User talk:Kurt Shaped Box/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kurt Shaped Box. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello :) NIRVANA2764 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this image on the basis of a long standing consensus that this is not an appropriate image to be included in Wikipedia. You can of course challenge my decision at deletion review (please let me know if you take this course).

More productive however would probably be for you to start a discussion on the talkpage about whether the image should now be included. This could be flagged up in the usual places - WP:RFC/ARTICLES and WP:VP. If consensus as to this image has changed, so be it. But I think the onus is on the person seeking now to include the image to demonstrate this. Best wishes, WjBscribe 14:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I have created a Kylie Minogue WikiProject to help expanded and create articles concerning Minogue. Please feel free to join up. :) -- Underneath-it-All 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please correct or adress the matter of Avril Lavigne's parents: in the second paragraph, it states her parents are of Quebecois origin, but later on specifies that her mom was Franco-Ontarian and father "French-born". Thus neither are Quebecois. If you verify the Wikipedia sections on "Quebecois", then you see that her parents don't apply. July 10, 2007 Joel

Hmmmm. From reading the article, it would seem that neither statement about her parents is reliably sourced. I don't personally know which one is correct. I've added {{fact}} tags to both statements for now. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dude. Joel, 12 July, 2007

Thank you for making a report about 172.148.83.58 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. In this case he has not received any warnings at all. Regards ^Khukri 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The IP in question is being used by an indefinitely blocked vandal, hoaxer and abusive sockpupeteer. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

if that is the case, it needs to go to WP:SSP. That IP could be shared or from an institution, and the rules are clear, a block will be issued if a recent final warning has been issued. As far as I can see this IP has only done two prior edits, and hasn't been warned for them. ^Khukri 22:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of them. For future reference, they're all speedy deletable under WP:CSD#U2. Leebo ^T/C 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks very much for that. Sorry about the cock-up... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal. No harm done. Leebo ^T/C 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of this bug on the WP:TW talkpage. Hopefully, it'll get sorted out. --Kurt Shaped Box 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the talk page under "Is Avril Really Post Grunge?" Speedboy Salesman 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Posted again :D Speedboy Salesman 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block Frankiegunther123 (talk · contribs) because he seems to be a new editor who doesn't understand why we don't use fanforums as sources. I don't think this is vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not and the list immediately preceding on that page), but his unresponsiveness to talk page messages isn't a good sign. I left a long message explaining things on his talk page. Let me know if this continues and I will follow up. Cheers!--Chaser - T 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sallyrogers2.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kurt Shaped Box 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This picture is important because it demonstrates Sally Rogers out of her television acting appearances and is used to characterize her as herself, rather than as a character. It is difficult to find an alternative image that does the same. User talk: Mark bickley 16:45, 19th July '07

Hi Mark. Have a read of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Examples_of_unacceptable_use, specifically point 17. Fair-use images of living people are almost never allowed on WP. It would be relatively easy for a fan to take/upload a photo of Sally Rogers and release it under GFDL or into the public domain (I have seen several such photos posted elsewhere on the web in the past). --Kurt Shaped Box 18:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you can delete it if you must but it seems pretty pointless looking for another when that one serves the purpose. User talk: Mark bickley 21:00, 19th July '07

Okay we cant use Image:Sallyrogers2.JPG or Image:Sallyrogers.jpg to illustrate Sally Rogers because they are 'non-free' images, so why does every other character of The Bill have images of their character on the actor/actress' page?? What was the point in any of this?? There are other ways to cure bordem! User talk: Mark bickley 23:05, 20th July '07

It's all explained at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. With very few exceptions, you cannot use 'fair use' images to merely show what a living person looks like any more. Using them to depict the *character* in the article about the character is a completely different matter. The only reason that the screenshots/publicity photos are still there in the actor articles is because no-one has noticed/managed to get around to removing them yet. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Mark, you cannot simply use Google Images to find pictures of The Bill's cast and upload them to WP claiming that you created them. Using Photoshop to flip them doesn't mean that you 'created' the image. Kurt Shaped Box 20:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very impressed that you noticed. Well I'm all out of ideas for actor pics then, short of actually taking the picture myself, so I give up. User talk:Mark bickley 18:20 22nd July '07

