Ben bu topraklarda Şebinkarahisar da yaşıyorum bu topraklada doğdum bu topraklarda büyüdüm ve neler yaşandığını sizlerden daha iyi biliyorum ama benim şehrimin benim yaşadığım yerin tarihinin yanlış taraflı ve lobicilik faaliyetleri içerisinde insalara olmayan bir şeyi sahte, asılsız ve düzmece kaynakları sunarak olmuş gibi göstererek anlatılmasını önleyemiyorum banlanıyorum yada Şebinkarahisar maddesi kilitleriniyor. Sizler bu topraklarda yaşadınızmı da biliyorsunuz ? Ermeni Diasporası tarihi istedikleri gibi yazabilir mi ? Ellerinde yetkileri var diye bu yetkilerini kendi çıkarları için kullanabilirler mi ? Neden tüm Türk sayfalarına sadece asılsız ermeni soykırımı hakkında bilgiler ekliyorlar Vikipedia tarafsız ve özgür ansiklopedi değilmi ? Madem bu admin arkadaşalar çok bilgili neden coğrafi, ekonomik, nüfus bilgilerini insanlar için faydalı olacak bilgileri girmiyorlarda sadece asılsız ermeni soykırımı hakkında bilgiler veriyorlar.
BU HAKKI NEREDEN BULUYORLAR ? --88.231.200.8910:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Picaroon, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. See you around! Majorly(o rly?)03:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Embargo, again
It extremely impolite to remove my remarks without replying. I ask you to unprotect my userpage, as you were the one who protected it. Emбargo22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was archiving a discussion that was already over. First, your obstinance made it clear you weren't taking me seriously. Engaging in civil, intelligent, thoughtful discussion is a requirement for doing business with me, like it or not. Second, I think unprotecting the page is going to lead to you replace your box which the community agrees is very inappropriate, and I'm unwilling to let that happen. This project still has some integrity left, and I don't wish to be the one to sacrifice it. If you can find another admin willing to unprotect, then they can go right ahead. They have my 120% support. Picaroon00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hausa deletion request
Hi, I see you've recently been active over at the Hausa wikipedia as an admin. Could I ask you to delete my user- and talkpages there? (I've crossposted this request on your talk page there so that you can see that it's really me requesting this.) I'm not active there anymore (never was, actually) so I'd like my pages to be gone. Thanks, — mark✎07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey i need the anticommunist userbox
i couldn't find other userbox about anticommunist, that's why i created a new one
if you can find one please tell me where is it...thanks
Forgive me if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but this is in regards to the Cowherd article. I have tried to communicate with them in their Talk pages, submitted it for mediation (no response), but there has been no resolution in the dispute. I wanted to bring it your attention for more complete resolution. --Bluefield17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I entered the links to the disputed versions and a link to the Mediation request. STS01 is more of a macro-level problem on the page, as he appears to historically delete anything that doesn't put the radio host in the best light. Hopefully I entered the information correctly. --Bluefield17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Wooyi: Because decisions made are made on the grounds of consensus, not votes (except on large-scale polls such as elections). To Picaroon9288: You would think an editor like me would have checked the deletion log of that template, after hearing previously about debates over said template. ~Steptrip20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The decison was merely to stop using them on en; zh can do whatever they want. Here is the TfD from almost two years ago, which definitively established that we don't use these on enwiki. Picaroon20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Why did you make this edit? Can you please vote on that mfd?
Picaroon has already talked to me about that image on my talk page. I'm pretty sure, Picaroon correct me if I'm wrong, that it was because those images encourage decision making on the number of votes, not consensus. ~Steptrip20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
The original version of the article The Terminator: I'm Back! contained a portion of text describing the plot of the game which was a copyright violation (as it was taken straight from another website). As such, it was nominated for speedy deletion and was deleted by you on 30 March.[2] I then recreated the article minus the copyvio, which you then deleted on 6 April. Since this second version does not constitute a copyright violation, could you undelete the article? Look forward to hearing from you. Mgiganteus114:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have re-deleted it under CSD A7 because it did not assert notability. The text was as follows: "The Terminator: I'm Back! is a shoot 'em up game made by In-Fusio for a range of mobile phones in 2005." I should note that I'm also taking a break from admin actions for the time being. Picaroon18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Archive_3, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA.
