Jump to content

User talk:After Midnight/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Nonsensical mass edits

Why do you make approximately 100 edits to a articles about Norwegian history where your only change (apparently) is to add a blank line? __meco (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I saw your post on the village pump and was trying to make null edits to repopulate your category. I tested the first few and they were fine so I started working fasted and taking advantage of the edit intro feature. Unfortunately, it seems that something changed in my monobook that resulted in them not being null..... --After Midnight 0001 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, as long as it was unintentional I'm happy. __meco (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 23#Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m

I had to laugh at your closure of "No consensus" because "no one could possibly wade through all this to arrive at a decision". Ironically this is the type of closure I worried about during the noms RFA when I asked if they obtained the mop and bucket would they take the time to read everything or just count votes. Now you do the close and didn't do either. So allow me to sum it up for you - the nom dumped all of this on the uploader because they did not understand the law in Florida. Three editors (the uploader, myself, and one other) gave keep opinions backed up with laws and links. A fourth editor did not directly voice a "keep" or "delete" but summarized, based on Wikipedia articles on case law, "subject to certain exceptions, Florida public records are copyright-free" (Which would lean towards a "keep"). A Florida lawyer I had asked to review it commented they did not have time to comment. So it was a fairly clear cut "keep", not a "No consensus". I understand that "No consensus" = "keep" but it is still disheartening to read a closure where the closing admin admits they didn't bother to read any of the discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said that I never read it? You might want to read my words again. I did read through the discussion about 2 weeks ago and it just made my head spin. There is a big difference between expecting an admin to read a number of comments vs. dumping large amounts of legalese on a page and expecting the admin to act like a judge in a court of law who has to read the lawyers "briefs". 5 weeks is an awful long time for a deletion discussion to exist and I think that you have quite unreasonable expectations after all this time to think that something useful would come after such a lengthy delay. If it was so clear cut, there was plenty of time for another admin to close this with a true keep or delete and you might wonder why one of them did not do that. There are a number of admins who deal with closes at PUF and their lack of action on this should be an indication. All I did was close a discussion that had sat idle for a lengthy time and was likely to do so indefinitely. The no consensus does no harm and if anyone ever thinks to nominate the files again for deletion, perhaps more concise arguments will arrive in a more direct administrative decision. --After Midnight 0001 03:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I just saw this. Your exact words were: "no one could possibly wade through all this to arrive at a decision", so to answer your question of "Who said that I never read it?", you did. I think part of the issue was the way the nom was handled - it was split up over several sections, it was regrouped, than it was moved with no sort of back link/forward link. In other words all of the tagged images linked to "wrong" discussions and when you got to it you were sent to the "full" discussion on another page. The re-listed discussion did not actually contain any discussion, it was back-linked to and once you got there there was no link to the active discussion. I didn't say the "no consensus" did harm, I said, or at least implied, that I found it ironic that when the editor who made the nom for all of these images was running for Admin I asked them about this deletion discussion and said would they read it or just skim it over if they were an admin and were closing a like discussion. And that is why I had to laugh when I saw your comment that "no one could possibly wade through all this to arrive at a decision". And yes, there are many admins that could have closed it and I actually asked some, but either they were too busy, did not notice it or you closed it before they got to it. As for the "legalese on a page and expecting the admin to act like a judge in a court of law who has to read the lawyers 'briefs'" - that is exactly what I think is expected when a discussion of this nature comes along. That was part of the entire issue with the nom - it was based on their misunderstanding of the law, so the only way to discuss it was to cite the law. I know many many deletion discussion are simply based on opinions that read "Keep. No use" or "Delete. Per nom" but this was a bit more complicated. Thanks for the reply. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jamison Twins a Question and Help

Hello After Midnight, I have contacted a few Admins and no one seems to respond. I thought maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. Can you tell me how blocks like this get removed. I'm still pretty new at Wikipedia and really worked hard to reference this article to fix it up. I follow policy, unless I'm miss understanding it. This article has multiple issues.

Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.(I did this on the discussion page.) This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since September 2009. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since September 2009. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since September 2009.

Please let me know either way if you have time. I hope you have the time.Thisandthem (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think that you have improved the article so that those tags should no longer apply, propose removing them on the talk page. Hopefully some discussion will take place to gain consensus one way or the other. If no one responds after a week or so, just go head and remove the tags. --After Midnight 0001 03:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi : )

You're back too!

