User talk:Dynaflow/Archive 2

Big "C"

Sorry about that, I didn't realize i had overwritten another photo. Thanks for the heads up on the change. (gomfbears) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by gomfbears (talk • contribs).

Thanks for help with IPVandal 63.192.130.60

I see you've already added a warning to User_talk:63.192.130.60. Thanks for the info and for your help. Spventi 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rich!

Thank you Dynaflow! Although I'm not sure my semi-obsession with that page is all that healthy, your reward is much appreciated. I wonder if it's redeemable for Emperor Norton Lager?

I think Norton dollars should be added here and would be a better reward than the California star here!

Cheers! Sfmammamia 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: SummerThunder

A few days ago he did the same thing to me, this time with his sockpuppet Crazyruns. He even vandalized my AIV report against him, accusing me of being a SummerThunder sock. I see that in his latest incarnation he accused you of being a sockpuppet of me.

So, the story is, he thinks the Foundation is collaborating with the People's Republic of China to censor the Chinese Wikipedia. (That, of course, doesn't answer the question of why he's so interested in the UC Riverside page.)

Anyway, next time you run into him, just take it straight to AIV. The admins who watch AIV are familiar with his activities and will recognize him right away. If you try to engage with him he'll just pull the same thing again. Last time I ran into him I immediately filed an AIV report before even reverting his edits. I don't choose to be an admin at the moment, but if I were one I'd just block him without another word. szyslak 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oy. I had to go on IRC just to ask an administrator to block the guy. I love when no one's watching AIV. BTW: Your theory is plausible, except his own English skills are questionable. szyslak 10:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's part of what made me zero in on this one guy. Heh, it's somewhat flattering that I seem to have been promoted to "puppetmaster" in his addled mind. It was rather stifling for the ol' ego to be merely your puppet in his template rampages. He even made me my own category this time. --Dynaflow 10:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Western Investor – speedy delete

[Imported, in part, from User talk:Bearcat and Talk:The Western Investor]

You tagged The Western Investor with speedy delete. In the article, it was asserted that the band met criterion #11 in notability on WP:MUSIC, that they were in frequent rotation on a national network, CBC Radio 3. Actually, the band's listing in the article The R3-30 (having a number-one song on the chart) was why I created the article in the first place. (I was in the process of contesting it when it was deleted.) Let me know if you have any advice. Much obliged, --Paul Erik 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, they have not satisfied the criteria for notability. They do not seem to be on Radio 3's rotation; if they are, you must cite this. They are played and highly regarded on a show on Radio 3 premised on the fact that the songs it plays are obscure and not on regular rotation, but this does not satisfy WP:NOTE. Even some corners of obscurity get a bit of limelight now and then.

