|
User talk:Coelacan
zOMG!!!Is it true?? Are you really back??? Wheeeeee!!!! :) - Alison ❤ 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (missed ya)
 omgomgomgomgomg—bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Stealing an old section header, too lazy to make my own Welcome back, coel! I only just noticed *blush* ~ Riana ⁂ 07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What happenedWere you banned from Wikipedia for a while? — Walloon 07:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow!!!!Where've you been man?? It's good to see you back! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome backGood to see you back! I've made a suggestion for a change to your sig that may appease the signing Bot below - or you could just opt out of it... WjBscribe 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
GladGlad you're back. It was good to do this. :) Hope you're well. Acalamari 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you back!Welcome back! :) Aleta 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And Heimstern!Weclome Back, Coelacan! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You!Because it's nice to have another admin to harass, and for your perky comment in the last Ani discussion tangentially related to me. Jeffpw 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
backGood to see you back! ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
ContactHi there; thank you for the e-mail. Also thank you for answering two questions from inexperienced editors which dropped into my talkpage. I have just formed a new relationship following the death of my wife at the beginning of this year, just got engaged, and my available time on wiki is presently therefore limited (hopefully understandably) - though I will be here most days. Therefore, thanks again. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Re:archiveThanks a lot.Kfc1864 talk my edits 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Noticed late, but...The place might have gone on without you, but damn, it's good to see you back around! Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
5 months!That's a long lunchbreak! :) I can certainly understand disappearing due to stress. I hope that you're doing okay now. Welcome back. Is it okay if I drop you an email? --AliceJMarkham 11:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back!OMG, where were you? :-D It's so good to have you back. You don't write, you don't call, tsk tsk... Anyway, it's great to see you around again. ;-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
HiJust to let you know I still think of you often. I hope you're doing well. I missed you so much. Can I still be known as your guppy (baby)? ~Jeeny (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
giveit.pngI responded on David Gerard's talk page. Just to give you a summary, it was deleted after discussion on the m:Communications Committee mailing list, where we found it to be extremely inappropriate for an image to portray the foundation as demanding people's money. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong impressionHi. I feel that I must have given the wrong impression at WP:AN/I. I've replied there to your thoughtful, considered post, and I hope my response clarifies where I'm coming from. I'm sorry that what I've said has rubbed you the wrong way, as I suspect that our beliefs are in fact rather similar. If you don't wish to continue the conversation at ANI, please feel free to reply further either here or at my talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
SKIP- Students for Kids International ProjectsHi, You've just deleted a page that has taken both myself and the original writer ages to create (I might cry!!) The reason cited for speedy deletion is that the goals and objectives are a direct copy from the website www.skipkids.org.uk You are both correct and mistaken: the goals listed on this website are those of the charity that the wiki page is about. Yes, they appear on the website (as placed there by us in the first place) but the copyright is on the original documents that the lady who created this wiki page co-wrote. The point of having them on the wiki page is to inform those who wish to be educated about our charity, what our main aims are. PLEASE re-instate this page. We haven't violated any copyright whatsoever: our problem is merely that we are in the process of describing an entire charity and are currently working to ensure that the article is as well referenced as possible (difficult, since the charity began in 2003 and web documentation and documentation on how it formed is limited: the history of SKIP is current and word of mouth). Please get in touch with me if this is a problem! Many thanks, Purple.hooded.wytch 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect to being a notable organisation, I was in the process of providing the following links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/students/2003/10/zambia.