User talk:Vbd/Archives

Welcome

Hello, Vbd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Just H 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Martin

Unless you ever see that a participation corporation specifically filed as Martin Productions, Quinn, alphabetize by the first letter Q as if you have no idea that Quinn Martin is a single individual -- according to my wife, the librarian. I actually can't find a specific Wikipedia guideline for that, but notice that Wikipedia's system wlll stick the article under Q automatically where it lists everything in the same category. Doczilla 09:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Israel

Think of a tag like the lost and found section: if nobody claims otherwise, it's all yours.

If nobody disagrees, that's generally a consensus, and if people still do disagree, you keep on trying to figure out a middle ground until it's close enough.

However, if there isn't anybody disputing that with you, you don't even need to worry about the tag. You can either keep it up there or put in a section with a title like "criticisms" or what have you. Just H 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorization issue

Hi Vbd - nice to see another lawyer with librarian affiliations. I answered your question re: categorization at more length back on my talk page, but in short, if it's being discussed on CFD, then the administrators take care of it. I think. --lquilter 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (Ha, wait, I see - it's one of the commenters on first page with the librarian wife. Still, nice to see another lawyer. <g>)[reply]

WP:ADOPT

Thanks for your very kind words. Adoption, to me, is a very informal process where the adoptee gets to ask an experienced user a question without bothering everyone every time. Of course, you can continue to use the many resources at your disposal, including {{helpme}}. Adoption may begin and end at any time. I do believe I've found my way around Wikipedia, and if you want, I'll adopt you. I've thick skin so don't be afraid to tell me when time's up either. Xiner (talk, email) 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are an editor as much as the persons who created those categories. I think they made a mistake. Maybe they didn't realize something already existed, maybe they were trying for something else, but when you see something wrong, be bold and fix it. In this case, explain in the CfD that the two are the same. It doesn't matter why they were created, just that they do not serve any purpose by co-existing. Xiner (talk, email) 14:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added your adoption to my user page. Feel free to put {{Adoptee|Xiner}} on yours. Remember, fire away your questions and do not hesitate to tell me when you're ready to fly on your own. Now welcome!Xiner (talk, email) 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think bots take care of the recategorization (yes, it saves a lot of trouble). As for closing discussions, whichever admin decides to take it upon themself (can't believe I used that word) to close it, closes it. Admins may talk amongst themselves about it, but at the end of the day, it's one somewhat random person's decision. Xiner (talk, email) 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on such a complicated nomination. As you must be aware of, I voted differently from your nom, but I'm glad to have the opportunity to do so. I certainly didn't bother with it myself! Xiner (talk, email) 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User warnings

This page will help you deal with various types of disruptive editing on Wikipedia. Now image I vandalized Arsenal F.C.. Warn me on my page using the appropriate level of warning and use the template to mention what page I messed with. Please let others know I didn't actually do anything. :) Xiner (talk, email) 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, please post the warning at the sandbox (WP:SAND) and give me the diff (WP:DIFF). Xiner (talk, email) 14:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. It's just an exercise that I thought would help you as you work on Wikipedia. Sometimes we need to know how to deal with vandals. As for the notability question, it's notoriously vague. I'd say, however, that if an actor is in the cast of a major network TV show, he is notable. Before I expand the article I'd look up more mentions about him in major publications though. Xiner (talk, email) 01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the code for this link. That's a diff -- it's just a website address. As for your homework, please note that all user warnings are subst'd. It means that the code for the warning template will be copied onto the page you are placing it; you should've thus typed {{uw-vandalism1|Arsenal F.C.}} -- now, show me the diff for the correct answer. :) Xiner (talk, email) 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Remedial homework -- witty. Yes, you got it right, that's the way to subst:, which you should do with every user warning template. I agree that page is indecipherable, too. I'll retire now and think up your next assignment. Btw, I know it's a bit early, but do you have any ambitions about WP:RFA? Xiner (talk, email) 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read this. Let me know after you've followed those steps. Btw, citing sources is a GREAT thing. Xiner (talk, email) 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I try to use warning templates in edit disputes only after the other user refuses to discuss the changes at least once. Now let's see what happens next. Xiner (talk, email) 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd propose a WP:MERGE, and raise copyvio concerns about the images. Xiner (talk, email) 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll permit your recent, independent, category removals for now. But, hopefully, you haven't promoted the 'edit war' that was settled sometime ago. Did you read the talk page? ¬¬¬¬

More answers

1. I'd dbempty it and note in the edit summary that I'd be fine with it being CFD'd. It's not hard for someone to recreate it, but this one was created in September, so the person mustn't have been very enthusiastic about populating it. You can always ask at Talk:CFD about what people think, but is it worth the trouble for an empty cat? Populate it or delete it.