I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me,
and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have.
Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Mbakwe
On 15 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sam Mbakwe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
I just now noticed your response to one of my comments. It made me smile (which is what I presume was intended : ) - And I've added it to my memorable comments. Thanks for the smile : ) - jc3714:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation help
I know you have more experience than I dealing with copyright questions. Would you please take a look at the Image:MELISSATHEURIAU.jpg image that appears on the Mélissa Theuriau article. Although she is an incredibly attractive woman and it's a very nice picture, I suggest that the image is copyrighted and does not belong on Wikipedia. See the lower left edge of the picture, which clearly indicates a copyright statement. Although the user that downloaded the image claims it to be his own work, I wonder if that really is the case. Thanks. Truthanado02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me, experienced with copyright? Not especially, I just do a lot of deleting. I'm going to have to agree with you that the photo probably wasn't taken by the uploader, so he can't release it into the GFDL. Picaroon23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Do you know what the correct process is for removing it? Does it get added to some delete list? I'm new at this. Truthanado07:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the apparently-false tag with {{subst:nld}} and removed it from the article. It can be deleted as soon as the 26th, but backlogs may delay this. Picaroon16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a discussion on this anywhere you can link to, or is this removal of the MoS shortcuts completely your own idea? I know that I for one much prefer the MoS links, and WP: itself is a pseudo-namespace too. SnowFire05:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that, but it is a widely used one. This MOS/MoS stuff is not. So instead of me finding you a page giving me permission to remove them, I think you should find me the original discussion where consensus to use these shortcuts was formed. Picaroon05:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the?! I am not a scholar of Wikipedia policy! I just know that those shortcuts have been there as long as I've seriously worked on Wikipedia, and a quick check of dates shows that most were made in late 2005 / early 2006 ([3] for example). The redirects were also made by different people implying at least some consensus. I also know that people aren't supposed to make any changes to Wikipedia pages without consulting on the talk page first. Lastly, I know that "redirects are cheap" and there's rarely any reason to mess with them (where do you get the idea that they're rarely used, anyway? Said seriously. I usually mark my edit summaries for disambiguation pages with a reference to MoS:DAB, or occasionally MoS:T, and I got that habit from seeing other people do the same). How hard would it have been to drop a line on a talk page somewhere and ask yourself why they were made, and if there was any objection to removing them? If people agreed with you there, then I wouldn't say anything.
Good work on that paragraph. As you probably see, I moved the Education and health to its own section. Hope that is OK but its in keeping with other FAs. I also did my bit by creating a stub from one of the red links: Mama Ohandja. My French is terrible so I hope that stub makes some kind of sense as I translated it from French websites. Anyway, I added my support.--Zleitzen(talk)04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abe lincoln
Sorry i meant to go to uncyclopedia instead i went to wikipedia
thanks for telling me i didn't realize i was at wikipedia
Because the RFAs should be done the same so on one candidate gets a better or worse shot at it than the others. Why was it made different in the first place? Look at the damage to RFAs done by all the recent "experimenting", ie, Brill, etc.Rlevse01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but trying minor changes one candidate at the time is the only way they'll ever get through. I agree that Matt Britt's RfA could've been better, but at least it wasn't enforced on all the RfAs this week - it was an experiment. And, as you know, WT:RFA never comes to a consensus, so sometimes just trying things and seeing how they work out is our best bet for reform. Please can we just see how this one works and start a talk page discussion after it's done? It's not like the lack of numbering affects his chances. Picaroon01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Picaroon9288
Thanks for being objective on the Onyema Ugochukwu article (i.e. Edits made by 69.159.61.19).
