User talk:Kevin B12/Archive3

Mulatto 3RR

My apologies if my anti-vandal efforts on Mulatto have come across as violating 3RR. I posted more information regarding your 3RR report - hopefully that will help clear things up. I honestly got involved in the dispute not over content, but over the disruptive actions of the IP vandal. Any advice you may have on how to proceed would be very welcome! --JereKrischel 02:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you, have a barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your vigilant efforts of finding and reverting vandalism, Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Star" Extra

Regarding your recent AfD: Actually, you're right and wrong, as there's such a thing in show business as a "Principal Extra" or "Featured Extra".

Typically, these people are paid at a higher rate, sometimes substantially so, and are featured in the scene, usually beside or interacting directly with the main actors.

Often, they are friends or associates of the star.

In many cases, they are Stand Ins picking-up extra pay at the hand of a 1st AD who's pleased with their regular work.

Still they have no lines, but are something less than "straight" background players.

You were correct to delete the article. I myself have been a Principal Extra many times, but it's not something you're likely to ever read about.

FYI. Faro Player Number One 02:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

RFCU/Case/Unsorted

Can you put some kind of a box on the page to link to a page archive/archives? I think we should move work off the page to an archive as soon as it is properly formatted and filed, but I'm not sure how another box would interact with the boxes already on the page. Thatcher131 05:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I took care of Blu Aarvark. Dmcdevit very nicely confirmed it on ANI for us. Thatcher131 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Satorial hijab images

Hey. They are all template:noncommercial... and since they were uploaded before May 19, 2005 they aren't unfree by Wikipedia standards. They are bad quality images... but, they should be phased out not deleted under PUI. I made a comment there and... well, I see it as an improper listing since they were uploaded in the proper time frame and we should put them up for IfD as soon as we replace them. What do you say? gren グレン 02:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's actually {{noncommercialProvided}} the author is attributed. But, same basic idea. As that template says they will be considered for deletion. So, some already have replacements from like Flickr and all... want to put those ones up on IfD? and the others will be deleted in due time. gren グレン 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, PUI is to dispute the copyrights that are claimed. There is no dispute since they are non-commercial (bad) but uploaded before May 19, 2005 (so they can't be speedily deleted). So, they should go to IfD. I have no problem deleting images that have a replacement for each specific type of garment... but they really don't belong on PUI. They are allowed... they were just a bad idea that should be phased out. He gave no time frame and the idea was to find replacements. So, how about I delete them as we find replacement images? Plus, the sartorial hijab article is incredibly bad. It needs cleanup, fixup, clarfication, etc. Sorry, not trying to be difficult but I see no reason to delete them before replacing them. If you feel strongly enough that they need to be deleted now then I do ask you to put them on IfD. If you are willing to wait a bit and see when we get replacements then just let them go. gren グレン 03:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Images... I've decided that those images are just so bad that they should go. Not because they're noncommercial... but because they are low resolution and the site that gave those descriptions isn't a particularly good source. So, we'll find new images, new sources. I don't know if it's a good idea for me to speedy delete them... gren グレン 07:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandalism by Ericsaindon2. The guy is really getting out of hand. --Coolcaesar 06:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust protection

Thanks for letting me know. I guess I just assumed Wikipedia was "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". How dumb I was, apparently. Liu Bei 07:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser goof

Sorry about creating the page at the wrong place; I was trying to follow the directions, but must have made a mistake somewhere, because the page that was created wasn't at the right place. I hope it's all OK and formatted correctly now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I did (I replaced "Case" with the username instead of putting the username after "Case/"). All's well that ends well, though... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Well done on rv spam by 210.211.136.24. I've just blocked them for a month. Tyrenius 10:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

cfd2 etc

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#William Allen Simpson trying to make CFR a vote --SPUI (T - C) 01:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I already commented on this. Kevin_b_er 01:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not vandalising!

My edits were attempting to fix what I had originally thought was an error on the page (although now I see that I was looking at it incorrectly). But I was not trying to vandalise the page intentionally, except that somebody's stupid anti-vandalism bot assumed I was vandalising. This is why I don't like bots on wikipedia. Dr. Cash 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

diacritics

you should tell that to the person who moved it to the version with diacritics without first discussing it. I am simply restoring the original title and following Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format#Use of diacritics and non-English characters. So, before you give me grief on the matter, go give grief to people like user:Uppland, user:JIP, and user:Travelbird who completely ignored the discussions and mass-moved pages. Masterhatch 06:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Try it

Hi,

Try using this. I didn't have much flexibility with regards to content, so just fixed a couple of existing issues. Note that the page has been copyedited, and is a bit different from the original. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Operakid418

Hi Kevin:

Thanks for redirecting my page (Mozart's Compositions) to "List of works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart". I had looked for a page with all of the information on it, and could not find one...but now I will be busy adding to the article you redirected me to.

Is it violating copyright to copy and paste other Wikipedia articles (or parts of them) into a different Wikipedia article without citation? For example, could I copy and paste most of the article "Violin Concerto No. 2 (Mozart)" into its correct subheading in the article "List of works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart"? I believe that it would be much easier for someone looking for information on Mozart's compositions to be able to look all in one place instead of switching articles every time they need information about another composition.