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2005/08/22/skip_zambia_2_feature.shtml Furthermore, we are regulated by the UK Charities Commission, have the registered charity number (as listed on the wiki page) of 1099804 and our Patron is Professor the Baroness Finlay of Llandaff. Please visit http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ and type in the above charity number to verify this. Many thanks, Purple.hooded.wytch 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair point regarding these two articles. Articles have been published about us in local papers on behalf of SKIP volunteers looking for funding but these are in print and I cannot provide you with a copy of this. Does the registration of our charity not count though? Our intention was not promotion in the sense of aiming to recruit (which is free to all volunteers anyway) or even to sell merchandise (money for which goes straight back into our projects). It is simply that we exist. I don't quite understand how I am supposed to define our existence, as a small organisation under the constraints that have been placed. I was quite careful to ensure that no merchandise information would be included so as to keep with your guidelines. Your notability article states that you wish to include the underdog but who will write for the underdog other than those themselves? And if they do, they are then labelled as promotional and therefore cannot be placed on the site?? It seems a little paradoxical. Please note that I am not trying to confront Wikipedia!! I am just trying to defend the article itself and sincerely hope I don't cause any trouble! Yes, please do provide me with a copy of the page. What is Wikia? Also, how do I reply to your messages? I'm having to loop round on myself to reply to you which is getting difficult! Do I just edit my previous messages? Many thanks, Purple.hooded.wytch 21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've checked what Wikia is and would be happy to have SKIP featured on that site. All the best, Purple.hooded.wytch 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Just a quick note to say thankyou very much for both your help in this matter and your offer to help with putting the SKIP wiki on Wikia. Hopefully, once I can get the Independent on side, there will soon be a general Wiki page too :) Many thanks, Purple.hooded.wytch 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Hi, I noticed you're the admin who deleted a vodcast screenshot I marked as "non-permitted fair use" (thanks!) - it strikes me that virtually all vodcast images are going to be of people for whom free replacement images are either available or possible to create. This template text explains that it is for non-free media only (so I think its name should strictly be change to "Non-free vodcast screenshot" for consistency with other similar entries in Category:Non-free image copyright tags) but it seems likely that most images it's used on will be non-permitted. I'm a bit wary of suggesting the template for deletion (since I guess it's conceivable that some non-free media of this type might be permitted on Wikipedia, so should have an appropriate tag - on the other hand, its mere existence may well encourage inappropriate uploads), not quite sure how or where to propose a renaming for consistency (I am sure there was a debate somewhere about appending "Non-free" in front of non-free media templates but not sure where or when) and I do think that most instances listed in "Whatlinkshere" will tend to replaceable so it'd be a good idea for people to keep an eye on its use. Since you seem to be at least mildly interested, I wonder if you've got any brighter ideas than me or could just give me some advice? I'll cross-post this to the template talk page where it's probably best to reply, but I suspect if I didn't contact a couple of people directly I wouldn't get any replies! Purgatorio 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Great to See you BackI truly hope you enjoyed your wikibreak. I sincerely hope that my request for assistance didn't inadvertently lead to the absence. If it did, I apologize profusely. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
zealous dislike for a secular programCoelacan - You deleted the SMART Recovery page without cause. The Alcoholics Anonymous article is just as promotional and self-promoting (and do to its wide reknown less needed) but continues to be displayed with the AA logo and other marketing tools. Why is it OK to have a Wikipedia article that covers a spiritual organization that helps addicted people, and an article (Rational Recovery) that covers a FOR PROFIT organization that does not even provide help for addicted people except for a fee (which is propriatary and definitely should not be in Wikipedia, but the science-based and secular organization and program called SMART Recovery is deleted within minutes of posting?? You need to explain this to all concerned. It is not fair for you to delete whole pages based on zealous dislike for a secular program that you feel competes with AA. Indeed the evidence is that there is no competion at all. Most people who know about SMART Recovery attend both types of meetings, each for different reasons and some people who can not or will not attend AA go to SMART and are found (according the the Walsh Group Survey that I'm trying to add to the SMART Recovery page under Supporting Research) people benefit from either group, but people low in "religiosity" will not attend AA just as those high in religiosity may prefer AA. Be honest and place SMART Recovery back in Wikipedia, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrysteinberger (talk • contribs) See apology noted below. Sorry for flaming and for not signing. I think my comments below describe what I'd consider a helpful resolution of my beef. Thanks for your attention to my gripe.Henrysteinberger 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC) + SMART Recovery. Coelacan - I apologize and put my flame out. You can certainly understand then how I inferred bias when I see a multi page ad for AA AND for RR (which has been questioned) but can't keep a SMART Recovery page up for