Registered User:Mark bickley redirecting the talk page of the dynamic IP he currently happens to be using to his own talk page. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry Kurt Shaped Box, I created the redirect because I kept forgetting to log in before editing and I dont check the talk page of my IP, so had anyone wanted to discuss any edits I made with my IP rather than my account, then they could add it on my account talk page and I would notice it. user talk:Mark bickley 18:15 22nd July '07

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) -- Lentower 03:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kurt, You Been trying to block my original account User:JJonathan twice because I was created the article Tatyana Ali's second studio album but, I'm so sorry that I call you faget because my original account got ended at the time.

I will re-created "Tatyana Ali's Second studio album" at the time.

Please call my house number <removed>

Thanks! --172.135.10.250 00:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd mention how much I liked your username. =) I <3 Nirvana... --Theunicyclegirl ^talk 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is out of order, but there's a somewhat contentions AfD (here) that has received little outside attention. Since the AfD was initiated, a number of single purpose accounts (likely sockpuppets) have started editing (and discussing on the talk page) the article; not !voting, fortunately. In any case, I wanted to see if some AfD regulars could stop by and weigh in. I'm not looking to sway !votes here—I haven't targeted deletionists; I'm asking editors that seem to !vote a lot on music-related AfDs. No reply is necessary but your opinion is valued. Pr 2.0 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

that does not need to be deleted. so do not delete it, because it the name of her new album. and i don't know what you mean by being nominated.

what are you talking about

how do you become a adminstructor

Could you please check if images have a fair use rationale and a source before labeling them as images for deletion via Twinkle? Thanks. Miranda 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the image has a source and fair use rationale was never in dispute. It does however fail the first Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria in that a free equivalent could be created to replace it ("pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture"). I tagged it as such. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Spice Girls broke up almost seven years ago. It is rare that they come back together. Miranda 22:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There will be an opportunity to take photos of the girls at the upcoming shows. It's also highly probable (considering how huge they were) that someone has personal photos of them from back when they were together for the first time. All it takes is to scan them in and release them under GFDL. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kurt, I have forwarded the video link to the Royal Gibraltar Police for them to deal with. Will let you know if I get any feedback from them. DuncanHill 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good man. I was just about to do that myself. I've been searching for an email address for them (failing that, I was going to phone them in the morning). It might be worth saving a copy, in case YouTube delete it. Don't know if you've seen the other video posted by that user - the same kids trying to chase a gull chick off a cliff. Absolutely vile. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to save vids from Youtube - do you? I haven't looked at their other vids, and don't think I will either. DuncanHill 01:03, DuncanHill 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am ready to speedy the cat you tagged; please check out the 3 articles categorized. Dancebeat did some edits (more than just adding the cat to them), please make sure that the edits are otherwise OK - I don't know enough about the subject to be able to be sure. Appreciated. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The cat has now been deleted; I just wanted to make sure that the deletion didn't obscure his tracks. Thanks for checking and fixing. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. After noticing your edits in the SG's article I have a quick question. The link you are showing is to examples of when images shouldnt be used, but, in my interpretation of what you're saying at least, you classifying the article as a discography. From what you are saying, and the link you provided, I dont see any reason not to include a couple of album or single covers in the article - unless Ive missed something, so can you elaborate please. Looking through other articles, many of which are featured articles relating to bands or artists, most include album covers in one form or another.Rimmers 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, non-free album covers are now only permitted in the individual articles about the album concerned. I've certainly seen many such images removed in similar circumstances recently. Reading the policy again, 'Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary' and 'It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot' seem to apply here. The album covers are basically only being used for a decorative purpose in the main SG article (there is no discussion of the covers themselves, for instance) - and are available at the main album articles anyway. I will attempt to clarify this at the admin board, if you wish. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, can you clarify it with an admin.Rimmers 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Image_use_on_the_Spice_Girls_article.... Feel free to add your $0.02. :) Seems as though the images are back now, though I'm going to hold off doing anything about them until this has been properly discussed. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kurt. What do you think of the point i raised on the talk page of Evan, about Big Evil Corp? Also, I plan on adding citations for the page, as it had none. I'm new to the editing of Wikipedia, so can you tell me if the citation i have added is done correctly? Any suggestions/advice would be greatly appreciated. Dmcgrigor 10:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making the report! As soon as I looked at his contributions, without context, I warned him for blanking your user and talk pages. Once I saw the contributions and compared against the puppeteer account (and at least one other puppet today), then I went ahead and blocked him for sockpuppetry. Again, it's a good report; thank you for submitting it, and let me know if that article becomes so targeted for abuse that it should be temporarily protected. —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The impetus came from the recent FAC for Bald Eagle, where it was requested that images of captive birds be removed and replaced with wild ones. I thought the point was a valid one, images of wild birds are preferable in my mind. I guess I feel there is too much of a focus on so many animal articles on fluff - particularly animal x and popular culture sections, rather than focusing on the biology of the animals. This is particularly true of the parrot articles which for the most part are awful and have too much aviculturalist POV nonsence (the XYANDZ Conure is a great pet and loves cuddles and companionship - bleaarghhh.) Using, wherever humanly possible, images of wild birds drags attention back to the fact that this is a family (and order) of wild animals. We definately need to focus more on natural plumages. While it is impossible to have a photo of a wild bird in the species accounts, it is good to use them as much as possible when talking about their biology (as I am doing in the current collaboration parrot). That we don't have better photos of wild parrots is a product of the technical difficulties of getting them. They are flightly little blighters. I kind of hope also that emphasising wild birds might reduce the instances of me also that have cluttered up so many pages where everone puts a photo of their polly (or whatever species is involved). That Amazon one you re-added, for example, doesn't even have species information on it.