Wait for a while. If they indeed have what it takes, they will get bigger one day. Until then, you'll be jumping the gun. Even though the admin who deleted the article saw your hangon tag [1], he also agreed that they have yet to satisfy the criteria for inclusion.--Dynaflow 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I had thought that reaching number one on The R3-30 chart demonstrated that they were in high rotation on CBC Radio 3, but I may not be understanding what that chart is all about. Thanks for the feedback. --Paul Erik 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Western Investor most certainly are in regular rotation on CBC Radio 3. I think I have almost every word to "If You Wanna Go" memorized by now, and I've never heard the song anywhere but Radio 3. Reaching number one on the R3-30 chart, by definition, does fulfill the WP:MUSIC criteria. The R3-30 is not premised on the "fact" that its songs are not on regular rotation — you may be confusing the show as a whole with the "Chartbreaker" feature. By definition, a song has to be in regular rotation to actually attain a chart ranking; that the show makes some space for listeners to promote songs outside of the network's standing playlist does not mean that all songs on the show are off-rotation. Bearcat 07:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in Canada, nor do I listen to Canadian radio, so my judgement of what exactly a show like that might play is based on the US commercial radio and BBC streams I listen to. If you can prove your point with citations, you might well save the article. Be warned, though, that, in Wikipedia's eyes, if you can't cite it, it doesn't exist, and the burden of proof is on the article's authors. As for this "chart," is it an actual sales chart, a la Billboard, or is it the way they term their compiled playlist statistics for that particular program? --Dynaflow 07:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly would you propose that one cite "has been in rotation on CBC Radio 3" apart from actual listener experience and/or the chart show? I'm an administrator, and the citation already present is entirely sufficient. Bearcat 07:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One "citation" is the band's MySpace page. The other is a link to a CBC page which says, right up front, that they are unsigned, and consists of a blurb the band's members apparently wrote themselves, a track list, and contact information. I am taking this thread to the article's discussion page. We'll sort it out there. --Dynaflow 07:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to reread the article a bit more closely. Namely, you might be interested to note that the footnote which directly follows the sentence about the R3-30 chart is a direct link to the R3-30 chart that has The Western Investor at the top of it, which is entirely sufficient sourcing for the claim that they've topped said chart. WP:MUSIC is not open to subjective interpretations; if a band tops a chart on a national radio network, they're notable enough for us. You don't get to apply subjective criteria to dismiss the notability of said network or said chart. Also, incidentally, you appear to be unclear on the following distinction: CBC Radio 3 is a 24/7 radio network; The R3-30 is a show on said network which presents a countdown chart of songs played on that network. SOme of your prior comments in this thread appear not to fully understand that distinction. Bearcat 07:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've found that. I assumed, because of the way they were doing their frames, that that link was taking me to the same place as the CBC link under "External links." After reading that and the WP article on the R3-30, I'm still not convinced this one, primary source will stand. What is the criteria of this chart? "The R3-30 is a weekly record chart show on CBC Radio 3, which counts down the week's top indie rock singles as determined by airplay [Where? This one station? In Canada? On small, South Pacific islands whose names start with the letter M?], listener feedback [Abstract, "unscientific" criteria that isn't available for examination anyway], and other criteria [What other criteria?]." You yourself assert that it's hard to find anything beyond this one citation (a blog post, no less) aside from your own observations (which would constitute WP:OR). "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:NOTE) Where are those sources? --Dynaflow 07:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A weekly chart program on a national radio network is notable, and a band which ranks on said chart is notable, regardless of whether the method by which the chart is compiled satisfies your personal peccadillos or not. Appearance on said record chart, further, does not need to be sourced to anything beyond an actual publication of said chart by CBC Radio 3, which is exactly what the link in question is. The fact that R3 uses a blog format on its website does not make its website an unreliable source. A national radio network chart is a national radio network chart, and no amount of "but the criteria for compiling the chart don't seem to be scientific enough for meeeeeeeeeeeee!" makes it not a national radio network chart. WP:MUSIC applies as written, not "as filtered through Dynaflow's own personal choice of subtext". Bearcat 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's just take this to AfD and see what happens. The two of us probably aren't going to find a happy medium between "delete" and "keep," so the wider community should probably be consulted at this point. --Dynaflow 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no basis for AFD. The topic meets the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:MUSIC. Bearcat 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Suggest a speedykeep at the AfD and see if everybody goes for it. --Dynaflow 08:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's your ball: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Western Investor. --Dynaflow 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. I realize we're having a bit of a disagreement, but I've tried to keep the discussion as civil as possible. You seem to have taken some element of this personally and displayed behavior I would not have expected out of an administrator. You have left talk-page comments in what seems from my side of the screen to be a condescending tone. You have gotten involved in a content dispute to the point where you have resisted the idea of following procedure (though, to your credit, you have not misused your sysop priviliges beyond bringing out the "admin card" as a rhetorical point very eary in the debate at my talk page).

I wasn't going to say anything until I saw this edit summary, which just blows my mind. You say that not only messages from an editor in good standing, but also of a fellow administrator, are "unwelcome" on your page. All I want is to keep this whole thing civil and by-the-book, and I don't understand why that makes you so angry. If there's something else going on beyond Wikipedia that's causing anger to spill over into Wikipedia, then you have my sympathies. However, I would ask that you try to act in the professional manner your community-granted post makes us expect from you. --Dynaflow 09:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not resisting procedure (?!) or being condescending or angry. And if you're going to start suggesting that my tone is more condescending than I think, then keep in mind that you're the one whose last comment on my talk page opened with "it's your ball". Bearcat 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I said that in an effort to not make my leaving the link sound personal or otherwise emotionally-involved. Maybe the phrase has different connotations in Canada, but, in the south-of-the-border way I used it, it was to equate sending you the link to the nothing-personal attitude of one team, even though pitted against the other, still sportsmanly handing off the soccer football to the other team when required to by the rules. I don't want to get into a no-holds-barred fight over an article I have no personal investment in; I just want to subject something I thought should have been speedydeleted to the community litmus test and see if it passes or (as I expect it will and you expect it won't) fails. That's all; nothing personal. --Dynaflow 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What you mean by a phrase and how it lands on the listener can be two different things. "It's your ball" does register as sarcasm or condescension whether you mean it that way or not. You seem to be going for the classic communication trick here: if I misunderstand your tone, it's my fault for not listening correctly, but if you misunderstand mine, it's my fault for not speaking correctly, so either way I end up with all the blame for any miscommunication that results. Healthy dialogue simply doesn't work that way. Bearcat 17:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mark Ravina

Hello. I've noticed that you've placed a warning template on my new article on historian Mark Ravina stating that the article reads like a resume. Thank you for your attentive efforts to enforce standards and quality upon new articles, and for your efforts overall.