Glad to see you : ) - jc37 03:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks. Nice to see you also. I was gone for a while to focus on some other priorities, but I like being back, especially now that I stay away from the drama with the user categories discussions, which I notice were merged back in with "regular" categories while I was gone. --After Midnight 0001 15:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
One thing that I think has helped some was WP:USERCAT and WP:OC/U. Being "on the same page", as it were, apparently helps reduce the tension/drama of the mistaken opinion of "well, you're just targeting what I like".
Anyway, I may poke you in the near future for some (unrelated) bot work if you're up to it (and if it's allowed for your bot, of course). - jc37 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to go out to the shed and see if AMbot is still in pieces. A little oil may be needed to get the gears going again ;-) I don't use a watchlist anymore, so you might need to poke me here if you've got something for the bot. --After Midnight 0001 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics - The two threads near the bottom concerning the work groups. Would at least the first one with the category be doable by bot? - jc37 03:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the bot is certainly not pre-approved for that activity. I might be able to figure out how to do it with AWB, would require me remembering how to use regex I think. --After Midnight 0001 12:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I did 11 of them, should be easy to see in my edit history at this time. Is this what you are looking for? If so, I can just bang them out. Note that I would use the shortened edit summary that was in the 11th one instead of the long one in the furst 10. --After Midnight 0001 16:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me.
We won't be able to assess the difference between the Superman assessments and the Comics assessments, but I guessed that would be the case. And probably will be ok, anyway. From what I saw from a random sampling, it was mostly a question of B/C anyway, and we have a (stricter?) guideline regarding that in the comics project.
And by the way, thanks : ) - jc37 17:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I got them all. You will want to create the Category:Superman work group articles, I think, so it is not "red". Also, I'm tagging the now empty categories as "csd c1". If I made any errors, please let me know so I can correct, or just for future reference. --After Midnight 0001 21:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, I am moving Category:Superman articles by quality, so it is now under Category:Superman work group articles. --After Midnight 0001 21:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you empty the Superman articles by importance cat and subcats, and if so, why? Are these restricted only to WikiProjects? - jc37 07:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me like the importance cats were populated by the importance parameter of the Wikiproject Superman template. Without the Superman project template being used any longer, there is probably nothing to populate those categories. I did notice that the quality rankings were still there, so there must be something in the Comics template that still populates those from the workgroup parameter, so that could probably be modified to still populate those now empty categories. Once again the question would be can you have a different importance for Comics than for Superman, and if so that would require an additional parameter. --After Midnight 0001 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, since C1 is deletion without prejudice of recreation, I think that's fine.
And I personally don't know enough about all the particulars of assessments to decide that (which is part of why I was asking you : ), and honestly, since the workgroup is inactive atm, it's probably a moot point.
I just was trying to figure out what happened, and where to go from here. Since I'm trying to keep this as much an organised whole as possible. (In the hopes that collaboration may yet one day appear again : ) - jc37 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Fortunately, since all my edits were grouped together, it should be easy to see in the history what the old assessments were before the merge if necessary. I'm sorry that I don't see any other solutions at this time, but I can't figure out how to do anything else with the template at this time. If you are aware of a Comics workgroup that does have an importance ranking, let me know, and maybe I can figure out how to make something work for Superman also. --After Midnight 0001 02:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not, which was part of my query. Because we're in vague waffle land between WikiProject and work group, I honestly didn't/don't know.
This is where I would normally have gone to User:Hiding for advice, but that avenue is denied me at this time.
Sooo, I think we can leave it as is for now. if things change, we always have your contribution history to pull from. - jc37 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you

just deleted File:Rivalta Raggio.jpg. I thought that I had explained on the file that the picture came from an undated cemetery publication, but that I figured that it was from the same time as another dated publication put out in 1922. That other publication is where the other image at Augusto Rivalta came from but I rather preferred the former, now deleted image as being more illustrative of Rivalta’s style. Perhaps you can advise me as how to deal with this issue should I decide to post that image again. Upon hearing that there was an issue with this image I posted a response at User talk:Chris G, the editor who informed me that there was a problem, but I see now that my message has been archived before giving me a reply. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