Here, it says you deleted Template:User Love New Zealand because "CSD G6, only use substed." I looked at CSD G6: "Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article." I fail to see how deleting my userbox the userbox which I made and matters to me falls under the "houskeeping" title. Please explain. - Bagel715:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please restore it and perhaps move it to a subpage of mine? Thanks. I just didn't see how your deleting of it applied under CSD G6. - Bagel705:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be collaborating on this series of articles. :) Looking forward to more of the same. It's good to be back in mainspace again for a bit. Regards, Newyorkbrad00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't contribute to United States stuff that much, but your comment at the clerks' noticeboard spurred me to action! Picaroon00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note, in case you have yet to notice, that I have an annoying habit of editing things the moment they pop up in my watchlist even if I haven't edited them in weeks; I figure this causes edit conflicts a fair amount of the time. So I apologize in advance. Picaroon00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem because I am exactly the same way. I've had a user worry that I was stalking his edits for this exact reason. Regards, Newyorkbrad00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be collaborating on this series of articles. :) Looking forward to more of the same. It's good to be back in mainspace again for a bit. Regards, Newyorkbrad00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't contribute to United States stuff that much, but your comment at the clerks' noticeboard spurred me to action! Picaroon00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note, in case you have yet to notice, that I have an annoying habit of editing things the moment they pop up in my watchlist even if I haven't edited them in weeks; I figure this causes edit conflicts a fair amount of the time. So I apologize in advance. Picaroon00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem because I am exactly the same way. I've had a user worry that I was stalking his edits for this exact reason. Regards, Newyorkbrad00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my accidental overwrite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of User:CINEGroup. (I got no notice of an edit conflict, a highly annoying mediawiki bug that's bitten me before.) The user who was the target of the threat has now blocked CINEGroup for a week (though not for the threat), and another admin extended it to indefinite because of threats. Chances are we haven't seen the last of this person. Sigh. (No need to reply.) --KSmrqT23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help
Hi Picaroon :) Thanks for your help with ArbCom matters. Always welcome the involvement of more helpers. Take care, FloNight14:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA thanks
Thank you, Picaroon, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicOTalk
I consciously switched to {{usercheck}} after creation (see page history) so as to make it easier to find the RfCs of involved parties. I figured there wasn't much difference anyways so I didn't bother switching back. Picaroon(Talk)21:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Squirepants101 brought this to my attention as well: [6]. The edits are similar. Both have edited warning templates to give them "better" images, both have an interest in South Park and claim to know Trey Parker, etc. Food for thought. IrishGuytalk00:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for blocking this guy. I've been involved with back and forth with him for a while now. You've restored my faith that Wiki does work. Tweeks Coffee00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Wikipedia works now, or ever will, is debatable. Whether Wikipedia becomes more pleasant when blocking abusive sockpuppeteers is unqestionable! Picaroon(Talk)00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm really not much of a featured article reviewer (I don't recall the article or my edit, and probably only noticed the FAC because of Brian's Cameroon FAC going on at the same time). Good luck. Picaroon(Talk)21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected Wikipedia:Esperanza: I don't suppose there will be any more edit warring
I am seriously begging you to reconsider this. I do not have the time to wait around for Ed to start warring again, which he will. If you think it won't happen you have clearly come in very late. Please, please, reprotect. My university place is at stake. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev, I understand your concerns. I know exactly what's been going on, which is why revert warring - on anybody's part - will lead to a block for disruption, even if it is just one revert. If you think it essential, I will give Ed an explicit warning on his talk page, just as I have implicitly done for you. Would you like me to do that? I want you both to understand what an incredibly petty dispute is and why forcing this page to be protected will not be tolerated any more. Picaroon(Talk)19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? I just reverted him before I saw this message. You're going to block me for reverting Ed for disrupting consensus? That's not right. You must have read the mediation page, you must know Ed is entirely alone in his edits, why do I have to take this because he won't stop? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in saying you will block anyone for revert warring, you are basically giving Ed carte blanche to do whatever he wants to that damn page, even though it is completely against consensus as shown on the mediation, on the AN/I and the village pump, because I can't revert him and he never reverts anyway, just puts more and more nonsense in it. Which is ridiculous, and I fail to see how that is either fair or solves the problem. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ishaya Audu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Hi, Picaroon, and thank you for the unprotection of the Esperanza page. I have proceeded to make what is, IMHO, the most uncontroversial edit among those in my proposal. Don't worry, I'm not going to try to engage in major edits now until Dev begins to actually respond to my prospectus. It seems like Dev hasn't objected to the sics yet...but we'll see. As the month progresses and we discuss more, I will begin to reinstate more uncontroversial edits up to the point where Dev reverts one of my edits. But we'll see what happens...hopefully Dev will be willing to continue mediation.--Ed¿Cómo estás?00:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[7]With all due respect, I would like you to revert your actions and send your proposal to mediation. The edit war is highly unstable right now, and I would appreciate it if we could at least discuss all edits going on before taking action.