User talk:MCB/Archive 5

Hello! I have entirely re-written the offending article I started (Philosophy of travel) - I see what you mean about it being the wrong style. Is it more appropriate now? I think it now has more of a useable framework. I took off the prod notice - was that the correct thing to do? Is it now safe? Must I do anything else? PSBennett 08:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your help so far - can I make another request? I think there is a way of flagging an article to ask for help with it - I would like to see the Philosophy of travel grow but I am rather inexperienced at using this system. Thanks so much. PSBennett 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2007--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, six of my articles have put up by AfD by the same person and are being voted on all by the same persons.. I was wondering if you could look the articles over and the things written on the discussion pages and give me your honest answer as to should they be up for vote or am I being paranoid? The articles are:

• Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista
• Vinagre Portillo
• Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo
• Alonso R. del Portillo
• Alonso del Portillo-Marcano
• Alonso del Portillo-del Junco

Last week I lost one of my articles and I thought it was a good faith AfD but now with six more up for vote this week I think there is more behind these AfD then good faith. Callelinea 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just at the museum two days ago and the exhibit was for the 390th, maybe it was changed and the webpage has yet to be updated, that I do not know.

As for the current condition, I am looking at the museum map now, and it has it marked at the 390th.

Provided are links to photos of said map.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/97/1002384yd1.jpg http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2690/1002383rd6.jpg

69.254.193.11 July 9th, 2007, 2:11 PM GMT -7

MCB, you might want to take a look at this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:BillyTFried: Threatening Behavior?. Something about Chris Daly just brings out the strangeness in people. Griot 16:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable event. In no other colonial state (that can be found at this moment) would a British Lord help with the charter and founding of a town and it would not happen at all again in Virginia. British Lords did not find it necessary to help with towns in the "new world" not alone come over and help charter and found them. In 1758, this was pretty huge and notable to two countries. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:Mufka and I came to an "agree/disagree" conclusion on the entry, only User:Calton who can't stand me and I can't stand him, has a problem with the entry. I can't confirm it, but the Stephensburgh (later Stephens City) charter/founding might be the only time in Colonial US History that a British Lord participated in the charter/founding of a US town. I can't confirm that, what I can confirm is it is the only time in Colonial Virginia History that it happened.

Thomas Lord Fairfax was actually in, what is present day Stephens City, to "hammer out" the charter and went with Lewis Stephens (founder of Stephensburg, now Stephens City) to Williamsburg and on October 3rd, 1758, the charter and founding of Stephensburgh was approved by the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg. I even have references to the Journal of the House of Burgesses of Virginia: 1758-1761 (pg 35).

If it can be confirmed that the Lord Fairfax was the only British Lord to help in the charter/founding of a US town, then this would be a very cool piece of history and worth noting. I would have to contact the Virginia Historical Society for that, but for now, I can confirm it's Virginia significance.

I am not trying to 3RR or edit war, I am trying everything I can, to show that this piece of, what is considered trivial, is actually something that for that time and era, was pretty huge. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you've undeleted these pictures despite doubts about the age of the partially clothed subjects, the provenance of the images, the ownership, and other issues. Please redelete them at once. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You used your admin powers to restore those photos after you became involved in the IfD debate. In your undeletion summary you said that there were no copyright concerns. I clearly indicated in the IfD discussion that the uploader had a history of image copyright violations. Since you apparently didn't believe me, here are some examples of him: deleting copyright warnings[1] before responding to them,[2] responding to requests to verify authorship with personal attacks[3] after participating for about half a year, and deleting another license warning[4] without responding to it. I also ask that you re-delete those issues at once. Jimbo Wales has said, "Thanks for bringing this to people's attention. I think it will surely be deleted soon.--Jimbo Wales 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)"[5]. ←Ben^B4 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also that the arbcom passed this principle 11-0: "Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." ←Ben^B4 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse all of the above. ElinorD (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means feel free to make that argument in the IfD discussion. I don't personally see this as a WP:BLP or "basic human dignity" issue, or that the images or their use in an article "mock or disparage" their subjects or that the subjects are "victims", but others may disagree. My actions in restoring the images was simply to reverse their pre-emptive deletion that rendered the very vigorous IfD discussion moot. --MCB 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the severe ethical and legal ramifications these images might have on Jimbo's talk and these great editors responded accordingly. Just stop a moment and think, do you really want to un-delete sexually suggestive images of minors who haven't signed a model release? Content aside, these are almost certainly copy-vios. These images have sat, improperly accounted for, for months in articles. The time for leniency is past.VanTucky ^(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one of the points of the article is that sexual suggestiveness is in the eye of the beholder. This type of image is not my particular taste or fetish, but I don't feel compelled to condemn it or insist that it be censored from Wikipedia. (While the article could well exist without example images, it's obviously much better with them.) It's also not at all clear that they are minors. I would be much more amenable to deletion if I thought they really were copyvios -- the uploader has stated that this is a hobby of his, that he enjoys taking these photos, and based on that I don't see any specific reason to doubt his word. I would be dubious if these were highly-professional news, sports, fine art, or event photos -- as an admin I've deleted many of those based on obvious and clumsy bogus claims of ownership -- but these are just party photos that anyone could take. --MCB 21:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to missing the central objections to the images.