the real problem here is that there was no copyright tag template applied to the image. Please see Wikipedia:File copyright tags and Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All for some additional information. --After Midnight 0001 23:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Carptrash (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I see you have deleted my page for username satya61229. I see lots of user pages has been deleted for the same reason. My confusion is what can be added to user's page. If I have a page then what can I write there! There should be a simple example page link when you delete a page. This example page should automatically be added to delete info paragraph. satya61229 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has been a while, about 3 1/2 years since that was deleted. I will refer you to Wikipedia:User pages where there is much information regarding user pages. --After Midnight 0001 15:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I didn't know where to look for rules on this, but is there a guideline on images uploaded strictly for user pages (as seen on here). This user has uploaded two images that are used exclusively for user pages [1] [2] and has had two other similar images deleted due to lack of licensing information. I think he does not actually own the rights to the existing images on Wikipedia and his image [3] which ridiculously cites blogspot as its source strengthens my suspicions. Could you advise me on this particular rule (images uploaded exclusively for user pages, I know I kind of digressed towards the end). Cheers. Fixer23 (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For starters, non-free images may not be included on user pages, or anywhere outside of articles for that matter. As far as images which are free, they are fine as long as they are not provocative, etc. Please see Wikipedia:User_page#Images for more detail on that. If you feel that the 2 images on the user space are not free, you should feel comfortable taking them to WP:PUF for discussion. If you feel that the user page in total is not proper, you might refer to WP:NOTWEBHOST and discuss on the user talk page, or if necessary, take to WP:MFD if discussions fail. --After Midnight 0001 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Fixer23 (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent image deletion

Please restore File talk:US41originsign.JPG. That page holds the project tagging for the image. The Michigan State Highways Project, a subproject of WP:USRD has all of its photos tagged to track them. Deleting that file's talk page just untagged it, and such pages are exempt from WP:CSD. Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Shea

Hi - you deleted the page Kevin Shea in 2007. I was looking into him - do you think you could userfy or restore the page that was originally there - if there ever was one with any useful content? I'd like somewhere to start. Thanks. TemporaryAvoidance (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that article was used for multiple subjects. Are you looking for one jockey or a jazz drummer? If it is the jockey, that looks like copyvio which should not be restored, but if it is the drummer you want, I can restore those versions. --After Midnight 0001 11:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The drummer is the one I was looking for - that would be perfect! Thanks! TemporaryAvoidance (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Restored the appropriate versions. Good day. --After Midnight 0001 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! TemporaryAvoidance (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Hikma-logo.png

Please restore the file (if it's the same logo as http://www.hikma.com/sites/default/files/logo.jpg). It was used in the article Hikma Pharmaceuticals, but had been removed when some sections were blanked without explanation. 86.152.209.187 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done --After Midnight 0001 00:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for CFD close overturn.

Hi Midnight. OK, here's the situation. On October 25, 2007, you closed an CFD on Category:Editors with service awards, here, with a decision of Delete. (I guess there must have been numerous subcategories also, although I'm not sure of this.)

In July of this year (I think), someone recreated a series of categories (such as Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 08) which are, apparently, substantially similar to these deleted categories. These have been speedied under CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material). I don't think that that's really OK, since the close was marginal in the first place, three years have passed and times and attitudes may have changed, some of the editors who commented on the original MFD are not longer active, and so a new MFD is in order But this doesn't cut any ice with the admin in question, User:Black Falcon. OK, fair enough, not your problem.

However, I do intend to initiate a new MFD if possible (I may need to do an RFC first), and the easiest way to do this would be to overturn the close via DRV. So before I do that, I'm asking you to overturn the close, on the ground that you didn't give any reason for the close.

True, the head count, for whatever that is worth, was 6-3 delete. However, most of the comments were not especially cogent, and the bulk of the discussion was a back-and-forth between User:Equazcion and User:Black Falcon. It'd be stretch in my opinion to say that User:Black Falcon got the better of it. So "no consensus" would have been the better close, and if there was a reason for not closing as no consensus, you should have said what it was.

FWIW, this is the current status of the commentors. This may not be of much use in a DRV, but it might in an RFC:

  • Nominator (User:Lurker)is no longer an active editor.
  • "Delete" commenter User:ChazBeckett is no longer an active editor.
  • "Delete" commentor User:Iceshark7 is no longer an active editor.
  • "Delete" commentor User:VegaDark is an active editor.
  • "Delete" commentor User:Jc37 is an active editor.
  • "Delete" commentor User:Black Falcon is an active editor.
  • "Keep" commentor User:Equazcion is an active editor.
  • "Keep" commentor User:Audacity may or may not be an active editor. His last edit was August 29, 2010 and his userpage says "I am quite busy with school and will not be regularly visiting Wikipedia for the forseeable future".
  • Commentor User:Alai, who can probably be described as a "Keep" commentor (he suggested a rename) is no longer an active editor.