2. Please quote WP:NOT on the article's talk page. Further reading is not a directory of every book on the subject, and a long list attracts spams. Try to get a consensus before pruning it. Xiner (talk, email) 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you'll find out that vandalism usually comes from anonymous IP addresses. Remember not to pre-judge, though.

There are disambig templates for use in cases of pages with similar names, but this seems different. Have you considered the possibility that the 1920s Martin is simply non-notable, so that there'd be no need for such a notice at all? Xiner (talk, email) 03:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Category_talk:Living_people, and summarize two main points for me as to why the category was kept. Xiner (talk, email) 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. Unsourced negative info on living people is always removed due to libel concerns, and Jimbo Wales, the ultimate arbiter, thinks a category needs to exist to aid that process. Xiner (talk, email) 22:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another assignment

When a user forgets to sign their message on a talk page, you can place something like {{unsigned|Xiner}} after their post. You can add a second argument for the time of the post, but I'm not good at UTC and don't bother with it.

Required reading: WP:3RR. Xiner (talk, email) 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{unsigned}} template is usually used when someone else forgets to sign their message. It's useful to let others know who the author is. Xiner (talk, email) 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{unsigned}} template (<-take a look at the code I typed here; press edit) is used with at least one parameter (see the mess otherwise). You'd have to look at the page history to find who made the comment. It's tedious, and a constant chore at the help desk. Xiner (talk, email) 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Sorry, the advice was wrong. The relevant policy implies it depends on the specific article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the article you are looking at. I was waiting for you to tell me. :) Xiner (talk, email) 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what article is it? Xiner (talk, email) 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your message for the past couple of days!

Since they are American citizens, I think they belong in Canadian American only. Xiner (talk, email) 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Canadian immigrants to Brazil cat contains only one entry, I'll propose soon a merge with the "Canadian immigrants to US" into their parent cat "Canadian emigrants". When that happens I think "Canadian emigrants" would be a nice complement to "Canadian Americans" on these two subjects' pages. Xiner (talk, email) 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you may have a different opinion on this issue, but I've listed some categories for deletion and thought you might want to take a look. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expats and immigrants are different in that the former may well return to their home country sometime, while immigrants definitely will not, and probably are naturalized. The term "Canadian American" denotes U.S. citizens, so I find the "[immigrants] to the U.S." part of the other cat unnecessary repetition. Obviously, a big part of Michael J. Fox is where he came from, and I think the term "Canadian emigrants" captures that perfectly. Xiner (talk, email) 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:UCFD, we have pretty much agreed that there should be two types of usercats: "Wikipedians from xxx" and "Wikipedians in xxx". If we allow intersections between these two, we'd have an exponentially large number of categories. That's the way I approached this merging nomination. Xiner (talk, email) 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Canadian American is an American of Canadian descent. I really object to overcategorization because at some point, it becomes a trivial distinction. As for "People of Canadian descent", I didn't even know that exists. I really think we need to get these under control. Xiner (talk, email) 21:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still consider MJF a "Canadian expatriate actor in the United States" (see say Answers.com for the dict definitions). If he's not, then he shouldn't be included in the category. An "ex-expatriate" cat would then be appropriate, but please don't make something like that. :) Xiner (talk, email) 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More categorization

I wish there was an easy answer to your question. Duplication is an option that should be discussed on the relevant talk pages of the categories. If you think a subcategory should be duplicated in the parent, you should propose that on both talk pages for discussion (one can link the the other so that the discussion happens on one page). If there is going to be duplication, it should be noted so that people know what to do. Unfortunately, people often categorize without making these decisions and some people do it one way and some do it another. There is also disagreement about the duplication issue.

Many issues about categorization are unclear. The original idea was that there could be multiple ways of categorizing, and that the different taxonomies could coexist. In the last year or so this has become more and more problematic and has led to quite a bit of overcategorization. I just brought this up, using MJF as an example, at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. In my view there is way too many categories like these, and there is not a clear system. What is needed is to find the people who care about these categories to come together and try and sort it out. Sometimes these discussions happen at WP:CFD. I am leaning towards the opinion that there are way too many intersection categories. There is some work towards a system where the intersections will be created dynamically by the software (see WP:CI), but who knows if and when it will happen. --Samuel Wantman 09:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Well, I've the help desk page on my watchlist too, so it's good to have others review my answers, and other people can hopefully learn from it too. I've been on Wikipedia for a year, active for three months, ever since an admin silently deleted a userbox of mine, and too many hours every day now. Xiner (talk, email) 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk

No, you don't need to be vetted. Jump right in, and don't be afraid of making a mistake. Others will always review the answers anyway. Xiner (talk, email) 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New assignment

Hi. It's time for another assignment. Please check User:Xiner/Adoptee assignments. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you'll have to show me the exact code you typed in. Surround it with <nowiki></nowiki> so the MediaWiki software won't try to interpret it. Xiner (talk, email) 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like {{W-basic}}'s auto-signature because other templates don't sign the messages for you, and have raised the issue on the talk page, but I'm not sure the author agrees with me.

Take out the "|" in your signature. I've meant to tell you to do it because it's not useful, but in fact there's a better reason. It's messing up the XfD templates because in template usage, the vertical line separates one argument from the next. So when your signature includes the symbol, the template stops interpreting your signature at that point, thinking it's done. Xiner (talk, email) 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. Xiner (talk, email) 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about Category:Yale College alumni

I just noticed that you asked to merge Category:Yale College alumni to Category:Yale University alumni after the decision had been made at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24#Category:Yale College alumni. But you were wrong to say that Category:Harvard College alumni does not exist. In fact it does exist. Will you also ask to merge it to Category:Harvard University alumni? --Neo-Jay 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Anderson

It has been a while since I posted on her talk page so I want to make sure you don't miss my reply:

• I'm not sure what you are refering to exactly, but I think it is nationality, not ethnicity. Anderson supposedly holds dual citizenship. Are you taking issue with her being described as "Canadian American" in the text of the article? Note that there is some debate as to who should be included in the category "Canadian American." --Vbd | (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes that is my point. I contest both Canadian American and all the American categories. TonyTheTiger 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misc

Hi. I'm sure you've figured this out already, but changes to your user page, unlike those to your talk page, do not cause the famous yellow "New message" sign to pop up. You should thus visit your watchlist frequently.

I've made a change to your user page. Feel free to edit it any way you want. Xiner (talk, email) 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely. And do take a break if you want to - it may help you gain perspective on many things. If you want to tell me why you're feeling that way, you can message or email me. Xiner (talk, email) 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay's left Wikipedia (you can do a Google search if you want to know why), so sadly the counter I gave you doesn't work anymore. Wannabe Kate is more comprehensive, but you may not want to advertise it on your userpage. Xiner (talk, email) 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		You're back! Thank you for putting up with us sometimes crazy bunch. You may be driven mad sometimes, but you're still sticking your head in! Xiner (talk, email) 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

various

Yes, it is not trivial to close CfDs, and you often see backlogs there, not to mention on UCfDs. Be patient.

About my RfA, I don't know. It's easy to see someone's edits as either good or bad, depending on one's biases. I just hope that people I've dealt with will vote; overall, that'd mean I'd go through. Xiner (talk, email) 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Vbd noticed my RfA on his own and requested the venue. I am now pointing him to WP:RFA, where he should read the instructions before voting for any candidate. Xiner (talk, email) 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure it'll be a good idea for you to vote on my RfA. Hopefully its result won't hinge on one vote. You could offer your comments, of course, just place it in the neutral column. It'll remove any suspicion of WP:CANVASS. Xiner (talk, email) 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: People tend to drop a thank-you only if they're really satisfied. Way to go. Xiner (talk, email) 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you CfD such a cat and let an admin deal with it? They may be able to use a bot or get someone with WP:AWB to handle the job more efficiently. Xiner (talk, email) 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't quite understand...part of the reason for any CfD is to have the category removed from all its articles. Why would anyone want to go through it manually before a CfD? It is best done by a bot or AWB after a CfD closes successfully. Xiner (talk, email) 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I've made this mistake in my edit summaries, too. When you're giving someone a level one or two template, please note that WP:TT says neither assumes bad faith. Thus, an edit summary of "Warning" would probably be too strong and negates the AGF aspect of the template. I'm now considering removing the word "Warning" from level-3/4 messages, too, and instead just give the name of the template (e.g., "delete1"), so that in case i'm wrong, or if it's a newbie, we don't scare them off. Does that make sense? Xiner (talk, email) 13:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta actors

The proper thing to do would be list the category for deletion rather than manually remove it from every article, would it not? Kevlar67 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec actors category

Hi, thanks for your message. The category was created so long ago that I can't remember exactly why I did it. I have a feeling that I may have just renamed it from something that didn't follow the same format as other categories. If you feel that it is overcategorisation, I won't disagree. Rossrs 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople by province