Given that the article is already written in prose paragraph form, not bulletpoints like a real resume would be, and given that I am not aware of any other biographical sources on Prof Ravina, I am wondering what you suggest should be done. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looked a lot more like a CV to me last night than it does today, but I still think it doesn't assert the importance of its subject as forcefully as it should. The article notes Ravina's role in film consulting and in studying Japanese history, but it doesn't come out and say why he is/was improtant in those roles.

Mention of the titles of academic books even the above-average reader will likely not have read (I think I remember Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan being one of the optional reads in the last East Asian history course I took, but I went plowing through Eiko Ikegami's social-networks-based stuff instead) will mean nothing to said reader. It must be asserted what place this academic's work has in his field -- his context -- and it should probably be asserted before some nefarious deletionist comes around and puts a prod tag on the article. --Dynaflow 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will do. Cheers. LordAmeth 07:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done what I can to add some explanation of the significance of the work. I'm afraid of pushing the limits of what is not original research, my own personal analysis of the significance of Ravina's work, but I'm hoping that what we've got now will stand. Thanks for your help, and if you have further suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. LordAmeth 07:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

That's exactly it. You've once again proved my point. Not only did you completely leave your neutral thought process (that's supposed to be all but required in a Wikipedia editor) at the door when you left a message on my talk page, but you replied with absolute arrogance. Arrogance is not what people look for when they are trying to find information for a critical school paper. Especially that little magic mushroom comment, which was all but mature. One more thing, you failed to see my point when responding to my point about the 'Bible'. I'm not looking for a religous pilgrimage; I'm Wiccan. The pollution of the Bible by biased sources is the reason I am Wiccan. Among other things in the practice that click with me, but thats beside the point. Their are places where an opinion is ok and places where it is not. This should be one of those places where it is not ok, because alot of people depend on editors such as yourself for information.You fail to see a bigger picture. You disappoint more then just me with your actions. You disappoint countless students. Even if you have no part in editing material that would be research information, your arrogant attitude doesn't help to set straight the ones that do have a part in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs)

I have not been following those VT-related pages as thoroughly as I was a few weeks ago, when I had the things watchlisted in order to help with the rampant vandalism they faced in the aftermath of the shootings. Looking back through that Talk page now, I can see that your proposal was not treated gently. It was subjected to severe criticism and roundly condemned as a bad idea. It's often hard to take criticism, especially when care hasn't been taken to dull its edges. However, I cannot see why this would shake your faith in Wikipdia. It, in fact, strengthens mine.

Here is why: The process, though seemingly harsh -- particularly to those who make the mistake of personally identifying with the ideas they put forward -- worked. It took a bad idea (and it was a bad idea) and stood firm in the face of it, in the face of its persistent promotion vigorous lobbying for its adoption. The idea was dissected in what turned into a de facto post-mortem so that, should anyone propose that idea again, it could be dealt with even more quickly and efficiently than it was this time (your proposal, in fact, was not the first along these lines to die a death by discussion). That Wikipedia maintained its integrity and didn't approve of the proposal you put forward is to its credit. --Dynaflow 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The end result Dyna (I'm going to have to nickname you) is as follows: 1) I enjoy list, get used to it. 2) I appreciate your response, I've actually grown to like you just a little bit. Blunt honesty mixed with honest professionalism. I can appreciate that. 3) I am going to stick this out just a little while longer, though I believe more I will chose what I edit more carefully this time. For instance, my fortes are technology and asian culture. You get the point ;)

Have a great night, and get some sleep bro. Amaraiel 05:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good night to you too. Don't hesitate to contact me if you ever run into problems again in any of Wikipedia's (I admit) often-confusing and -strange nooks and crannies, and you feel you might need help navigating through them. --Dynaflow 05:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

UCLA logo

I think fair use rationales are a waste of time. I realize that including them is policy, but in practice most images don't have them and those that do often have silly ones. The whole concept is flawed, in my opinion, so I'm not going to bother. If the image police want to delete good images simply because a rationale is missing, then fine—though you'd think someone who believed in rationales that deeply would be willing to fill it in themselves. Punctured Bicycle 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just try not to be sad when some bot comes along and zaps all your work because you didn't want to paste in one block of text along with the logo template. Wikipedia tends to take WP:F pretty seriously, as I found out fairly early on from fellow editors who were horrified that I was putting logos back into template space. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law 'round here, but, believe me, pasting in those fair use rationales will save you and a lot of other people a whole lot of work down the line. --Dynaflow 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

I found a picture of a Zen Vision: M MP3 Player which I resized to fit a userbox. Is it possible for that to be legitimately uploaded? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

It depends on where you found it and who took it. Most stuff that you find on the Internet will be considered, by default, as copyrighted, unless the creator has specifically stated otherwise (see WP:F). Wikipedia also tries to avoid using potentially non-free (i.e., copyrighted) content if it can be replaced with free content. A logo, say, such as Image:Ucsc fiatslug.gif, is not replacable with free content, and thus it has to sport a lot of fair-use related verbiage in its image page and have where in Wikipedia it is considered fair use strictly defined. It also can't be used in "template space" because you can't define where a template can and can't be used in the same way. A picture of an MP3 player, on the other hand, is something you could easily take yourself and upload under a creative-commons license (the image upload page makes that easy to do), which would make it free content (example: Image:UCSC McHenry Library.jpg). Also, see the thread above this one for a very practical reason correct fair-use procedure is important.