--Ed¿Cómo estás?01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is "highly unstable" because a certain two users like to keep it that way. Seriously, Ed, please relax. I have some articles that need writing if you need to occupy your time; you will find links to them at Supreme Court of Nigeria. Picaroon(Talk)01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of programs on the essay shows how Esperanza tried to help the community but ultimately failed. That's why I think that that particular paragraph is relevant to the essay. Oh, and I have enough things to do right now...I have my finals at the end of the month and I simply don't have time to edit articles. The only thing that's keeping me here is Dev's apparent stubborness towards keeping the essay the way it is. Do you see now how Dev's actions are becoming very silly?--Ed¿Cómo estás?01:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not see "how Dev's actions are becoming very silly;" I see how both your actions have been very silly from the start. You both mention having to study for finals, so why not go do it and get some A plusses? Surely that is more important than the state of some webpage. Picaroon(Talk)01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh...I already have A's. If I've never been getting straight A's then I wouldn't be here for so long, would I? Studying for finals is not that big of a deal to me than to Dev, who probably might even be doing badly since she needs to take a month-and-a-half long wikibreak for a test that probably lasts a day.
I will not cease my edits to Esperanza until Dev and I are able to reach a compromise. Again, I request that we be able to discuss your changes to the essay via mediation, not via controversial edits to the essay.--Ed¿Cómo estás?01:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...as if Dev hasn't attacked me, especially on the basis of my age. I suggest that you read my comments on the mediation page regarding Dev's intolerance towards teenagers.--Ed¿Cómo estás?02:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell does that essay have to do with anything??? Anyway, I like the music notes; I should add it to my user page sometime, but not tonight.
Despite tensions that Dev and I have between each other, making major edits to an essay not approved by community consensus should be reverted. I would like to quote Wikipedia:Protection policy on the following:
“
Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page.
I replied on my talk page. The short answer is that the picture/category you click on comes from another template called {{Dab-Class}}, so I changed your template to match the output of that one. --kingboyk16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
%s Redirect
Hello there. If I read the edit history of %s correctly, you added the RFD note to it. I was originally just going to ask you to share your thoughts on the notice being removed, but in writing have decided it's better to make it more open, and so have started a topic on it on Talk:%s, and would be glad to see you share your views there. Thanks. --Falcorian(talk)05:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you keep an eye on this user because he is claiming to be 98E's younger brother (on the user's second edit, he posted that notice on his talk page). This account was created less than a day after User:79Bottles was blocked indefinitely. The user also seems to share some of the same interests as 98E, which include South Park and SpongeBob SquarePants. He also has the same habit of "tweaking" templates by changing the image format. Pants(T)20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About four minutes after Super48 commented on his talk page, 98E starts to comment on his talk page. Either they are brothers sharing a computer or they are both the same person. Pants(T)21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would you recommend I replace them with? It's a rather complicated system, and there seems to be some advocacy for placing a list within the template itself. ^demon[omg plz]00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recent removal of text from the essay, would you be willing to revert your actions pending discussion on WP:EA/MED? As I have said before, the edit is in violation of WP:PPOL--Ed¿Cómo estás?02:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you can ask me third time if the mediation starts going anywhere. With all respect to Kyoko, who seems to be doing her best to find common ground, the discussion you three have been having isn't going anywhere. In times like this, boldness has to suffice. (I should note, however, that Steve block's idea, which also doesn't include this list, looks to be short enough that you would be hard pressed to find reason to argue over it.) Picaroon(Talk)20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This user that you blocked has requested to be unblocked. I thought I would make you aware of this, as I advised for him to e-mail you but he claims he doesn't have an e-mail account. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. --Deskana(AFK 47)00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your additions to the tourism template. If you want you could also add the template to the article you added the links in the template for. Thanks. Mindys1234505:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for helping me get Cameroon to featured status. It was a large task, so I was happy to see a few other editors willing to pitch in here and there to push it over the edge to acceptance. So, thanks! — Brian (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. On March 24, you speedy deleted Fat Boy per G3. I guess you missed the edit history, as it had been vandalized by two IP's and was originally a valid dab page? I have restored all the revisions now, including the recent nonsense page. I hope you don't mind. Thanks, Prolog18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very conversant with the political affairs of Nigeria. I've read quite a few articles about how Nigeria's polity is devoid of ideology. Tsadori and I would like to identify key national issues (social, economic and political) in Nigeria, and use them to determine the political ideologies of the Nigerian political parties (based on the decisions they've made over the last 8 years). Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Conversant with? Not quite. Familiar? Yes. Nigeria's political scene revolves around two things, money and personalities; often, these are intertwined, and not much more can be said for the whole institution. While we can say that the ANPP is socially conservative and has Islamic appeal and similar broad, widely reported things about other parties, it is important to remember that the Wikipedia:No original research policy strictly forbids us from drawing conclusions ourselves. Their ideological leanings need to be cited to a reliable source. Picaroon(Talk)22:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Ideological leanings will be cited.
