User talk:Redvers/Archive17

Just an archive. Not live. Start a new thread here instead. Thanks.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  08:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers, I learnt about you from Han Amos. I am an editor of the Fellowship of Friends page. There is an editor (Veronicapoe) that is undoing edits without explaining the reasons. Do you have any advice? Thank you. Mfantoni 21:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers. Thank you for your prompt action - you are right about an edit war happening. Wine-in-ark created this page and added factual information from web sites and books. After him, Peter Ingle added long paragraphs copied from the organization's web site that looked like propaganda. He was told by Wine-in-ark to clean them and make them more encyclopedid but he never did. Later Veronicapoe added original research and long sections about cults that are more an essay on brainwashing than a description of the organization. She was told by Wine-in-ark to move most of his entries to the Talk page but she never acknowledged the suggestions. Things were pretty civilized until yesterday, when Veronicapoe started undoing all my edits (even the addition of commas or blank spaces) without any explanation either on the Talk page or directly to me. Today I decided to write to several Wikipedia administrators, including you, asking for help. Thanks for your time - your work keeps Wikipedia going. Mfantoni 00:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter dobbie is in fact Peter Dobbie - so I've unblocked the username (it's not an impersonation, it's actually him). He called me this morning, incensed that his hard work uploading pictures had been deleted. I said I'd look into it ... looks like I'll be explaining to him what free content is, and why we don't accept with-permission ... might provide useful feedback for your explanation page too - David Gerard 15:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent him a note explaining that deleting his employer's copyrighted works that he'd uploaded without paperwork was for his protection as much as for ours. If it turns out he does have the power to release BBC content under a free-content license, that'll be quite the event - David Gerard 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers, I just posted some suggested edits on the Fellowship of Friends Talk page (the page is blocked for editing so all changes have to me made through you). Thanks! Mfantoni 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've deleted the article Ram charan Teja. But the article has been created again. I've added a Speedy Deletion tag. Is there any thing else that can be done ? --71.163.220.5 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some one has transferred the page of Vagyoga to Gurudeva Vagish Shastri. I clearly mention here that this page is soley devoted to Vagyoga techniques not for his inventor. --Vagyoga 02:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again;

Would it be possible for you to express your support for my idea in talk:4 Digital Group as nobody else has yet responded except me and the page's creator, who is opposing my move.. -- Fursday 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. On the new article for Family Foundation School, I have permission from the school to use their logo. However, you deleted it. How does one demonstrate permission to use an image? Thanks! - Wikiwag 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I see this is the second time you deleted my log on tinapa. You think I copied it from a site but Its actually for the 'For The Media' page on the www.tinapa.com site. Please visit it and cheeck it out. evrything I took was permitted by Tinapa LTD. Please reply. thanks, Lephilippe 194.46.166.164 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you've made a bad call on deciding this was a delete, as I would have gone with a no-consensus. Basically, I feel that you've decided that the Post-Gazette is a not reputable source, which isn't our business to decide as wikipedia editors, or if it is, why not assume the London Times or Boston Globe aren't reliable sources. The Post-Gazette's writers have put their professional credibility behind the stories they post, and as it is a paper with 200k+ circulation, so I believe that makes their professional credibility enough for our standards. The articles quoted this group by name, and thats enough for me, and I'm a deletionist. But whatever, I don't really care that much. I'm just registering my disagreement with your decision. Cornell Rockey 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cornell. Thanks for you note, which I read with interest. Obviously, I don't agree, as I set out in my reasoning on the AfD page. And the quality of sources is something we concern ourselves with (see WP:RS for a discussion on the matter). There are, put simply, some sources that are better than others in this world, and this article managed to have a broad spectrum of Not Good, Biased and Good-but-fails-to-mention-the-group-itself sources. All in all, it came well short of WP:RS and had major WP:V problems.

However, the ground is not salted behind this article. It would be nice to see an article on the subject, but it needs to be one built up from reliable unbiased third-party sources. Without them, it is a stub with no claims to notability. This isn't good.