Herostratus (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Herostratus. Thanks for posting your request here. I've gone back and reread the discussion from 3 years ago and don't really feel as though I made an error at the time of the close. I accept that times change and do not deny that this may be a case where additional discussion could be held, but I don't feel right reversing my decision based on that at this time. I have no objection to you taking this forward to DRV or RFC, especially if it focuses on the path to move forward and not on me and some admin decision that I made 3+ years ago. I nearly left Wikipedia forever following some threats, etc. that came out of the discussions on user categories and would prefer to not go through all of that again. Please let me know how you choose to proceed. --After Midnight 0001 12:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I'm very sorry about the threats, that's terrible. And I'm glad that you chose to stay. I don't think that you made a bad close, I am just following what I think are the correct steps as suggested by User:Black Falcon. I didn't expect you to agree to overturn, asking was just a kind of courtesy/formality. Possibly the next step would be an RfC to ask the community "Does the vulnerability of an entity to deletion under CSD G4 ever 'expire', and if so under what circumstances?", which I think would be interesting discussion. However, I don't like to open an RfC if it's possibly avoidable, as it's asking a lot of the community to take their time to consider it. DRV is a more focussed forum where the participants expect to consider issues. So I am going to DRV, although it will be a rather unusual case. In this, I mean absolutely no disrespect to you or your close. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't go to DRV for a close such as you made, as DRV is (in my view) best reserved for egregious cases. However, I will have to make the point that the close was at least arguably marginal (among other points), and sorry about that, and again, I'm only trying to make sure that I cover all the bases. By all means do not feel required to enter the discussion if it's uncomfortable for you, any discussion of your close will be peripheral and you won't need to come to defend yourself, although you are welcome to of course. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your consideration. I understand your approach and will not be at all offended by you taking this to DRV. I think the question of G4 expiration is in interesting one, and in particular one that I have had to consider on at least a few occasions as an admin. I wonder if it would ever be possible to actualy incorporate a deadline into the G4 definition. --After Midnight 0001 11:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I did open a deletion review, but for the recent speedy, not your 2007 close (although that is mentioned). It's here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 13. Herostratus (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hi. Per this, the category is actually empty. That file which shows up is a bug; it doesn't exist on Wikipedia. It still shows up after two F2s. Rehman 02:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, File:Micronesia, Federated States of-CIA WFB Map.png is in the category. --After Midnight 0001 21:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The file qualified F2, and is dealt with. The empty category can now be deleted. Thanks Rehman 09:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
File and cat both deleted. --After Midnight 0001 12:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way - the redirect that seemed to be non-existing was actually a redirect that existed on commons, in case you were still trying to figure that out. --After Midnight 0001 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks dude. I was just about to reply with this link. :) Rehman 12:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

File:SumirSuit.jpg

Hi, OTRS has received permissions for the usage of the image File:SumirSuit.jpg under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Can you please undelete this image? --Sreejith K (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have undeleted it. Please attach the OTRS reference # to the image. --After Midnight 0001 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten deletion?

I see you made deleted this image but did you forget to delete File:Panihaarin.jpg that I included in the nomination for the same reason. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I missed it, but I got it now. --After Midnight 0001 16:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Request undeletion

Didn't realize nobody was going to fix it, but File:HoMM2 screenshot.png which you deleted was merely due to not having its rationale written out. As there is currently no screenshot in the Heroes of Might and Magic II article I think it clearly qualifies. Can you undelete it so I can write a fair use rationale? SnowFire (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it and given 1 more week for the rationale to be written. --After Midnight 0001 12:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Request Longevity myths undeletion

This category was only "empty" because of a mass-targeting by a POV religious fanatic who objected to the term "myth". However, "longevity myth" is the term used by science and is the term in reliable sources outside Wikipedia. It's now not empty again, as I begin moving the articles back and undoing the damage that was done.

We see the "competing" term, "longevity tradition," only used in quack website attempting to sell longevity potions.


