User talk:Buffs/Archive 7

Good work

I support what you did here.--John (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, nice job. BTW, BQ, is it true that BUFFs are cramped, smelly, sweaty, etc? I've never been inside one, but as an aviation geek, I love the plane and I'm just a bit curious. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enola Gay prop at TA&M?

BQZ, have you ever heard of this? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't, but it doesn't surprise me. Seems to be legit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

How can I tell if this page is protected/semi-protected? 173.100.25.212 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for being skeptical, but the fact that an IP can even post is evidence that the page is not protected... Given your severe lack of inputs anywhere else on Wikipedia, your following post will likely be nothing more than a flame post and/or another unfounded accusation designed to malign my character.

BTW, how is Maryland this time of year? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Protection Request

Sure, I'll be glad to check it out. I just have to do a quick range block then I will! :) Icestorm815 • Talk 03:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait! Ok, so I checked out the history and the deleted revisions and all I could recently come across was this. However, your response seems like you've had a past encounter with this IP. Would it happen to be related to Macy's Parade? I can tell that something was oversighted, and I'm only asking if the IP post is a continuation of this. Note: you don't have to elaborate on it if you don't want to. I'm just trying to figure out the situation. Should there be anything that you wish to share that you don't want to post here, feel free to e-mail me. Again, you don't have to share anything that you dont wish to share. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP belongs to Sprint PCS cell network, whois is here. It's possible that the vandal is using the Sprint cell network, it's a /11 range. Momusufan (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why there would be hesitation to give a user semi-protection on his talk page if he wants it. A compromise is to grant that protection, and then have the user create an unprotected talk subpage, on which an IP or a new user can post, but it doesn't have to be looked at unless the user wants to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages are generally not protected and creating a IP talk page doesn't stop the harassment from occuring, they'll just continue on a different page. Also, I completely understand if the user doesn't want to investigate this much further than needs to be done. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose the point of that policy is to encourage free exchange. Under my approach, the second page could be totally ignored by the user. However, if a persistent troll engages in a pattern of personal harassment (as with my pal Ronnie), then it's a different story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that more action than just a block or page protection might be needed. There's a chance this might have to go to abuse report. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely semi-protected your talk page and also made a note in the protection log to not unprotect this page without due consideration. I hope this ends (or at least greatly reduces) the harassment. Regards, Icestorm815 • Talk 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you meant by your bad faith characterization of my unprotection of your talk page - it was unprotected during a regular sweep of WP:INDEFTALK. Since you don't have an unprotected subpage, how do you expect anonymous editors to contact you regarding your actions? –xeno (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, I stand by my statement, but I certainly see how that could have been misconstrued. The fact you removed the block and the fact that you & I disagree on things appear to be completely unrelated, so I certainly recant anything that could have been construed as defamatory/demeaning/anything that could be construed as impinging on your character. As for anonymous editors contacting me, they have the option of using the user page upon which I have made edits or which they have questions. I monitor them continuously. Additionally, those same anonymous users have the option of reporting inappropriate actions to WP:ANI or any other associated reporting mechanism, becoming a registered user, or become a registered user and contact me via e-mail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to comment further at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages: should policy require an unprotected subpage?. For what it's worth, I was surprised you feel we "disagree [with eachother] in unrelated topics" as the only interaction I can recall with you, I ceded your point and undid an indefinite block you requested I review. –xeno (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...it's amazing what a lack of sleep will do to you. I can't seem to find where we've disagreed in the past, but I'm pretty sure we've done just that, I just can't find it. In any case, simple disagreement isn't necessarily a problem, merely disagreement. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. In future if you disagree with one of my actions, just drop by my talk page and let me know (as you did here). As with the first time you dropped in, I'm always willing to review my actions with users. (Similar to how I feel you should be available to anons ;>) And for all I know, the vandalism you are being subjected to may fall under the IAR exception I noted; I'll admit I am in the dark as it's been *poof*'d by oversight. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think our disagreements began with my WP:RfA. Like I said before, merely disagreeing is not necessarily bad and no negative connotation should be construed from that comment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...except that I've never participated in one of your RFAs... (Though you did answer my question posed by someone else =) –xeno (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe that was it. In any case, I think we're both on the same page and any disagreement we have is completely superficial. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. I just wanted to clarify that =) whatever groucho below said ;p –xeno (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you two keep searching for reasons why you've disagreed in the past, you'll certainly find them, and then you'll end up like Groucho and Trentino in Duck Soup. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A-Batt BQ Bowl Champions 2000-2001.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:A-Batt BQ Bowl Champions 2000-2001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your message.