I'm open to persuasion by reasoned argument on this, of course, from any editor. Alternatively, if you think I have been unreasonable in the closing or the decision, please say so at deletion review - I certainly won't think any less of you (or anyone else) for doing so as all my decisions should be transparent and open to review - this being a wiki! Thanks and happy editing! RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant above was that you've alone decided that the Post-Gazette did not pass WP:RS, and I think you're blatantly wrong to make that decision unilaterally. I know it is our duty to question all sources (thanks for reminding me!), but this isn't some poorly photocopied local rag, its a major newspaper, and if we're not going to trust that one, we shouldn't really trust Le Monde or The New York Times (or is there a line you draw somewhere between the Post-Gazette and those papers, and how do you draw that line?). Now, since you've gone and deleted the article, I can't go back and see what the sources said, but when I looked them through, I think I remember they indicated the presence of a group that organized the protests. Most of the article was entirely based upon information from their own website, which clearly isn't reliable enough to merit inclusion, but I feel that with a good amount of deleting, that article could have been parsed down to something that passed WP:ORG.

Basically, I still think your delete decision is still wrong, IMHO. I would have gone with 'no consensus with drastic cleanup', but then again, I'm not an all powerful administrator. Cornell Rockey 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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. Ralbot 05:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Delphine Records? If it was the image you had a problem with you could have just deleted the logo? NOT THE WHOLE ARTICLE. I don't understand why you deleted it, and I would very much like it if you could UN-DELETE it. Thanks.

--Dashfan00 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Delphine Records. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dashfan00 17:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Delphine Records--Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)|deletion review]] of [[:Delphine Records--Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dashfan00 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers! Just thought I'd let you know that someone added a load of weasel words (which incidentally happened to be a load of poppycock) to the Westward Television article and their addition didn't even show up in the page history or my watchlist. Therefore I assume it must have been vandalised.

Now I'm going to calm down by listening to you announce over the Rediffusion line-up board again - which you do beautifully... ;) BTW: I've done the Stop Look Listen opening titles. Kecske Bak 19:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery solved. I can now see the full page history - it was missing for a few days. It shows that the page was edited by someone called "OwenBlacker"; he seems to be a wikipedian of some standing, so I am at a loss to understand his edits to the Westward Television page. Kecske Bak 13:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers, thank you for your help with the Fellowship of Friends page. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have a question for you: today I noticed that one of the editors of the page ( Wine-in-ark ) is a Wikipedia Administrator. Is that a conflict of interest? Thanks again. Mfantoni 03:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers, I see that you've also fallen foul of the idiot Johnny the Vandal (Hephaestos is a really silly moron most recently). I just thought I'd welcome you to our select band -- if you're in anything like my position you can look forward to at least 3 years of this idiot vandalising your talk page :( Best regards, Arwel (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers, there is an editor at the Fellowship of Friends page (Veronicapoe) that refuses to discuss controversial edits with the other editors before making them. Three editors (Wine-in-ark, Nixwisser and myself) have been trying to persuade her to cooperate without success. I see a new edit war coming. Please take a look at the Talk page and see it for yourself. Thank you, again. Mfantoni 05:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Is it possible for me to cut and paste items from this language as it is impossible for one except the author to possible write a full summary of the originations of this Language, for you see, it is a proposal and therefore sources are limited!! Thanks,Lephilippe

Hi Redvers,

Not sure what exactly is wrong with including the Correspondents for ITV News ... I have looked at a number of Wiki entries for other stations and they all have the same. Channel 4 News for example lists all correspondents under the heading "other presenters / correspondents". London Tonight lists the programmes one screen reporters.

In particular I don't understand why you keep deleting my addition but not those for Channel 4 etc.

Please explain.

Best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.44.247 (talk • contribs).

Have just looked and discovered that Five News also has a "other presenters / correspondents" catagory just like Channel 4 News. Why do they have them and not ITV news? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.44.247 (talk • contribs).

Sky News reporters are all listed under a 2 part cat - "Presenters and reporters".

In other words every entry for every British Television news network lists reporters and correspondents.

Surely you should delete all these or none at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.44.247 (talk • contribs).