five minutes. Perhaps rather than deleting it, it might get constructive criticism and allow for revision - remaining up while construction continues. Also, as there are WikiProjects on Business and Economics and on Food and Drink, why can't we have a WikiProject on mutual-aid Self-help groups and include all of the non-profits; the 12-Step groups and the secular groups and the secular and science-based groups (SMART Recovery and Moderation Management both meet that criterion). That would be encyclopedic. Your comment? Henrysteinberger 06:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC) You asked if SMART Recovery (and please note that SMART is an ancronym and so should always be capitalized) has been cited independently of the SR web site. The following comes from the Dept of Health: Cc: Westbrook, Michele (SAMHSA/CSAT); Plavsic, Kim M. (SAMHSA/CSAT); Currier, Christina (SAMHSA/CSAT) Subject: E-mail to Recovery Month
Dear Dr. Steinberger:
The e-mail that you submitted to the Recovery Month website was forwarded to me for response. I am the project officer of the Knowledge Application Program (KAP) under which the DHHS Publication Faces of Change was developed.
Please note, KAP has mentioned SMART Recovery® in the following documents.
TIP 30, Continuity of Offender Treatment for Substance Use Disorders from Institution to Community TIP 34, Brief Interventions and Brief Therapies for Substance Abuse TIP 40, Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction TIP 43, Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in Opioid Treatment Programs TIP 44, Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System TIP 47, Substance Abuse: Clinical Issues in Intensive Outpatient Treatment What is Substance Abuse Treatment? A Booklet For Families and the Spanish version, ¿Qué es el Tratamiento para el Abuso de Sustancias? Un Folleto para las Familias. Therapeutic Community Training Curriculum
The availability of groups is also a factor. Alcoholics Anonymous has over 106,000 groups worldwide and over 1.8 million members. According to the SMART Recovery®’s Web site, they offer about 250 weekly groups.
In the future, when consensus panelists or authors agree or research strongly supports SMART Recovery®, we will mention it in our documents. PLESAE NOTE THAT SINCE THAT CORRESPONDENCE THERE WAS RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING THAT SECULAR GROUPS ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP PEOPLE WITH LOW RELIGIOSITY ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN MUTUAL SUPPORT GROUPS (which the same research showed to be effective for both the 12-step and secular groups IF there was particiaption with didn't happen when the basic religious preferences were ignored. That research was announced in a peer reviewed journal and here is that announcement:
Media Announcement Media Contact: Randolph Atkins, Jr., Ph.D. For Immediate Release The Walsh Group (301) 571-9494 randy.atkins@walshgroup.org Religiosity and participation in mutual-aid support groups for addiction Randolph G. Atkins, Jr., Ph.D. and James E. Hawdon, Ph.D. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Volume 33, Issue 3, October 2007, Pages 321-331 Mutual-aid support groups play a vital role in substance abuse treatment in the United States. In 2005, The Walsh Group conducted a national survey of participants in mutual-aid support groups for addiction to identify key differences between participants in various recovery groups. This research was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (Grant # 1 R43 DA016517-01A1). The survey was conducted with the assistance of The Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia, Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS), SMART Recovery, and Women for Sobriety (WFS). Extensive data was collected from survey respondents on many aspects of recovery. This paper, the first in a planned series of papers based on this survey data, focuses on the impact of survey respondents’ level of religiosity on their recovery and their participation in mutual-aid support groups. Key findings from the survey on mutual-aid support groups discussed in this paper include: • Active involvement in groups significantly improves the chances of remaining clean and sober, regardless of the group (SOS, SMART, WFS, 12-step) in which one participates. • Respondents whose individual beliefs better matched those of their primary support groups showed greater levels of group participation, resulting in better outcomes as measured by increased number of days clean and sober. • Religious respondents were more likely to actively participate in 12-Step groups and WFS, both of which have spiritual components in their programs. • Non-religious respondents were significantly less likely to participate in 12-Step groups. • Respondents with low levels of religiosity were more likely to actively participate in groups with secular programs, such as SOS and SMART Recovery. This study provides more evidence that in recovery “one size does not fit all.” These results have important implications for treatment planning and implementation, indicating that matching clients to appropriate support groups according to their individual beliefs can have a positive impact on their program involvement and, ultimately, on their treatment outcomes. When participants in recovery groups feel more comfortable with the philosophies of the groups they attend, they are more likely to become actively involved in these groups, which often results in longer periods of remaining abstinent from the use of alcohol and other drugs.