A wise man once said...
The Resilient Barnstar
A wise man once said, the path is the goal. In that spirit, for keeping an open mind, accepting that it is impossible to be always right - for to err is human - and yet still continously striving to become better, I hereby award you the Resilient Barnstar. Best wishes, CharonX/talk01:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many people might just have walked away, thinking "bugger them", and just have not cared, but you didn't. I felt you deserved something special for this - feel free to move the star where ever you like (or remove it if you don't like it, some people seem to do that too). Best wishes, CharonX/talk02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RfA's.
Thanks for removing the trolling. I didn't realize it was a troll until I checked their contributions. My mistake. Acalamari02:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't worry, you did nothing wrong. :-) Assuming good faith is never a mistake; it just occasionally proves itself to be faulty assumption. Picaroon(Talk)02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me about that! I actually came back to that this year but decided not to delete it yet because of the comment on the talk page and the possibility it would be used again. However, I don't see a need for it now - it can always be undeleted or moved, if necessary, and I've deleted it now. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on the web, you'll see that this club is somewhat notable for it's use of RFID implants. As well as a number of news articles, it's also been cited in a number of essays and articles relating to privacy and other issues. --Darksun11:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
If at all possible, I would like to know why this DRV request was closed in less than 2 hours. I have looked through WP:DRV and it has no provisions for speedy closures of deletion review. If you could kindly point out the relevant policy page in which a DRV can be speedily closed in less than 5 days, It would be much appreciated. I was in the middle of typing the reason why the image should be undeleted when it was closed - I was quite surprised. I believe not enough time was given and consensus was not reached. Thanks. --Eqdoktor21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that the deletion was improper was as follows: "Image was improperly orphaned and deleted as unused fair use image. Proper deletion procedures were not followed per WP:IFD and instructions for administrators. Uploader User:Eqdoktor was not served a deletion notice to contest the deletion. Said image has already passed an earlier IFD test. Admin User:Nick has unilaterally refused to undo the admin error. Eqdoktor 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"
"Image was improperly orphaned?" No, it was properly orphaned, because there is a free use image already in existence. Policy mandates that it be orphaned. "Deleted as unused fair use image?" That is what we do to unused fair use images. "Proper deletion procedures were not followed per WP:IFD and instructions for administrators?" Wrong, process was followed correctly. "Uploader User:Eqdoktor was not served a deletion notice to contest the deletion?" That is not a requirement. "Said image has already passed an earlier IFD test?" Consensus can change. "Admin User:Nick has unilaterally refused to undo the admin error." There was no error. In other word, you don't really have any argument at all. Picaroon(Talk)22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "You can't just create pages out of the blue ..."