About your question, nope! I was talking about the bogus ABC UK Color logo that starts on a blue background and ABC is next to the triangle, similar to the one in the other logo and has part of the Carolco 1982 music. Zeldabalooney2006

Hi Redvers, I am going to check WP:DR and see what we can do. I already asked Veronicapoe for mediation and she refused, so I don't see a lot of hope. Regarding sockpuppetry, are you saying that Veronicapoe is Babycondor and that Unicorn144 is Nixwisser? If not, how can I find out about multiple identities? I am a 3-week old editor so please bear with my learning curve... Thanks again. Mfantoni 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, can you tell me who are the sockpuppeteers at the Fellowship of Friends page? Thanks! Mfantoni 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, are you still involved? If not, can you tell me who should I talk to? Thanks. Mfantoni 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

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. Ralbot 08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guignoltheatre.jpg

I've been working on the article for Grand Guignol, a Paris theatre which closed in 1962. I'd really like to have a picture of the theatre itself, and of course there's no way to photograph it, since it doesn't exist anymore. I've found a photograph of the theatre- the same photo in several places, including here and here, but with no information that would help me identify where it came from. Is there some sort of fair use clause that covers historical images? Or will the article need to live without a photo of the theatre? All advice welcome. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks big time - that will save me telling some editors their life story (I hope). Cheers!--VS ^talk 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers, I am hoping you can explain a bit about sockpuppets. In the "Fellowship of Friends" page, you listed discussion entries by myself and the user "babycondor" as clear evidence of sockpuppetry. As there has been a lot of contentious editing, re-editing and reversions, I can perhaps understand the suspicion that more than one user seems to have a similar direction in the choice of edits, but why toss in the suspicion of sockpuppetry based on those discussion entries? Since the entries in question were simply "babycondor" making a suggestion and I disagreeing with it, how does that qualify for such an accusation? thank you truly Nixwisser 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I suppose I misread that. I think I may need to take a break from the RfA process as it only serves to make me more frustrated; the whole process is messed up. However, you were totally right in your opposition with that backing, and I apologize for misreading it and saying what I did. Kntrabssi 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, yet again, why this article was deleted on April 11th. I see you have given it CDA-7 or what-have-you, meaning that it was too short? What?

At this point I get the feeling you are deleting this out of spite, and hope to move forward with a deletion review, as I feel the article was accurate, long enough, and had assertions of notability with references.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Diversified Technology, Inc.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dbmays 14:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We wish to revise our writeup in Wikipedia. I made numerous changes these past few days, but today I noticed the entire article was reverted back to it's old text. You mentioned in the history "Can't completely locate where this is a copyvio from" -- what is this requirement you need.

Please attend to this matter IMMEDIATELY as our organizational writeup in Wikipedia requires the revision as soon as possible.

Unfpa 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, this is about the message you posted on my talk page about sockpupettry at the Fellowship of Friends Talk Page. There are 4 users listed on the diffs you included in your message (very obvious): Unicorn144, Veronicapoe, Nixwisser and Babycondor. Who is the sockpupetter? REDVERS, I am trying to stop editors from using "underhand methods" and your message is instrumental. Thank you. Mfantoni 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers,

I am not clear as to why you have now deleted my entry without response. Can you please respond to my questions about the image? 24.45.5.41 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)David[reply]

I certainly have no intention to offend you. Sorry if anything I wrote came across that way. Anorak2 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mr Real cp3 is back after a month asking for forgiveness, I noticed you invited him to do so after a month. I am going to leave this for you to handle. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am the owner of the 2 photos you deleted. perhaps i didn't license it properly because I don't have good English and thought i was putting it by the right category. Mimel took the photo, he and I uploaded the file. He is a photographer in Haifa, Israel. In which category should I put the photos, considering that you are speaking to the person that took it. We can decide to make it a free licences with Mimel tommorow without any problem. Hapoelhaifa3

You deleted File:Concordia Logo Color.jpg which formerly appeared in the Concordia University at Austin article. I understand why you did so, but couldn't you just have re-tagged the image as {{logo}}, as is usually done with logo images?

