User talk:Alvestrand/Archive2

Archived talk page entries starting from 2007-06-01.

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - with unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 12:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an admin ;-)

Congratulations, and good luck! �Snowolf ^How can I help?� 12:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for asking me in the first place! --Alvestrand 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horay!

Congratulation's! You've earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, good work; and, for the future, good luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words of wisdom

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Thanks for those kind words of guidance! :-) --Alvestrand 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Copyright questions

Great questions! Garion96 replied on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Advice for admins and I will reply here. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is funny in that there are usually only one or two admins regularly working it. Right now it happens to be Garion96 and me. The advice at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins is okay, but we should probably update it with what works better in practice, which right now is strikethrough. You don't have to worry about the ones you delete because it's obvious you deleted them. If you decide to keep them, strikethrough. I have started leaving a brief reason in the edit summary when I strikethrough of why I decided not to delete it, but the best place for a complete description is probably the article talk page.

Of course, these are pretty dynamic and we just end up going with what works for the people who are working the page.

Some of the best advice I got back when I started was from User:Quadell, who used to work that page all the time. He told me that even when you can't find the source, or it's offline, sometimes it's an obvious copyvio because they added a huge chunk of "unwikified" text in one edit. When he was in doubt, he left it, which is probably good advice.

A lot of help is also needed at Category:Images with no fair use rationale, where images end up when people tag them as having no fair use rationale. They all have to be verified, deleted, and the links to the images removed from articles. Some admins will just tear through a day and delete everything that was properly tagged. For me, if I come upon an image for which it would be easy to write a fair use rationale (like an album cover) I just do it.

Any other questions come to mind, feel free to ask! --Spike Wilbury 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Timed Automata

Hi, I hope this was the right way to ask you a question. I am on a very tight schedule, so I beg your pardon for any mistakes. I write in reference to your message ( which I obvioulsy saw too late) about the request to delete the article on "Timed automata". I am curious now as to what your reasons might have been. If you remember them, please let me know. -- Vaishak Belle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grokmenow (talk • contribs)

Of course I can't see the article any more.... but my main reason was that it didn't seem to have a published source that used that name for the device. It seemed like a kind of cute trick to teach kids about ways to measure events, but I didn't see any evidence from the article that it was something that had some practical application in some context, or had been described in a way that satisfied notability according to WP:N. The reason it came to my attention was that it didn't link to any other Wikipedia article - I'm scanning through a lot of those articles, and suggesting deletion where I find serious reason to believe it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. Hope this makes it clearer! --Alvestrand 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yep, you are right .. as far as I remember the article, I did ( at that time) give niether a detailed explanation of its practical applications nor link it to other articles in the Model Checking category. Anyway, now that it has been deleted there is not much I can do about it :) except rewrite it again with proper sources and links. Cheers - Vaishak Belle

However, I realize I have still things to say. The fact that they did not contain a published source does not mean that it should have been deleted, should it? It of course should have been tagged heavily ("not enough sources", "improve quaility" etc.etc) but I still dont know if it was a good idea to have it removed. What got me to write the article was that I was on a search for some information on the timed automaton and found that there were no articles about it. So a few weeks later, once I had enough material, I thought I would go back and write a little and hope someone else would improve the quaility. -- Vaishak Belle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grokmenow (talk • contribs)

The right place to keep an article you're working on that is still completely unreferenced is probably as a subpage of your user page. Nobody will touch a page whose name is "User:Grokmenow/Timed automata". I don't remember how long the time was from your creating the article to the prod tag being placed upon it - but it wasn't instant by any means. BTW - please use the signature function (four tildes), rather than leaving a name different from your user ID. It lessens confusion about who-said-what. --Alvestrand 13:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Will do so in the future --Grokmenow 18:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Writing articles as subpages of your userspace until they are perfect is bad. Taemyr 06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions differ - keeping articles in your userspace until they're good enough not to be deleted on sight is considered a Good Thing. See Wikipedia:Userfication. --Alvestrand 10:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userfication is not really helpfull, since it discusses when an existing article should or should not be moved into a userpage instead of deleted outright. Taemyr 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photon belt

Hi. I noticed you contributed a few times to the deleted The Photon Belt and I am trying to get it resurrected and reinstated. See progress thus far on my user page. -[[User:Eep�|Eep�]] 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's a thoroughly dumb belief, totally irrational and wilfully disrespectful of all we know about physics. --Alvestrand 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Eep²/The_Photon_Belt#orbital_wave for disputes to your recent additions. -[[User:Eep�|Eep�]] 02:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links Please remember: it is more important to disambiguate correctly than to disambiguate quickly. Make sure you make the best choice; if you're not sure, leave a note on the talk page and let someone who is more knowledgeable fix it.

