussion open for the moment, but will not vote as you instruct. ×Meegs 11:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I solved the main stated the reason for deletion by explicitly adding the condition for inclusion in the category i.e. "defining characteristic". In addition, I removed removed from most categories the people who did not fit the added condition. For other categories, I merely added warning templates plus explanations on the talk pages to save time. Andries 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

fictional locations

I updated the fictional locations nomination to address some of your concerns. Still feel the same way?--Mike Selinker 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't want to hold up progress. ×Meegs 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Message from Ken225

I have received a message from you concerning that i had allegedly vandalized a page, i can assure you that i would never due such a thing and find the tone of your message quite disturbing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken225 (talk • contribs) 2007 August 6 19:27 UTC.

Hello, Ken. I am not sure what message you are referring to, but I apologize if it was misplaced. As far as I know, we have never communicated before. This message to me was your first edit to Wikipedia using the account Ken225. If you let me know where I wrote to you before, I would be happy to talk more about it. Regards ×Meegs 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for the help, I was getting a bit carried a way! :-) jj137 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this out

Check out my sig! --AR Argon 08:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Argon. Have we met before? If not, it's nice to meet you. Yes, I like the colors. ×Meegs 08:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on "Roses"

Thank you for your advice. I didn't know about the "Move" function before.--Redandready 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: deleting categories

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I would normally reply there, but since you offered congratulations and condolences, I thought it only polite to come here. Condolences might well be the way to go -:). I understand what you said, but I am still not sure about closing that particular CfD. I'll discuss it further at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. --Bduke 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Science School

How did you know the laptops at CSS were ibook G4s? Was it already in the text because I'm too lazy to read it all? or do you have a relation to the school? Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 07:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ard0. Yes, that detail was already in the article; some guy named Ardo191 put it there [26] ;) And no, I have no relation to the school. ×Meegs 10:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for cleaning up that bit of vandalism on my talk page.  east.718 at 16:44, September 6, 2007 

Re: Text copied from other websites

Sorry, I just didn't know exactly what I was doing was not allowed. I've never once copied and pasted anything from another site, nor have I typed it word-for-word. I always thought I changed enough that it wasn't a problem.►Chris Nelson 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

replying at User talk:Chrisjnelson, where I've already written quite a bit. Let's keep our conversation there.×Meegs 11:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Marlborough

Thanks for sorting out the disambiguation page. I misunderstood how these pages should be named. I thought I'd corrected the ones I'd changed but this one seems to have escaped my attention. Thanks for picking it up. Dahliarose 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Meegs, and happy Thanksgivings!

The question I want to ask you is about my rights to upload pictures here.I am not familiar with the copyright law and I do not want to brake it.I was browsing the discography of British classic rock band Uriah Heep and I discovered, that their album Conquest issued 1980 has no picture of the original LP-record cover.I've noticed that, for their album High and Mighty you did the upload of the LP-record cover. My question is: how low resolution should be the copy of original to do not brake the copyright law.Or if ANY copying is a violation - please, let me know. Thanks Emil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzzkata (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 October 2007

Hello Emil. We need our use to qualify as fair use in U.S. copyright law. I can't give you a definitive answer about resolution, but anything under 250x250 pixels is probably small enough. When you do upload, be sure to include a Non-free use rationale on the image's description page. Let me know if you have any more questions. ×Meegs 04:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The University of Southern Mississippi

Acknowledged. Thanks for the heads up. /Blaxthos 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - The guideline seems pretty clear to me: A definite article should be applied only if "The" is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere.

From their history page (emphasis added):

• "Founded by Legislative Act on March 30, 1910, The University of Southern Mississippi was the state’s first state-supported teacher training school."
• "To that end, he reorganized the academic programs into colleges and schools, and on February 27, 1962, Gov. Ross Barnett signed the bill that made Mississippi Southern College a university: The University of Southern Mississippi."
• Student Thesis

External usage:

• Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ([link): "The University of Southern Mississippi redesigned World Literature, a required general education course that enrolled 1000 students each term, in order to eliminate course drift and inconsistent learning experiences."
• E-Academy (link)

The name is defined with the article "The" by state statute.