Deletion log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Concordia_Logo_Color.jpg --Eastmain 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remember that logos and certain other categories such as album covers are a special case. They fall under fair use (when they appear in an article about the logo's owner), and can safely be used without permission. In other words, if the licence under which an image was uploaded doesn't permit the image to be used freely, consider whether fair use would permit the image to be used in a more limited way. --Eastmain 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of The Observer requested that I include a Grossman illustration from its pages. What can I do to ensure that if I meet his request, the illustration is not deleted? Is there some form he needs to fill out? Relgif 14:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain deletion of this list...The list was added to replace the article with just a list of reporters and correspondents in a similar way to there are lists on CNN, FOX News etc articles. I was always under the impression that {'{listcruft}'} should be added to the article if the list was deemed innapropriate before deleting it. In many cases a category is appropriate but here it is not as roles are needed-if there is a way of doing this please tell me! Anyway, comments/explanations would be appreciated Flymeoutofhere 16:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers. Sawe your note on the image I uploaded. I believe I have fixed the isuse.

I find the WP description on how to add license information, tags and descriptions to be confusing and incomplete. One could reduce image licensing issues if the information were clearer and included examples. Thanks, Majoreditor 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on my image deletion. I will try to get the permission from the user. Don't think he'll reply, but i'll give it a shot. Maddy 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little bit of a problem. A user (VisitEureka) keeps adding a fan link to the Painkiller Jane (TV series) article. The user is apparently associated with that fan page, and from the looks of it the fan has also added a related fan link to the Eureka TV show article. From the user's language, I think s/he also feels some sort of "ownership" over these articles since the user has made come constributions to them. I don't want to be accused of bias or violating the 3RR, but I think if you check the discussion for the Painkiller Jane article you'll see that VisitEureka has basically given the textbook argument for trying to justify spamming an article. If you could remove the link on that article, I'd appreciate it. Or, if you think I'm off on this one -- fair enough. Chicken Wing 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why my entire article was deleted.

I'm totally new at this, but I did take the image that I posted and do own the copyright. The gallery listed is MY agent, and not the other way around. There didn't seem to be an appropriate category to file this image under, so I picked the closest one. I feel as though I've been penalized in perpetuity ("someone else will probably delete the image again if the licensing is changed...") simply because of my inexperience using Wikipedia---which isn't so simple to begin with.

How can someone else determine there's been a copyright violation without verifying? In this case, there hasn't been one. A few clicks would have determined that. Please enlighten me. I've tried to read through all the explanations and frankly I'm lost.

Andrew Wright 216.59.249.215 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're asking me to provide a fair use rationale for this image. It's a corporate logo and is accompanied by a boilerplate for corporate logos which clearly states:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the television station, network, corporation, or other organization in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Lee M 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry posted it on the wrong page first time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamatisk (talk • contribs).

An article that you have been involved in editing, The mcdermotts, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The mcdermotts. Thank you. Tamatisk 12:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, many thanks for the barnstar - I was greatly honored to receive one from you. Best, Gwernol 14:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about the license i selected the wrong one so i re-did it with the proper on much appreciated!

Thanks,Sparrowman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowman980 (talk • contribs)

I just wanted to say that it's fine that you've deleted the image of the dusky woodswallow. Infact, by the sound of things, it was the right thing to do. I understabnd why this happened, and because of it I have been taught a valuable lesson.(PS - it was way better than having a bot have to leave a message on my talk; I'd rather have a real person delete it any day) Best Regards, --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now why you deleted the image, saying that you only want the image used on Wikipedia is a bit stupid. However what is worrying to me is that many photos where people say "x or y have given me permission" seem to be being deleted. Why is this? It seems only fair that if someone tells me I can use their photo that I can do it. Please educate me :-) Cls14 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still pending AfD Jdchamp31 22:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I uploaded an image of a cover of Dragon Magazine for the purpose of using it for the Modrons (Dungeons & Dragons) article. I labeled it with the copyright of the publisher (Paizo Publishing) and the name of the artist, but not as a book cover. Since other articles use thumbnails of book covers, is it permissible to re-send this image and label it as a book cover so that the Modron article will have an accurate image of a modron?