I'd be happy to look things over, but will not be available till next week to start. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)`[reply]

I will comment in the place indicated as the place to do so. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unsolicited opinion here) I think we first met over at the Waterboarding debacle way, way back - at the time I remember thinking "that is the type of user that should not be an admin". My assessment was quite similar to Dlohcierekim's. I don't remember if I actually got around to opposing on your first (or second) RfA, but I certainly intended to. :)

Now, with that said: I think you've improved greatly in time passed since (besides, by wikipedia standards, those events are ancient history by now). Seeing how you dealt with the matter of Axmann8 (even though it was ultimately unsuccessful) and reading your other recent interactions with others has impressed me a great deal. I now think my earlier assessment has been proven wrong. :)

If you'd like a nomination or co-nom from me on your fourth attempt whenever that may be, please let me know. henrik•talk 15:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrails

I'm not sure whether I should post it on the article's talk page, but I'll post here because I believe that as rational wikipedians, we'll be able to solve this=D. My concern is with your last edit in which you removed "potentially toxic" stating that "toxicity doesn't apply to those who believe these are part of an attempt to change the weather". The problem, in the way I percieve it, is that this is creating a POV in that the article supports the whether conspiracy over the chemical one. I intentionally placed the word "potentially" to try and maintain a WP:NPOV. Please respond as to why "potentially toxic" should not be included. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "potentially toxic" is that it is not the only reason for chemicals in the air. While some chemicals are indeed toxic, others are generally harmless (like hydric acid, despite a menacing sounding name). Some people believe they are for weather modification and the chemicals aren't explicitly toxic. Because of that, adding these terms changes the intended meaning. Leaving it at just "chemicals" allows both points of view. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. It's just that the way I see it...(bad example=P) its like saying "vaccines" and "potentially lethal vaccines". I view using chemicals as having a passive connotation and hence a POV towards the passive global warming side. Adding "potentially toxic" gives it a more aggressive connotation and suggests they may be deadly. Maybe the sentence can be improved upon?Smallman12q (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps rephrasing it like this? "...chemicals, for either benign or malicious use, ..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm...thats a start, but somehow it just sounds bad.Smallman12q (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about"...chemicals, for various uses,... " — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

getting better...*thinks*, maybe "Believers of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for global dimming, population control, weather control, or biowarfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems." should be moved up? The prose isn't perfect, but the lead paragraph is too vague/abstract.Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it sounds all right. Tell you what. Why don't you come up with something and just put it in the page. As long as it is neutral to both thoughts (both toxic and non-toxic chemicals), I'll support your change and we can always tweak it later. Gotta go & make dinner now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I used the term hydric acid. I'm writing an article on it. It needs more resources, but still... Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I got some paperwork myself to do. I'll post whatever I come up with tommorow. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you're using a citation widget, but you should give http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html a reference name rather than stating it 7 times=P.Smallman12q (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...sorry about that. I didn't mean to sucker you in or anything. I figured you'd figure it out. Current article on Hydric acid... — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good=D. With regards to the chemtrail article, I've recognized that the article needs contextual improvement before making it fully neutral. Now this isn't to say I'll be writing with a POV, but rather to simply say that the article isn't developed enough to warrant such evaluation=P.Smallman12q (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered an intro rewrite for chemtrails, please see Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory#Intro rewrite. Please let me know what you think.Smallman12q (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision

The proposed decision page is only for arbitrators to edit so I've reverted you. Please don't edit it again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hey, I have not studied your prospective RfA yet. I might get a chance to do so this evening. I'll say this up front: I think we've had some clashes somewhere in the past, but nothing recently that I can specifically recall; and I think we've had some common ground also. It must be that we've both matured over time. :) I'll take a look sometime soon if not tonight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady RfA

Thought you might want to know about Orlady's Request for adminship. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SFD

Hi BQZip01 - WP:SFD is intended for both proposed deletions and for proposed renamings, for reasons which I've listed at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/April/11. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heart pic

Response. --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. --Pdfpdf (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I understand your motivations, and I appreciate the effort you are going to, and your non-agressive approach. (Believe me, I appreciate it quite a lot.) Speaking for myself, I'm not taking it personally. I'm just having difficulty understanding some of the statements being made, and some of the inconsistencies between statements. However, unlike the other two gentlemen, you are at least polite enough to answer questions, and you are trying to help me understand things. That, too, is very much appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW: I haven't quite given up - yet ... )

