Sent the email - but still the same page. Please advise. Talk 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I must admit to being completely discouraged and frustrated. After spending numerous hours writing and editing the UMHB article, in one fell swoop you arbitrarily replace all of it with your very abbreviated version. You accuse me of "numerous copyright violations" without even listing them. I am unaware of any. You probably can't even imagine how long it took me as a new user to figure out how to use Infobox_University, and you deleted it as well with no explanation. Check out Austin College, St Edwards University, Baylor University, and many others that I checked for ideas. Why was ours reduced to a bare mention? It cannot be our "small" size when much smaller universities have "rated" much more space with very similar content. It smacks of some kind of prejudice that surely must not be the case.
I really do appreciate your efforts as a volunteer to do what must be thankless hours and hours of editing for the cause of building a strong and respectable Wikipedia. That is laudable and I support that. I do not appreciate such severe editing and authoritarian tone ("DO NOT RESTORE IT AGAIN") without truly constructive help. I reiterate "arbitrary" because rather than offer any help, you simply substitute your hugely abridged version. Surely there must be a better way to treat writers who are really trying than to be totally offensive. I respect your position and great power. Please use it with more sensitivity and a little empathy along the way. Meanwhile, let's just restore it to what it was before I appeared on the scene and tried to be helpful. I'm very sorry to have wasted so very much of my time, and apparently yours as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afaprof01 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I recently posted an image to accompany an article about an radio celebrity. You removed it. For my own guidance, and perhaps yours, I would be interested in knowing on what basis it was removed. The picture in question was taken by a staff member of the organisation that issued the picture. This means that under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK law) the ownership of the copyright of the picture rests with the photographer's employer. The said employer issued the photograph as a publicity picture for free use in articles about the person featured. As Wikipedia's copyright clearance form does not have a specific category for pictures issued by the copyright owner for free use, I chose the nearest category: issued by the copyright owner for use by Wikipedia, which in effect amounts to the same thing. There is no breach of copyright in the use of this picture. Consequently, I would be grateful to know your reasoning in removing it. This is not the first time someone has removed an image from one of my articles. What is particualrly galling is that I am a professional journalist who lectures in copyright and therefore feel I do know a little about what I am doing! What is your qualification in copyright matters? And indeed, what training in copyright law do Wikipedia adminstrators get? - Brenmar 10.08 GMT 20 November 2006
Does Wikipedia charge money for material it redistributes? Brenmar 3.00am GMT 30 November 2006
I'm quite annoyed that you've deleted an article I wrote without any signs of discussion concerning that article. You've quoted copyvio in the deletion record but that's done little remove the immediate assumption I now make that you enjoy abusing your administrative priviledges and that you don't mind irritating wikipedia users. Dbennetts 11:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A kind Wikipedian has suggested you put 'Kenilworth Primary School' in my user space for me to work on while the copyright issue is resolved. I couldn't find the AfD for my article which perhaps again highlights the fact that you've not followed protocol on this one. Dbennetts 12:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need advice with regard to an editor persisting in adding the category "South African Jew" to an article Selig Percy Amoils which I started. The subject is a living person and I feel that his "Jewishness" is a private matter and that without his express consent, it should not appear in this article. I am going by what I feel is intended in WP-Biographies of living persons, which cautions editors not to include insensitive material in articles. What do you suggest I do? Thanks Paul venter 13:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion has also been sought. Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion, and ethnicity is not covered by WP:BLP. Interestingly, one of the disputes is that Mr Venter quoted the subject's exact date of birth while other editors removed it. WP:BLP does have something to say about that: "Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date."--Runcorn 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that caution with regard to a living person's birthday would be advisable normally. In this case the subject of the article provided the exact birthdate, knowing that it would be included in the biography, so that the usual caution would be unnecessary. With regard to the subject's Jewishness, whether ethnic or religious, my feeling is that in terms of WP:BLP editors are urged not to include potentially harmful material - calling for no less tact and sensitivity displayed in handling of the birthdate.Paul venter 06:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again! In the Greek mythology, I tried to cite Hesiod's Theogony from the Wikisource. You can see the citations in notes 21 and 22. Is there any better way to cite the Theogony from Wikisource? I saw how you cite Cimon in Ephialtes, but does this work here? I also saw that in Wikisource there is yet no homeric hymn. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many pass or fails does an article need to pass or fail FA. Kyriakos 07:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. :) Megapixie 07:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The email you asked for giving permission to use BPI material for the article, has been pasted on my talk page. Thank you for helping! Paul venter 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you deleted this image. I presume this was over a question of fair use? I would have preferred that you tag it with a cpvio template and give me a notification on my talk page. Instead I have to notice the file is missing and track down the edit history. Since this was not a blatant copyright violation, more a question of interpretation, please assume good faith and follow proper process for questions of fair use. -- Dgies 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a note on my talk page from a guy about an image I deleted which he was surprised by, as he apparently didn't get a talk page notification. I've seen a bunch of your notifications on people's talk pages, so I know you usually do these, but do make sure to give one every time; it's important that people get a chance to comment before a deletion. --RobthTalk 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your noble effort in raising Theramenes out of the darkness of historical obscurity. The George Psalmanazar International Appreciation Society is now processing your application, and as soon as its, um, "international director" is issued a replacement credit card (presumably within the month), a donation will be made in your name to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Society extends our sincerest apologies for the delay.