This is an archive of past discussions with User:B. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What do you think are the chances that Special:Contributions/TimTomTom indicates the range blocked user has just created an account? It's just been created and has been making the same edits as before as well as making the same kinds of comments on Thunbderbird2's talk page. Fnagaton11:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Just removed this article request from the wine project where some previous editore added it. In future, when coming across articles seeming to be nonsense, where do I put a request for checking my opinion, or should I go ahead and just delete it from the list ? Lars13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would imagine that different WikiProjects have different practices for handling requested articles. You could always leave a message on the project talk page to ask for help/assistance. --B (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So does that mean they are finally going to remove user pages from google? They should. It's largely unmonitored for spam and libel. --B (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the author of this article wrote the biography at privatelessons.com and has emailed us to confirm that there is no copyright violation (ticket #2008042910023622). There may be additional reasons for not restoring the article; please restore or not as appropriate. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. WP:CSD G11 still applies - it is blatant advertising. I would suggest not restoring it. If someone independent of the subject wants to create a neutral article and can demonstrate that there are external reliable sources of information, we can discuss it, but the article was a press release. --B (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Snore Stopper Wristband
Yeah, I thought about G11, but a lot of that text is devoted to saying something else is an infringement. Prod works too, though. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There are older versions to revert to that don't discuss the infringement, though. G10 is only applicable if there is no good version to revert to. (If you do revert it, please leave the prod in there.) --B (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser case referenced in the tag said that it was inconclusive. That account has only three edits from over a month ago, so I'm inclined to leave well enough alone for the moment. --B (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi B, as far as I know, roll back feature is given to non admin user is intended for reverting nonconstructive contributions (vandalism). But this four edits ([1], [2], [3] and [4]) made by User:Aditya Kabir, seems to violation of rollback feature. Thank you--NAHID19:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The request appeared to be made in good faith, and I consider it common courtesy to delete images if deletion is requested by the uploader. However, I apologise, I didn't see that you had declined the speedy beforehand. I will have checked to see whether the image was uploaded by the tagger, and I doubt that it was in use when I deleted it, as I doubt I would have done so if it had been. If you want to restore it, feel free. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This user moved his talk page to The goodness is flowing and blanked the page. He was reverted and blanked it again. I reverted, but I cannot move the page back to its correct location. Can you move it back and move-protect his talk page? Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been told I'm a little overly deletionist, so I tend to either nominate or delete, but not both. I still get cursed for my vile destruction of people's creations! (I remain convinced, though, that that one is spam; see the creator's peculiar history.) --Orange Mike | Talk04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I'd agree
I think this comment was harsh and incorrect. Rosalind Picard's only notability whatsoever is that she signed the Discovery Institute petition. It is not an attack piece, it's just that's what makes here notable. And since a recent poll shows that 75% of Americans are anti-science and think Creationism should be taught, we'd fill Wikipedia with attack pieces if you were right. (Oh, don't worry, I'm firmly on the side of science, and I just believe Americans are poorly educated in sciences, but that's another discussion). OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
But there are thousands of scientists who don't rate articles on Wikipedia. I still am not sure it makes her notable. But, for balance purposes, the article is mostly about her computer work. it is significant that she signed the petition. Oh, by the way, Darwinism isn't a term most scientists would use to describe Evolution. It is a pejorative term to make it seem like the science of Evolution worships at the altar of Darwin. I might make jokes about it, but in my education, Darwin was a historical figure of huge importance. He set forth the ideas that were the foundation of Evolution, but most research today is done by a mass of biochemists, physiologists, geologists, and a bunch of other -ists, most of whom are not named Darwin. At any rate, Picard has enough articles written about her support of Intelligent design to confirm that her signing the document is notable and important. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The article in question was called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". That is the only reason I googled Darwinism as opposed to anything else. I was looking to see how much media attention her signature of that document had gathered - presumably any news article on the subject would use the name of the document somewhere in there. --B (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Evidently to gain some privacy about his religious beliefs and activities, Marks has removed from the web sources that were used in his biography. He also removed information from his curriculum vitae and publication list. I have deleted unverifiable claims about Marks per WP:BLP, including some I wanted to see in the article (I am self-policing, not wikilawyering). Editors keep reverting to an old version of the article. If you were to weigh in, that would be nice. ThomHImself (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because someone removes their website doesn't mean that we can't cite content from it. There's a lot in there that isn't relevant, but we can grab whatever is being cited from web.archive.org for safekeeping and exchange via email. The article should NOT have lengthy criticisms of his views - that's covered elsewhere and is a WP:COATRACK. Some people think that if you are an IDer, your article isn't neutral unless it contains lengthy rebuttals of ID. That's silly on its face. But so is denying (or not mentioning) his notable involvement just because it may be inconvenient. Are you in actual contact with him? If so, you can ask him to communicate with m:OTRS via Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). True and verifiable facts aren't going to be removed, but if there are factual errors and he expresses concern, that would be helpful. Wikipedia's treatment of BLP articles (or BLP victims as WR more properly calls them) is shameful and it's a shame that we allow these things to be turned into attack pieces. But it's going to take a fundamental change (like banning anyone who thinks that NPOV trumps BLP from ever touching a BLP) to fix it. --B (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for Review