If you want any help creating the UBX itself, let me know. I've created several, and I have code set up that you can copy out and modify to your liking. --Dynaflow 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Johnston Community College

Thank you for your edits. I am a member of another college in ERBEC, and as you can see, this is a real community college. It started out as an ad, rather than spam. I'm trying to help clean it up. Then, we'll find cites. Bearian 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck to you. --Dynaflow 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder

Oh, what's he gonna do? Fuck with my pixels? Easy enough to click revert, and back it goes. He's spending more time rewriting my undos then I am clicking two or three simple links to fix them. He can fuck with me all he wants, I'm a well-meaning person, and certainly not a sockpuppet. I have nothing to worry about from a template. Don't worry about it bro. I may actually enjoy this. --Amaraiel 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit, I've always liked those whack-a-mole games, so I understand the sentiment. This guy is essentially like a marginally-annoying version of the ghost from The Grudge. He died a violent (and deserved) online death at the hands of his fellow Wikipedians, and so now he's resigned himself to spending the rest of eternity being a nuisance to those who, intentionally or unintentionally, bumble into what he considers his territory. I'm going to request semi-protection for your userpage, because he will be back, again and again. It's obvious he hasn't been taking his medication lately. --Dynaflow 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly
--Amaraiel 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder (IssueOCD) has been indefinitly blocked. I'm personally waiting for him to pull another sockpuppet within the next few hours. Seems like his M.O. He pulls out a sock puppet then gets pissed off and comes back a few hours later as another sock puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs)

The thing to remember is that you're essentially dealing with someone who is a small child at heart, displaying maladaptive attention-seeking behavior. He craves recognition (this discussion is the kind of gold he's mining for), and the best way to deal with him is to quickly, quietly report him to WP:AIV and then efficiently clean up his mess so that, mere minutes later, it is as if he had never existed here. That said, I will declare this discussion over and wish SummerThunder, who I know is reading this, a good evening, and I hope he can get his personal problems, whatever they are, under control so that he can move on. --Dynaflow 02:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Amaraiel 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Thank you for requesting protection. I appreciate it.
2)

Nonchalance is the greatest weapon against arrogance
- Confucious the Second (Nickname for an RL friend)

Shes right. I may be inexperienced, but i sure as hell am not going anywhere because someone can't find a way out of their grandmothers basement ;) Gone down that road once, don't plan on doing it ever again --Amaraiel 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've actually been looking at that since this morning. Thanks. Funny thing man, after our first encounter I thought this was going to be a very akward and slightly tension filled relation. *laughs* Oh how assumptions play with the mind, huh? --Amaraiel 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, give it time. I'm sure I'll propel you into a towering rage eventually. But anyway, I'm glad you decided to stay aboard. Welcome to the madhouse. --Dynaflow 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By 'ruthless' you, of course, mean 'stupid', right?