The article is now available on-line at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/ [Go to the Science Direct website, type in the first few words of article title in the search & click on go] WITH THIS Ms. C. agreed to cite SMART Recovery whenever the 12-Step groups are cited in SAMHSA publications. NIDA and NIAAA will soon be on board for the same. And SMART Recovery has been recognized by 5 major health organizations referenced in our sandbox copy currently for your perusal. SMART Recovery is also listed in numberous textbooks along with the 12-Step programs and other secular program. SO MY REMAINING QUESTIONS IS, WHY ARE ALMOST ALL OF THE 12-STEP GROUPS ALLOWED FULL ADVERTISING LIKE ARTICLES WITH THERE LOGOS AND LOTS OF SELF-REFERENTIAL MATERIALS, BUT THE ONLY SECULAR ORGANIZATION GIVEN SPACE IS RATIONAL RECOVERY WHICH IS A FOR PROFIT WHICH TOTALLY REJECTS SELF-HELP GROUPS BUT IS LISTED UNDER (SORRY i FORGET THE TITLE, BUT i'LL RETURN WITH IT.) KBUT MM, SMART Recovery, SOS, AND LifeRing ARE NOT --- NOT -- GIVEN ARTICLES. WHY IS THAT????? AS YOU CAN GUESS, I'M A BIT DISTURBED BY WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BIAS, WHICH YOU TOTAL AND KINDLY DENY,BUT DON'T REALLY EXPLAIN.Henrysteinberger (talk) AND can we change the title of this to something other than Zealous dislike for secular program please? How about: Inclusion of Secular programs in the Wikipedia????Henrysteinberger (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Chris Currier
Christina Currier Public Health Analyst Project Officer, Knowledge Application Program CSAT, Division of Services Improvement Practice Improvement Branch 240-276-1572 fax: 240-276-2970 christina.currier@samhsa.hhs.gov
He's backUser:Benjiboi's stalker is back and has attacked him again. See User_talk:Benjiboi#Articles_for_deletion.2FFruit_.28slang.29 comment by User:72.76.11.153 -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Meh.It's OK. I probably didn't need to highlight things the way I did - I don't need the account, best keep it blocked :-) You didn't do the wrong thing there! However, that signature is truly misleading. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your assistanceHello, and thanks for the message you left on my talk page regarding the COI / hoaxing / spurious credits from Santa Barbara and Santa Rosa that have been plaguing certain pages. I do have a user account, but i wanted my name left out of it, for social reasons. (The man applied for a job with my company and cited those pages as job references, not knowing that i am a Notable Wikipedian with a proclivity for detection.) The pages are on my watchlist, and if the trouble comes up again, i will let you know so that further actions can be taken. Yours in solidarity, "feline ferroustimber" 64.142.90.32 11:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC) A'alph'aHunh. I wondered. But it looked like it had been placed there by a non-admin? Or at least it looked that way, since Nick (talk · contribs) doesn't have a user-page. Now that I look at it, sie actually is an admin. Well - learn something new every day! :) Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Glee.comHi there. I saw your edit, and thought I'd comment. I read through the ref's when I changed the tag, and I wasn't really convinced that it was a non-trivial mention (basically, the articles are more about the Army's goof, and the site in question happens to be Glee). That said though, it did get discussed in a few major news sources, so it's not a clear cut trivial case either. I'm happy enough to leave it as it is. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Reply:FYIThank you for your comment. The template you mentioned, would have been more appropriate. So them falsely using templates, like he used, doesn't constitute vandalism? Ctjf83 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
RfAThanks! No hard feelings. I was originally thinking it was about time to accept one of these, but in retrospect, I guess I need a bit more time in between some recent (and rather lame, on my part) incidents. I'll probably give it another shot sometime in the spring, after I've had a bit more time. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Legal threatI think I received a legal threat from CashMurda407 on my talk page.