Wouldn't expect you to... :-) BTW, I'm not offended by your aggressiveness and thoroughness. Nothing wrong with presenting your best case. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. The thoroughness is intentional. The agressiveness is not. Hmmmm. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressiveness is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it is confined to a discussion. Personally, I can see it being a positive trait as long as it is kept in check. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting food for thought. I think I'll ruminate on that. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing subject:

14:47, 19 April 2009 Quadell (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Heart1973 BC.png" ‎ (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 10)
14:48 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFiles_for_deletion%2F2009_April_10&diff=284746891&oldid=284746597
15:06 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Heart_(band)&curid=288138&diff=284749016&oldid=284210264
15:21 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuadell&diff=284750629&oldid=284490067
15:24 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadell&diff=next&oldid=284750629

Pdfpdf (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV is your next avenue if you still disagree. Quadell is an excellent admin in this area, so I'd consider his opinion pretty highly. Nothing in the diffs provided seems out of order. Should you decide to use the DRV route, I recommend doing a little research first and examining the criteria under which copyrighted images can be used. Like I said before, I don't think this image meets the criteria. In any case, have a good night sleep on it. I always find I edit more clearly in the morning. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and advice on DRV. Re: Quadell, it was the fact that it was done without warning (when I was assuming that there would be warning, and was expecting that nothing would happen while the matter was under discussion), that surprised me. The facts that you trust his opinion, and that both of you have concluded the situation is unambiguous, leads me to feel I would need to have a well prepared and exceptionally strong case. Personally, I think it would be easier to get the copyright holder to change the copyright.

Again, thanks for your help and explanations. Best wishes. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions can be closed down after 5 days. If we keep them open until everyone agrees, a single stubborn person could keep an image indefinitely. Points were made by both sides and an admin decides which argument (or none at all) is the strongest. There was nothing "sudden" about this image's deletion process in the grand scheme of wiki, but I can certainly understand how it may have been difficult for you and seem quick. Action here is swift compared to the real world. If you decide to take this to WP:DRV, another administrator can undo the deletion, so the image isn't lost forever, but I don't think you'll get that reversal unless the Non-free content criteria and their interpretations change. Best of luck to you in the future.

On a related note, you may want to try and get this article up to Featured Article status. I've always found this to be an achievable goal for just about every article upon which a plethora of information is available. If you want help with that, let me know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 5 second power failure just wiped my reply to you. I'll try again later. Meanwhile, thanks for your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There was nothing "sudden" about this image's deletion process in the grand scheme of wiki, but I can certainly understand how it may have been difficult for you and seem quick." - It was neither difficult for me, nor quick, nor "sudden". As I said above, it was just unexpected. (Henceforth, it won't be.)

"Action here is swift compared to the real world." - Interesting statement.

"If you decide to ... " - As I stated above, I think other paths will lead to more productive outcomes.

"Best of luck to you in the future." - Thank you.

"you may want to ... " - Thanks for your offer of help! Most appreciated. When the time is right, I will take great pleasure in working with your assistance. However, I don't think the time is right yet; the article is still dynamic - I'd like it to settle down a bit first.

With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_4#5_EPT_obverse.JPG

Hi, BQZip01. I didn't get any reply from the Egyptian Central Bank. Although official documents are PD in Egypt, I'm not sure whether coins and banknotes qualify as official documents. For instance, Egyptian stamps are copyrighted by Egypt Post, even though it is a government-owned entity. The situation might be similar for coins and banknotes. Anyway, I just saw that the deletion requests have been archived. If I manage to obtain further information, I will reopen the issue. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media

Hey BQZip01! I've seen you all over the place lately, and I know you have experience dealing with several kinds of image issues. I thought I'd let you know about a new project (combining several inactive projects and breathing new life into the amalgamation) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. I hope this becomes a centralized location for discussion of image tags, Commons migration, deletion policy, and all other things media-related. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed reply

BQZ, I'm sorry for my delayed replies to two posts you made to my talk page; I've been very busy offline. I've now responded on my talk. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello Buffs. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved\|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you! Equendil Talk 02:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

File:Cwnet.jpg

It's back! :) – Quadell ^(talk) 04:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:rfa

Added a co-nom. Feel free to correct any wayward sp&g, or to move the nom around for rfa compliance. Good Luck, BQZip01, I sincerely hope your rfa passes. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found a moment to get back here and add my support to your rfa. At this point, I'd say you still have a reasonable shot at making it, since if I recall the promotion line is somewhere around 2/3rds support, and that seems to be about where your rfa stands. At any rate good luck, and I will see you and everyone else after finals are finished. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

You must have been thinking of another page. Yesterday? Seriously? And there was no consensus. And the page clearly violates the guidelines. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay!