Ravin' Ray 01:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted an image on the above article for copyright violation? It seems the User:DragKing uploaded it again. He now claims it is his and he provides it as public domain (which may well be true). Please still have a look if everything is okay. Whoops, forgot to sign MadMaxDog 06:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Redvers,

I was trying to archive my talk page and created User_talk:Netmonger/Archive_2 with the intention of copying and pasting the contents, then later I realized that way I wouldn't be able to preserve the history of the edits. So I Decided to move the talk page. But since I had already create User_talk:NetmongerArchive_2 I couldn't do that. So instead I have created User_talk:Netmonger/Archive_3, could you help me move Archive_3 to Archive_2 and rid of Archive_3. thanks 07:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Redvers, its fine now, really appreciate your help on this. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 10:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers,

Can I ask you why you deleted my article on Stairtclimber trucks and had it redirected to hand trucks? Stairclimber strucks are a specific type of truck built for a specific purpose and shouldnt be just a post note under the generic heading of 'hand trucks'. Thats like saying there shouldn't be a wiki on say 'Reliant Robin' because after all its just another type of car.

Ive spent 15 Years in the material handling field and would like to contribute on things I feel need a little more explaining within my field of expertise. I doubt I will if I feel that my efforts are being washed away.

Regards

Fred Rochdalemark 08:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I don't know what has happened and i don't have the time to read all the pages about the opyrights, all i can say is that the material i'm using comes from a course of the professor who teaches this subject. He gave me personally the permission i'm allowed to use the material in the course, so i don't see any reason why the image has been deleted, since it's also necessary to make the point of the article clear. Furthermore, since it's copyright, i think i have the right to make a new diagram with the lines oriented in another way, don't i?

kind regards, RobotNick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobotNick (talk • contribs).

I've asked the photographer of the photo you deleted to upload the image itself under a permissible license.

Ericlitman 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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. Ralbot 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Redvers,

The professor gave me indeed the explicit permission to use it on wikipedia. I only asked him if I could use it on wikipedia, that's why I checked the box "wikipedia only". Taking into account he gave me the explicit permission to use it on wikipedia, it's logic that he has taken into account that it could be used by other users. About the copyright, yes i know something about copyright, but since i'm no lawyer i don't know the details. I know there is no copyright on idea's, only on form. So when i use the same idea in a different form i don't do anything wrong. But since I have the permission you've asked me for, i don't think this final paragraph makes any difference.

kind regards, RobotNick

I've noticed some outrage after me and a few other users endorsed a particular view on this RfA. I've just explained my position to Steel359 [1]. I am frankly not ashamed for my endorsement and I'm actually quite surprised by the hostility originated therefrom. Please be nice and consider that you might be misjudging the others' opinions. Best regards, Húsönd 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if your CFD on his socks ends as delete, JtV will probably start trolling deletion review with wave after wave of single purpose accounts. As a result, you may want to monitor DR for at least several days after the conclusion of the CFD debate, and speedily close any attempt by him to overturn the deletion. TML 06:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello:

You have deleted wiki page on "Sankalp" citing reason Copyvio. Is it possible to get that page back with the disputed text deleted? I would like to have it back and i am ready to take any action towards this as deemed necessary by wikipedia policies.

thanks, Vikasy 23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removved the objectionabel txt. please let me know. ANd, i am somehow not able to add the logo tag to the image, it says you have already uploaded the image and it has been deleted. so what i want to correct the information by adding logo tag, how to do that?

Vikasy 17:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More fully on my talk, but thanks! Moreschi ^Talk 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings. Rules are rules. Neo16287 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i have removed the image. I have supplied one more reference (from a conference where a research paper was presented and the research was sponsored by Sankalp). This is a genuine organization, as much genuine as the word genuine can mean. If you still do not agree, let me know the ways to resolve the issue other that you asking me to provide you one more ref. thanks a lot for your time while doing all this. Vikasy 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of proof of permission should i get for you to be happy to leave the image there? Scratchdawg 07:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I have sought permission through email. I will forward to communications committee if successful. Scratchdawg 12:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an OK picture? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Benetta0.jpg Comes from a TV show. COFS 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast response! COFS 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you deleted the page Plattform Advertising?