I know you're a busy guy and all, but I'm trying to find someone willing to do a GA review ACC Championship Game. It's the final article I need to get approved for an Atlantic Coast Conference Championship Game featured article, and I know you'd do a thorough review, given your familiarity with the subject. If you don't think you'd have the time, drop me a message on my talk page, and I'll ask someone else. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello B. Do you think the ANI thread that you started justifies taking action on this? The recent history of the Dorje Shugden article seems to have been taken over completely by Wisdombuddha socks, or by red-linked editors that sound like him. I wish there were some way of handling this using article protection. For instance, apply two months of full protection on a version prior to the sockpuppetry and then let in changes only via 'editprotected.' EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I went and looked for it and this is what I was referring to. You are saying that everyone you disagree with — Christians, homeopaths, and racists — are all tied together. This attitude is really causing a problem because it leads to an us vs them mentality. In reality, you and I probably agree 110% on homeopathy and racism. When I am sick, I don't want distilled plant roots, bug excrement, or magic foot pads — I want a doctor. And I don't care if that doctor is Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, black, white, male, female, young, or old as long as he or she knows what he or she is doing with regards to medicine. You said it before when we were dealing with the "save the south" user that regardless of our disagreements, when you are right, I will vigorously defend you and that's true. It's probably also true of most non-SPA Wikipedians - you will agree on some things and disagree on others - and the "going after" anyone that in some way offends the ID project just isn't very helpful. That's all I was trying to say. --B (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm in full agreement with you on bug excrement. I do distinguish between Creationists and Christians, I want that clear to anyone reading any diff by me. I just don't think that religion of any sort should run any government. I'm even annoyed by the state of Israel, of which I am technically a citizen (though I have never taken up the Law of Return), for their making religion a part of the government. What I am saying is that anti-science denialism of any sort are all the same. From a personal standpoint, I do not lump everyone who disagrees with me together, only if they disagree with me on all points. For example, although I don't agree with you across the board, you have my full and absolute respect because of your anti-racism stand, which appears more absolute than mine. So, I don't lump everyone together. if I need to learn one lesson from my conversations with you is that I should be more patient in determining if there is common ground. We seem to have it on magic potions and racism! So if I shouldn't lump everyone together, please don't lump me with anti-Christians or anti-religion of any sort. I have strong religious beliefs, I just prefer that they be kept to myself. I promise to reduce the "lumping" of POV's together. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but a huge part of the problem in the area is the assumption of Young Earth Creationists that either all Christians believe as they do, or to define "real" Christians as only fellow Young Earth Creationists. OrangeMarlin was not referring to Christians or even Creationists now that I see the quote; he was referring to YEC. And YEC are definitely a tiny WP:FRINGE group, who frequently campaign against science. Just a point of clarification.--Filll (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is opposed to science. Again, that's putting words into someone's mouth. Even "true" YECers (the earth is 6K years old) are not opposed to science. I've heard (don't know how true this is) that the notion that the earth was created 6000 years ago actually came from people mocking the Bible and saying "do the math and you get a 6000-year-old earth - ha ha ha". In reality, there are no dates in the first part of Genesis, so for all we know/care, Adam and Eve could have been chilling out in the garden of Eden for billions of years before trying to make apple pie. The point of Genesis is that at some point, God made the family through whom He would eventually bring forth the nation of Israel, and, in Christian beliefs, His Son into the world for our salvation - the exact timeline is immaterial and is outside the scope of what Moses was trying to get across. --B (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, many YEC and other extremists are against science, or want to redefine science to suit themselves etc, or use "science" or what they define as science as a tool for proselytizing or even generating hatred for others of other beliefs. You might want to investigate Dating Creation and Ussher chronology so you can be a bit more educated about this subject.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no, not about you. I'm just annoyed in general at this point. I think there are a lot of abuses that need to be cleaned up. --B (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, B - I don't care too much one way or the other if the name of the dog is in the caption in the Ingrid Newkirk article, but the concensus on the talk page doesn't seem as harsh as your comment and actually seems to favor including the dog's name. If you haven't seen that discussion, take a look at it. I think that Wiki has far more latitude than a typical encylcopedia and I don't think that including the dog's in any way makes the info within any less valuable.Bob98133 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it and I've commented on it. This really is silly. When you're writing about something else, be that in a newspaper article, an encyclopedia, an essay for school, or anything else, you don't make yourself a part of the story. (An exception would be if we were columnists or writing a blog, which, hopefully, we are not.) I see from your user page that you are a writer, so I'm assuming you would agree with this. Only two people in the "discussion" wanted to have the caption in there - the photographer himself, who is about to be blocked (see ANI thread and second ANI thread) and SlimVirgin, for whom I have nothing but respect, but she is obviously too close and wrong here. --B (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Minor Copy Edit
I'm reluctant to edit someone else's statement to arbcom in case I've misunderstood completely. In your statement re cla68 et al, you might want to change "is not pretty decent" to "is now pretty decent". Or not. I guess most people will read it as a typo anyway. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hate to bother you with something like this, but I'm working on the 2006 Gator Bowl article, and was wondering if you might have taken any photos at the game that you could share. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea. I don't know a thing about modern music and most real track names look like vandalism to me. ;) I looked and other than the incivility I deleted, there's nothing flagrant that I saw ... but again, I don't necessarily know what I'm looking at. --B (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize - I didn't look closely enough at the contributions when you asked me to. Obviously, this is unacceptable and had I seen it, I would have blocked him immediately. I have indefinitely blocked the account with a note that if he reads our Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies and promises to edit constructively, he can be unblocked. --B (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Why was 25:40 page deleted?