Nyucknyucknyuck... HalfShadow 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's say, tenaciously stupid. I noticed Defcon went up to 2. Hackers, rogue admins, armies of sockpuppets, and the usual crap from shared IPs. It's been an exciting weekend. --Dynaflow 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing. It was actually at 1 for a bit this morning. Is it just me or are admin accounts getting hacked a bit too easily? HalfShadow 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Neo-AndyZ's first words will stay with me forever: "My password is password!" --Dynaflow 03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're shitting me. Nobody could be that stupid. This is an admin account. You know what sort of damage can be done with one of those. HalfShadow 03:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the edit summary when he blanked the main page. [2] --Dynaflow 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh man. Assuming that's actually legit, he almost deserved it, then. HalfShadow 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: User talk:AndyZ#Password changed. I've been watching this unfold on WP:ANI, and it looks like someone's making a concerted effort to compromise sysop accounts with weak, easily-crackable passwords. I think the count was four or five the last time I checked. Durp. --Dynaflow 03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who put the defcon up to 2. For several reasons actually. After reading Dynaflow's reaction to some of SummerThunders antics and how quickly he went after me, I felt it nessecary to warn the greater public. Even though the greater piece of them was in no danger. But alas, no harm no foul. (PostNote: Went to put it back to three and someone has already done it for me. *laughs*) --Amaraiel 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to leave that to admins and others with a wider view of the playingfield in the future. SummerThunder is annoying, but easily contained, and his short visits don't merit much of a rise in the Defcon. SummerThunder, in fact, was one of the less-bothersome pests on WP today (see the link to ANI, above, and you'll get a feel for what's really been going on). Again, we don't want to bait the dumb bastard or give him any other rewards (raising the Defcon is a major coup). Just report and revert; that's the medicine he has to take. --Dynaflow 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're my successor as SummerThunder punching bag? Ouch. You have my sympathy. Don't worry, he'll get bored in a few months. Hang tight until then, OK? --tjstrf talk 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He can jab and punch all he wants. I don't care --Amaraiel 13:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, tjstrf. I don't remember if we've actually "met" on here before, but yes, I do seem to be the Chosen One of the moment. He seems to have shifted attention from Szyslak to me in the past week or so. I expect him to find someone more interesting by and by. --Dynaflow 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll watchlist whatever. Userpage semi-protection also works well, as I see you've discovered. What is he vandalizing now anyway? He apparently stopped caring about China, I'd have seen him if he were still doing that. A pity too, his conspiracy ravings were mildly amusing at times. --tjstrf talk 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, hope you have fun with him then. I always found it particularly funny that the key point of his theory that all the zh.wiki admins are communist spies is that they can get around the government firewall, when the firewall, for all the money wasted on it, was unable to stop me from getting to sites when I was 13 and in Beijing due to the lack of blocks on English language proxy sites. Hopefully they've improved since then. --tjstrf talk 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Humor keeps me alive.

I won't say sane, because then I'd be lying. George W. Bush talk page edit summary HalfShadow 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be like-minded editors: University of California, Los Angeles edit summary. If Wikipedia wasn't this consistently ridiculous and funny, I'd find it about as entertaining as my last math class. =) --Dynaflow 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I spend most of my time here cleaning up after kids, I try to have fun with it sometimes. The trick is managing to do it before 50 other people get the edit in before me. HalfShadow 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do my vandalism-hunting the old-fashioned way, so I often get beaten to the punch by you RCP folks, VP- and TW-armed people, and, of course, MartinBot. You've gotta be either quick on the draw, or else sharp enough to catch "the little things." Hey, wait a minute ... you're Canadian, but you spell "humour" as "humor." Is our rampant cultural imperialism from down south making further inroads against Commonwealth English? --Dynaflow 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh. The spelling is pretty much 'either/or' here; it's not specific. Some people use the European, some use American, some pronounce Z 'zee', others say 'zed'. Neither is correct, because they both are. And I don't use any gear, I'm just really damn fast. I can beat bots to the punch on good days. HalfShadow 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On the link to Hasan Taqizadeh's article

Dear User:Dynaflow, thanks for your note and the link. All seems very complicated and I am glad that I am not in a position to have to resolve this or similar disputes. Perhaps the dispute at issue should be left to rest for some time so as to allow people to climb down a bit from their present absolute positions. As for the link deleted from the article on Hasan Taqizadeh, I am afraid that this link may have become victim of some communal dispute: from the discussions (the link to which you kindly provided) I gather that the web-site whose link has now been deleted, may have said that the Islamic regime in Iran may have been destroying Zoroastrian monuments, etc. (I can neither confirm nor deny this claim, as my link to this web-site had solely the classic article by Taqizadeh concerning the old Iranian calendar in mind). As for copy-right issues, may I suggest that Wikipedia seek advice from a legal expert who knows the copy-right law in Iran? I have understood that in Iran copy-right on a photograph has a lifetime of 30 years, irrespective of whether any person related to this photograph is alive or not (see the copy-right statement of the following photograph: [3]). At present Iranian web-sites are all awash with identical photographs. Consequently, all the arguments to and fro between these people regarding copy-rights seem to me to be about something of very little substance, if at all. --BF 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above remarks, it seems to me that there is a political edge to the on-going dispute: in the past two days I have noticed that User:Aksi great has been removing photographs of people who at present are not in favour in Iran: Ahmad Kasravi (assassinated by a religious fanatic), Sadeq Hedayat (whose books are banned in Iran) and now it seems that s/he is acting as the public prosecutor of User:ParthianShot. This cannot be correct. User:ParthianShot may have a point, as (for the reasons mentioned above) this whole idea of copy-right violations seems bogus. Ahmad Kasravi died (was assassinated) in 1946, Sadeq Hedayat died in 1951. Taking into account the above-mentioned 30-years life-time of copy-rights on photographs in Iran, the photogtaphs of these Iranians are public property right now. In fact, Hedayat died intestate --- you can find copies of his books on countless web-sites the world over (free to download). How comes that suddenly everybody is picking on User:ParthianShot? I believe that Wikipedia has the moral responsibility to let the issue be arbitrated, if at all, by someone who has no connection to Iran --- it worries me greatly that the site whose link has now been removed from Taqizadeh's biography may have been critical of the Iranian regime (I emphasize, that I can neither confirm nor deny this); things seem to point to a very specific direction. I am inclined to believe that some people may be trying to get User:ParthianShot excluded from Wikipedia for some ulterior reasons. Actually, the huge document comipled against User:ParthianShot is too professional to be credible; it has all the hallmarks of the work of a professional investigator. Please kindly remove this message after having read it, as I do not wish to be the next target. --BF 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has all types, including academics, investigators, clerks, plumbers, and even, until he was blocked, Stephen Colbert (of "elephants" fame - see Wikipedia in culture#Landmark). Professionalism and thoroughness are encouraged and often required, especially at the higher levels. Aksi (whom I believe is from India), as an administrator, is required to keep Wikipedia's interests foremost. His concern seems to have been that Parthian shot's questionable methods of dealing with copyright and sourcing were creating a liability not only to Wikipedia, but to the Wikimedia project as a whole (this all seems to have started with Parthian shot's uploads to Commons and then migrated later to English Wikipedia, where Aksi discovered it).