Gah, I've only had sporadic time on Wikipedia (or my home in general *grin*) for the last few days, and that little time was mostly spent on an FAC I'd already started giving feedback on. Tomorrow night should be free, but I can certainly understand if you want to go ahead even without me, if that's the only thing holding you back. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow night, Europe time. henrik•talk 14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me know what you think of the thing I left over at your draft RfA page. Let me know what your thoughts are, I'd be happy to discuss and change the nom message. Best of luck, henrik•talk 19:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panda picture

Hi BQZip. Just to let you know that the disputed picture was put right back into [Intelligent design]] after the debate was over. I don't feel like wasting my time on it anymore. I sometimes suspect that the anti-creationism editors here are really creationists trying to make the pro-science side look stupid and mean-spirited. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange comment

This edit seems odd. Sometimes applications are concepts, and it's not clear that the article in question was an "application". I think many hundreds or thousands of Wikipedia mathematics articles might qualify as "applications" but would be universally considered encyclopedic. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suggestions

I have posted what I feel might be helpful to you in my Sandbox (UPDATED LINK TO ARCHIVE VERSION Oldag07 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)) Please take a look at. Oldag07 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, some friendly suggestions. I am sorry about this setback. Thanks for all the hard work. Oldag07 (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I let it go a long time ago. It wasn't a big deal, but i just wanted to point it out. I was young myself. As i said, "we are family". It isn't like I am the ideal editor either. Those were far simpler days. We just wanted Texas A&M University to be an FA, and that was it. lol. As for the criticism, don't take it too personal. You think this is bad, imagine being a politician. I don't know how Obama or McCain put up with those attack ads. Reputation takes time to rebuild itself. I know the feeling, because i have too said and done some stupid stuff in my life, and have been nailed for it. In the end, I did my best to change, and I realize that I can't do much more than that. Some people will notice but it just takes longer for people to "let go". Your support percentage keeps on going up compared to your previous attempts. Your reputation is improving. There are reasons to believe that you will go over the hump next time. And maybe, in part because of your grueling RFA processes, you will make a heck of a good administrator.

As for the rest of the Aggie Wikipedia "family" I still message Karanacs every once in a while. Seems to be a superstar in her area of expertise, featured articles. Blueag09, hasn't responded to me for quite some time. I am not sure if i did something to annoy him or anger him. While i maintain the Wikiproject page, but he seems to be the most active when it comes to A&M pages. Me. I really just like to randomly browse, and fix things when i come across errors. This role seems to fit me best. Best of luck with all of your stuff. Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i should worry about the plank in my eye rather than the speck in yours. . . . Texags thread . You are someone i respect. feedback, preferably on my wikipedia talk page would be appreciated. Oldag07 (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP talk page link

In case you're confused by the protection log, I just unprotected the page for a second so I could link to the IP talk page from the protection reason. Hopefully this will make the IP talk page easier to find if someone needs it. Oren0 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit confused at first, but this makes a lot of sense. Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you did not see it

FYI, and I would like an answer as soon as possible--responses only on the RFA or here, please, not on my talk. The sheer biteyness of this without context has me strongly about to go Oppose. I have one extra question coming as well. rootology (C)(T) 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered. IMNSHO, this IP is not a casual user; he is User:TomPhan. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser information?

Completely unrelated to the RFA itself, this statement--how would you know the specific location of a given username? Did the username in question divulge this geographical location on-wiki? What user? rootology (C)(T) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well..

Well, unfortunately the RfA doesn't seem to be going in the direction I had hoped. I have no qualms about supporting you or offering a co-nom statement; I'm still sure you'd make a fine admin. But it's not the end of the world. In these cases its best to take the long view; Wikipedia will be around for a long time and hopefully we too - a few snags along the way aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. (And if you look at the bright side: best RfA yet) henrik•talk 20:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure, I see the possiblity for cautious opptimism here...from where I sit the crats may pass your rfa since its pretty close to the apx 70% line. I think the probably is your individuality, since you don't conform to the machine per se I think that bothers people here, which is a same since way to many people sacrifice their individuality in exchange for power privilage or status. If your current rfa doesn't go through this time I will still be willing to lend a co nom or support next time. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a big commotion when Ryulong's third RfA was closed as successful at 69.4% (just .6 percentage points from 70%). Though there have been a few cases where people with less than 70% have been successful: Lowest successful RfA ever was Carnildo at 61% - but it's far from the norm. henrik•talk 11:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bongo matic 01:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Dear BQZip01,