You deleted a page that I created yesterday, citing it as "blatant advertisement." Yet that was not my purpose. I am not trying to recruit people or convince anyone to donate to this particular organization. However, children suffering from AIDS in South Africa and around the world is an important topic, and I believe people should be more aware of it and what needs to be done. 25:40 is an excellent organization, and I simply want people to be aware. Can you give me suggestions on how to add this organization to Wikipedia as a more neutral page, rather than deleting all of the work that I put into that page - it took time and is very frustrating to see it all gone now! I never asked for anything on the page - simply stated their mission as a non-profit, and explained about the area. How is that an advertisement?? Would it be better to headline the article as information about the area, and mention the work that 25:40 has done there? Please help. I'm not really sure how to communicate on Wiki, this is all very new to me, but you can email me at awsoccerstar11@hotmail.com Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2540 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:CORP and WP:N for relevant inclusion guidelines. Any topic which has not received non-trivial media coverage is not going to be covered in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not free webhosting, nor is it a means to "get the word out" about your cause or organization. --B (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Also, did you mean for your talk page to be protected admin-only? It's transcluded at a protected page, which triggered cascading protection.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Protecting my talk page was most certainly not my intention. Thank you for pointing it out. My old user name, prior to a rename was BigDT. After I was renamed, I left redirects from my old name for a couple of months, then deleted the old pages. Any Wikipedia user can easily look at the deletion log, edit history, move log, whatever to figure out what my current name is so there is no compelling need to maintain it as a redirect. On the other hand, because of Wikipedia's insanely stupid policy of allowing user pages to be indexed by Google, someone entering BigDT in a search engine would find my current user page if the old pages are left as a redirect. After sufficient time had elapsed, I deleted the old pages. At the time, the way to stop a page from being created was to transclude it in a protected page. Now, we can protect deleted pages, but at the time, that was not possible. So my old talk page sat there unnoticed until two days ago when another admin apparently decided to ignore my wishes on the subject and redirect my old page here. By doing that, he protected my talk page, presumably inadvertently. I appreciate you alerting me to it and have corrected the problem.
As for the block of Kopter, yes, you are correct, indefinite was unintentional and I have removed the block as the 24 hours are long up and I will leave an apology on his talk page. Thank you for pointing out most of these issues. --B (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, B. Regarding your unblocking of Kopter, please be advised that two obvious sockpuppets, 72.74.3.177(talk·contribs·WHOIS) and 72.70.106.76(talk·contribs·WHOIS) (& there may be more forthcoming) have been engaging tonight in the same damaging reverts for which Kopter was originally blocked. Now Kopter is per se able to be back in the action. Is there a way to shut down this nuisance's entire operation? I am at a loss how to cope, and will soon be compelled to make my own 3rd reversions trying to clean up. Help urgently needed. Thank you in advance. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kopter was blocked for 3RR, not because there was anything otherwise wrong with his edits. I will ask him to stop reverting, log in, and discuss the issue with you as a cross-article revert war is obviously disruptive. If he continues to revert without being at all willing to explain his reverts or violates 3RR using socks, we can do a range block. --B (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Judging from past experience, he is unwilling to discuss or to edit collaboratively. There have been invitations to talk coming from me and at least one other editor, and now from you. Time will tell. I will go ahead & re-revert the latest changes, pending discussion. Please let me know if you need any additional feedback or data. Appreciate your help! Hertz1888 (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It did not take long. He is back — without a word anywhere — with a 7th reversion at Boston, a 6th at Philadelphia, a 3rd at Lowell (per my counts, 15 May to date). Two of these latest three as 72.70.100.65(talk·contribs·WHOIS) (a new sock), one as Kopter. So much for invitations to discussion. P.S. Thank you for posting the dignified and thoughtful tribute to Memorial Day. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked him indefinitely and left a note that he can be unblocked at any time if he agrees to discuss his changes and to not edit while logged out. If one of his IPs edits from now on, let me know and I will block them or range block them if need be. --B (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks again for all your help with this and the Virginia Tech bowl games topic (still a work in progress). You may not think you did much, but the link box was a big help, as were all your pictures and everything else you contributed. Thank you so much! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted their one remaining unsourced image, but as for these three, they were all taken with the same digital camera and two of them even have the digital camera name for the image, so I'm more inclined to believe their claim of authorship. If you would like for another pair of eyes to look at it, you are welcome to bring it to PUI. --B (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If you believe them not to be copyvios please replace the image license with {{Multilicense replacing placeholder|class=people|reviewed=1}}.Genisock2 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You recently undid my entry for the Joe Paterno sculpture. Obviously you found the rumor part objectionable and decided it had no place. Maybe so -- you certainly have more street cred here than I do. (Although I can assure you that tradition has already begun. In fact I decided to research the statue as a result of the rumor. Nevertheless...)