Ryoung122 10:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Restored. If you see it emptied again out of process, you may need to take this to WP:CFD. --After Midnight 0001 12:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear After Midnight,

I saw that you closed the PUF discussion for File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG as keep (free), saying that "This is a screenshot of malware/virus. Malware is not afforded copyright protection." I just wanted to know on what legal authority you make the assertion that malware is not afforded copyright protection, as the law that I have read (I am not a lawyer) states that copyright protection vests in any creative work (17 USC 102(a)). Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also not a lawyer, but the law that I have read has stated that the law does not protect criminal enterprises. Any person who claimed to own the copyright of this image would likely be prosecuted under laws regarding computer crimes. If you do still disagree with my decision, you are welcome to take this to DRV to allow for my decision to be reviewed and considered for overturning. --After Midnight 0001 18:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Wikipedian subcategories

I think that was about 3 or 4 years ago. Did you read the discussions and the deletion reviews associated with the categories? If you would care to provide links to your concerns or more specific questions I would be happy to try to answer. --After Midnight 0001 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I could not get them to display, presumably they were deleted? Do you have links? I think having individual sexual orientations & gender identities as an option is important. As I mentioned in my post, it's no different than trying to categorize Wikipedians as "religious" or "not religious," (e.g. your LGBT vs. non-LGBT) there are more possibilities than those two, and such a narrow perspective is very limiting. Nicoleta (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a more extreme example from history is trying categorize people as "white" vs. "non-white." It is indeed discriminatory to lump everyone who isn't a majority into one all-inclusive category. Nicoleta (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. The deletion discussions were most certainly not deleted. Go to the deteled categories you are interested in and look for the back-links. I am not about to get into a debate with you regarding discrimination on Wikipedia. Perhaps you would do better to just take this to a deletion review if you disagree with my rationales. --After Midnight 0001 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Unassessed chemical elements articles

Please do not delete empty assessment categories in the future - they are necessary for WPBannerMeta to work properly. Thanks! Logan Talk Contributions 16:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Any categories which should not be deleted should have the Template:Empty category placed on this. If you do this, I won't delete it in the future. --After Midnight 0001 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of logo for Rezidor_Hotel_Group

Hello there. This was a couple of years ago, but all I'm seeking to do it to put the official company logo into the top of the summary box (in your edit, the logo was at the very top of the article) http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Rezidor_Hotel_Group&diff=prev&oldid=144289399. Your original removal of the image was concerning 'right's' of use. I'll be honest, I'm not sure how to do fill that in, or associate the text with the logo image itself. It seems a bit odd and cheating to try and get up to 10 edits to become 'autoconfirmed' and even then, I'm not sure how to fill in, or where to fill in all the criteria for the use of the logo. Obviously, it's a company logo, so people shouldn't go and use it willy nilly where ever and for what ever they wanted. Is there any advice you might be able to provide about this please? company_representitive Talk Contributions 13:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Client representative (talk • contribs)

Check out the following: Wikipedia:Non-free content --After Midnight 0001 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Angel place plaque

Hi Midnight, there was no consensus to delete this. [4] We're allowed to keep copies of Commons images, and SchuminWeb knows that as he's been told the same thing many times. I'll of course upload a higher resolution version to WP so it's the same as the Commons, but I'd appreciate if you'd undelete it first. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add my voice of protest to this. Closing the discussion immediately after Schuminweb's "delete" (which came after a string of "keeps") smacks of bulldozing this through. I cannot accept that images of publicly displayed government plaques require a fair use justification - at least, some extraordinary proof is required for this extraordinary claim before it should be accepted in a debate. The KeepLocal issue is quite controversial, but the feature was kept after some quite bitter debates [5][6]. This deletion is already being cited [7] as a precedent, implying further deletions (this is how I found out about this debate). Like SlimVirgin, I request that you reconsider the decision. At the very least, the decision needs to be clarified and posted in the closure: is the deletion based on fair use considerations or did you accept that the KeepLocal template should be overriden merely because there was another image on Commons? SpinningSpark 10:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Midnight, could you respond to this, please? You deleted a freely licenced image against consensus, and with no policy-based reason. It's particularly troubling that you did it after Schuminweb's vote to delete, because he's been involved in a lot of these contentious deletions, and has been asked to stop. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Albanian Army

Dear After Midnight, could you add the File:600px-Albania Royal Army.svg to Flags of Albania? The page is protected so can't do by myself. Please respond on my talk. Thanks, --Vinie007 14:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:After_Midnight/Archive_17&oldid=1190139212"