Probably the best would be to remove the links, or linking to Van Allen Belts. Taemyr 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the links. The article violates WP:CONTEXT in multiple places. I felt that the relinking was an improvement because the new targets were at least astronomical structures that were commonly called rings or belts; it's been a problem in arguing that the belief is inconsistent with reality that [[User:Eep�|Eep�]] keeps slipping between definitions - claiming that a theory proposing a "galactic superwave" supports the idea of photon belts, for instance. Pinning them to commonly-accepted terms for astronomical phenomena makes it a little harder to get away from criticism by handwaving in this fashion. --Alvestrand 06:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't bash "galactic superwave" to hard, it's the only scientific debunking we have. Taemyr 06:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, There is a RfC on Eep concerned in part with his propensity to want links to DAB's. It might be prudent to let that run it's course before starting to object to links like these. Taemyr 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep makes enemies easily, it seems. I wouldn't mind a page on "galactic superwave" - I consider that (probable) fringe science, but definitely possible to discuss in terms of science - it's not patently offensive like "photon belt". But there are more debunks than the superwave guy's - some of which are found in Eep's links that he cites in seeming *support*. Go figure. --Alvestrand 08:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invited comment

Hi - I'd appreciate hearing your opinion about Talk:Mojibake#Requested move (either there, or here, or on my tak page). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion stated. Be careful to avoid WP:CANVAS. --Alvestrand 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you, and just you, since I know this topic is within your professional background, not because I had any expectation about what your opinion might be. I don't think soliciting the opinions of professionals violates WP:CANVAS, although I suppose there might be a perverse sort of argument that it does (this would take the anti-elitism that Larry Sanger was concerned about a bit too far - see [1]). In any event, thanks for commenting, and I'll be careful. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeadBot Problem

Hey, I can't see the diff, as it lags my computer extremely badly, however I have to ask: Did you use editors notes in the format # [[Article]] - Note ? If not, thats how it reads them becuase that's how every single one was prior to update - so it only reads those. I will update the system to not use this format if necessary, but it seemed like a good system anyway. Thanks, Matt. (Note: Feel free to revert the bots edit if you want to keep the new format, and i'll update the bot. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 23:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I just make the lines read # [[Article]] comment - no dash. Is there any reason why the bot would want to remove anything from a line it isn't modifying for any other reason? I saw the bot adding comments to some pages in some of its other diffs - that's a Good Thing. --Alvestrand 05:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Karlson

It was a while ago but it appears I flagged it because this sentence is plagiarized verbatim: "The son of popular Irish actress Lillian O'Brien, Phil Karlson studied painting at Chicago's Art Institute." (If plagiarized sentences are enough to get bestsellers recalled due to copyright concerns, it seems that Wikipedia articles ought to be as well.) Quatloo 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Admin IRC channel

Hi, per your request on this page, you've been added to the access list for the admin channel. To enter, you need to invite yourself using /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins, then simply join the channel as normal. If you have any problems, PM me on IRC. Regards, Majorly (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Tirah Expedition

The Tirah Expedition was a major military campaign that has had dozens of books written about it. I've just discovered that someone has written an article under the also-used name Tirah Campaign so I've redirected Tirah Expedition to that page for now. I would have thought that anyone who genuinely wanted to check its notability could do so in a few seconds by the simple expedient of doing a Google search on "Tirah Expedition". Nunquam Dormio 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - the criterion for "db-nn" is that the *article* doesn't assert that it's notable. Given the considerable time that had passed since the article was created, with no text except the references, I felt that it was reasonable to ask for its removal. A redirect is a very good solution! --Alvestrand 12:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Rook

I did not put a spam tag on this article, because I am hesitant to do that. He looked somewhat notable, although the article was clearly a violation of copyright rules. I am not very experienced as an editor. I have been flamed by other editors who object to even the mildest tag (stub, notability, etc.), and had pages I edited vandalized. I will often "jump on the bandwagon" when other editors nominate an article for deletion. I am pleasantly surprised that you are even harsher than I am. Thank you for the input! Bearian 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Deadend

Hey, I noticed you are a regular DEP contributor, so I wanted your opinion.

I have made a new template, at Template:Deadend. Could you please comment and/or vote on the templates talk page (here)?

Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

J. Scott Smart

Charles Laughlin's biography of J. Scott Smart was published in 1994. He excerpted this material for a lengthy authoritative Wikipedia article. He also excerpted his biography for an article at Lou Genco's site: http://www.old-time.com/sights/fatman.html

Since Laughlin is the creator of all, it's not clear to me how this is a copyright violation. Pepso2 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. As usual, reusing the same content in multiple places is a problem. Wikipedia:Copyright problems states that "stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion." Note also that Lou Gernco's site is (c) Lou Genco, not (c) Charles Laughlin - it is impossible from the site to say whether Charles has signed over the copyright to Lou or not. Getting Charles Laughlin to send a message to permissions-en (at) wikipedia.org, preferably from an address associated with old-time.com, saying that the copyright belongs to him and he allows reuse under the GFDL should be sufficient. --Alvestrand 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double sigh: Charles Laughlin here. Can you imagine the frustration of someone who spends all the hours I did in writing this article -- yes, using my own previously published material -- only to find out one day that all was for naught because some bureaucrat has decided to delete it cause it doesn't match his/her notion of what's appropriate? What you have actually succeeded in doing is alienate and lose a damned good writer, not merely out of anger, but because why bother? What I do can so easily be undone by someone else on a whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.175.149 (talk)