I'm quite sure the sculpture exists, however! You are doing a disservice by deleting the entire post. Fact check if you need to, but I believe the "verifiable" aspects of the article are correct. Your cries of 'vandalism' are unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.184.174.61 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere in my edit did I say "vandalism". That aside, under our verifiability and biographies of living persons policies, unsourced claims are to be removed, period. Street cred, personal research, and rumors aren't useful here. If you can find a reliable source (like a newspaper that talks about it, then it can be considered, although even then, it's nothing more than trivia and I don't know that it's appropriate for inclusion. But at least then there would be something to consider one way or the other. --B (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment at H20's RfA
You give two alternative explanations (that he was being serious or he was trolling) but my reading of that post was that it was neither and that it was humourous. As you'll have seen, I've not (yet?) supported the RfA myself, but I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular one. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm now agreeing with you on too many issues. Can I rudely yell at you about a random edit of yours, just so I can keep my Liberal/Atheist/Darwinist/Jewish/Democratic/Still-angry-at-Virginia-Tech-for-deserting-the-Big-East credibility? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I only propose deletion for templates that are not in use and I have never had a problem before using the means through which I just requested those deletions. If you go to WP:SBS/T, you may note at the bottom of the page the huge list of deleted templates our project is monitoring. Every one of those templates I proposed for deletion using the method I just used and every one of them was no longer in use, most of which got the okay for deletion from the user who created it, as in the case for these templates if you check the last post on my talk page. The templates are not in use and the only templates that are noted on them are those that I also put up for deletion. So if you would kindly delete them and their document pages, I can go about my business as can you. Thank you. –Darius von Whaleyland,Great Khanof the Barbarian Horde20:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason I originally sent you a message was that {{S-namesakes}} was in use. It is transcluded in a user's sandbox as well as by all of the other templates you wanted to delete. This makes it very difficult to find out what templates you are asking to delete because all of them have multiple copies of the deletion message. If you would like to have them deleted, please orphan them (including from the user's sandbox), then use {{db-t3}}. --B (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The June 2008 issue of the College football 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Чарльз - жопа
Hi. Чарльз - жопа (talk·contribs), whom you blocked for a user name, is requesting an unblock at User talk:Чарльз - жопа. Under Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-Latin_usernames, we no longer block a user name soley for being non-Latin, but instead ask that they provide a translation or a transliteration. (Because of m:SUL, we can no longer enforce language-specific requirements.) Do you read the language that this name is in and is it something offensive in the original language? (Obviously, if someone makes a user name that is profane or otherwise inappropriate in a foreign language, that is still blocked.) Thanks. --B (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can read it. It is in Russian and translated Charles is an arse. It is clearly inappropriate. He suggested to change his name to Анти-Чарльз meaning Anti-Charles it does not have profanity but still can be a personal attack Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alex, I have declined the request and asked him to choose a different name. --B (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The page contained no content. You wrote "Portal:Christianity/Selected article/June 2008" and then you blanked the page. I have setup the portal so that if nobody creates content for a month, it will use the previous month's content, but by putting an empty page there, no content shows up. There is nothing for me to undelete - I went ahead and put an article for this month. If you have an article you would like to see in there for next month, please add it to the nominations page for the portal ... but nothing helpful will come from creating an empty page. There either needs to be an article there or it needs to be a redlink. --B (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
University of Missouri move
Hey, I saw you removed my speedy delete housekeeping tag on University of Missouri. There has been extensive discussion at Talk:University of Missouri–Columbia and a consensus has been reached. The article has never really been located at the University of Missouri namespace before except for a few days during a botched move, things have been done properly now I think. If this seems all in order would you be able to delete the article and associated talk page? Grey Wanderer | Talk18:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was writing the article about Ultras White Knights and I have a slight query regarding the pics and why were they deleted?? I'm a member of this group and I actually took many of the photos myself - even the logo, album cover, t-shirt etc I helped coming up with their design!!! And btw the pics aren't copyrighted since it's just regular members of the group, including myself, who take the pics and I just asked them if I could use the pics on wikipedia and they said sure... so what's the problem???!!!
Sorry to bother u again :S, but I'm not really sure how to obtain a free license for photos... and for the record, yes, the media has reported on us several times, and not just the Egyptian media for that matter.Basedas2 02:10 P.M, 5 June (2008)
Positive reinforcement
OK, I've long thought that positive reinforcement was in far too short supply on Wikipedia, so here goes. Although we don't always agree, I have a huge amount of respect for your commentary, which is always thoughtful and on-point. You do excellent work here. Keep it up. That's all. :) MastCellTalk17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like someone else blocked those individual IPs, but I went on and hit that range with another month block. --B (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted this page. I briefly looked into the deletion log and explination, read the "Why was my page deleted" page and "speedy deletion" page, and I am still confused as to why this page was deleted. While I am not the creator of this page, I have made use of it over the years and I was hoping to use it again.
If you are talking about the page discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roleplay Online, I did not delete that page or have anything to do with it, but you can read there for the reason it was deleted. If you are talking about another page, I need something more to know what you are referring to. --B (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well put.
Just stumbled across your explanation of "cultural Christianity" versus evangelical Christianity over at Talk:Barack Obama. You've done a good job at expressing what I was trying to convey, so I reckon I'll be stealing your wording in the future. Shem(talk)20:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You are correct - when I unchecked anon only, I must have also accidentally unchecked prevent account creation. I have fixed it. --B (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
On drawings
While I still agree creating a 3d bust of a person would yield odd results, what about well done, drawn portraits like this. (Don't worry I'm not gonna start illustrating people too, but I don't think I'd mind something like this to illustrate a person of whom we have no photographs.) I'm curious, how do you feel about them? Anynobody04:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent design RfC
At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in a RfC on behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing
OK, I'm going to follow up with some canvassing and a request for your feedback. You've dipped a toe into the roiling waters at Talk:Barack Obama. The all-around level of behavior on that article is, I think, exceptionally poor, which is a black eye for Wikipedia given its extremely high profile. As a start to dealing with the situation, I've blocked Andyvphil (talk·contribs), whom I consider to be particularly incorrigible with an ever-expanding block log and no improvement in his approach. I would welcome your honest feedback on my suggestions, which I've posted at this AN/I thread. In particular, whether you think these administrative actions are a reasonable start and whether there are other issues with behavior around the article that I've overlooked. Of course, if you don't want the headache - which I would completely understand - then feel free to ignore this. MastCellTalk17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the block of Andyvphil. The Obama debate is so polarized right now that it's really problematic. Part of the problem is that there is entirely too much trolling about things like his race. I have it watchlisted and will try to help. --B (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm almost embarrassed to say that all I noticed was the "ans" fat fingering (I do that all the time on my laptop - I need to get one of those giant 19" ones with the full sized keyboard). I am the world's worst speller and am eternally grateful for the day that Firefox added a spellcheck - it has dramatically improved the quality of my Wikipedia contributions. ;) --B (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
MM I'm just inaccurate - not excuses whatsoever for the most part. My home comp has a spell check in firefox but the work one didn't - and I was in a hurry to make the comment and get on with what I should have been doing. ViridaeTalk13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article was nothing but ad copy, right down to the welcome message from the mascot. The article told about how easy it is to get to the mall, encouraged visitors to relax a the spa, and suggested nearby tourist attractions. This is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Please see our policy on a neutral point of view and our guideline on conflicts of interest. It is not appropriate for you to write an article about your employer or someone who is paying you to write the article and it is never acceptable to submit ad content. Even a neutral article is required to have external reliable sources of information demonstrating that the topic is significant. The only source you had here was the mall's own website. --B (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
ok! i will revised the content and contribute again later.
thank you for your comments. i will modify it and contribute later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deskpop (talk • contribs) 03:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Creationist nitwits"
Sorry I was referring to whatever nitwit decided there was a cause celebre for journalists (I presumed it was a creationist). If you're a creationist and thought I was referring to you, I apologise. I know you wouldn't import your personal beliefs to Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The03:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Jon Courson Aritcle
It appears that you are the administrator that deleted the Jon Courson article. If that is so, I believe that there is some confusion.