The conversation regarding the sourcing problems of Parthian shot's uploads occured on WP:ANI, in full view of the 1,000-odd English Wikipedia administrators and who-knows-how-many other established users who frequent that board. Parthian shot's initial blocking seems to have come from revert-warring, which is common when disputes get heated (if you look up through my Talk page, you'll find a thread from when I got WP:3RR'ed once). There were allegations that he was trying to evade the block using sockpuppets, but I don't know what the eventual determination was. His indefinite banning only occurred when he insinuated legal threats against another user, which is a cardinal sin on Wikipedia and results in almost-automatic banning (see WP:NLT).

You seem like a civil contributor, and as long as you aren't exposing Wikipedia to liability, you probably have nothing to fear from Aksi. In fact, I would send him a message and ask him if there's an alternate source for the citation you're looking for. He seems familiar with that corner of academic study. If you are concerned about a possible political motivation in the pattern of his deletions, remember that, if he is rooting out all the content that came from a questionable source, the deletions will inadvertantly give a mirror image of whatever institutional biases that source may have had. There is really nothing to fear here, and if someone did have a mind to behave badly towards you by way of politics, you will always find more than enough firm believers in WP's core tenet of keeping a neutral point of view to come to your defense. Best of luck to you. [EDIT:] As a user with a large apparent interest in Iran, you might want to watchlist these two boards: Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran. You should be able to find much that is of use there, as well as possible collaborators on future articles. --Dynaflow 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Dynaflow, thank you very much for your very detailed response. Yes, I should like to emphasize that I firmly believe that Wikipedia must maintain a purity that tanscends all our private preferences, political, national, religious, etc; an unconditional fairness must be the foremost concern of everyone who roams on these pages. I believe also that the Wikipedia project is truly one of the best fruits of our thousands of years of civilization and consequently should be protected from our personal ambitions which almost always lead to destruction of things that are potentially good. As for User:ParthianShot, I still firmly believe that his case should be dealt with by someone who does not potentially raises his suspicion that he may be discriminated against (the word "Aksi" is Persian, originally Arabic, and surreally in the present context, referes to photographs; "Aks" means "Photograph" and "Aksi" refers to someone who makes pictures, a photographer, a maker of portraits); one should not forget that being in an environment where personal freedoms are not as extensive as people in other places are used to, he may be too sensitive and consequently too emotional in his reactions to issues which to him amount to a further restriction of his already restricted freedoms (I am inclined to see his legal threat in this light rather than in any other); further, if indeed he is a Zoroastrian, he lives the life of a minority and therefore is already constrained in his personal life --- I had a school friend who once secretly confided to me (in the corner of the school yard) that he was a Zoroastrian; after almost half a century I still remember those frightened eyes of this child who perhaps feared the worst by disclosing his religious affiliation to someone else; somehow this User:ParthianShot reminds me of that moment of utter innocence when a soul desperately needs expressing. My essential message is: treat him softly. With kind regards, --BF 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to my above message, there is already a link to the article by Taqizadeh on the old Persian calendars --- originally there were two, one of which has now been removed. For completeness, my original objection to removal was prompted by the fact that whoever had done that s/he had removed both links. After this, I reverted the change, but in doing so left out the one link which has been considered to be in violation of some copy-right laws, etc. To summarise, I am really not looking for a new link; of course if Aksi knows of a gook link s/he can add it to the already existing link. Kind regards, --BF 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

re:summerthunder

I've added all of the pages to Wikipedia:Protected titles. If you have anything else come up, let me know. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why this happened, so I've reinstated the above post. - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rash Editors....