--Ccson (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Question for you, fishI'm a little confused about RfCs but know they are serious and not to be taken lightly. Re: "Users certify the basis", and/or "those who endorse this statement". I believe I certify the basis, but not all of the statement. So do I sign under the "certify the basis" even though I did not try to resolve the dispute (only made a comment on AN/I, and on the RfC talk page), nor was I involved with the article before or the editors? I did take the time (more then 3 hours!) researching the complaint though. ~Jeeny (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Andre Douzethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Douzet Is an ongoing problem - Andre Douzet is a recognised hoaxer and charlatan in France in relation to Rennes-le-Chateau and writer of pseudohistorical books - his supporters in the UK who have websites promoting him are the ones responsible for placing the article on Wikipedia - meaning that it cannot be written from an unbiased and neutral POV. Does Wikipedia have its article on L. Ron Hubbard arguing that Dianetics was a "scientific fact"? The same difference applies to Douzet.Wfgh66 (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I have reverted the POV Banner again for the Douzet article because his followers are on a permanent agenda promoting Douzrt on Wikipedia - if I keep adding that he is an author of pseudohistorical books to the article that addition will forever become deleted by his UK supporters. This is all about principles. Are we going to allow the believers in pseudo-history to run the show on Wikipedia? Wfgh66 (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Guess what - my comments on the Talk Page for Andre Douzet do get blanked out by his UK supporters. See for yourself, and please read the criticism of Douzet by the French on the Talk Page. There are three major players making the contribution on Douzet - Corjan de Raaf, Filip Coppens and Andrew Gough - and a couple of others who are their associates. These are the people making the contributions and nobody else. I am filling in the details about the unreliability of Andre Douzet and that his supporters are merely believers in the myth of RLC.Wfgh66 (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 194.73.124.83 is currently deleting my addition to the Douzet article that he is a writer of pseudohistorical books and my comments on the Talk Page. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I have left messages about what is going on at the Andre Douzet Wikipedia article on the WP:AIV and WP:COI/N pages.Wfgh66 (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Hi, Someone keeps blanking out the crucial word pseudohistorical from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Douzet The article in question is being contributed by followers of a recognised hoaxer and charlatan. This issue was dealt with yesterday by Wikipedia. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC) deleted categoriesIn response to [1] and [2], sorry for creating those two categories. I must not understand how categories work, and I also hoped that people would expand on them.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it done before – images that I would think are okay but they are deleted anyway. See, for instance, how Gianni Versace's picture was deleted. I have no objections to it being deleted; I just wanted to end the conflict in the most amicable way possible, which was adding the right tag and rationale. I was quite surprised to see Fresheneesz call me an "image nazi" even though I was nnly peripherally involved with that confilct. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Well meaning Wikipedians and illiteracyThis scintillating discussion has set the tone for my entire day. Jeffpw (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Why switch off MY computer?Why mine??? I'm not one of the nutters trying to get Andre Douzet's books and mags sold on Wikipedia. You should read themWfgh66 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The template mystery
the return of our old friend Anacapa?Hi Coelacan, would you mind having a look at the contributions of IP users 128.111.95.65[3] and 128.111.95.161 [4] to Talk:Misandry. It looks like User:Anacapa is using these IPs (both of which are in his previous range and owned by U C Santa Barbara) - the material being posted fits the rhetoric and content of Anacapa's previous disruptive posts. He may also have used IP 72.215.181.137[5]--Cailil talk 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Recidivism?Nergaal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues his series of personal attacks against me, despite the warnings. Now I'm "irrational"... diff. Was the warning too weak?Anonimu (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC) There seems to be a problem at my regular email forwarder.Try 'morven@gmail.com'. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC) ReplyI'm impressed by Calil's response to my request. I'm satisfied that due process was followed with regard to Anapaca. I'm particularly pleased to know that that process extends to the possibility of appeal, were Anapaca so inclined. "Wikilaw" is a work in process, like so much at Wiki, so it is encouraging to know how workable and reasonable things currently are, even if improvements are likely. One recommendation any of us could make is that:
Sadly, more such cases may arise over time, a template of some kind, providing links to documentation in archives seems a very Wiki approach — i.e. encourage people to look, review and comment if deemed appropriate. I don't know the frequency, so as easy as this might be, it still may not be worth it. Personally, I disagree that Anapaca was off-topic, and certainly disagree that questioning talk page discussion deletion is off topic. Given other comments in talk, various editors are suspicious about Wiki process related to controversy, especially with regard to gender debate. I don't feel particularly strongly, Anapaca's obvious frustration undermines the cogent sections of what he says, it's no great loss to lose those words. However, it occurs to me that Calil's detailed and respectful answer to my question does the greatest credit to Wiki, and gives me the opportunity to say I am satisfied that due process has been followed. That testimony is useful, especially in the context of several editors already alleging a foul has been committed in the main namespace. Anyway, the cool thing about Wiki is, so long as policy reflects what people want anyway, or is a matter of indifference, it provides helpful structure. But as far as I can tell, most policies are open to being re-written. Why does Wiki have NPOV and RS policies? Because everyone knows these are the right policies to have, whatever we call them. Don't worry, if there's a policy I don't like, I won't break it, I'll rewrite it! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Changing Thomas Plantard to Thomas Plantard de Saint-ClairHi, can it please be possible for you to change the title of the Wikipedia article here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Plantard From Thomas Plantard to Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair? I am not an Admin and only Admins seem to be able to change the titles of articles. Also, the same thing should apply to the title of this Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair is his real legal surname. And Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair was also a legal surname as its also found on the Death Certificate. I always thought that the additional surname of de Saint-Clair was just a hoot, but apparently not so. The additional part of the surname must have been added by French Deed Poll sometime during the mid-1970s but not before (see the article on Pierre Plantard that I contributed to). Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) My golf shoe size is 17
Skomorokh incite 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC) I'm underwaterHelp me, I'm drowning. - Jeeny (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Can you please check out User:70.173.47.6I think it is IronAngelAlice again. Thanks.LCP (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Happy Holidays You got a Christmas card! → → →
WTF COELACANMy apologies to everyone. My home computer is broke to fuck. I'm enduring nerd harassment (get off the computer!) at some party right now =D I really don't know how long it will be before I can log in at some reasonable interval. Much love to mine peeps, and I'll speak with you again soonlike. -- coel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.92.133 (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC) PatPeterI don't know if you're still currently involved with issues involving this user, but they've become rather disruptive. See User talk:Sox207 and rather specifically at User talk:The Big X for admissions of what they claim was/is going on. since then it's been a stream of IP addresses. See User talk:Gscshoyru for the most current set of disruptions. (Special:Contributions/Pagesock seems to be WP:DENY issues, and is probably the person as well.) I've been reading up on range blocking, as this may be what needs to be done as a "final" step. I'd appreciate your thoughts (and help). - jc37 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) DXN A proposed deletion template has been added to the article DXN, 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 Systematic deletion of my contributions to WikipediaHi, my contributions to Wikipedia are systematically being deleted by 77.49.252.57. And by Wikipedia Administrator Versageek. Is there any reason for this? Can anyone kindly please offer me an explanation? I would be most grateful. And all references to information and source material to the website that have been in the Wikipedia articles for a considerable period of time (ie, years) and were placed in those Wikipedia articles by former Wikipedia contributors as well as Wikipedia Administrators (ie, Loremaster, Paul Barlow, etc) are also being systematically culled and deleted. I admit that some references to the website were placed by me, but definitely not all of them. References to websites of a dubious and pseudo-historical nature, on the other hand, remain intact. Please can anyone here provide a rational explanation as to why myself, wfgh66, and material sources of information from the in relation to relevant Wikipedia articles are being targetted and deleted? The website concerned is hardly "spam" as described by 77.49.252.57, having being used as a source of material and reference for many books published throughout the world (I can back this up) and by numerous television satellite documentaries (I can back this up), bearing in mind it contains a large amount of unique primary source documentation not found in published books. Thank you for any reply. Wfgh66 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Adminship Anniversary