Don't worry about not giving notice, it's time consuming and I understand completely. As for the importance of it. I realise that there is mounting campaign to get rid of such things from WP. I happen to think that they should stay since provincial identity is deeply important to many Canadians (being from Montreal you should know). All Canadian people should at the very minimum be in one provincial category. The question then becomes how to sub-divide the main provincial cat. I think that by occupation is a valid recourse. And since curlers and hockey players are vastly different professions (most curlers have summer jobs, if not year-round jobs) it's a little bit misleading to throw them all together. The hockey I might accept because players don't play to represent provinces, but curlers certainly do. As for "teams in Alberta", that's a good idea. Kevlar67 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Oh no! Did I forget to thank you for participating in my RfA? Your comment came in an opportune time and was much appreciated. I couldn't say much during the process, but you know I enjoyed it. Know also that I read every comment carefully and will take care in using my new mop carefully.

I'm happy to have you as an adoptee, too. You're actually my second adoption, but very active and I love that. Keep it up! Xiner (talk, email) 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:A subtle distinction

What template would you recommend? I noticed his username, and it was obviously random vanity, so I thought that it could fall under the umbrella of "controversial unsourced statements". Leebo ^T/C 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracing IPs

(reply to comment on the Village Pump) - here's what I do. I do a reverse DNS lookup of the IP address and look for the string "dyn" (for dynamic) or "dhcp" (for DHCP-assigned). If one of these strings are there, it's probably a shared IP. If the word "static" is present, it's definitely not shared. If neither are present, or there is no RDNS record for the IP, then do a WHOIS lookup and look for those same things.

You can use {{subst:hostname|hostname.isp.com}}, {{ISP|ISP name}}, and {{SharedIPEDU|Name of school|host=hostname.school.tld}} to flag IP talk pages as being shared. Make sure not to subst: the ISP and SharedIPEDU templates because these are just boilerplate notices that can be edited for clarity or accuracy at any time.

I hope that helps! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Actors and Filmmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. You were recommended by Mr Xiner THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"I've been expecting you" 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FW-The Shield.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FW-The Shield.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi Vbd, I know I haven't been the best of adopters lately. Sorry, and I'd fully understand if you want to end your adoption. No hard feelings, and I'd still answer any questions you have (please do).

If you do want to continue the adoption, please complete the new assignments. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, unless someone wants to go, I'd definitely want them to stay as an adoptee. And I've definitely enjoyed working with you.

Adminship has given me highs and lows, but generally I'd have to say it makes things easier. It really is no big deal, for the most part, because you still have to get consensus. On the other hand, if I see a persistent vandal, I can just press "Block user". Xiner (talk, email) 03:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very nice wrap-up of your activities, Vbd. I know you've always been very productive, so take your time with the assignments. One learns best when they're doing something they like, and I'll try to tailor the assignments to your interests. Xiner (talk, email) 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anka

Hi Vbd. Paul Anka, according to many very credible and reliable sources is of Syrian descent. I would really doubt that published sources like Time Magazine and The Canadian Encyclopedia get that wrong. Regards, Anas ^talk? 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Vbd. I've implemented some changes which are most likely to please all sides. Thank you. Regards, Anas ^talk? 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff. - Anas ^talk? 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Your Help Desk Vandalism Report

His recent one is from middle 2005, the one before is from early 2004, there was one other, but I can't recall the name, it was an actress.So what should we do?Trampton 06:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment

Sorry it's taken so long to write back. Much wiki drama, stress, etc. - anyway, when dealing with nonsense pages, uw-creation1 suffices, and uw-test1 and uw-joke1 work well too. Xiner (talk, email) 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your, um, helpful comment. As for the warnings, however did I give you that idea? uw-creations is definitely fine! I was just saying the others are usable, too. Xiner (talk, email) 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD

Since someone else has commented already, I've placed a note there explaining your wish. You should message Otto about your change of mind, and that's sufficient in this case, I think. Xiner (talk, email) 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I make a point of using a gender-neutral handle, and here I make a mistake like this.

On procedure, if you catch it quick, you can usually just put on the right tags and everything, but since someone else has voted in this case, relisting it would be more messy than leaving it alone, I think. Xiner (talk, email) 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if Otto responds to the change, you may be able to clean up the CfD section to reflect only the new discussion. Xiner (talk, email) 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uw-warnings

Ok, who is it?