Good to hear from you. Believe me, it is not on a whim, and it is not lightly done. Accusations of copyright infringement are probably the biggest danger to Wikipedia's ability to function - the day someone gets a serious settlement against the foundation on copyright infringement, the whole show is basically over. You are, as you say, reusing material published elsewhere. We need a statement on file that has some degree of traceability saying that you hold the copyright, and you're licensing the material under the GFDL. Once that's done, the article can be undeleted. Send the mail, and we can go on from there. But don't put Wikipedia in danger by asking that we not be vigilant on the copyright front - believe me, I'd MUCH rather be doing other things than copyright patrol, but I do this because it helps keep Wikipedia operational. SOMEONE's got to do it. --Alvestrand 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you understand that an author cannot be alienated from the copyright to his own work? I have never given anyone exclusive copyright to my writings and never will. Moreover I couldn't if I tried. This has been an issue well settled in the courts. I cannot plagiarize myself, nor can I infringe on my own copyright. I never gave Lou Genco permission to copyright my stuff, nor would he claim to hold the copyright, nor would it ever occur to Lou to try to enforce a copyright he claims for his site against one of the authors on his site. This is just all paranoid officiousness on your part. But I am not going to battle over this. I am simply going to put up a stub for Jack Smart, and hopefully it will stand your eagle-eyed scrutiny. Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles D. Laughlin (talk • contribs)

Trying once again.... in order to give Wikipedia no trouble, we have to have SOME assurance that the person claiming to be "Charles D. Laughlin" here on Wikipedia is the same as the one who's holding the copyright on the text on Lou Genco's site. Ship the mail, and I think we'll be fine. But as long as you're not willing to SAY, in some way that is even remotely verifiable, that you own the copyright and license it under the GFDL, we can't put it up here. --Alvestrand 13:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeadBot

I have answered your comments at User talk:TheFearow#DeadBot Improper Tagging. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFearow (talk • contribs) at 23:25, June 24, 2007

Just adding a timestamp. --Alvestrand 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moments

Hi Alvestrand, I have up-dated the above page as you requested. It probably still needs a little work, please don't delete. Rgds Sue Wallace 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the new text looks a lot more complete than the old one, in addition to being quite distinct! But don't forget to cite your sources! --Alvestrand 05:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User RPD

So what does one do about ihis obvious POV edits? The section is ridiculous, maybe it speaks for itself. E4mmacro

I think we need to de-hype his stuff. As long as it says "CJB says/others say", it speaks for itself, but I don't think we can let the "it's obviously true that <falsehood>" remarks stand. If it's CJB, he will no doubt try to re-hype - so we should be prepared for that. --Alvestrand 09:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Televison

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Central Televison, by Bachrach44 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Central Televison fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

redirect page that was typed incorrectly the first time. Nothing links here

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Central Televison, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

∞Σɛ_Þ²

i have explained to ∞Σɛ_Þ² my point of view,can you please keep up with our discussions??i just like some of his edits and i really want him to stay.thanks muchGrandia01 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching - I see his case as a good illustration of how the Wikipedia society defends itself against a certain type of disruption - one that has wrecked a lot of "open" projects in the past. What matters here is not so much what people are arguing for or against - it's about how they deal with conflicts.

The "Wikipedia way" is to discuss until one reaches some conclusion that a clear majority of participants is happy with, and the minority then accepts the conclusion and works within the resulting restriction. Very often, the outcome is not what any party initially suggested; it's a synthesis of ideas that come up in discussion. Some of these conclusions end up as "policies", but most just result in a certain text in an article.

In order for this process to work, one essential point is civility and respect: you have to respect the possibility that someone else has a better idea than you, and even when you disagree, you have to assume good faith (WP:AGF). If not, people get angry, and angry people don't find consensus.

My personal interaction with Eep is limited to Talk:Photon belt - I quickly realized that I was dealing with a special type of editor when my edits to point out that the phenomenon can't exist was met with a flurry of counterargument, with no respect for the idea that there exists a generally agreed-upon physics terminology and observable phenomena. (The article is only half bad - the talk page is just interesting). So I left a watch on Eep's page, and thought "I'd better watch this".

Sure enough - very soon, I saw other conflicts in the same pattern: Eep does something, others say that that's a bad idea, Eep goes on the attack - never for a moment doubting the goodness of his own idea, soon slipping into the mode that the other guy is an opponent to be demolished, not a partner to work with. Once it's clear that the other guy won't give in, and that others agree with the other guy, not Eep, Eep claims persecution by "authorities" (one of his favourite terms is "wikitators"). (More descriptions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep).