The information on the article was not derived from copyrighted material. It may be very similar to the information in the Nelson catalog, but that information is not copyrighted. Both the Wikipedia article and the Thomas Nelson information are derived from readily available biographical information on Jon Courson (including information found on many of his books).
Regardless of whether the material is "readily available", any creative work authored after 1978 is AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted. The author does not have to say "copyright 2008" and the author can even say "please feel free to copy this". It doesn't matter - the work is AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted. Wikipedia only reuses content if (a) the copyright has expired, (b) the author explicitly grants a license under the terms of the GFDL, or (c) the author explicitly releases all rights to the work. Unless you can demonstrate that the original author of that text explicitly released all rights to it, we cannot use it, regardless of whatever other people may be reusing it. "Copyright" is not the same thing as a "trademark" - with a trademark, if you don't enforce it you lose it, but with copyright it remains copyrighted even if you decline to enforce your rights. --B (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but the bio is not creative work so it is not subject to the copyright laws. Since people's bios are just factual information, wouldn't you have this same issue with essentially all Wikipedia articles on people? You are certainly going to find the same information somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.142.14 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. You are correct that facts are not copyrightable, but the presentation of those facts is creative. If the article were, say, a bullet list of churches that he had served in, that's not copyrightable because there is only one way to present a bullet list of that information. But this article was in prose and there are countless ways to convey the same information in your own words. It is a creative work and is subject to copyright, regardless of how often the author enforces that copyright. I have reviewed again the original text (any admin reading this may see [5]) and it is far more than an uncreative listing of facts. --B (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm the person that gave the bio information to Thomas Nelson. It is not their original work. I did not put the origianl article on Wikipedia, but I have edited it a couple of times for accuracy. Since this bio is not Thomas Nelson's original work, it seems reasonable that the article should stay on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.142.14 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Whose original work is it? Regardless of whether it is Thomas Nelson's original work, it is somebody's work and whoever that person is would need to explicitly grant it into the public domain or release it under the terms of the GFDL in order for us to use it. --B (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
You can tell I'm a bit new to this so please bear with me. If I understand what you are saying, then it seems that every single article on Wikipedia needs someone to explicitly grant it into public domain. Is that true? If it is true, what is that process for doing that and how do you know that the person doing so has the right to grant it? If it is not true, then why is it being applied in this instance? It seems like the article is rather innocuous so I'm not sure why this is an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.142.14 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are contributing your own, original, work, which should be the case most of the time, you are automatically agreeing to license it under the terms of the GFDL. The GFDL is a viral license that permits redistribution as long as you credit the authors and do not add any restrictions of your own. The vast majority of Wikipedia content is user-authored so no further statement is needed beyond your implied agreement with the website's terms of use. In the case of non-user-authored content, if it is from another GFDL website (like Wikia), we can provide attribution on the talk page or in the page history so that GFDL requirements are satisfied. Sometimes, we will incorporate text from a source where the copyright has expired (such as Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition). Because the copyright has expired, it is fine to use that text. Beyond that, if anyone wants to incorporate text that can be found anywhere on the internet, the copyright status needs to be verified. You can see Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries for a sample assertion of authorship and statement of permission. If the author of this bio wants to grant permission for its use, they can forward this or a similar statement of permission to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org and volunteers from the Wikimedia Foundation will review the submission and add a note to the article talk page that permission has been confirmed. --B (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Word clouds
I emailed the site owner, and he clarified the site's FAQ - see [6]. The images produced using the application are CC-by-sa; only the site layout itself is CC-by-nc-sa. Phew! Neıl龱14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that I have read it, color me paranoid, but the version Kirill gives sounds unlikely. When Kirill says that arbcom did not have prior knowledge, implying that they had not even read any of this before, somehow I doubt that FT2 is stupid enough to make this all up, post it, and not expect anyone to complain. I would say it is much more likely that he suggested these ideas, there was some discussion, he said "anyone object to me posting it", and everyone was on vacation and he took silence to mean consent. That's my best guess, anyway, FWIW. I suppose it's also possible that arbcom expected everyone to rejoice at the pronouncement and when that didn't happen, they decided to just let FT2 take the fall for it. That's the extreme paranoia in me, though. I expect the truth of it is closer to the former. --B (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, whatever the case may be, it appears that there are going to be consequences to all these dramatics. I'm not sure it's going to make me happy one way or another. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm scratching my head even more by FT2's reply here. In response to my question that could be paraphrased as "how can you call it unanimous if Kirill is obviously objecting", FT2 replies with "You need to read Arbcom's founding documents. That was a principle from the beginning." What in the world was a principle from the beginning? Ignoring objections and calling it unanimous? I must really be missing something here. --B (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, he doesn't care too much to get involved. His friends are watching movies. You'd think if he were doing something this important he would help the conversation along. And once again, I ask, if FT2 had unanimous support, wouldn't they show that somewhere? The only comment is Kirill, and that was strong non-support. I'm sure I'm going to be taken out behind the shed for calling someone a racist (which appears to be less acceptable than actually being a racist), but I believe that if I were allowed, I can and will make a case that those accusations were accurate to some degree. Exactly what is FT2 afraid of? Being wrong? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.