I don't know. Does "the blue" mean "the blue link"? If so, where can it be? You deleted the page and changed the blue link into the red one by yourself. None of my business. Please revive my edit. -- JungianPPP22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody would like to add anything to the list, please feel free to do so, and to write it first, if it doesn't exist already. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I just obeyed it. Apparently, "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (simple and kind version 1.0)" didn't exist. And I wrote it first by the words "(simple and kind version 1.0)". This phrase ( "simple and kind version 1.0" ), of cource, can't mean I want to create a new policy, guideline, or essay, therefore, I don't need propose something. I just need indicate people my version so that people can form a consensus on it. What is the problem with my edit? First, please revive my edit. -- JungianPPP22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC),[reply]
Thank you very much. However, I have to say, "No, no". I'm going to just indicate the new version of WP:IAR which has been already a Wikipedia's official policy. This edit can't be "my" "essay". I have already experienced and explained about the similar matter. Please see Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#One sentence is not good. First and second sentences of my edit are from Wikipedia's official policies(WP:IAR and WP:5P). Third sentence ( "However, of course, please don't abuse this policy." ) is apparently just from ordinary common sense. Therefore, this page can't be "my" "essay". And, you have jumped to a conclusion such as
"This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors."
Actually, it would have caused severe contradiction and misunderstanding. If you really want to prevent further confusion and misrepresentation, you need to replace {{essay}} with {{policy|[[WP:IAR-SK1.0]]}} or something like that. I will do it myself. -- JungianPPP00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who didn't leave deletion discussion in talk page?
You! Why can you delete the talk page[8] on which you should leave deletion discussion, only because you didn't leave deletion diascussion? Please revive my edit. -- JungianPPP22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC), 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up on my thoughts about the formatting of the activity level information on WP:AC/CN. However, I do think it would be worthwhile to also keep this listing current at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. For example, sometimes we instruct people that they can "e-mail any active arbitrator" and it seems more sensible to direct them to WP:AC for a listing rather than to our noticeboard. Regards, Newyorkbrad21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so how would you suggest we go about avoiding having to update two lists, which is the main reason I removed the listing on WP:AC? Although it isn't much effort to update, keeping only one listing will eliminate the possibility of disparities between the two. If we created a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee with the activity or inactivity levels, and then transcluded it on the noticeboard and WP:AC, we might be able to have the best of both worlds. Can you think of any downsides to this? Picaroon(Talk)21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The downside is that the parenthetical comments of use to the clerks ("active only on cases accepted since last Wednesday") would not be appropriate on the main AC page. On balance, remembering to update both lists is probably the path of least resistance, alas. Newyorkbrad21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't think of that and yes, they certainly wouldn't belong on the main page. I tried out section-only transclusion last night, but it didn't work, so until then I guess we'll stick with two lists as you recommend. (With section transclusion we could use noinclude tags to leave this list on the noticeboard, transclude the section onto the main page, and then hide the comments on that page.) Picaroon(Talk)21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're planning on any complicated section transclusions, include me out. More often than not I can't even get the dash in the template properly commented in or out. Newyorkbrad21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey can you move-protect the Imo State article (frequent page move vandalism) and block the user Niameychan who is responsible for the it? Perhaps a move-protect also on its talk page. Thank you. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let's keep this discussion on enwiki for now (you'll understand in a few sentences.) I've moved the page back and deleted the two redirects, but there is a reason I have not move-protected the page yet (see the deletion logs, this is the fifth occurrence.) Imo State here on enwiki is on my watchlist, so if the vandalism has not been fixes yet, the interwiki bots will alert me - this is how I caught the two attacks from a month or two ago. So, unfortunately for the article, I think leaving it as a dummy for this recurring vandal is necessary: otherwise he might turn to lots of other pages instead of just this one. But now I have an idea: I am going to request a checkuser on Meta and see if we can get his IP address blocked. (I'll do this now.) By the way, I think you should go ahead and request adminship for igwiki. Picaroon(Talk)21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I wasn't intending to appear to assume bad faith. My issue isn't so much that such users necessarily make bad admins - "bad" is a pejorative term. What concerns me is that admins who are against voting will close XfDs according to which arguments they think are more valid, rather than what a majority of participants think. However, as per your concerns, I will tone down my comments at the RfA. WaltonAssistance!19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you're online, I'd just like to ask something. As you were one of the few opposers on my second RfA (which passed, nonetheless), I've been wondering whether (based on my record since then) you still consider me to be an unsuitable admin. I admit that I do tend to get a little sharp in community discussions about issues which I feel strongly about (RfA voting, userspace and the like), but I will say in my defence that since becoming an admin, I have not had any confrontations or disagreements over my use of the admin tools. Also, as I just did, I tend to admit my error when someone perceives my comments as uncivil. Obviously it's all an academic question now, but I'd prefer to feel that I have the confidence of all users who interact with me, hence why I'm asking your opinion.