I have closed your recent RfA as unssuccessful, as I found there to be no consensus to promote you to the administrator position at this time. Please don't be discouraged; instead, review the concerns of the opposers, maintain your level of activity, and consider trying again in several months time should you feel like taking another stab. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be disheartened. I voted on the positive side of your RFA, and ... Please try again. You have contributed featured contents, and you have many positive edits. Your work is praiseworthy, and please keep on contributing positively. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that there were editors who dwelled on the past, refused to acknowledge the present, or look to the future. A refusal to let go of the past is like opposing with a claim of your being rambunctous in pre-school, or because you spit out your strained spinach when a toddler. People grow up. Editors grow in experience and quality. Stay the course and continue being the fine editor that you are. You will continue to have my support. And thank you for being the example that you have been. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share the sentiments of our friends in this section. I was supportive of your RfA and I will be glad to support you again if you decide to give RfA another shot. I hope this was not a stressful experience for you, and I look forward to seeing your work online. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I did not take part in your RFA, I see a great deal of positives and hope your next effort will be successful. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I never participated in your RfA, but I've seen you around and I think you'd be a good admin. Better luck next time. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks. I hope next time works out. Thanks for the response on the "taunting thing." It's good sometimes to explain what you meant when something came out wrong or was misperceived. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 17:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that; best of luck next time. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although you didn't succeed now, hopefully you'll succeed again in the future. I've found that you're very easy to work with and recognize the value of discussions and concensus on wikipedia. Wish you luck with your next RFA. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain you will make a good admin one day. Do not be discouraged by this, and keep up your efforts Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry I felt compelled to vote the way I did. Keep making good content. Aramgar (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes on the next try for sure! Collect (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go for it again! You're doing great work. -down load ׀ sign! 00:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw and followed your RfA but did not participate. I would not have been able to support per these two diffs. Although I found you a fairly helpful editor on the Hainan Island incident article when I finally got to improving it, it would also have been great if you had been able to give a little more help during the failed WP:FA process. I still think you're a great editor and a great asset to what we're doing here, but those incidents left a slightly sour taste and depleted my faith in your suitability for the role of admin. I didn't think I could've said anything constructive so I stayed away (though I did try to help you here and here). I was tempted to go neutral but couldn't make up my mind so I didn't say anything. I wouldn't normally comment but I know you are looking for honest feedback and that is mine. You might also tone down your signature a little. Anyway, these are all fairly minor concerns and I do hope you'll run again and that I can support you, ideally on the back of a FA star on that article we have both worked on. Take care and fly safely, --John (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that it didn't happen this time. But you are a great contributer and a great asset to the project and I hope you have another RfA soon and I'm looking forward to that. --Kaaveh (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think youd make a great admin, so for sure I'll support if I see your name up again. Reading through your RFA, I think your arguments were by far superiour in almost every case when you engaged your critics. But you cant always win with better logic, sometimes its worth remembering what Goethe said: "Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him" FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating, this is. Sorry to see you did not do it this time, although like you I am encouraged by the fact that the S&O margin was almost 2:1. Next time you should be able to pass. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA pt.2

I was really looking forward to congratulating you, because I believe that you would have made a great Admin. To my disappointment I see that things didn't go well with your RfA. When Wiki. started it was much more simple, but now they are making things difficult in all aspects of the project except where it is most need and that is a new regulation requiring that IPS users, which are the cause of the majority of the vandalism which go on here, be required to register in order to edit. The community should concern itself with situations as these, to make our project reliable instead of making it difficult for potential great administrators like you be promoted. Had I been nominated now, I'm sure that I wouldn't have made it. Just remember, you have a friend in me. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the more the challenge. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your thank-you message

Your recent thank-you message seems to contain an unclosed table. This is causing problems on all of the pages in which it was placed. You should have added an edit like this in order to make subsequent edits to the page appear properly. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to fix them myself but I got called away suddenly. I'll let you do it. Thanks

Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. I'm working on them now, starting from the bottom (earliest) edits. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be all set now. The ones where you just transcluded a page seem to be fine as is. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan 3

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan 3. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:BQZip01/RfA Oppose & Neutral