Notice of discussion – Talk:Eric Robert RudolphThis is a friendly notice that a discussion is underway here regarding a topic in which you have previously expressed interest. You are invited to participate in this discussion in order to improve it. I apologize if you did not wish to receive such notices. Groupthink (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheocracyWatch logo.jpg)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hirschfeld, Magnus (1868-1935) - 1933- reupload.jpg)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Image copyright problem with Image:William Edgar Stafford - poet - lclark.edu collection.jpgThanks for uploading Image:William Edgar Stafford - poet - lclark.edu collection.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC) RfD nomination of Davis EnterpriseI have nominated Davis Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) GA ThanksThnaks for your early work in laying the foundation on this article. It has finally made it.
--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Speedy deletion of File:Fruit machine.jpg A tag has been placed on File:Fruit machine.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Fruit machine.jpgThank you for uploading File:Fruit machine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC) File:Fruit machine.jpg listed for deletionAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fruit machine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:International Council of Unitarians and Universalists logo.png)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Friendly noticeHi, this is a friendly notice from me that a discussion is taking place here in which you might be interested. Groupthink (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
Orphaned non-free image File:Al lewis green party video 1.png Thanks for uploading File:Al lewis green party video 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Al lewis green party video 2.pngThanks for uploading File:Al lewis green party video 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Notice of changeHello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC) (delivered by mabdul 23:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)) An AFD you participated in before is back for a second roundList of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement is nominated for deletion again. I'm contacting all of those who participated in the first AFD discussion. Dream Focus 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:Alfredo Ormando portrait.png)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire logo phrase.pngThanks for uploading File:Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire logo phrase.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire logo.pngThanks for uploading File:Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Replaceable fair use File:Kurt Vonnegut at CWRU.jpgThanks for uploading File:Kurt Vonnegut at CWRU.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject). If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Sturmabteilung Gruppenführer Karl Ernst.pngThanks for uploading File:Sturmabteilung Gruppenführer Karl Ernst.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Disputed non-free use rationale for File:August Derleth portrait in later life.png Thank you for uploading File:August Derleth portrait in later life.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC) File:August Derleth portrait in later life.png listed for deletionA file that you uploaded or altered, File:August Derleth portrait in later life.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:August Derleth in his office.jpegThanks for uploading File:August Derleth in his office.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Hi, Orphaned non-free image File:August Derleth portrait in youth.pngThanks for uploading File:August Derleth portrait in youth.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:William Flanagan in 1961.pngThanks for uploading File:William Flanagan in 1961.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Walter Jenkins - aide to LBJ.pngThanks for uploading File:Walter Jenkins - aide to LBJ.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:People For the American Way logo 2007.pngThanks for uploading File:People For the American Way logo 2007.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Zodiac Killer - first letter.jpgThanks for uploading File:Zodiac Killer - first letter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||
){kind=link}
_-_1933-_reupload.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