I thought my RfA entered some bizarre parallel dimension before you and Dmcdevit came in and helped sort things out. Things went swimmingly after that. Thanks ever so much, I hope to become such an effecting Admin in the future. All the best. --Bobak00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I regret to say I never actually got around to reviewing your contributions so as to make a decision, but the high level of post-sock-puppetry-removal-support you received suggests you'll make a fine admin. If I recall correctly, besides Dmcdevit and me, Thatcher131 (talk·contribs) was involved in having them checkusered and removed, so you might want to thank him as well. Picaroon(Talk)00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question about refactoring part of my ArbCom statement
User:Super48 is angry at you/Claims admins are "denying" the truth
Super48 is angry at you for not responding to his e-mail. Here is his message: I simply have no clue why you're denying the truth by calling me a sockpuppet. Such lying is only going to turn this into a flame war. I've emailed the blocking admin, but do I get a reply? No. That pretty much ticks me off. If the blocking admin is seeing this: Get a god damn life other then framing people for misunderstandings! - Super48 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Pants(T)03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pay no attention to him. Checkuser confirmed the sockpuppetry, so there is really no way to deny it and expect to be taken seriously. While checkuser is not infallible, it might as well be considered so in this case - behavior and articles edited confirm the technical evidence. Picaroon(Talk)20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is the thing: like my IP report said, "Please look at this IPs contribs. I've not seen anything like this. All are reverts of a user's edits and are happening very quickly." I was hoping to enlist support from an admin (you, perhaps, but apparently not as you are now admonishing me for reporting "good users"). Obviously something strange is afoot. Why don't you try to AGF sometime instead of coming down against me on my talk page after I report what is obviously an unusual situation to you?—Gaffταλκ23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for telling me about the incident board. That will be helpful in the future. As far as this IP is concerned, another admin has blocked it. I guess that I assumed that when admins responded to alerts on the AIV board they would actually read the reasons why the report is being made an do something more than a "ten second scan." Perhaps realize that not every case of vandalism is as simple as somebody writing yo mama on the featured article. My mistake. —Gaffταλκ
No worries. User:Momusufan blocked 156.34.215.61 (talk·contribs). I think the IP may have been onto something. The sock puppt claimed the IP was User: Moeron. Thanks for looing into this. I will use the incident board for such concerns in the future. A few nights ago, I was on when Colbet vandalism hit hard adn I was wondering where to post what I saw coming through...—Gaffταλκ00:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belated follow-up on the "Sega chase". BTW, thank you for coming to my defence... it was happening so quick I didn't have time to go to AiV or even fill the other "confused :)" editor in on what was really happening. Since you're onto what SEGA is up to... Based on what "typical" edit history I've seen from him today I believe he is editing from IP 66.190.156.221. Not sure if a new case is being drawn up or if that IP addy is up for rcu but I believe it should be. If you have time could you tell admin Wiki alf that a 156.34 IP addy actually got a warning for something. I am sure it'll give him quite a good chuckle and he will hunt me down and tease me for it :D. Again thanks for stepping in this evening. SEGA's sporadic "good" edits are always outweighed by his bad(copyvio) ones. And he must be stopped whenever possible. Have a nice day! 156.34.216.21000:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you never know what is going to happen at that train wreck of a page. If I speedy deleted it under CSD G1, would it get sent to deletion review? Oh, the delete button is so tempting! Picaroon(Talk)04:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second Life screenshots
Regarding Image:Banhammer.jpg, Second Life policy generally lets users retain copyright over virtual things, such as their character design, that they create. If this had been uploaded with an allegation of ownership of copyright by the uploader, would this image have been retained? I imagine there have been prior discussions of this. Can you point me to any? -N16:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could definitely be retained if it had been under a free license. Specifically, it is the wording "and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company or person that developed the game" which is relevant. I'm not familiar with the game, but if the game does allow users the copyright of images they create, and image creator Dale Glass (talk·contribs) agrees to release it under a free license, then the image is fine. Picaroon(Talk)17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we copy [9] from Commons? The only objection I could see with this is Wikipedia generally frowns on source tags, although this one could be useful because it clarifies the fact that making a screenshot does not create a derivative work. -N18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to