the arena football playoffs comment....I seriously laughed out loud....I don't even know if they are on a tv channel I get....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems like they change networks on a yearly basis. I see it occasionally on ESPN, but unless you just happen to catch two good teams, a lot of times it's just a blowout and really hard to watch. --B (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ever since I got my XM radio a few years ago, I have to admit I listen to sports talk 24/7 (give or take some sleep time). Colin Cowherd is always on during my morning commute! OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I listen to Colin Cowherd daily. Sometimes I will listen to Mike Tirico afterwards and he is probably the most brilliant of them in terms of his sports knowledge but the problem is that they don't give him his own show and it really isn't as enjoyable when he's just playing referee. One of my coworkers usually has Jim Rome on but he really drives me crazy (Rome, not the coworker) ... the manual buzzer is just plain annoying. --B (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
My brother is a big Jim Rome fan. Or is that clone? I'm starting to enjoy Scott Van Pelt. He's got funnier stories about sports. I happen to enjoy Tony Kornheiser, but then again, he's Jewish, liberal, and is friends with James Carville. I think you live down in that part of the country, so you might avoid him just because of his politics. LOL. Honestly, my interests in sports are Baseball, Ice Hockey, Syracuse University (anything, women's ice hockey, for example), and....well, that's about it. Lucky for me, SU grads are endemic to ESPN, so if SU does anything, it will be there. Hockey is a bit of a problem these days. Cowherd may have mentioned the Stanley Cup playoffs, but if he did, I wasn't listening!!!! I drive a lot in the LA area, so without sports talk, I'd be bored. I love music, but my mind needs a bit of stimulation. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The July 2008 issue of the College football 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you examine the article "Independent National Socialism" for bias?
I am asking a number of administrators at random to review Independent National Socialism which is sourced completely from a white nationalist webpage called Stormfront, which has anti-Semitic and other xenophobic material on it. A user is claiming that this website is acceptable for use. I believe that this source is not reliable and could be original research, but you you believe that this website can or should this source be relied upon for the article? Please post your determination on the talk page of Independent National Socialism. Thank you for reading this.--R-41 (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
My error
Thank you for cleaning up my mess. I came to the page because "User:Gogoskam" was in the list of Italian porn actors. Watching what you did, I now understand how to use the "nowiki". I'll go on to making new errors now. I'm sorry you had to deal with my most recent one. David in DC (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Your comment on the talk page of the Cla68 case proposed decision
Yes, I did see your submission of evidence concerning Felonious Monk. It could result in sanctions for him, if considered serious enough. That's something that could have been resolved at any time by normal dispute resolution--culminating in arbitration if necessary. This case, I hold, is about something far more serious. I'm sorry if my concentration on the larger issues makes me appear myopic or deaf to other concerns. Fortunately I'm not an arbitrator so I don't have to balance these concerns in the best interests of the encyclopedia. --Jenny18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, previous arbitrations have included warnings for FM, so if that didn't solve the problem, I don't know that community action is capable of doing so. Also - and I may be alone in this philosophy - there is very limited damage that a non-admin can do, so I'm less concerned about Cla68 than you are. I'm far more concerned about the danger of having an admin that straddles the line and plays the game just well enough to not be desysopped. There's a lot of harm that can be done there. I have a very low tolerance for abuse of the admin tools and the drama that their misuse can create. --B (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I protected the page because it was a repeatedly recreated nonsense page. I have no objection whatsoever to its unprotection if someone has a legitimate need for it. --B (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking after my talk page and taking care of the vandal. His contribs aren't very productive, to put it mildly. Next time I think he should be indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
User rights management
Hey B, I must be really out of the loop...what the hell is a "Account creator"? (yes I know, dumb question....but....) Just curious... Regards, nat.utoronto04:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The privilege exempts you from the limit of creating 6 new accounts per IP per day. It is used by users who handle requests for accounts from users caught behind a range block. --B (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Was there a discussion to add this user right? (not that I want to get rid of it, just for general knowledge... :) ) Regards, nat.utoronto00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Tasc0
Considering the shocking and grossly inappropriate threat by Tasc0 (talk·contribs) (now banned), would it be worth restricting the use of the emailuser feature on his account aswell? Rudget (logs) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary unless he abuses it. A blocked user's only avenue for contacting the blocking admin is email and he may also wish to contact an individual arbiter via email. If he abuses it and starts sending harassing emails, I imagine that it will be rather quickly disabled, so the risk isn't very high - he could only do it once. --B (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I need some clarification on BLP, particularly the NCAA violations section on Lou Holtz. Do I understand correctly that the objections are a) in only one of the three cases was Holtz directly responsible for actionable violations and b) in that case, the only support is "buried" in a long report and not easily spotted by the reader? In the college football media, it's generally understood (I would argue) that coaches are held responsible for the NCAA compliance of the programs they represent, but is it fair to say that on wikipedia that is not the case, that they are only responsible for the actions they directly took? I ask because that doesn't seem to be a consistent pattern across other similar biographies (in other NCAA sports, or of players). If that's the rule I'll obviously follow it. (I apologize for putting this in the wrong secetion, but I read the guides and could not figure out how to create a new section) Ny1995 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