BQ make Wiki go boom? :) :) And you can remove the image now, which hopefully you're laughing about. :) Franamax (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll keep it... **— *BQZip01* —** ^talk 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be substituting your transclusions of this. Please fix this. ÷seresin 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm trying to edit my Talkpage and click 'cancel' I end up on that User:BQZip01/RfA Oppose & Neutral page. I assume that has something to do with what Seresin is talking about? Yintaɳ 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just got better. I tried to remove your Thankspam from my Talkpage and ended up on an empty User:BQZip01/RfA Oppose & Neutral page. Its history showed me that removing it from MY Talkpage actually deleted YOUR page[1]. When I quickly undid this, your Thankspam re-appeared on my Talkpage again as well. I'm totally confused now. Can you please fix whatever is wrong with that thing ASAP? Thanks, Yintaɳ 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, hacking the site like this is grounds for an indef block! rootology (C)(T) 23:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it was an honest mistake and I'm trying to fix it. Chill out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I only just managed to get rid of that message, and it just appeared AGAIN[2]! Yintaɳ 23:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was a joke. :P rootology (C)(T) 23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem appears to be fixed now. Phew. For a moment I thought somebody had spiked my drink. But alas... ;-) Yintaɳ 23:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, oh, the perils of thank-spam. Perhaps in itself a good reason to avoid having anything to do with RFA? :-) henrik•talk 23:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use subst

when you add your templated message User:BQZip01/RfA Oppose & Neutral. Please also subst where you've added it already. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

already doing that... — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Might i also suggest that once done with that, you archive your talk page? I was unable to load the entire page just now, or else I would not have started a second section on the same subject. Regards, KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally archive my page every 6 months. Given the volume lately, it may need to be quarterly... — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Yintan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Buffs's Day!

Buffs has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Buffs's Day!
For your stellar work over at WP:TAMU,
enjoy being the star of the day, dear Buffs!

Signed,
Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton's Cafeteria

I recently created an article on Clifton's Cafeteria. Got some great help from Bongomatic. Moved it to mainspace yesterday. It originally had 8 branches but only one survives. There are inumerable online historical images[3]... images of earlier facilities no longer in existance and so no way to create a new free image. What would be the proper protocols for using some, properly atributed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton's Pacific Seas exterior, Clifton's Pacific Seas interior, Clifton's Brookdale exterior 1938, Clifton's exterior today Clifton's brookdale interior, Clifton'a Silver Spoon exterior, Clifton's The Greenery exterior, Clifton'e The Greenery interior... examples. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you liked the article.

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Soap Opera article images

Replied on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are currently watching my talk page or checking there for my replies, but in case you are not, I would like a reply to my latest response there to you.

And thanks for understanding my feelings about some images I have uploaded being deleted. I know that I am not the only one on Wikipedia that this type of thing has happened to, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: USMA

Yeah no problem. The page appears to be extremely laggy though. -Binary TSO ^???

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Unschool's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Got any time?...

Sorry, there are a few problems that I believe you won't be a successfuly SPI clerk. Many people raised your issues on temperament and judgement. Plus I have a feeling that you're trying to become a clerk just to gain a leverage on getting more supports in your next RfA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well heaven forbid...Why shouldn't I try to show people I can better myself, show I can contribute, show a better temperament, etc, RfA or not? I didn't realize that an unsuccessful RfA means you can't do anything else to contribute. I must say I'm quite disappointed in your lack of good faith on this request. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is this type of temperament issue and fail to keep a cool head that leaves a lot to be desired. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I make a reasonable request. You say "You have temperament issues". I state that I want to show otherwise...so you state "this is what I'm talking about."

??? — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited appears to lack a sense of irony. He or she makes accusations against others that show his or her failure to abide by policy and to maintain appropriate collegiality, civility, and temperament when these are the very accusations they are making. Is it possible to seek out another editor regarding the SPI issues? One who abides by our policies and assumes good faith towards long time contributors? One would hope so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. Thanks for the obvious support. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your check ride. Good luck. I was following up finally on the clerking question. See user_talk:Tiptoety#Clerking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Hoya logo.gif

File:Hoya logo.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Hoya logo.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Hoya logo.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I think it goes 90% the way there, which is good enough for me (perhaps not others). Have you tested the waters recently on unprotecting this page? Has there been problems at the new talk page? I think that some other editors will expect that you have tried these (and not hold as much against you if the problems recur and the page is re-protected), but I'm purely speculating. I am less uptight about it, now that there is a meaningful way for newbies and anons (who tend to be most of the problem editors who you'll piss-off from time to time - as you obviously know) to contact you on WP. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I think you may be right - of course, no audience=no drama=no incentive to post BS. Does that page alert that there are messages there? I wouldn't assume that you have no audience at that page - as you are going to be a candidate at RFA all the regulars at RFA will scrutinize it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I don't normally do RfAs, but I saw on someone's talk page that you recently underwent the process. If you decide to do it again, drop me a note. You won't be disappointed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma Dottie