And you aren't gonna miss me when I'm gone? Xiner (talk, a promise) 13:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, actually SMcCandlish is an experienced editor, and seems correct in this case. I usually hand out level ones except for the most egregious cases, for which I do level two's. If an editor makes two deletions in a row, I'd often use a lvl-2, but the idea is to assume good faith first - it's true that a complete newbie may play around because they don't believe it's possible to edit the site. In short, always start with test1 if you must. If I didn't make it clear before, it was my fault.

As for departures, I read a really good essay recently. I'll try to find it. Here it is. Xiner (talk, a promise) 15:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've left a note there. I suspect it's just a case of all generalizations being false anyway. I avoid starting at level 4/4im because many admins are reluctant to block, even if they probably should (no one will blame them except perhaps for the person who reported the vandal). Xiner (talk, a promise) 15:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. I've found that stepping away from things that make you unhappy will make you a happier person very quickly. Who knew? Xiner (talk, a promise) 16:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpdesk

Because I saw too much 1 April crap today, and on first glance it looked like random nonsense. But I guess it wasn't. I reverted it back. Garion96 (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I've been there twice on official business, so I can't say I'm familiar with it, but I do know it is a place where you can get deletion decisions reviewed. You may want to visit User talk:Xoloz if you want to talk to someone really knowledgeable about it. Xiner (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you should try to contact whoever you're disagreeing with first, to see if you could talk it out. Xiner (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP has many safeguards for deletions, so just follow policy, ask them to go through the processes and you should be fine. Xiner (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Oh, I know it's just an essay, but I agree with it. There probably needs to be made some kind of policy for sure on when, where, how, etc. flags should be used. Mad Jack 08:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anka

Yes, no problem. Go ahead. :-) —Anas ^talk? 12:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! Still learning and doing my best to understand how things work in wikipedia. I'll come back for talk next time when I can. thanx

Categorization, Part 1001

User pages should be in Category:Wikipedians subcats only, unless it's an article being worked on in user space. The user should be kindly educated and you're welcome to edit them to conform to policy. If you run into any trouble, you can always let me know. Xiner (talk, email) 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah. If you want me to deal with it, let me know. Xiner (talk, email) 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy wonk. Just kidding. Xiner (talk, email) 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all is terrific actually (for the most part). Anyway...CFD/W is mostly processed by bots, so you needn't worry about it. Now, WP:UCFD is a different matter because templates/userboxes are often involved and the bots sometimes mess things up, but for articles, I think you can forget about the page. Xiner (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, if a CfD is sent to /Working, you can always implement the decision by hand yourself. If it's at all complicated or numerous, however, let other people deal with it. Xiner (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your sandbox

Hi there - you may have spotted that I went into your sandbox and changed [[Category to [[:Category right at the top. The colon before "Category" means that you can see the category description on the page and the page doesn't become part of the category. As it was, your sandbox was showing up as one of the articles in Category:People by ethnic or national origin, which I'm assuming wasn't your plan! Anyway, thought I'd let you know what I had done and why (and hope this makes sense) - it's a really easy mistake to make (I found three instances in one CfD debate earlier in the week!) Best wishes, Bencherlite 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lastking1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lastking1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackofalltradesmasterofnone 12:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Lastking3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lastking3.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Forest Whittaker

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I completely forgot. Images on pages must be as free as possible and, while the poster is free enough to be on the films page due to its being completely unreplaceable, it can be replaced on the actor's page, either by a screenshot of the film or a photo of Forrest in character, although the latter should not be a promotional image from the film. Hope that answers the question? (Quentin X 06:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. I have been very skeptical about the newer "replaceable fair use" policy especially as regards images of living persons, and this incident illustrates one of my problems with it: that the concept of "replaceability" is not clearly defined enough to make clear that this sort of use is permitted. I tried defining it to make sure we could quickly resolve these disputes, but very few people were willing to compromise. Daniel Case 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Lastking3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lastking3.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 11:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of an era

Hi there. As you've probably noticed, I have neglected my duties - due to personal circumstances. I cannot in good conscience continue to bill myself as an active adopter, and have thus edited your userpage to reflect the change. Rest assured that I'm still available for any questions you may have on your Wikipedia journey. Please do NOT hesitate to contact me about anything. Good luck and message me again soon! Xiner (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little every once in a while adds up to something, and is more than what most people can claim. I'll be waiting for your next GA. Xiner (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Alexis arquette.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexis arquette.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Quinn-martin 1.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Quinn-martin 1.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.

Forest Whitaker

The article Forest Whitaker, to which you seem to be one of the primarily contributors, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Lampman (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]