Others don't think this is much fun. They want to spend time editing, not quarreling. So either they can give up and accept Eep's way, or they can take action to make the quarrel stop. So one or more participants get blocked for incivility - generally for a short amount of time, so that they can figure out that it's better to work cooperatively than to go on quarreling.

Eep got blocked six times from May 8 to June 25, but as far as I can see his behaviour didn't change one whit.

So from July 8, he got the permanent block that is now in place.

The Wikipedia community has used many man-hours in trying to work with Eep, and to help Eep learn how to work with the community. But Eep has failed to take the advice he's given.

I don't think the Wikipedia community should use more time on him. It's his turn now. But I doubt good things will happen. --Alvestrand 05:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i understand your comments and i agree with most of them,personally i like Eep's edits and i told him the same thing in his page as you can see,i will urge him to change his ways and be open minded to other's comments one last time,there's nothing more anyone could do.thanks again for your comments,they certainly clarified many things.Grandia01 05:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I feel I must wait until the contested deletion is finished before reinstating the template links to the article, particularly as I neglected checking the history of the template prior to its deletion, a mistake which I hold my hands up to. If you want to reinstate these links yourself then please do so, but I would rather wait until the template exists before I personally do anything. Bobo. 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template exists - Pschemp hasn't nominated it for deletion after I restored it, so in theory, it's stable. The only way I can figure out which articles you touched is by perusing your edit history - and I suspect that you're better at scripts'n'bots than I am. --Alvestrand 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your confirmation. Although I do not have the time now, when I return I shall undo all the changes to the articles which I made just after the template was deleted. Bobo. 13:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 54643.jpg (photo of Lizzie Bardsley)

Hi, you reported this picture as a copyvio some time ago, but gave only the URL to the picture. Do you have an URL to the context in which it appears, so that we can see if there's any hint as to who owns the copyright, and how it's licensed? --User:Alvestrand 07:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=363640&in_page_id=1773 Thanks! Ratiocinate ^(t • c) 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder

Thank you for reminding me to go over the links that I removed - though up until now I haven't really had the time to search through all the links. If I can get my stuff together I promise I will try to do it by the time I leave tonight - otherwise tomorrow I have all the time in the world. Bobo. 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

International Rescue Corps - Page Deleted

Can you let me know why you deleted the [International Rescue Corps] page for copyright violation. I don't recall seening the page but understand it was created by a Corps member who took information straight from the Corp's own website with permission.

Many thanks (Steve - Web Manager, International Rescue Corps - www.intrescue.org) Steve @ Aberdeen <>< 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that you think permission was given! The page and its talk page didn't give any hint of that, which is why it was deleted. I've restored the page, including the copyvio notice, so that you can find the instructions for sending the mail to the Wikipedia administrators granting permission to use material from your site. (If it takes too long, page may disappear again - but that shouldn't be a problem..) --Alvestrand 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, permission was given to post the info on Wikipedia but, having re-read through the copyleft notice my understanding is that we would be giving up control of our logo. Free use of the text is one thing - and we would still have the right to insist that any onward use would still have to be factual - but not the logo that identifies our members in the field. We'll let the page, as it stands, get deleted. I'll get some new text prepared (based on press releases that already allow free use, so no direct lift of text on our website) and create a new page in a few weeks time (without the logo, of course). Many thanks. Steve @ Aberdeen <>< 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. I'm deleting the page again, to make room for your new version. Make sure you reference sources! --Alvestrand 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtful comments

I appreciated your thoughtful comments regarding the attempt to list the Consensus decision-making article for deletion. I was pretty upset that someone would do that, but your calm, reasoned comments were most helpful in sorting it out. Thanks. Sunray 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to learn from this AfD caper! Your research on the use of the term was superb. I hadn't realized the value of Google Books as a research tool. I hope you don't mind that I refactored your research on the "neologism" to the section on that subject. It pretty well cinches the conclusion that it is not a neologism. Feel free to revert me on the refactoring if you don't agree. Sunray 21:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the fun part of playing around in Wikipedia - so many things you not only didn't know, but had no idea even existed! Have fun! (oh and btw, I moved the stuff back - reason on talk..) --Alvestrand 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeadBot

My temp host has been down for a week or so, and it appears that my bot keeps randomly failing. I'll try moving to the toolserver now I have an account if it's still not running. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Want to help with the copyright violation backlog?

Hi, (good catch for my speedy, I didn't take the time to check the old revisions for a possible non-copyvio material). I'll try to come give hand at CP but as you, I don't have much time these days and the new bot at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations is working a bit too well and we are a bit overwhelmed too :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Spaces

I'll have a look at that tonight - I think I know what's wrong. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Deletion of Philip Schneider Page

Not really sure why you deleted this page. Looking at the google cache it was not flagged for copyright violations. Seems like most of the material is taken from transcripts of public speaking engagements he made. I could see several grounds for deletion of this article, but copyright violation is not one of them. Deleting an entire article seems pretty harsh. Your thoughts, would you restore this article? Why? Why not? Ethyr 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was flagged for copyright violation, but an editor had removed the tag without any edit summary or talk page comment. 50-70% of the article (the entire "claims" section) was lifted directly from the website cited in the copyright violation note (and had been there since the very first version of the article); this was such a flagrant copyright violation that I felt it reasonable to just delete the whole article.