--Pharos 03:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For submitting an article that was identified as a contest winner (as an honorable mention) I herby award you the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award. Congradulations, and better luck next time. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to remove the images from any pages, the rfu ones aren't being delinked by orphanbot. It's kind of a pain, but... :( - cohesion 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you recently removed the link to a deleted image from the Evanescence article. I'm not sure who handled its deletion, but I strongly protest this and don't understand why it was deleted. Do you know why it was deleted? —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Robth, I wanted to ask my own question regarding this issue. While I fully appreciate your position and stance, and intend to uphold it as best I can, I don't understand why promo images are allowed at all, if such an image isn't allowed here. Are they strictly for those images of products which have yet to hit market, for example, or are there other allowable uses? I was also under the impression that a single image was acceptable on an article. Thanks for your time, and for your assistance in this matter. Cheers, and happy Thanksgiving! -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Robth. I've been working on my new article and I figured out that I could use your advice again. Kyriakos 06:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've got a big angry mob after me with torches and pitchforks. Mostly just Sebbing and Irpen, who have sworn blood revenge. I can't say I'm surprised, but... I hope I can count on your help on this. So far they've done this and this (as well as this and this, which you already saw). I'm basically being attacked by whatever means at hand for implementing a policy they don't like. —Chowbok ☠ 07:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Okay, that sounds fine. I wouldn't have gone around canvassing in the first were it not Sebbeng finding every single person who'd had a dispute with me and letting them know. It was a bit unnerving. —Chowbok ☠ 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. You said that, 'Although you are right that anybody has the right to nominate any article at any time, it is probably best..to check the history and see if someone is actively involved in editing it over the past few days; if no-one has been editing it recently, you should certainly go ahead and nominate it. If, on the other hand, someone is actively editing the article, you should probably ask them if they are planning to nominate the article soon.' I would recommend you put these suggestions in the nomination procedure in FAC-instructions so it's transparent and others are aware of these customs, but these suggestions would slow-down the development of the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and I know that's something you don't want. What can seem like etiquette or wikiquette to some, can be obstructive to Wikipedia as a whole. Even if you pour your heart and soul for years into an article, you don't have more rights over it than anyone else, that's the way Wikipedia works. Recognition is already available in the form of stars and so forth and shouldn't be tied into the nomination process as that prevents good articles getting read more widely. An FA like Salvador Dali is getting over 8000 views a day [1] whilst El Greco is currently getting anywhere between 10 and 1000 i.e. several thousand people could be missing out on this every day until it gets 'perfected'. See you in the history pages Tom 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for putting it in the FAC instruction template, the trick with those instructions is to strike a balance between putting in all the useful instructions we'd like to have and keeping the instructions short enough that people actually read them. In this case I think the situation you ran into is rare enough that adding to the template probably wouldn't be worth it. It's ok to learn through experience, and it isn't like you actually did anything wrong. --RobthTalk 04:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tpbradbury"
Hello, I see you are a custodian, learned of your knowledgeability in the fair use RfC issue. I am in the middle of negotiating with a photographer for a free license on an image posted previously as a fair use item. He wants it to be in Wikipedia but there is a language barrier and he needs help understanding what his choices are. I am worried am going to explain it poorly to him. He is from Switzerland and asked me to keep it simple and short how I explain it, not send him a link to a legal manual. Can you help me? I am conversing with him via email. I do not want to post his email address publicly here unless I get his approval. If you want to talk to me in email about this, my email address works in my box here. It is about an image Chowbok tagged and an additional one as well so I don't want to delay explaining the licenses to this person. I don't want him to be confused. He is a professional. I want him to understand well enough that he even opts not to license it if it is not best for him. We could try to get something else if it is not the right thing for him. But I think he would like to do this if we can just help him understand. What protects his photo credit best? GFDL? CC BY SA? Also, the GFDL mentions in the text that someone copying 100 copies or more must be given the source code, which is meaning a software package. For a photo, I hope the "source code" would not be any greater image than what he gives us to put in Wikipedia. He may even decide to give us a bigger image than what we have up currently. I am in the middle of trying to answer this photographer and am worried I'm going to write something he won't understand or that's too long. – Bebop 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(De-indent) If it is CC-by-SA licensed it is usable for either project. Licensing of that sort applies not just to one project but to all reusers. --RobthTalk 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remembered the help you provided in explaining fair use criteria on Image talk:Evanescence 1.jpg before. I've referred back to it several times already. If there is any way you could again help provide further explanation on Image talk:Katherine Moennig.jpg to help our understanding of the issue. Thanks again! Roguegeek (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to put your input on this. I appreciate it a lot. Roguegeek (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your support in the RFC (and the constructive criticism as well). It's been very encouraging.