Hey man,
If I ever turn out to be one of those users that just labels something vandalism just to say they did, slap me or something will you? I know I'm supposed to be patient and open-minded but this guy just went to my user page, deleted something off of it I had been working on and labeled it vandalism. Vandalism by me! RAWR. If It were vandalism, I would appreciate it. If it were a vandal I wouldn't care, But this guy just seems like one of those people thats just way too quick to jump all over something. --Amaraiel 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it, and I think I know what happened. He seems to have been using Twinkle, a semi-automated anit-vandalism tool, which, I think, doesn't allow much leeway in how it prints out its edit summaries (you can tell by the "TW" at the end of his link summary). If you look through his contribs, most of his edit summaries will read that way. He was probably deleting it because he interpreted what you were writing as an attempt to bait vandals, which is not considered kosher on WP (see Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals). It's kind of like the "do not feed the trolls" rule on forums and BBSes: if you put out food, they will come. --Dynaflow 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I learn something new every hour don't I. I'll remember that about baiting the vandals. Thanks

--Amaraiel 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Found a shared IP address being used for vandalism from a school in New Hampshire. --Amaraiel 01:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC) --Amaraiel 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. You may want to chat with HalfShadow, a Recent Changes Patroller, who might be able to help you hone your vandal-thwacking skillsz. Another good thing for the neophyte vandal-hunter to read is Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal. --Dynaflow 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to quote you on that George Bush comment. I'm sorry, that was just flat out hysterical. LOL. --Amaraiel 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvard talk and red text

Hi! About talk pages: yup, indeed. About the red: actually, it wasn't my signature I wanted red; it was my name in edit histories / on my watchlist. It made it easier to quickly find myself in them. But I've had a few years now to get used to being blue/purple like everybody else; and so now I don't ever really hanker back for those early days of redness. Cheers, Doops | talk 03:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I suppose I should take a cue from you and reduce the cruftiness of my signature, but -- on a whim -- I've increased it instead. Oh well. Function over form. ... Or something vaguely of that nature. --Dynaflow babble 05:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox/UCLA

Yes! I love userboxes! Thanks Dynaflow! But, I should have known where to look for that user box. -- Penubag  07:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One of your userboxes says you're still in high school, though. Did you just get accepted or something? If so, congrats, and say hi to the RSS kids (or the ΡΣΣ scholars, as they style themselves) if you see them --Dynaflow babble 07:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm not going there yet, but in the near future I plan to go to UCLA. Thanks anyways. =-)I'll hopefully remember to say Hi to them. XD -- Penubag  08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sha-la-la-la-lee

Thanks for your messages, help is greatly appreciated (yes, I am new). Sha-la-la-la-lee is not nonsense, it was a major hit record for the Small Faces (British group) and got to no. 3 in the UK charts in the 1960's. Why is this nonsense, can a song title not be added when it is added to that songwriters details? Many thanks in advance. Sue Wallace 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not nonsense in and of itself, but it is nonsense as an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOT). You also run into major fair-use problems when you post full sets of lyrics (see WP:LYRICS). Let me know if I can be of any further help. --Dynaflow babble 00:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was just being thorough by adding the lyrics (oh dear), please tell me what I should do, I would like the name to remain, what if I just dont link it then? Many thanks Sue Wallace 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ps I just sent you another message about Ruskin Arms but I think there was a fault!

Hi, me again, you said that The Ruskin Arms should be deleted you dont mean entirely from the article do you? do you just mean the link?, The Ruskin Arms is a very important venue in London and very well known to Heavy Metal fans. It is a place where Iron Maiden, Status Quo and the Small Faces played, it is like an equivalent to the Cavern Club in Liverpool where the Beatles played Sue Wallace 00:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a hangon tag on the speedydelete template. The main problem is not with the venue, but how the article about it is written. Meet me at the article's talk page: Talk:The Ruskin Arms. --Dynaflow babble 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lingapalem et al.

Hi there; fair comment, I will attempt to contact the editor. Article remains pro tem.--Anthony.bradbury 10:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD#G4

WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply to things that were speedily deleted, anyway there's no need for more than one speedy deletion template on an article, it won't get it deleted any faster. John Reaves (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You could post something like {{db|reposted [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] article}} which gives the CSD criterion and a notice to the admin that it's been deleted before. John Reaves (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Steady 0CD

Yes, you are probably right. I was in a hurry to get back and revert your userpage, which in the event did before I got back there. But in reality, six months is long enough for a sock-puppet, because the puppeteer can create them as fast as we can block them and blocked ones as a rule appear not to get re-activated. But if it shows up in November we just block it again, and it's easier then because we will recognise the name.--Anthony.bradbury 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Done.--Anthony.bradbury 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Status