My recommendation would be to start the article over, with material from your Google cache copy, and focus on *pointig to* Schneider's claims rather than *quoting* them. He seems clearly notable - although reliable sources may be hard to come by. --Alvestrand 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes alot more sense. I'll do that. Ethyr 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Deep Cover (comic strip)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Deep Cover (comic strip). I do not think that Deep Cover (comic strip) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because technically, comic strips are not covered by A7. I request that you consider not re-tagging Deep Cover (comic strip) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to nominate all of them at Afd. Although I'd shy away from Winnie the Pooh which is probably notable enough given its association with the other parts of that franchise. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Tagging of Flight Deck (comic strip)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Flight Deck (comic strip). I do not think that Flight Deck (comic strip) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because technically, comic strips are not covered by A7. I request that you consider not re-tagging Flight Deck (comic strip) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this decline - in what way did the article assert the notability of the comic strip? A7 says "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." - this comic strip seems to have only a Web existence, and is not among those distributed by UPS, despite the template - so it's "web content". (But I had missed the idea that the A7 criterion was seen as limited to exactly the type of things listed - I thought those were examples, not an exclusive list.) --Alvestrand 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to determine from the article that it is web only. If it is, it should be covered by A7, if not it isn't. My suggestion below applies: nominate them at WP:AFD and I think that they will be deleted. I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia clean! Cheers, Carlossuarez46 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for edging in on your encyclopedia.

My apologies! I found a template with a bunch of red links and I thought I would do wikipedia a favor to create stubs for them. I kind of spend most of my time offline (also known as real life, not quite sure why) and have been very busy this summer, so it was rather a sacrifice to take the time to fill in the stubs anyway...But I assumed the effort would be understood (given the good faith and don't bite the newbies rule), especially considering that I linked in each article to a website that would give you more background information. Thanks for shattering that delusion! I'm glad I found out early on that contributions by newbies stretched for time are "not popular." I'll leave you to your encyclopedia. Penguin 23:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it does help if newcomers spend a little time figuring out what the policies for Wikipedia are (such as notability) before investing lots of effort into things that create even more work for others - creating a slew of new articles makes alarms go off in half a dozen wikiprojects, making them have to use time to check whether the articles were reasonable additions or not. In retrospect, one should probably blame the UPC template, which gave the misleading impression that any comic distributed by UPC is worthy of a Wikipedia article - something I don't think has been true, ever. But looking back, I have to apologize for biting the newcomer. I should have been more temperate in my remarks. --Alvestrand 08:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeadBot

I thought I fixed that space bug, i'll have another look. Regarding the edit conflict, that should only happen if you edit it in the ~5 second window between it opening the page and making the changes, so either it's fantastic timing, or it's doing something else unusual. I'll have a look later. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of DNS record types

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of List of DNS record types, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://forum.spamcop.net/scwik/TypesOfDNSrecords. 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.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 08:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Magic Tree House series

Hi. Without looking, I'd say the best source would be the author, Mary Pope Osborne's blog. I think this is where the titles for up to book 50 came from. I believe it is probably the same editor now that was adding those titles then. I know that most blogs are not reliable sources, but I would think this one should be. However, I went and did a quick look and don't see a list of future titles. Same thing at the official publisher site - but it was a quick look. It only shows up to book 37 in the list. Have you asked the editor in question where they are getting the future titles? Cheers. --EarthPerson 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was an anonymous IP, which is another thing fuelling the suspicion that it may be fake... --Alvestrand 10:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whatlinkshere instead of maintenance cats

Hi - Just a ping to encourage you to consider my latest response at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

History of Malaysia Airlines

History of Malaysia Airlines was put up for review for copyvio and you have left the article as is stating that it seems to come from cited sources, not copied directly. I would ask that you review this one more time before I put it back up for review, because the fact is the overwhelming majority of it is lifted word for word.....

From the article: A joint initiative of the Ocean Steamship Company of Liverpool, the Straits Steamship Company of Singapore and Imperial Airways led to a proposal to the government of the Colonial Straits Settlement to run an air service between Penang and Singapore. The result was the incorporation of Malayan Airways Limited (MAL).

From [2]: A joint initiative of the Ocean Steamship Company of Liverpool, the Straits Steamship Company of Singapore and Imperial Airways led to a proposal to the government of the Colonial Straits Settlement to run an air service between Penang and Singapore. The result was the incorporation of Malayan Airways Limited (MAL) on October 12, 1937.

From the article: The first fare paying passengers boarded an MAL Airspeed Consul plane in Singapore bound for Kuala Lumpur.