Grandma Dottie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is obviously not a new user, and my hunch is that it's going to paint itself into a corner before very long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I got involved with above when they placed a helpme template on their talk page. Just thought I'd let people know that, as it was me who you'll see edited their initial helpme paragraph, to make it into useful links. That was my 'expertise' (!), not theirs, so please don't let that confuse matters. Trafford09 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He started talking to me immediately about the various Axmann8 impostors from a couple of months ago. No way a new user would know about that unless he's the one who was doing the impostoring. I've posted an entry at WP:ANI about this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is insufficient evidence connecting the two, so I think we'll have to mark this resolved, or at least "closed". But it still bears watching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concur there. There seems to be nothing we can do at this time, but I think your assessment is spot on: it's a sockpuppet account of someone. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we jumped on this character too quickly. We should have let him do something beyond just raising suspicion. That's what some of the other editors were trying to tell us. Well, I'd rather be proactive than reactive. But it's not war, it's only words, so next time we'll let the guy reel out enough rope to hang himself, and then we'll run him in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your message. I appreciate the time and trouble you took, although I'm not involved in the matter of course. Here's to Wikipedia. Trafford09 (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big 12 baseball

Take a look at this. Thanks. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:12th man (football)/Archive 1#Spread beyond America

In case you still have any doubts, I have found examples of UK papers from the 19th century which I consider prove conclusively that the term was used in cricket long before American football. I can probably send a capture from one or two of the papers from the database if you desire. As I remarked there it probably doesn't affect the trademark and I doubt your alma mater copied the term from cricket but as I also remarked it also likely sounded nonsensical to most people with any experience of cricket that the 1922 term from American football predated the cricket one. As it's largely off topic there, if you have any further comments it may be better to continue them here. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

NYScholar

It's not my intention to badger you on this point, so please do let me know if that's coming across and I'll lay off. But with regards to your intention to adopt this user, I have a couple of questions: i. do you think that you will be able to help him/her if she/he is unwilling to admit any error? ii. Can you find any example in his/her history of admitting error? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the problem is mainly a misunderstanding of copyright law, I would respectfully suggest that you need to review some of the material better. While he certainly does misunderstand copyright law, all of the ANI threads to which I linked, and the proposal for the topic ban from Harold Pinter, were for non-copyright issues. As for what's the harm of trying...well, I presume that you would agree that at some point we should admit failure and effect the ban. After two failed mentorships, several ANI threads, and a record of disruption and conflict wherever he/she goes (and I mean literally everywhere), that time is now. You disagree, and I respect that, but I'm asking you to accept that there is a point - now or later, we can disagree on that - at which time "What's the harm?" is no longer an argument against a ban. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say there's hopeful, and then there's delusional. You'll note that NYScholar just deposited 12K of new text on his/her talk page explaining why, as usual, all of the problems she/he has been having are other people's fault. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 08:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partial to these guys, so I hear you. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The discussions about images that Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticdidealist) refers to date back to 2007 and fall 2008; the only image that I've questioned recently is the one this week in Harold Pinter, which I still question. It is from a period approximately dated 1954–59, has no photographer identified, and no date of first publication; it comes from his personal archive, which is now owned by the British Library, which maintains The Harold Pinter Archive and which asserts his copyright to its contents.[4]

My comments in Talk:Harold Pinter and the source citations relating to Harold Pinter#Early theatrical training and stage experience provide relevant information pertaining to my questions and concerns, as does the image page discussion; one can just click on the image.File talk:PinterDavidBaron.jpg (cont.)

These types are entirely-good faith editorial questions pertaining to following "fair use criteria" in WP:IUP#Fair use images do not justify calls for sanctions like blocking, banning, etc. All references to the "fair use doctrine" of U.S. copyright code (clearly linked in my own user space page on copyright and related issues in Wikipedia in my talkheader) advise people to consult with an intellectual property lawyer when in doubt about the inclusion of copyright work (like photographs) and whether or not one is doing so "within fair use" (within the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright code).

Re: counting other editors' words and bytes in their comments in their own user talk pages: How many words has Steve Smith (formerly known as Sarcasticidealist) posted re: "NYScholar" in his own, other users', and project pages in the past few days? (cont.)