Now I have a couple questions relating to Irpen. He is still simply removing RFU tags from images (here's the latest one). If I keep putting them back, he reports me for 3RR. How should I handle this?
Also, you probably saw it already, but note this comment of Irpen's. I take this to mean "if Chowbok doesn't capitulate, we'll take him to ArbCom". Bearing this in mind, what advice do you have for me? I may resume tagging images soon. —Chowbok ☠ 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
False summary as obvious to anyone who read the original text. --Irpen 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the current wording of the RFU tag that dictates how it is to be dealt with (responded with RFUD and never removed under any circumstances) was not achieved by consensus and the tag being protected impede's the tag's improvement. The tag disputes the compliance with policies the same way as the NPOV tag as explained above. Both are subject to 3RR as I explained above in detail. Otherwise, please provide the 3RR policy clause that claims so, preferably not edited WRT to this issue within last, say, two months, like a sneaky "update" of the FU policy. Chobowks claim that RFU tag is similar to AfD does not hold water. That would be IfD. The analog to RFU in article space is "PROD" and note that PROD may be removed at any time and may not be replaced. Nevertheless, I do see an argument to treat RFU similar to POV or ACCURACY tags. But no way you can make a case for similarity between AfD and RFU. As such, RFU certainly falls under 3RR policy. At the same time, it should not of course be removed by edit warring. Removal is acceptable, similar to NPOV or ACCURACY tags, if there seems to me a clear majority formed on the particular case or the tagger failed to explain his/her problems with the image.
Also, from the mere common sense it follows that if the fairuse image has an elaborate and/or self-evident rationale, whoever questions it needs to explain how s/he disputes such rationale. As such, the tag placer should initiate a discussion and tagging the article without initiating such discussion is both uncivil and meaningless as users would have no idea what exactly is disputed. Of course the requirement to explain the user's grief with a particular image obstructs the opportunity of multi-thousand wanton-tagging but judging by the community response, such practice is found highly disruptive. Yes, the burden lies with the FUI uploader to justify the image. However, once justification is provided, the common courtesy as well as common sense requires the tagger to state what exactly is the problem if he sees any.
As of now, I have no idea where this case will end and ArbCom is my least favored outcome. At the same time, Jimbo's authority supersedes that of an ArbCom only when he acts in his God-King capacity or executive (in his Foundation position) authority and not when he simply expresses his opinion. Contrary to what you say, Jimbo said that no argument should go from the "Jimbo said". As long as he opines as a mere Wikipedia editor, the ArbCom would certainly take his opinion with respect but is not bound to accept it. At the same time Jimbo may order things certain way or overrule the ArbCom decision. This, however, hasn't happened yet to the best of my knowledge.
I am not "attacking" Chowbok. Criticizing someone's action is not the same as attacking. If, however, I slipped into attacking Chowbok directly rather than specific action, this was a poor judgement on my part. I will be careful to make sure this does not happen. --Irpen 08:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. If Chowbok's activity will bring him in front of the ArbCom, it will not be the case about the policy as ArbCom does not rule on policies themselves. ArbCom primarily addresses the behavioral issues. Chowbok's combative style, incivillity, rudeness, arrogance and self-righteoussness are independent of the policy issue. Jimbo likes the policies to be applied and enorced. So do all of us. Jimbo nowhere expressed the approval of Chowbok's attitude towards other users. If Chowbok's behavior continues to be disruptive and the behavior is brought to the ArbCom's attention, ArbCom will look at the behavior narrowly and will accept and reject the case. From what I have seen, ArbCom does not tolerate the disruptive behavior even if claimed to be motivated by good intentions.