Moreover the choice of species was more than just a selection of wild images. I was trying to achieve a sense of the range of true parrots, both taxanomically and distribution wise, which I feel was lacking. A couple from South America (conures, amazons, macaws) one from Africa, one from Asia, and many from Australasia (a nestorid, two broadtails, two lorikeets). I'd love to get another African or Asian (I think I know a hanging-parrot one) or a Polynesian one (I'm off there soon and will try my damndest). But I hope this explains why I did what I did. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably have better luck asking at WP bird about the amazon, we managed to ID the three species at the salt lick there. As for the macaw, it might be better image to illustrate the point about parrots being the only bird to feed with one foot on the main parrot article. And the bedgie one is okay, but it irks me that we do not have one single photo of the species in the wild. We'll get one eventually I guess. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, although I must admit I was totally baffled until I got to your explanation! Jimfbleak 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to remove rascist garbage from IP talk pages as I did here. Please dont editt he page and leave such statements in place, thanks, SqueakBox 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Knowing your fascination with seagulls, I thought you might be interested in this video that recently got added to the Snopes site. Enjoy! Matt Deres 10:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi KSB (if I may call you that).

I noticed your flagging up of the copyvio text on The Lords of the New Church. I've made a comment on the talk page suggesting we revert to the version prior to the addition of the copyvio, but there have been no replies. As no admin appears to have looked at the page since you put up the copyvio notice, would you be OK with me reverting as per my suggestion? Thanks, Lancevortex (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