From [3]: the first fare paying passengers boarded an MAL Airspeed Consul plane in Singapore that was bound for Kuala Lumpur.

From the article: MAL broke the borders of domestic service to offer flights to Jakarta, Medan, Palembang and Saigon.

From [4]: MAL broke the borders of domestic service to offer flights to Jakarta, Medan, Palembang and Saigon.

From the article: Services on the five-seater Airspeed Consul were further enhanced by the acquisition of a 21-seater DC3. The DC3 also heralded the advent of in-flight service in MAL.

From [5]: Services on the five-seater Airspeed Consul were further enhanced by the acquisition of a 21-seater DC3. The DC3 also heralded the advent of in-flight service in MAL.

This goes on thru out the article, with almost the entire page being lifted word for word from [6] [7] [8] [9] and [10]

I would ask that you look at it again, and I have copyvio'ed that page again for time being whilst you look at it. --Russavia 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Oakes

I'm not sure why you questioned his notability - a click on the band name would have shown that they're notable. I've removed the prod. --Dweller 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're notable. Why is he? See Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Notability of band members for a recent discussion. And some WP:RS references would be nice, too. The information comes from somewhere, doesn't it? --Alvestrand 13:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. Try asking the article creator, or someone who edits the band article. --Dweller 13:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of looking flip... you're the one who thinks Wikipedia needs this article. You ask them. --Alvestrand 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of TV Photog

An article that you have been involved in editing, TV Photog, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Photog (2nd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 11:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Relativity priority dispute

Relativity priority dispute, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Relativity priority dispute satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relativity priority dispute and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Relativity priority dispute during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:JulietGellatley.jpg

I must protest the decision you had to not delete this file. It was uploaded by a serial copyright violator who has misled about other images. When it comes to copyrights, we should be extra specially careful. Anyone can come along and claim they have permission, but especially someone who has a history of misleading statements on images (please see deleted contribs), then we should be deleting an image, and excepting OTRS confirmation. Otherwise, OTRS confirmation is useless. The Evil Spartan 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The original nomination did not name an URL, but it was easy to find [11]. I can't find any copyright statement on the site, however. Robert C Prenic's history was unknown to me. --Alvestrand 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After studying the uploader's response to the copyright notices, I've deleted the image. Thanks for giving me more info! --Alvestrand 20:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering your decision. The Evil Spartan 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion review

An articles you deleted List of Fillmore! episodes is up for Deletion Review [12] You'll probably wish to comment.02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The A.I. Prodigies

A tag has been placed on The A.I. Prodigies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL^(Query Me!) 05:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Twin Cities Hardingfelelag

The website manager (tchardingfelelag.org) finally sent his permission on to wikipedia. Of course it was too late to save the initial page. Is there any way to get the content back, or should I just create the entry again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martonic17 (talk • contribs)

Nothing's ever truly lost... I've restored the page, copyvio notice and all, while waiting for the Wikipedia processing to be complete.. --Alvestrand 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structural equation modeling possible copyvio

please don't subst the copyvio tag, as you did on Structural equation modelling. It just confuses things. But thanks for flagging it! (and apologies that it takes *forever* before someone follows up...) --Alvestrand 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but could I ask you to take a second look? I don't have access to the article you pointed to ([13]), but Structural equation modeling (one L) has such a long history that it's possible the author you quoted was citing Wikipedia, not the other way around... --Alvestrand 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going though the copyvio page, and also for the hint on not subst-ing the tag. I saw something went wrong, but it didn't occur that it was my mistake. Ouch.

Good catch on finding the article with one L. Impressive. But this makes it rather mysterious. One of the sentences which is word-for-word and comma-for-comma the same in the Wikipedia article and the published article is "SEM encourages confirmatory, rather than exploratory, modelling; thus, it is suited to theory testing, rather than theory development." This particular sentence arrived in the Wikipedia article during a copyedit by User:Pgan002 on 26 April 2006 (diff); it used to read: "SEM encourages a confirmatory, as opposed to exploratory, approach to modelling." The published article was submitted on 31 March 2005 and accepted on 29 August 2006. The latter date is when Springer will have received the copyright, so I don't think we're doing anything wrong. The information flow may well have gone the other way, but I'm not sufficiently convinced of this to complain. So I'll leave it as it is. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sterling Foundation School?