Second, I totally agree with you as you say above: "once the disputed tag is placed, the discussion should take place." My point exactly, but good faith and commons sense requires the tagger to point out first how the image, its rationale, licence and source are unsatisfactory taking into account the specific article to which the fair use claim is made. If no rationale is given, rationale is frivolous or obvious false, the tag is self-explanatory but there are quite a few cases where tag is placed atop of a well in good faith provided rationale. If the disputed tag is placed over such rationale, the discussion should take place. If the tagger does not initiate a discussion, the tag is impossible to address, and, additionally, it's placement is incivil, disrespectful towards users who took time to work on the article, searched the suitable image and gave an elaborate explanation. Such tag is analogous to NPOV tag not supplied with the adequate explanation at the article's talk. --Irpen 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. And you in good faith explained that at the image's talk. I responded and a civil discussion is taking place there. Chowbok does not bother to explain anything at all at the article's talk. It makes a whole lot of difference. No tag was ever arbitrary removed to the best of my knowledge if the tagger explained his reasons at talk page elaborating specifically on the fair use claim of the given image towards the given article. Chowbok was requested multiple times to start the conversation that, as you said, are incumbent upon the tagger. No wonder that Chowbok's unexplained tag are received differently than the tags of other user (or of Chowbok), when a reasonable explanation was provided. --Irpen 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the sense of how much effort it is reasonable to demand to obtain a hypothetically possible free replacement. Some demands are realistic, some are not even if hypothetically implementable. I will respond to the conserns you have about that particular image at the image's talk. Please do raise such issues in the future and explain to your disciples that they owe the counterexplanations if the original explanation is presented. Such counterexplanation should be reasonably detailed to address the specific claims in connection to the specific article as each case differs from another. --Irpen 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Yet, admiteddly. Too many things at opnce. If you mean the question about Cox page, I will continue the discussion at the image page where it belongs. --Irpen 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an interesting debate going on at Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg (regarding Image:Wheatus 2005.jpg). It has a potential effect on many other images, and I'm really not sure where I fall on this. If you'd like to chime in, your input would be valued.
Also, did you know about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali? I thought you might be interested. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
You may or may not be aware of the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, which is now approaching its eighth weekly episode, on which I'm a regular presenter. This episode, we'd like to cover the Esperanza dispute now that the dust has had time to settle, and would very much like for you to come on the show to talk to us about it. We'll also be inviting a few representatives of Esperanza to provide an opposing view.
All that would be required are a microphone, a reasonably fast internet connection, and a free copy of Skype. We'll likely be recording at around 1500 UTC on Saturday, although feel free to suggest an alternative time if this wouldn't suit you. You can also join us in #wikipediaweekly on FreeNode prior to the podcast. Thanks for your time, and I hope you can join us on the weekend. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robth. I noticed you do a good amount of work on copyright issues. Would you mind taking a look at this and let me know what you think? I would appreciate your time and comments. Thanks! Regards, Accurizer 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I've put some thoughts together at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands about whether (and when) non-free photos of bands are replaceable. If you have an opinion and want to weigh in, I'd value your input. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you deleted Horizontal directional drilling, I assume it is some sort of copy vio , but the page still exists in another language. as the history and discussion page has now gone, I have no way of salveging something, the article was comprehensive as I remember, and the vio just needed a simple rewording of one paragraph. I had no input to the article, but it was interesting and useful for explaning the Tunnels under Fremantle Prison Can the deletion be reversed, and the article fixed of any copy vio, or is this not possible?
03:37, 16 November 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) deleted "Horizontal directional drilling" (content was: '{{copyvio|url=http://www.bakerhughes.com/bakerhughes/_HDD/intro.htm}}nl:Horizontaal gestuurd boren')
Thanks for your help.Ghostieguide 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HERE is a "Free use" pic of Hostettler ({{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}}). 68.39.174.238 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Robth! No worries! There are still some things that need sourcing/doing for the article. If you hit the talk page, I'm in the middle of a Good Article assessment. The page needs a more thorough and sourced Criticisms section (Carol Gilligan, among others are good critics) and a Continued Relevance section (James Rest and his Defining Issues Test builds from Kohlberg, among others). I've gone to a couple of (local) libraries, but they are now tapped. A breadth of Jane Loevinger, James Fowler and Martin Hoffman are other authors that I can't get, those would be good too.