Given that you have not been here very long; at least, not under this username, you have amassed a quite reasonable total of edits, including a good contribution record in WP:NAMESPACE. You also clearly have a good grasp of WP:POLICY. Are you planning on running for admin in the future? If so, I would be happy to nominate you. Let me know, if you wish, as soon as you feel you are ready.--Anthony.bradbury 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As I hinted, I thought that you had probably been here longer than it appeared. If you were to go for RfA, we should stipulate this, as it will stifle the length-of-experience orientated editors. Let me know, by e-mail if you wish to avoid the appearance of canvassing (although our conversation here is direct, and initiated by me)--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't answer your question. At the moment there are about 1100 admins in wikipedia, and about 800 are classed as active. Some are classed as semi-active (I have not sought out the figure) So long as you have a pattern of regular editing, then I do not see that a monthly fluctuation in editing activity would be a problem so long as you posted an explanation for it on your RfA if the fluctuation was extreme. But you have produced well over 3000 edits in the last three months, which is a significantly higher than average output. I say again, let me know.--Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, you're not on trial under oath. Take a look at WP:RfA. If you would like to go for it, let me know and I will set it up. Following the on-page instructions is blindingly easy.--Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

0CD

I was trying to but someone beat me to it, then I started going in and trying to revert everything he has done. Thanks for the heads up though. Inter16 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: UCSC article

That's great news on the successful good article nom. Thanks for all your work on this and the other UC articles. How about a round of Sierra Nevadas (which is a Chico beer but is nonetheless very popular at UCSC). I also have a bottle of champagne for whenever the article reaches featured status. szyslak 04:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy

Cheers, I see you've started on the CSU series. A little encouragement:
[Template Barnstar (aw shucks) moved to userpage. Thanks for the encouragement. --Dynaflow babble 05:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)]

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to 0CD therapist. As a member of the Wikipedia community, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information of living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. Coren 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted warning given on good faith namespace error. Oops.  :-) Coren 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm not an abuse reports type of guy, so I apologize if I am of little help. You might want to try reporting these socks to WP:ANI for further action and opinion by other, more experienced admins. You might be pointed to WP:ABUSE, but that page is undergoing a severe backlog. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I submit it later. I have a feeling he's wardriving, though. I'll have to look at the other IPs he's used. --Dynaflow babble 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do as you please, as long as it benefits the encyclopedia. Watch out for allegations of stalking and privacy violations though. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it you haven't read the dossier on this abuse case. He's hit Wikipedia seven times today alone. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. --Dynaflow babble 06:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you didn't note the importance of the word "allegations." My words were chosen carefully. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly worried. He signed in as an anon IP user, quacked like a duck ([4] vs. [5]), and his IP info is open to inspection, as for any anon editor. His old IPs and sockpuppets are archived in their own (growing) category, also open for inspection. This is a clear-cut case of long-term abuse, and, in any case, the stalking actually seems to be going to other way: [6]. I am only that latest Wikipedian to look into this. --Dynaflow babble 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Your RfA awaits at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dynaflow. You probably know, but if not the instructions are at WP:RfA. Take your time answering the questions before you transclude the page onto the project page. Good luck.--Anthony.bradbury 10:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that your e-mail is not enabled. May I suggest that you enable it noew, as it unlikely that your RfA will succeed otherwise. Look in preferences.--Anthony.bradbury 21:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dynaflow babble 22:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Congratulations! I knew you would! --Amaraiel 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: SummerThunder's incessant ranting

I can't protect it. I'm not an administrator. Otherwise, I would protect it. I'll blank it for now. --LuigiManiac 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I volunteer to do the delete-protect-rinse drill, but only if you give me the links to the pages. Resurgent insurgent 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Vote tally on RfA

Hi Dynaflow - sorry about that, it seems to be messing up after my comment - the numbering resets itself. I just looked at the last number, saw 5, and thought it was only 5. Don't know what went wrong! Sorry. Cheers, – Riana_ऋ 07:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by Coelacan :) – Riana_ऋ 07:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George Azariah

Hi,

I posted George Azariah to the COIN page. I actually have no idea about notability for that article, but I have a soft heart where relatively recent widows are concerned. You may delete this message once you've read it. --Steven J. Anderson 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just how it goes sometimes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. I've put on a prod tag to give the writer time to do some serious work on the article if s/he truly thinks the subject satisfies WP:NOTE, and just neglected to include information that would indicate that in the first draft. There's a possibility for salvation on this one, but it's slim at best. --Dynaflow babble 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:UCSC horizontal.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:UCSC horizontal.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:UCSC horizontal.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:UCSC horizontal.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Dynaflow,

Sorry your RfA didn't make it this time. I suggest you relax, spend some more time at Wikipedia, and read what the Opposers had to say. With that knowledge many initially unsuccessful adminship candidates have gone on to get the coveted mop! ;-) Cheers, Cecropia 02:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Next time, next time. =) --Dynaflow babble 10:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)