Hi. Sorry man - I didn't see your post on the talk page. I have now done just as you suggested, as you were 100% correct. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kurt. Lancevortex (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey you left a warning on a user who left some racist comments on Talk:Nigger. I just wanted to note that last warnings don't get dished out on the first offense even if they're racist jerks. CJ 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way I can stop this 'person' attacking my homepage under different names. I have requested protection for VICS no answer yet though. I don't care about the page, but it's the principle. Greg Smith 2 21:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Great minds think alike! Greg Smith 2 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, that was an error! docboat 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters to you or not, but I'd be happy to semi-protect your userpage if you want. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer (I just came online as I got hit) but I think I'll leave it as it is for now. By vandalizing my user pages, he's actually making it easier for me to find and revert his other subtle vandal edits... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 13:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Just thought I'd offer. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, mate. Appreciated. --Kurt Shaped Box 13:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oop, sorry, Kurt. I didn't find anything that seemed relevant to your question about the dark plumage on the head of winter gulls being related to the black cap on some gulls. Tons of stuff about plumages, but nothing about whether a black cap in Laridae is ancestral or derived. I will dig some more.--Eriastrum 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm not sure how that happened, as you can see, it was supposed to revert the vandalizing IP address' edit...very weird... Dreadstar † 20:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. I didn't know why the editor in question was banned, normally, I wouldn't delete a legitimate article just because of who wrote it, but in this case since the editor was banned for adding misinformation, and the article was unsourced, I got rid of it. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 19:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know. I used your user page design. I found it cool ;) Happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not think me out of line, but I've removed all your tests from User talk:Example. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that userpage and talk page are not there for experimentation (such as welcomebot scripts, etc), as stated on the userpage: "Example is a account created by User:CesarB to be used in examples. This user page is often used as a link to an article, found in a lot of guidelines and other examples. Note to new users: This is not a testing space. Please experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox." I debated whether to even let you know, but I thought it would be rude to simply remove all your welcome scripts without a note as to why. I realize you're not a new user, as I have seen you around Wikipedia frequently, but perhaps you just were not aware that User:Example is used only for examples, not for tests. Granted, it is a bit strange, lol. If you want to test scripts, feel free to do so on my talk page, I'll happily be a guinea pig for you! Ariel♥Gold 12:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I'd seen quite a few other users testing scripts there, so I figured that no-one was really bothered about it. I was actually intending to revert my additions - but I was called away from my machine. Thinking about it, I could probably have just tested my new install on my own talk page. Thanks for the heads-up - I won't do it again. --Kurt Shaped Box 13:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries at all! And yeah, I see it happen often as well, usually it gets reverted, but I'm serious, I offer my talk page to you for testing purposes! Feel free to test new things there, if you ever wish to do so! Ariel♥Gold 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm done testing at the moment - but I'll bear it in mind. :) You can do likewise with my talk page, if you like. Hmmmm. Thinking about it, would a dedicated talk page sandbox in userspace really be such a bad idea? --Kurt Shaped Box 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, I've had reason to need talk page testing space before, but I usually just abuse test on a friend's page, ~*Giggle*~. Ariel♥Gold 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits in the Avril Lavigne page. 60.230.2.29 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)60.230.2.29|A Guest

Hello. I just want to let you know that there is some references on the contralto and mezzo-soprano pages. Even though there is some on there, are they at risk of deletion as well?

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 22:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

I'm not personally going to be nuking the existing list - I'm just saying that it needs sourcing eventually (I may however revert any more unreferenced additions for the sake of keeping the list manageable). If the singers on the list are notable, it's more than likely that professional music reviewers/biographers will have commented on their vocal ranges in the past - the information is almost certainly out there. I just wish that the IPs (and it mainly is IPs - though several of them *do* belong to a banned user who deliberately inserts misinformation into various articles on a regular basis) who continually add their favourite pop/rock stars to these lists could take the time to do a little bit of research. It's only fairly recently that I noticed for myself just how much the vocal range lists and categories were being misused. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming it was an error...but why did you request speedy deletion for the sandbox? IrishGuy ^talk 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned on the Twinkle talk page that updates had been made to the speedy deletion section of the script. I was just testing it out (in the past, updates tend to have broken things quite badly). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. OK. :) IrishGuy ^talk 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as I think you're experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, okay - I'll give it a shot, see what happens (run it up the flagpole, see who salutes, etc., blah ;) )... Thanks very much for the support, mate - I feel a bit honoured... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)