Thanks for still helping out, I've really been trying hard to make this article stellar. Good psych articles are unfortunately pretty hard to find 'round wikipedia, so i hope to change that a bit with this one. JoeSmack Talk 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite book}}
|coauthors=
|author=
Hey, whatever you did to refu-c made it so now it warns you it must subst it even if you did. I reverted it; can you take a look and see what the problem is? Thanks... —Chowbok ☠ 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you may bring attention to my essay... I wrote it for it to be read. Of course I expect that my assertions will be controversial and plenty of folks will disagree, but that's just the nature of things. The easiest way to link to the essay is by using [[User:Matt Britt/DJDW]]. -- mattb @ 2006-12-04T21:05Z
@ 2006-12-04T21:05Z
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ShadowDancer.jpg - should I delete this or not? I have questions about this. It was submitted as a promo photo by the band and depicts a lineup that there may never be another image of, from the past, the lineup on a 1995 album by this group. The band leader actually scanned liner notes he had laid out because he could not find the original photo by Joe Fish that he'd used for the liner notes and he emailed me that as a promo photo in the past. Now with all the "don't use promo photos" talk I have at least temporarily removed the image from the article. I replaced it with an "album cover" of a different, earlier album. The photographer for the photo involved is too busy to write back and give CC licensing or else not inclined to give it because I emailed him and another person who knows him also did. So I don't have CC licensing and it's basically a scan from a liner notes photo submitted as a promo photo by the band, who paid the photographer in full for the photo originally and that is why they felt it fine to use as a promo photo. I do not understand the policy on promo photos. I only know chowbok disapproves of them and goes about tagging images if they're promo photos so I thought I had to get rid of all fair use promo photos. So all I know to do is avoid promo photos like the plague even if the band gives it to me as promo and the lineup no longer exists and it is not possible to get a photo of these people. Maybe some day someone in the lineup will miraculously turn up with a "live picture" or something, so maybe it is "possible" that one will turn up? If you feel it should be marked for deletion, the photo is not now in the article at least for now due to my concerns I do things right, and feel free to mark it for deletion if it should be or let me know if I can use it or not. Thank you. – Bebop 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: my understanding from you is that if a scan is made of an album photo by me (as opposed to something sent to me by a band leader who submits a closeup scan of a tiny part of a linernotes page from a photo he had paid for, as an official promo photo of a past lineup), I'm not allowed to crop it and you told me that I can't use an "album cover" rationale to illustrate people in the picture, just to illustrate the album itself. Thus if the back of Behind the Magnolia Curtain album has two photos, one of which shows people who played on the album, I can't crop in on that and use it (and I have not) to show the band members. And the back side of the album is too hard to see in detail in the reduced size I would use in an article layout. The people would be unrecognizable if I just showed the entire back cover. When an "album cover" rationale is used for an image, must it be the ENTIRE cover without cropping? We are not allowed to discuss in the photo cutline something in one photo on an album cover that has two photos on the back, right? It must just illustrate the "back of the album" and must show the entire back cover without cropping? So if I had had a paragraph describing part of the back cover, I could not close in on that pertinent part to show it in a cropped "album cover" illustration -- only can show the entire back cover or front cover? (I don't remember reading where we can't crop an album cover, but I'm thinking this is the case.) Note: I have not written a paragraph relevant to part of the back cover, nor will I because it would be too much detail for the article anyway, but I was thinking about how to handle all album covers in the future. Thanks. – Bebop 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to re-create the article on Herbert Saffir without copyvio, but I'm having trouble finding sources which don't back-track to the Wikipedia article you deleted, and the copyright problems page doesn't have a real history or usable archive. What was the source of the material which was copied for that article? Argyriou (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In the past, however, attempts to use Mediawiki:Sitenotice or Mediawiki:Watchdetails to publicize policy proposals have been met with strong disapproval from the community."
can you give examples.--Zigzag8 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for unprotecting that image. Can you also take a look at Image:Australian $10 note 1988.jpg? That's probably not supposed to be protected anymore either. —Chowbok ☠ 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of a message to Chobok:
Image:Rinat Shaham 2.jpeg
I have just noticed that the above image has been removed. I got it personally from the artist Rinat Shaham to upload it, and I believed I put all the necessary copyrights notices. Pls advise what is needed to return it.