One should not be subject to sanctions in Wikipedia for raising and discussing such concerns. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights protect free speech in the U.S. and Wikipedia has no right to limit free speech. I feel that I am engaging in my First Amendment right to free speech in expressing my concerns, and I do not feel that I should have to worry about being "sanctioned" by Wikipedia for doing so. This business about how I am "not admitting" that I am "wrong" is absurd. Legal issues are not decided by Wikipedians, who are generally not trained and licensed lawyers; they are decided in courts of law (in this country, U.S. courts of law), and Wikipedia is no court of law. --NYScholar (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Drive-by comment here) NYScholar, you have more-or-less precisely two "rights" here on this privately-run website. You have the right to fork your own version with your own rules, and you have the right to leave permanently. The US Constitution protects you from actions of the various US Governments. If BQ acts in his official capacity as a fighter pilot, the Constitution will protect you. However, you're on private property just now, so you must follow the rules of the property owner, in this case, the Wikimedia Foundation. Franamax (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I describe how I "feel", I am not engaging in the kind of discourse that you are talking about in your ~~Wikilawyering~~ answer. [Ed.: Strike-out and apologies....] I am talking about a human feeling (my own). I know that Wikipedia is a foundation, etc.; that's beside the point. Wikipedians are not lawyers, and they should not be acting as if they were. There are clear interpretive differences in how Wikipedians understand and address issues pertaining to the "fair use" of images in Wikipedia.

One should be allowed to raise questions and concerns without fear of sanctions. I have no intereest in "fork[ing]" to my "own rules", etc. I am trying to understand Wikipedia's, which are described and applied in often highly inconsistent ways throughout Wikipedia, due to "peer editing" by consensus, including in the article Fair use, which is neither a policy nor a guideline and which is subject to change. WP:IUP#Fair use images is a policy page section. I've consulted these pages and still find confusions and inconsistencies and many, many copyright reviews in other project pages linked via templates. BQZip and I are discussing this matter in relation to a "mentorship" possibility. Your "drive by" comment is not helpful in this regard, though I thank you for taking the time to make it. (Please see the tb template: I am responding here to a comment that BQZip01 placed on my page in relation to an "adoption" under consideration.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss what you see as inconsistencies then. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot discuss this here or on my own talk page now. I must be offline to do other work. Please consult the discussions already in my subuser page on these copyright matters and please the bottom section of it as well, and the link to Criticism of Wikipedia. The subject is huge. When I have a question to ask you about copyright if I am still editing articles in Wikipedia, BQZip01, I will let you know. I have lost so much time relating to the "ban" discussion, that I am not going to be able to discuss these matters right now. While you were not here, I stated that; please see my section "Speaking for myself"; as I stated much earlier, I came back to see if my archiving bot was functioning correctly, and I am very pleased to see that it is. While here, a few items came up in my watch list; one pertains to the deletion of a template that is heavily used throughout Wikipedia. I recommend keeping it and commented in that discussion due to large concerns. Someone then came in to link to the "ban" discussion, etc., which is par for the course. It is not possible for me to deal with those kinds of actions any further. I wash my hands of them. I have personal and professional matters that require my immediate attention. Now that I know that the archive bot is functioning, I have less concern about checking it. I'll post a message to you on my own talk page and use a tb template here to let you know when I am here again. Thank you again for your help and for your willingness to help in the future if I am still volunteering my time to Wikipedia. Re: your friend's comments below, of course "I recognize" the difference. It didn't need to be pointed out to me. --NYScholar (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having seen the changes to the fair-use rationale that others made to File talk:PinterDavidBaron.jpg while this "ban" discussion is going on (which I have been occupied by for the past several days now), I have updated my own comments very briefly in the discussion page of the image, to record my current position on the image's fair use rationale; it seems much improved to me now, and I have indicated that. --NYScholar (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYS, let me try to explain (apologies to BQ for using his talkspace). I'd casually noticed the ANI kerfuffle and then saw this pop up on my "stalker list". What struck me was your seeming conflation of inalienable rights provided by the United States Constitution, which persist so long as the nation does (or God forbid, fundamental rights are amended away And of course only I get to decide which rights are truly fundamental)); as compared to the comparatively quite narrow "rights" which you are afforded on private property. Those rights are pretty much what they said at the door or what the bouncer explains when someone claims you've been acting up.

My only concern is that you recognise the difference. Forget about what the Constitution says you can do. Concentrate on what the non-free criteria say. Those are the "house rules". I haven't even looked into your specific case. That's all I was trying to convey. Hopefully it is all working out and regards! Franamax (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franamax, your comments are always welcome and were apropos.