• Some of the girls might be underage. Even the slim possibility that might be is a reason for deletion, as child pornography is something Wikipedia can be prosecuted and shut down for.
• There are no model releases provided, nor a cursory mention of their consent to having these images released on the web. Even without the age issue, that alone might have legal ramifications, not to mention ethical ones. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to BenB4 below. I would like to believe that in Wikipedia we proceed in a deliberative and collegial manner, through discussion and consensus, based on fact and evidence, rather than doubt, suspicion, "slim possibilities", and the like. Best, MCB 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked for the legal argument about these issues. A 1994 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Knox, ruled that language in the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 prohibiting the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” can include “non-nude depictions.” The court upheld the conviction of defendant Stephen Knox on the grounds that videotapes he had purchased showing children posing in leotards were marketed as being sexually exciting.[6] Since the uploader added one of the pictures to an article which wikilinks "sexually suggestive" to "erotic," it would not be hard to show that the intent was to show lascivious imagery. Felony charges have been filed in Arkansas, Missouri, and Colorado against operators of "child model" web sites, for example, "engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium," and "employing and enticing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction and for operating a preteen “model” Web site that transmitted the images across state and national borders." I don't think it is good to take the risk. I've found an alternate upskirt image of an Asian adult on Flickr, and so we have no need for the questionable images any longer. ←Ben^B4 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, the cases and prosecutions you mention are of "pre-teen" sites and images; the images being discussed here are not of pre-teens, or necessarily even minors. The replacement image you provided is a good one, and a practical compromise, though I note from the image's page and its Flickr page that there is no model release. If you think that's a legal issue, how is it that this is a more acceptable image? (Again, as I wrote in the IfD, I don't think that's necessarily an issue, but it does seem somewhat disgenuous to then provide an image with no model release, even though its copyright status as CC-BY is acceptable for Wikipedia. I won't propose deletion of the image, as that would violate WP:POINT, but it does seem inconsistent.) --MCB 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the age of the girls and the uploader apparently refuses to say, which suggests that we should err on the side of caution. I admit earlier I was confused about the necessity of a model release, but the fact that the absence of such a release prohibits certain kinds of commercial use suggests that photos of identifiable people may not be compatible with the GFDL in the same way that CC-NC aren't -- an issue I have raised on the Policy Viliage Pump. ←Ben^B4 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting everyone who has previously added to consensus to return to weigh in on an edit war of the over use of "Straight Pride Wear"" clothing store as a link and as a reference source.--Amadscientist 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed your continued contributions and edits done to the Vin Diesel page. I would personally like to thank you and ask you to join the team to help expand on the article and hopefully we can acheive in getting the article to a higher quality status. --67.169.74.95 05:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter August 2007