Micke5000 07:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Robth—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was nice to meet you on Saturday night. Too bad we didn't get to talk more. I'll see you around. - crz crztalk 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you deleted this page while there was some discussion about it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 November 22/Articles. Is there a good reason not to revert to a non-copyvio version instead of deleting? Thanks! -- Paddu 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the message although it puzzles me. Isn't the default ation after replying = closing? I'll be more careful anyway -- Drini 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be a pain in the arse here, but I'm looking for someone communicate a simple message to another admin. I'll try to be brief... well, as brief as I ever am, anyway:
I'm not even asking for anyone to tell Pschemp that having a free kick at me on ANI and then deleting/protecting her talk page when I comment there isn't exactly sterling administrative conduct. I'm really not trying to make a stink, but hooly dooly, if we want examples of how not to use adminstrator privledges here it is. Wait, I wasn't going to go down that path, sorry...
Anyway, I'm sure Pschemp's a lovely person and a great hockey player, but the burr up her bumm with regards to me needs to go. I'm sure she and I could argue about proper use of sysop rights all day, but I'd just like someone impartial to review the history, tell her I haven't been harrasing her, and get her to not play whack-a-mole every time she sees me.
If you don't want to do this, please do just say "no." I'll simply get on with my life then. -152.91.9.144 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look at this? Something weird is going on here. It says it's on Commons, but the "Image" link is blue, and it has templates that aren't on the Commons page. When I edit it, I don't see those templates there, either. I've never run across anything like this in the thousands of images I've looked at. —Chowbok ☠ 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can I ask your advice about something? You know I've had this page set up where I've got your comments at User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation. User:Jeffness, annoyed with me some image deletion or other, is insisting on adding a lengthy unsigned rebuttal to the page. It's not vandalism, exactly, and when I revert, he throws WP:OWN at me and threatens me with 3RR. I'm honestly not sure what to do here. I realize I don't own it, but am I really obligated to give him equal time in a page I set up in my userspace explaining the situation as I see it? How should I proceed? —Chowbok ☠ 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, while this is userspace, this is presented as the policy to justify unpolicy extreme actions, by a particular user. See also WP:OWN. Jefness is correct in editing it. His edits may be discussed and if wrong, removed, but based on their being wrong not based on the fact that the page is in Chowbok's space. Chowbok should open the discussion with his oponent rather than remove his contributions. --Irpen 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should and most Essays are edited by other users. --Irpen 05:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you recently tagged a large number of images I uploaded. However, I am interested to know why you tagged some of them with 'no source' and 'no rationale', yet deleted others straight away. I am confident I can provide information about both factors for all of them, if given some time, but I want to know why some have been deleted straight away. Please reply on my own talk page. Thanks. J Milburn 11:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweaks you make in El Greco!--Yannismarou 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've deleted the above named article, but I have been unable to find any reason other than a supposed copyright violation (of which there is none). Can you explain? --Beano9763 22:55, 17 December 2006 (GMT)
Hi Rob,
I didn't know where else to leave you a message...sorry, but I would like to know what I did wrong on my Wikipedia page that caused you to delete it. I'd like to rectify the situation. Thanks.
Berniedexter 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this person while cleaning up Category:Wikify from December 2006 and I couldn't help but notice that every single article is a poorly typed stub meeting the criteria for {{db-empty}} (except the ones whose subjects either actually mattered to other users soon enough to escape this fate or were turned into redirects). He hasn't bothered to read up on any of the things left for him to read on his talkpage and left this on Zagalejo's talkpage, asking the guy (?) to edit his articles and did the same thing to Wizardman. Somehow I don't think this behavior is normal for an inexperienced user. I've seen one-hit wonders put more effort into their work! Am I only who finds it strange that someone who intends to stick around can't manage to do better than this, the one and only contribution this guy whose contribs page I'm using as an example because there's no evidence that he's been here since June?--Rmky87 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past months, my friend and I have created and periodicly edited out schools wikipedia article, William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute. At first, we used infromation from our school agenda (such as clubs and sports teams) that was writen by the school and added it to the article. The user user:Centrx said that this information should not be used in a wikipedia article because it comes from the school (he stated this in the schools talk page,talk:William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute). Just because the information comes from the school does that mean i can't add it to the page? Joesixpac 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this interesting article Robth. Shame that you could not get the diagram but we are on a tight schedule. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you kind words. I've given a response in my talk page. By the way, I am jealous of you, because you were there! Why am I living in Athens?! But this will not last for ever!!--Yannismarou 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