WP:BOLD be bold and do it. As for this particular image, not much can be done with it due to the uncertain copyright status. -N18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. I created the tag for the second life screenshots and within hours not only did the uploader clarify the license info but he posted HERE when previously he had only 3 separate edits. Must be a doppelganger. -N04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, when concrete evidence of wrongdoing is lacking, we should assume good faith. Dale might well be primarily a reader, not an editor, who decided to help out this once by uploading a screenshot to enhance the article. Picaroon(Talk)15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite familiar with Wikipedia and wikis in general. I've been using it nearly every day for several years, I simply didn't bother to create an account before. BTW, what do you mean by "doppelganger"? I know what the word means, but I'm not sure what would it refer to in this particular context. If you mean you suspect that this is an alt account, then it isn't, I simply made my previous edits anonymously. Dale Glass19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "doppelganger" is a polite term for an alternate account. A "sockpuppet" is an abusive alternate account, and a "doppelganger" is one complying with the rules, per WP:U and WP:SPA... multiple accounts are not allowed to interact, such as in voting discussions or pretend to agree with each other. I used the term doppelganger to refer to you because I was assuming good faith. I was merely speculating you were the second account of another user. Anyway, glad to see it was sorted. Cheers. -N20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete edit history is not required. Some people think it is, others think it's not. The Wikimedia Foundation has not stated one way or the other on this issue. Wjhonson02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When we lack clarification, and can not reach a conclusion, playing it safe is the best we can do. The article is currently undergoing deletion review, so let that conclude. If the article is restored, then this whole discussion is moot. If the article is kept deleted or re-deleted then it would be inappropriate to leave it in a user sandbox anyway. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not going to restore the subpage, because it is common practice to mandate full attribution. Picaroon(Talk)02:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is common practice, then you could point to an example of that practice somewhere? We have tons of examples of deleted articles in userspace already. Thanks. Wjhonson02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dealings with sites that copy our content, at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, is good example of where we request full attribution, not just "from Wikipedia." The fact that this is in a user subpage on Wikipedia doesn't make it different, because the content is still not fully attributed. Picaroon(Talk)02:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verbatim Copying under Section 2 of the license does not require attribution. Attribution of the sort you are implying falls under Section 4 when you modify an article. Wjhonson02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picaroon9288, Stop
If you are intelligent, you should research the names of inventors I am adding to my posting, instead of you acting contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. Stop reverting the thoroughly researched information I post. And if academicians are shown what you are doing, they will whole-heartedly agree that you are being strange. If you have questions, feel free to email me: academos-evan@unitedkingdom.co.uk. In good spirit, I say you should think clearly before editing anything here in Wikipedia. And thanks for cooperating...for the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicigbo (talk • contribs)
On 3 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ann Pettifor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
It's good for users, not complete for administrators. Maybe we could do a special template that covers all possibilities. Fred Bauder18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abdulsalami Abubakar
I added a DYK nomination crediting you with the content to make sure it's suggested within the 5 day DYK window. -- Jreferee14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After getting hammered on Wikipedia fair use for a while, it gets easier to develope the rationale. I'm glad that article will be staying on Wikipeida. -- Jreferee00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your efforts to help. I do understand the importance of definitions and clear wording (per my question to define 'editor in good standing', for example) - but in this particular case, I consider the issue simply irrelevant, per my comments in the discussion. I am not objecting to your proposed change of wording, I just think its a futile effort - nothing good will come from this clarification because (IMHO, of course) nothing good will come from the proposed remedy relying on it. PS. I can think of at least one example of a controversial EE singer, painter or even - if I stretch it a little bit - a fair ([11]).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:UBX/homophobic
The creator of this clearly divisive Userbox is up for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikihermit. —Gaffταλκ00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