I believe the move is appropriate and the policy is clear (in this case). Should I continue? Revert? What's your opinion? /Blaxthos 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right. This is not really an area of expertise or interest for me; I was just trying to head-off trouble. I suggest that you add your argument to the article's talk page and then leave a note for Mike asking him join that discussion. In the meantime, there's no problem leaving the job half done. Best ×Meegs 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

St. Nicolaus church in Baczal Dolny

Jestem Polakiem i proszę jeśli możesz o napisanie artykułu o Kościele św. Mikołaja z Bączala Dolnego(na polskiej wikipedii Kościół z Bączala) moj login to: Diabetes

Pozdrawiam...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.234.34 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a message on pl wiki.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Q5, Q6, and other comments show considerable disagreement with the project's free content goals, so I'm not at all comfortable with RTD making image deletion decisions...I'm also disappointed by their response to Ronnotel's request for edit summaries, and share Xoloz and WJBscribe's concerns."

Please let me explain this more clearly. I do not oppose Wikipedia's goal of free content. Rather, I think that it should be balanced against the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia. Both using high-quality (though sometimes non-free) content and using free-as-in-freedom content further the end goal of Wikipedia: to provide more knowledge to more people in the form of an encyclopedia. Thus, we should seek a balance between free and non-free content that brings the maximum amount of knowledge to the maximum amount of people. The current non-free content policy does a very good, though not perfect, job of bringing us closer to this goal.

As I also explained in my RfA, it would be inappropriate of me to use the administrative tools to force this view on others, so my personal opinion of the policy is largely irrelevant anyway.

I have enabled the prompted edit summaries option in my user preferences.

I am aware of the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, and I can assure you that I will be correctly using this wikiterminology in the future. To question 9, what I meant was that I refuse to get involved in any deletion "discussion" revolving around lack of a use rationale. I will neither close such a debate as keep nor delete; I'd rather stay far away from the enforcement of 10c.

You may also be interested in my detailed response to WJBscribe's comments.

Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is a good idea for someone with your view about free content to make image deletion decisions their primary task. I know that you say that you will implement the policies as they are, rather than as you'd like them, and you very well might. I just think it is bad idea, and that it wouldn't be good for you or for the project. I'm not sure it shows good judgement on your part to seek specifically to implement those rules that you do not beleive in, either. My concern about your general inexperience is very minor, and came mostly from your strange account of IAR, not the block terminology. I'm glad that you've enabled the edit summary prompt. That concern was also minor; I didn't think your use was all that bad, but I did not like your response to the user that asked you to use them more often. ×Meegs 09:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rfa comment thanks

Dear Meegs, Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Meegs, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to getting going as a new admin.
--A. B. ^(talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: List of deaths through alcohol

No, no objection whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielspencer91 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of dental practice management software

An article that you have been involved in editing, Comparison of dental practice management software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of dental practice management software. Thank you. TableManners ^U·T·C 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First Leeds

I have placed a query on the Talkpage of the article about the inclusion of timetable and services. I wondered if you may like to add some thoughts on the subject? Richard Harvey (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll take a look shortly. ×Meegs 14:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SamsonSurvivors.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SamsonSurvivors.jpg. 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 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SamsonSurvivors.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SamsonSurvivors.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. BJBot (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Coast Guard Academy seal.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coast Guard Academy seal.png. 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned you at RFA, hope you don't mind.

Just wanted to let you know I mentioned and paraphrased your earlier oppose of an RFA at this rfa. Dureo (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that last night. If I can find the time to thoroughly review the candidate's progress, I may comment on the new rfa as well. Best ×Meegs 12:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)