How do you know about The Sterling Foundation School. I study in this School. Please reply me on my talk page.--Khuda Hafiz 10:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Tim Robertson (macintosh)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Tim Robertson (macintosh), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. B. Wolterding 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Doors Art Foundation

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article The Doors Art Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Magioladitis 00:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RE: Image

Oooh that's a tough one, not my image I just vaguely remember finding a link to help verify the uploaders assertion that the owner had released copyright. I will have a think for you. SGGH ^speak! 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done it, see here SGGH ^speak! 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copyright problems

Hi – thanks very much for the pointer! That didn't even occur to me. Have a nice weekend! - KrakatoaKatie 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alvestrand. This is scifi author T. Jackson King. Thanks for your work on my Wiki author bio page. Regarding your query a year ago as to whether I possess the copyright to my SFWA author/member web page, of course I do. I created all content at my website of www.sfwa.org/members/tjacksonking Same thing for all content concerning me (T. Jackson King) at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, and my author talk blog on Amazon.com. You got any more questions, email me at [e-mail] --Tjacksonking 04:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect The Aquarius Theatre

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Aquarius Theatre, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Aquarius Theatre is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Aquarius Theatre, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Church vandal

This is regarding an IP-hopping vandal, who has time and again deleted cited references to Unity Church being both Bible based and Christian. They have been talked to, and continue to push this highly POV vandalism. They have been warned, and continue to vandalize. They have been reported. This is NOT a content issue, and any reasonable review of the matter will show this. Why aren't administrators dealing with this obvious case of vandalism? --24.28.6.209 06:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny he has accused me of being a vandal not one did he go to the discussion page. I had included third party links and references which gave a clear and balance view of Unity and its connection to New thought and Christianity and the were not negative. In fact I believe were well rounded. All of his edits are from Unity sourced sites I am sorry if I have been petty during some of this. I will stay away from that page, not fun people over there. Peace151.202.182.100 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvestrand, thanks for dropping by the Unity All-Anonymous Edit War. I have tried to stay away from it (being so wrapped up in the famous Alice Bailey Edit War and all) but as a wandering editor in the New Thought field, i notice that it is getting tendentious and hot in Unity-land. I left you a message on the Unity talk page, and if you want to work on the page, i will follow along if you want, when i have time. For your reference, User JGG is not a good speller and is sometimes a coding disaster, but he or she has been in the New Thought Movement for 50 years, and has a wealth of history on recall, although it is not always book-citable. He is a good person to work with. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 07:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I take it you mean User:JGG59, right? There also exists an User:JGG, but he doesn't seem interested in Unity. The nice thing is, it doesn't seem to be more than 2 people doing all the noise-making... --Alvestrand 07:58, 25 October 2007 (UT

Thanks for the honest feed back.This is all pretty new to me. I tried to talk to Socttandrewhutchin and or 71.42.142.238 he could not or would not hear me. Then I dug in my heels , sorry about that. Just as Wiki is a work in progress so am I. I created a new intro which includes both NT and Christianity. It is from a NPOV it honors Unity's place in both. I included the God template which includes both NT and Christianity and really fits . Please take a look add or make a correction. I would like your feed back.I will be taking a break for a whlie from Unity. PS I don't think they take to heart the New Thought practice of new thoughts. Thanks.JGG59 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of christmas past

I see you left a note-to-self a year ago at Talk:Terrorist Screening Center. What to do some colloaboration? /Blaxthos 10:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next week's likely to be terribly busy. But you never know what I'll be doing when listening to speeches... no promises, but I'll take a look. --Alvestrand 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Mountain Firework Company

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Mountain Firework Company, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mountain Firework Company. Thank you.

(Your PROD was contested in January.) --B. Wolterding 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unity

Unity School of Christianity - is the old name of the publishing arm of Unity. Today renamed Unity Insitute - handles Church and publishing Read the link in the intro it explains the history. It's a little confusing.JGG59 03:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Albert Payson Terhune Article

Hi. I removed the book reference deliberately because it was not actually cited anywhere in the article. If you can add inline citations to show where it was used as a source, please feel free to add it back with those citations. For now, I've removed it from the article since it doesn't appear to be in use. Collectonian 07:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't know that. The article contains a lot more information than what one would expect to see in an obituary. We have many articles on Wikipedia where each individual fact isn't supported with a cite, but the article contains facts drawn from the listed sources. The current trend towards hundreds of cite links is relatively recent. I believe it's a disservice to those who want to verify the fact to remove such sources. (The obituary link was added in May 2007; the article was originally created in 2005.) --Alvestrand 07:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but without an inline citation we can't say for sure "this was used in this article." Perhaps, until citations can be added, it could be listed as Further Reading instead? That way its there, but without specifically claiming it was used as a reference since we can't say for sure one way or the other? Collectonian 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable compromise (although I still don't agree). Done. --Alvestrand 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question about imagevios

I've noticed that you are active at WP:Copyright problems page. I have an issue that I am not sure how to approach. This image, here claims to be released by the uploader to PD. However he notes in the comments that the image is "Photograph obtained from previous managers son." Another image has the same PD tag but includes the comment "picture curtesy [SIC] of previous manager." How should these be properly listed for review? The usual tag asks for a source and I do not have one. Is this an issue that should be looked into? I am an admin and an OTRS agent so I can handle whatever needs doing but I am not sure of the process here. The uploader is not communicating to other messages on talk pages so I am not sure posting a message there would help. I think he is new so I don't want to bite. Thanks! JodyB _talk 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation would be that a copyright release needs to come from the manager's son (assuming that the manager himself is dead), saying that the pictures are copyright the former Clarence Ballroom manager and released into the public domain.