--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you removed the redirect of page Shane cross because the target page has been deleted. In this case, since there is no interesting history in the article, you can directly nominate the redirect for speedy deletion (CSD R1), for example using the template {{db-redirnone}}. Hope this helps, Schutz 09:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed that you have given a final warning to user Edgeweb for moving pages without discussion. Despite your warnings with the De Havilland Dash 8 page, he has also moved the Panama City, Panama from the correct spelling and punctuation in English to a page with a name in Spanish (Panamá City, Panamá). I'm trying to move the page back to the correct name, but I can't. I think that this user has abused and should be blocked.--Schonbrunn 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's not as obvious as it could be (I accidentally bumped save before I finished typing the explanation, but figured it wouldn't be a big deal, apparently I was wrong), Talk:Novak Djokovic does qualify under {{db-g8}} -- it's a copy-paste "move" of the page and article. The article move has since been reverted, and the above linked talk page's article returned to a redirect, but the talk page for the redirect remains, a duplicate of the real article's talk page. I can see no benefit to keeping both versions, except to cause future confusion trying to figure out why they're different yet supposedly for the same article. The only alternative action I can see would be to simply make the redirect's talk page into a redirect as well, but that seems a bit silly. Why would someone search for the talk page, rather than the article?

Does that clarify why I tagged it for speedy deletion? -Bbik^★ 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense. I'd just been thinking that the talk page wasn't there at all until the copy/pasting, so not being there again wouldn't be any different, but redirects are simple enough anyhow. -Bbik^★ 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFUSCO has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AFUSCO 02:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw your corrections in my latest additions to The Devils (film). No problem with the rearrangement, but I tend to disagree with you on one point. Richelieu appears in two scenes, if memory helps (at least if memory helps). In the second one, he could be described as "borne about in a chair by servants, in the manner of royalty", but in the film's opening scene, he is clearly depicted as wheelchair-bound. Do you know if Ken Russell made any comments about his depiction of the character ? Actually, I was puzzled about this when I saw the film, as Richelieu had no such disability. Please let me know if you have any info, as I also added that bit of trivia to the Cardinal Richelieu article. Wedineinheck 09:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, MCB. Ever since his block expired a few days ago, Edgeweb is back moving pages and disrupting other pages with incorrect information. This user has abused moving pages and should be stopped.--Schonbrunn 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - I left a final warning. --MCB 06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007
--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this account and got the warning; I thought, given the myraid of links posted for each page, posting links to sites germane to the topic was accetpable. Nonetheless, rest assured that I just logged in, read your warning, and will refrain from posting links that are germane to the topic at hand.

Thank you, sir. .--xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

PS...-4K is a bit harsh, no? You brought it to my attention and I refrained from posting links in areas, though germane, where it doesn't belong, per the posting guidelines that I have now read.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx (talk • contribs) 06:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry has been deleted. I don't understand why. Reginald Perrin had issues with the sourcing, but sources were added to meet his concerns. Those sources included references to contemporaneous newspaper articles and other searchable on-line third-party sources. More to the point, he deleted the entire reference to Mr. Warner's education and personal biography those those easily match the standards for the American "Mark Warner", Bob Rae and El Farouk Khaki. I don't see how Mr. Warner's entry is any moe advertising than any of those other entries. In light of the circumstances, please restore the entry forthwith, and if necessary suggest specific edits that would be necessary in your view. Thank you for your attention to this matter. --74.108.106.105 10:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you deleted the old Wikipedia Help Desk page, correctly noticing that it is a cross-namespace redirect and a relic of The Old Days. The problem is, it had a lot of history from before it was a redirect, since moving and renaming was often done in a messy way in the past. Without the history from this page, some of the reference desk archives (and probably some of the help desk too) could become problematic in terms of GFDL (if I understand it correctly). It also makes it harder to work out what happened when and why, which can be interesting and useful. I was wondering if it would be possible to undelete this page, then move it somewhere so that it isn't a cross-namespace redirect. Perhaps moving it to Wikipedia:Original Help Desk or something. We could then make a link to it from the reference desk archives and the history would be preserved. Thanks. Skittle 12:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The page was restored by Rmhermen and turned back into a redirect; however, I asked him to move it from article space to project space. Best, MCB 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you delete those old history pages? What harm were they doing? --24.147.86.187 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lectonar deleted an article some months ago entitled ServSafe on the grounds that it was blatant advertising. ServSafe is a mandatory certification issued to managers and owners in many different restaurants, taverns, and entertainment venues. The license is critical in many occupations and it is impossible to qualify, as an example, for McDonald's management without it. The article was written or can be written so as to not endorse any company, product, or service. I'd like a second opinion as I don't consider the article to be blatant advertising, or no more so than the A+ or CAM certification. Witbcoedus 22:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MCB, i have just noticed that the stub about "Sabrina Deep" has been deleted because it does not meet the WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Beside being a bit concerned about the fact that the afd process starter did not contact me, the author, about his initiative as i understand it is recommeneded in the afd guidelines, i would like to bring to your attention that Sabrina Deep is a porn actress indeed and that she has just set the world record for the largest and longest gangbang ever broadcasted live on the Net and that a set of 8 DVDs covering the whole event is due to be released any soon. According to the WP:PORNBIO guidelines, when a "Performer has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche" or/and when a "Performer has been the participant in a significant event or controversy reported by credible news media" a valid "criteria to determine the notability of pornographic actors and actresses" is reached. Deep is a raising star in the amateur genre and she has been featured several times in very reputable publications such as avn, xbiz, Booble (featured on Wiki), online and offline (xbiz paper magazine has an article about her on the August 2007 issue). On top of that, one of the suggestions for deletion recited:

...To be honest I don't really want to go trawling the internet to discover if a porn star is noteable, but as far as I can see from the content on wikipedia the article does not pass or assert WP:PORNBIO

I can hardly see how someone unwilling to check someone else's notability can claim that that person is not notable. And the other suggestion stated that she is merely a "websex peddler": pornography, nowdays, is the web and often it is true also the contrary and being extremely profilic in the porn industry, using the web as the main distribution channel showuld not be seen as non-notable, but rather the contrary. I have nothing to do with Sabrina Deep, and i neither gain not miss anything from this deletion, but i feel that a discussion about it should be opened, as i see a lot of pron actresses and porn models featured on wiki who have made a one scene appearence on a 70's movie and nothing more and that on today's web porn Sabrina Deep is one of the most notable, recognized and innovative actresses of hardcore sex shot in amateurish style.

Thanks in advance for your attention to this and for letting me know your opinion.

Engenius 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had expressed interest in the above project on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page. This is to inform you that the project is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hotels. Please feel free to remove your name from the project page if you are no longer interested in being a participant. Otherwise, welcome to the project! John Carter 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've criticized my username-related actions on my talk page, and you're saying a lot of things that don't make sense. My best guess is that you have many incorrect and outdated assumptions about the username policy and the process surrounding it.

• You assume that "confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters" is listed as a kind of username violation on WP:U, which has some bold text (which I already pointed out to you) saying that it isn't
• You assume that every violation of the username policy needs to be preemptively blocked (contradicted by WP:U and the header on WP:UAA)
• You assume that I have not talked to AzaToth, who has already declined to change TWINKLE to reflect the changes in the UAA process that happened over the summer -- not even to give an option to leave warnings instead of requesting blocks
• You assume that those who frequent UAA are not completely fed up with TWINKLE reports. Even Until (1==2), who I think shares many of your opinions about usernames, says he sometimes removes reports that provide nothing but a generic reason.
• You seem to have missed months of backlash against username blocks, and the entire reform discussion on WT:U, in which very few people share anything resembling your point of view

Blocking is serious business, and is not something you can do if you're unfamiliar with the policy and the issues surrounding it. I'd recommend you stop making username blocks, or criticizing the username-related actions of others, until you at least read WP:U very carefully.

You are also welcome to join the discussion that you've been missing on WT:U; just be aware that you're advocating a username policy that's even harsher than the one we currently have, and I think you're unlikely to find support for it.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Reality Check NY, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Check NY (2nd nomination). Thank you. Ra2007 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]