I tried to make it as objective as possible to avoid the "spam" mark. How could I have improved the article so that it might be included?

Shana 19:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an image of Princes Park that I uploaded earlier. I'm not very good with this technical jargon list in the "reasons why" pages you linked. I have permission from the photographer to use the image in any way I see fit, for the good of the article I believe it's necessary. Given that I have the rights to use the image, what exactly do I need to do to convince wikipedia staff to keep it in the article? Orichalcon 15:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick template reply. Given that this was simply a misselection from the image templates on my behalf (ie: the photographer is fine with the picture being used in any medium, commercial or not, and not restricted to wikipedia.) If I reupload the image with the correct tag, will it be ok? And what exactly is the correct tag for a free-for-use image? Orichalcon 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, I like your image, the boxes. Can you make one for me with this color? "#5B92E5" for boxes. Thank you! Real96 20:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more to it, and whatever time i had i used it to get more information (but i am sorry i didnt find any reference from any london newspaper which might have satisfied you in a better way). May be i didnt have enough time right now. Why am i taking this much effort towards this is just because as per my judgement Sankalp is an important organization which works for other people and has lived for last 12 years (has affected several thousand people) and i also believe that this page is a valid entry for wikipedia, if you dont let me do it, i will let the people do it. And by people i mean consensus, if this page is really for wikipedia, it will be there no one can stop that (becuase that is the philosophy of wikipedia and that s how whole wikipedia is built).I am in no hurry. Thanks a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vikasy (talk • contribs).

Accepted. You did a very good job of moderating. Now the way i m going to proceed is instead of replying to you, i will leave this page to reappear on its own in due time becuase if at all it reappears that will automatically answer all your comments and i am sure you will be happy. thankyou very much. Vikasy 14:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (on a different note, let me make a wild guess... are you from yorkshire :) or are you not at all from uk then i m way way off)[reply]

Hi. This is the first time I have ever tried to put content onto Wikipedia. I have been given permission to upload the image removed by the administrators of the website from which it is taken. What can I do to make sure I am able to put it up? Many thanks. Redflag85 15:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just a comment on your edit. If you speedy delete the image that's fine, but would it have been possible to just add copyright info, or contact the person that loaded it to get this info?

Also, if you delete the image, do not delete the image= text that comes before it. This alters the format of the wikitable and removes the box where an image should go when replaced. Hewinsj 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, read through your faq quickly and then again after I responded, so I decided to retract that first part. Also it was no big problem on the table, it may have just sounded more harsh than I intended. I added that text back so it's all good. Happy editing to you too. Hewinsj 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redvers for fully explaining the situation pertaining to bands. It's much easier to understand something when you actually lay it out nicely for me like that on my talk page, instead of referring me to those horrible long Wikipedia rules pages. Don't worry, this band will be famous soon, and you'd better believe they'll have one hell of an article ready to be posted for them when they are ;). --Darklord 2002 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Redvers, thanks for pointing out the problems with my original article - I have addressed these. Best regards, Swissnev —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swissnev (talk • contribs).

To one of my best wikifriends ever, words fail me when I try to tell you how much I've missed you... but I'll try anyway.. far from the ears of others tho. It's great to see you again! :) Love, Phaedriel 10:3, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Psst! Check your mail! :)

I really should have mentioned unblocking to you, sorry about that. It was just a really frustrating block. His opponent is an persistent and egregious over-templateer (i.e. WP:DTTR). To see him get his way because of this really bothered me. They are both perpetual edit warriors (although I believe Folken's warring is the least constructive, that is, it is based and blind policy following). Protection is generally the best way to deal with these guys or they will just war all the way to AN/3RR. John Reaves (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are actually the more constructives, because Wikipedia can't be turned into a blog for anyone to post his own personal theories. Folken de Fanel 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folken is very keen on quoting rules and seems to like dropping mysterious warnings on peoples pages. Are these the reason MichaelSanders was blocked? If so, I would point out that while Folken is very assertive at quoting rules, he is rather less good at interpreting them in a neutral way, and has a distressing habit of overlooking sections which might perhaps not favour his case. The section in question on the Severus snape page does not have any attached source. I'm not sure where it came from originally, but it is fair comment on the differences between the films and books, which can simply be observed by anyone reading/viewing the two series. ~