To make a new section, click the "new section" tab at the top of the page. You should see tabs that say, "user page", "discussion", "etit this page", "new section", and "history". The "new section" button is the one you want. (It might just be a + sign instead of "new section" spelled out - I have some extra buttons from scripts and I'm not sure if one of my scripts changes the name of the button or not.) As to answer your question, you may want to see WP:COATRACK. "Guilt by association" is not a good thing and drawing the conclusion that Holtz is responsible for everything that goes on under him is outside the scope of Wikipedia's mission. If we're going to talk about Holtz's NCAA violations, we need to have reliable sources that discuss Holtz's relationship to them. The one at Minnesota, for example, was talking mostly about basketball, which has nothing whatsoever to do with him. Every school has NCAA violations from time to time and most of them are minor. For example, several years ago, Virginia Tech self-reported to the NCAA that a coach had bought a dietary supplement for some of his players. The players paid for it so it wasn't an extra benefit - he just collected money at team meetings and ordered the supplements online for everyone that paid him. But the NCAA says that the coaches can't have anything to do with it, so that's a violation. So even though, yes, Frank Beamer is ultimately responsible for what his subordinates do, he probably didn't even know about it and this has nothing whatsoever to do with writing a biography of Frank Beamer. So we don't include it. The question with Holtz is similar - does this have anything to do with a biography of Lou Holtz? --B (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Understood and thanks. In the case of the Minnesota violations, Holtz was found 'guilty' of personally giving money to players/recruits on two different occasions. Perhaps instead of just referring to that finding I should have included the specific passages from the NCAA report. The South Carolina violations are more debatable, since they included "lack of institutional control" which leaves things very much open to interpretation as to who is guilty of not asserting control. I think the current edit, which says he was found not culpable, is not accurate (especially given the Minnesota findings) and the rewritten summary of the Notre Dame portion of the story is highly biased (deleting references to the woman in question's status as a booster and describing imperissable benefits as an attempt to impress football players). And in the end, I felt and others do (though it's obviously not universal) that while 1 incident may be 'guilt by association', 3 incidents in succession presents a pattern that is important in assessing the career of the coach in question.Ny1995 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever looked at the NCAA rules? I swear college programs ought to have an attorney at every single team meeting, shadowing the coaches, so that they don't violate rules. Of course, now I have to rant. These major Division I programs make tons of money off of athletes, yet tries to run their system like a bunch of socialists (yes, when it comes to capitalism, I tend to be a capitalist), literally enslaving the scholar-athlete (used loosely) to the school. It makes no sense to me. Of course, a football player can sign an MLB contract to play minor league baseball. Go figure. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
One of my coworkers had a great idea for reforming college athletics. Give every scholarship athlete an additional period of time (2-4 years) after their eligibility ends that they can continue to be on scholarship and let them drop down to a half-time schedule while they are playing. That way, we quit pretending that these football players, who rarely spend very much time on academics, are student athletes and we give the ones that aren't going pro an honest chance at getting a real college education. --B (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
To make extra money while I was in graduate/medical school, I used to tutor the basketball team on science. This was about 30 years ago, players used to stay in the program for 3-4 years, and they had to pass their classes. Today, I doubt anyone cares, so maybe you're right, let's stop the pretend academics and move along. Or follow Navy or Army, who are true scholar-athletes. Well Ivy League too. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that you've been working on a page similar to this one in your sandbox. Wanted to give you a heads-up that I've ?completed one and that it's in the Featured List process right now. If you'd like, once it passes, I can incorporate some of your work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to incorporate anything I have done. (Legal mumbo jumbo: I release my edits to that sandbox page into the public domain and you are free to copy/paste any content I have created there without worrying about GFDL attribution/history requirements.) I started working on it based on the ECU article, but never got a chance to finish it. --B (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. I'll be incorporating your coaches column, I think. It's a good idea, and one I hadn't thought of. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, could you check my math on the number of wins/losses? I've added everything up a few times, but my totals don't match those of the 2008 media guide, which says that Tech has 648 total wins. I'd appreciate the help. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I was contacted by the subject of an article asking for my help posting a picture of him in his Wikipedia article. He didn't want to to release it to the public domain because he didn't want it to be used for commercial purposes. I uploaded the image, but the closest tag I could find was the non-free fair use in tag, but naturally, that won't work because he's alive and a free equivalent could be created that would adequately give the same information. Is there any other way for us to include the image without releasing it to the public domain where it could be used for commercial purposes? Thanks! Dreadstar†07:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The GNU Free Documentation License is the best alternative and if protection is a concern, {{GFDL-1.2}} (which is immune from potential future marrying of the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses) is the best alternative. It can be used commercially, HOWEVER it can only be used under the conditions of the GFDL, which are too annoying for most commercial uses other than online encyclopedias. ALL content on Wikipedia is recreated on HUNDREDS of commercial websites (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All for a complete list). Anything used here is going to be mirrored and that is one of the reasons that we cannot accept content with a non-commercial use restriction. The GFDL contains enough restrictions that your average, run of the mill, commercial content provider isn't going to want to mess with it. You may want to suggest {{GFDL-1.2}} to him, but be careful about giving anything that could be construed as legal advice. If he wants legal advice about the practical implications of the license, he should consult his own lawyer. But to answer your original question, no, there is no way to use it under a claim of fair use or to completely restrict commercial use. The only alternatives we can offer are (1) no photo, (2) a random amateur photo that someone contributes under a free license, or (3) a quality photo that he contributes under a free license. Jimmy Wales said awhile back that (and I'm paraphrasing here) that we are big enough now that we could request #3 and receive it in a lot of cases because it is preferable to the alternative. While that's probably a true statement of fact, I don't like the attitude one bit ... but it is what it is. --B (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response, this is great information! I'll contact Josephson and suggest using {{GFDL-1.2}} and pass along your comments. Thanks again! Dreadstar†05:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The August 2008 issue of the College football 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is to inform you that I created the article Lakan, which, on further examination, I discovered had been previously deleted by you under the db-blank or db-empty rationale. My current version has quite a few flaws left, I'm afraid, especially since there is not much online discussion of Pre-colonization philippine history (the records of that time for the most part did not survive.) I shall be scouring my books for better references soon, but in the meantime, I am asking for your blessing as the admin who deleted the old article to get it going again. Yours. Alternativity (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily, if they were a part of the same film and the copyright was not renewed on that film, or some such thing, they would be - but just from the