In reality, I think it more likely that the copyright belongs to whoever owns the assets of the former Clarence Ballroom (it looks like the kind of picture a company photographer would take), and that neither "Marquis" nor the former manager's son has any idea how to get a real copyright release from them. Which means that the pictures will have to be deleted - sad, but that's the result of the (IMHO stupid) way copyright works as of 2007. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was really what I thought. But what do I do now? Do I tag the images? With what? Is there a template that disputes a claimed copyright without knowing a url for a source? Thanks for your help. JodyB _talk 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag the images and leave out the URL parameters, and add an explanation on the copyright violations page. I've processed several things that are done that way. NOTE: I really like it if the discussion is also present on the talk page of the image - for some reason that seems to be very little used, but it's a good plce to put things. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of admins

Hi Alvestrand. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

American films of XXXX

PLease restore American films of 1903 and 1904. Don't assume anything. Please give me a chance to format it properly like American films of 1936 etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What was there was a copy/paste from IMDB - which is illegal under copyright law. Facts aren't copyrightable, so if you create a list of facts from someone else's list of facts, you can claim that you're not infringing on their copyright. But what you did certainly does. --Alvestrand 03:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for gods sake. all he have to do is give me back the page without the titles and then I can format it properly. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've managed to reconstruct the format without my help, so I'm not doing anything more. But see my question on the talk page on American films of 1902. --Alvestrand 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French films should not be in the list. If you see a French film please remove it. Even a British film. It is supposed to be films filmed, produced and released in the United States. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Note that many of the American lists have been compiled by films by year as American films are the most dominant and there are several titles which are non american which will need removing. It is a major task and will take some time to complete. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Hickey

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Thomas J. Hickey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Thomas J. Hickey. CHE 20:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hello

Hi, thanks for the note! Indeed, someone added the copypaste template to the category that DumbBOT monitors. So on that particular day, every single article that has that template was placed in WP:CP. Unfortunately, most of the editors who use that template don't seem to use the URL parameter so they are quite hard to investigate.

I am also quite busy finishing grad school so I am also guilty of neglecting WP:CP. I'm also trying to get back into more article writing which doesn't help matters.

I am not on chat much but I will add you. Have fun at IETF! --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello

Greetings, Alvestrand. I left a question for you on the talk page of the Internet Engineering Task Force article, regarding your question which I happened to find in your edit summary. Would you kindly reply either there or here? I am not capable of reading both my watch list and between the lines in edit comments, sorry to say. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the article page. Thanks for caring! --Alvestrand (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Caring? I thought that was what D.H. Lawrence said was "feelings one really doesn't have". But likely that is only a distant paraphrase. Good luck. -Susanlesch (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Photon Belt

Leave it alone don't touch it 76.112.23.57 (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider

You know, as it turns out I think we're of the same opinion on Photon belt, but I think your tactics aren't appropriate. It's one thing to block a previously disruptive IP despite that IP technically being within bounds of the 3RR. It's another thing entirely for you to block an IP over an article that you are editing, and then use that as some sort of rationale to revert a third party's edit. It is particularly concerning because you had already expressed dissatisfaction with my edit previously, and this appeared to give you just the excuse you needed to make your preferred change. Now, will you please demonstrate some sort of policy that supports your reversion back to the version prior to a 3RR violation, even if further edits have occurred since then? Antelan ^talk 05:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll survive that.... I took the last edit I reverted as being to the state of the article that neither of us likes, so would need to be redone on the article-as-it-stood-previously anyway. The reason for my very dry comment on the 3RR was that I wanted to keep the role of guarding against the vandal separate from my role as opinion-holder on the article; I consider my disagreement with you to be a disagreement on how to best achieve a reasonable goal (documenting the "photon belt" belief without giving it undue credit), while my disagreement with the IP editor, like my previous disagreement with long-term banned User:Eep², is about the "right" to present fringe beliefs as if they were facts without allowing any commentary at all. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and thanks for your response. In the future, you might want to consider having an uninvolved admin perform blocks like that. Another of our colleagues, User:Adam_Cuerden, is undergoing a really tough Arbitration, in part because of blocking a user with whom he was in a technical content dispute (I say technical because it just happened to be a page he had previously edited and I don't think he even remembered doing so at the time).

Also, your edit summary was very ambiguous, making it look to outside readers that I was being admonished for a 3RR violation (in fact, I had to look through the edit history to discover that you didn't mean this!).

I'll look forward to your thoughts on the article talk page regarding how best to proceed with the article.

Regards, Antelan ^talk 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to revert, per discussion on my talk page, but Taemyr beat me to it. Cheers, Antelan ^talk 07:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Photon Belt

It doesn't matter just leave it alone the way it is 76.112.23.57 (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Talk:Photon belt. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]