No it is not "fair comment", it is opinion. And opinion needs to be sourced.Folken de Fanel 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of mysterious tags have appeared on my own page from Folken. I was partly mystified, and partly amused by his rather odd behaviour. Am i to take it that his purpose in putting them there is to have me blocked for something? So he becomes judge, jury and employer of executioner? gaming the system? Sandpiper 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You only get what you deserve. Disruptive behavior close to vandalism, including spam links, must be prevented. Folken de Fanel 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note you suggest debating with Folken. I tried this when there was a disagreement over content on 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. The result was 150K of arguing about rules, and a new version which Folken accepted. A week later he denied accepting that version (after no one else objected to it), and demanded further changes, which he eventually got, I would say because people wanted an easy life. I do not consider that his pesistent persual of his own POV is helping wikipedia. Sandpiper 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had never accepted any new version (as another user said to Michaelsander' -you two are so similar you could even be sockpuppets-, "You simply can't grasp that things might be different from your phantasy"). I said it was a basis that still needed to be worked on, and I pointed out various issues. After days of silence, I thought you had dropped all this, and suddenly I saw you had tagged your imperfect proposal for inclusion, without fixing any of the issues I had noted. Obviously you didn't know (and still don't) what "consensus" means. On a side note I think, since you started about it, that it is worth mentioning that your proposal you're refering to, was later rejected from inclusion by a majority of active contributors on the article.

I see also that if you're ranting again about something which is months old now, shows that there is something undoubtedly personal behind all this "let's revert Folken !" thing...You just didn't accept that your version was rejected by general consensus, and now I'm the target of your frustration...

There is no POV on my side, I've already said it. The ones adding your favorite unsourced, obscure, self-published theories are you and Michaelsanders, not me. Folken de Fanel 21:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See[2] Sandpiper

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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. Ralbot 06:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to delete Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mike Garcia and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Michael in addition to the categories you put up for deletion two weeks ago. TML 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Redvers,

Thank you for helping to point out my faults. Firefox's built-in spelling editor underlined the non-American English forms of words in red. I assumed that it was honest. If you could somehow create or direct me to a site or wikipedia article that lists the common American English words and their British English forms, that would be swell.

DarkArcher 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you blocked Severus Snape for editing, and looking back through the logs, I see that you were indeed right to do so.

As no one had started a topic for discussion in the Talk section on the edit war, I did so, and posted my opinion about it. So far, the only other people to contribute to this discussion are the two sides of the edit war, and it is descending into a real slanging match between the two parties and not about the topic at hand.

I have absolutely no power on Wikipedia, so I cannot do anything about it, so I was hoping that you (as an administrator) might be able to do something, or at least know who to call in to mediate

Please help! StephenBuxton 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

87.113.*.* is trying to impose his view on the Carlton page again. PMA 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick 'thumbs-up' from me for the new totems in the BR Regions navibox. They look good; a definite improvement and time well spent.

I don't really want to say anything negative, as they are all excellent, but I must say that the North Eastern one is rather difficult to read when reduced to icon size. I presume ('cos I've never seen a real one) that it is prototypically-accurate to use outlined text, but for the icon-sized variant, simple black would probably be clearer.

EdJogg 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, seeing as you're pretty good at spotting images with copyright issues, would you mind taking a look at Category:Fromownerviewed? I came across it through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner. It appears to me that at least two of the photos in that category probably aren't really free (see my comments on the MfD page about Image:Sianjamesmain.jpg and Image:David Miliband 11 April 2007.JPG). I'd be more comfortable if someone with more experience than me could check the cat out if you have a moment. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]