information given, there is not enough to draw a conclusion. More importantly, what is the basis for believing that Image:TomandJerryTitleCard1.jpg is public domain? The deleted en-wiki revisions show that it was tagged as non-free when it was here. Looking at that user's other commons contributions, they probably have no idea what they are doing and it is really a copyrighted image. Barring some logical explanation, I'd be more inclined to delete the commons image and restore the en copy with the copyright notice. --B (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The September 2008 issue of the College football 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice the big blue box on this page, as of last week, the User talk space is excluded from the pages Wikipedia lets search engines index. MBisanztalk02:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but unfortunately, mirrors can still index user talk pages and those mirrors can be indexed. For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't release articles under the GFDL yet claim "Wikipedia-only unless incorporated in an article" or some such thing licenses on non-mainspace content. --B (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the same problem you have with talk-page archives. I deal with it by abusing my administrative tools to protect all of my usertalk archives. A more global solution would be better, though. MastCellTalk08:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Geni is correct in what he said there. Depending on how different the photograph was from the original, it is either a "slavish copy" (e.g., like a photocopy), in which case no new "creative work" has been authored and the original copyright applies or, if it is transformative in some way, then it is a "derivative work" of its constituent elements. The copyright holder of a work has exclusive rights to authorize derivative works - so if you take a photograph of a copyrighted work, even if you add other elements, then you cannot legally distribute it. Where it gets dicey is proportionality. Some countries have a freedom of panorama where if it is outside, consent to photograph it is implied. That is not the case in America. For example, if you take a picture of a group of Boy Scouts and one of them is wearing a Winnie the Pooh t-shirt, nobody would claim that you don't have the right to distribute that. But if you zoom in on the t-shirt and the t-shirt is obviously the subject of your photo, then we can't really use that. --B (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The October 2008 issue of the College football 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I answered the question there. The short version is that the IP user is correct - if two teams finish with the same conference record, they are considered tied. In college football, overall record does not count for anything in conference standings. --B (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
My input on the Chicago Tribune article on McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy was deleted by you. I don't see why, isn't it a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bopter (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason should be obvious. The article you cited (and, the content you added based on that article) was a biased opinion piece attempting to argue a moral equivalency between the Ayers-Obama association and the Liddy-McCain association. I am not at all interested in arguing the point (even though there is obviously a difference between an unrepentant terrorist and a thief), and Wikipedia is not the place to try to score political points. There are plenty of fora out there to push talking points for one side or another - Wikipedia is not among them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for promoting your candidate. --B (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I followed the template for Jesse Ventura. His picture was up for a while and was not flagged. If I did something wrong, please let me know. Tennisace101 (talk) 19 October 2008(UTC)
This racist editor is harassing good-faith editors on his talk page, despite being indefinitely blocked. Moreover, an admin is intimating that he should be unblocked. I'll take it further, but I know your opinion on racism approximates mine, so maybe you can use your good name to help out. I think his talk page should be protected, but that's my opinion. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
First I would like to say that I respect you and I don't mean any negativity towards yourself. I would just like to say that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder is a perfectly reliable source. Everything in the book is backed by facts and sources are cited. Of course the book is biased, but it only tells facts about the terrorist Yasser Arafat. Everything in that section was cited, with reliable sources, and was neutral. It only said facts. It never said, "Arafat should" or "Arafat is the scum of the Earth". So again, all of my sources were cited. I undo your revert as I know that would only be reverted again. I'll bring it up in the talk page.
If everything in that book is cited, then cite the sources themselves, not the book. Problem solved. There is no way that book is a reliable source in and of itself. You should also see WP:TERRORIST, which discusses the problems with labeling someone as a terrorist. --B (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There are "edit" links in each of the 5 boxes on that page. Pick one box to add your item to and click "edit" and add it. The five boxes will appear randomly on the portal, so your item will appear when its box is randomly picked. --B (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, I come in peace. I am an infrequent Wikipedian who seeks your superior knowledge. What justifies the removal of red links from the NBA disambiguation page when both these organisations exist, but just do not have articles yet? Surely possible alternatives are essential to remove all possiblity of misdirection. A cursory Googling shows that they are hardly non-notables. My attention was drawn to this because you also undid a change of mine (which I half-agree with, but 'Needs-Based Analysis' is a term in general use as a Google Search will reveal, and I really could have used its presence on the page when I was trying to figure it out!). As I said, I come in peace. I just did not want to undo any of your edits without consulting with you first.Gondooley (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You're asking me to explain an edit I made over a year ago? "Needs-based analysis" is used by more than just this single company and giving them free advertising doesn't really make sense. Google gets very few hits for abbreviating it "NBA" ([8], [9], so I can't imagine that is a useful disambiguation. As for "National Brass foundry Association", virtually all of the g-hits are simply from lists of what "NBA" stands for. I have no idea if it even exists, but will take your word for it that it does. The National Band Association probably would be a good article topic, but even then, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Red_links. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to provide links to articles that exist - they shouldn't be brainstorm lists of everything that might exist. "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information." If there is no other article that gives information about these two organizations, then there is no reason for a link to them. The best solution: create the National Band Association article and then link to it.--B (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Help Me
Hi there. I have this problem that I've register the user name as Penulis at Wikipedia Malay version but I can't register to Wikipedia in the English version and the user Penulis in wikipedia English version does even exist. Can you help me with that. I will check you discussion page again later. 60.50.169.223 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
.svg){kind=logo}