Let me know when you get a chance the answers to the above questions. Thanks a lot for your help!

Operakid418 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mozart's Compositions

So would it be a violation of Wikipedia policies to copy and paste a large section of an article, such as Violin Concerto No. 3 (Mozart), into another article?

Also I plan on expanding all of the stubs on the rest of the Mozart Violin Concertos; as I have played quite a few of them.

Operakid418 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So would you suggest redirecting all of the individual articles about Mozart's compositions to List of works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart after copy and pasting the material from the articles into List of works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

I will also try to reorganize List of works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart... do you think it would be ok to put each composition in as its own heading so it will show up as a subgeading in the table of contents, or will that make the table of contents too long?

Operakid418 17:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor's/Devil's Advocate

I'm very sorry about that, i wasnt sure how to move the articles. Thanx for telling me how. --Darkneonflame 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Devil/Doctor's Advocate Situation

The apparent proof is just a typo of the title which isn't giving proof at all. The page shouldn't be moved like this unless theres real proof of the change. Do you agree? --JsnakeJ 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to wikimedia screenshot reply

Very well, ts not copyrighted windows software. Was Netscape/Mozilla 3 ever released under an open source license? If not, the design of the software is copyrighted, and the image would need to be fair use. While your contributions to the image may be released, the underlying image of the browser itself may not be freely licensed. Kevin_b_er 03:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim that I've the copyright of the design of Netscape navigator, so this point is moot. I also don't claim to have the copyright of the Web page on this picture. The screenshot is PD because I made it and say so. This doesn't cover the design of the buttons, the broken image icons, or any other visible detail, it's about the complete screenshot. -- Omniplex 03:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for info, I found a similar tag for image:GAstarFA.jpg, {{wikipedia-screenshot}}, but that point's now moot (= replaced by {{db-author}}), account closed. -- User:Omniplex 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to wikimedia screenshot reply

Very well, ts not copyrighted windows software. Was Netscape/Mozilla 3 ever released under an open source license? If not, the design of the software is copyrighted, and the image would need to be fair use. While your contributions to the image may be released, the underlying image of the browser itself may not be freely licensed. Kevin_b_er 03:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim that I've the copyright of the design of Netscape navigator, so this point is moot. I also don't claim to have the copyright of the Web page on this picture. The screenshot is PD because I made it and say so. This doesn't cover the design of the buttons, the broken image icons, or any other visible detail, it's about the complete screenshot. -- Omniplex 03:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for info, I found a similar tag for image:GAstarFA.jpg, {{wikipedia-screenshot}}, but that point's now moot (= replaced by {{db-author}}), account closed. -- User:Omniplex 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

what?

Looks good to me. "Actual Reality" is mentioned VERY breifly an almost inconsequentially in the article. The link that was readded was to a site with what appears to be a particular company's laser sensor (and possibly equipment). Its almost useless to the reader of the article. Also one of the diffs I checked with a brief arguement by the anon is a straw man arguement ("the other links are still there" and its relatives). Last, the other diff I saw with 5 or so links added is clearly not a good idea. Kevin_b_er 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

i'ven been called many things.. but thats a new one. really i gotta know. ~whatever~

what?

Looks good to me. "Actual Reality" is mentioned VERY breifly an almost inconsequentially in the article. The link that was readded was to a site with what appears to be a particular company's laser sensor (and possibly equipment). Its almost useless to the reader of the article. Also one of the diffs I checked with a brief arguement by the anon is a straw man arguement ("the other links are still there" and its relatives). Last, the other diff I saw with 5 or so links added is clearly not a good idea. Kevin_b_er 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

i'ven been called many things.. but thats a new one. really i gotta know. ~whatever~

what?

Looks good to me. "Actual Reality" is mentioned VERY breifly an almost inconsequentially in the article. The link that was readded was to a site with what appears to be a particular company's laser sensor (and possibly equipment). Its almost useless to the reader of the article. Also one of the diffs I checked with a brief arguement by the anon is a straw man arguement ("the other links are still there" and its relatives). Last, the other diff I saw with 5 or so links added is clearly not a good idea. Kevin_b_er 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

i'ven been called many things.. but thats a new one. really i gotta know. ~whatever~

Violation

My information on the Colbert Report's page was deleted in which I mentioned in the Trivia potion that Colbert mentioned Wikipedia and elephants. He did. So how is that vandalism Kevin? He mentioned Wikipedia and elephants. That is factual information. Tell me exactly how I should phrase it so that you can label it "truth." It seems like, even though Wikipedia is open for everyone, some people feel superior and that their ideas of truth overrides all others' information. If you want your "vandalism" on this page to stop, then you should acknowledge it in some way on that page, and mention Colbert's comments about Wikipedia. I have just as much right to edit these pages here as anyone, and the information I provided was true, so don't act like I committed some crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mabus Kombatant (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. "The population of elephants has tripled in the past ten years." is blatantly false information, however, The Colbert Report is not a reliable source for information about animal populations in africa. Kevin_b_er 08:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Violation

My information on the Colbert Report's page was deleted in which I mentioned in the Trivia potion that Colbert mentioned Wikipedia and elephants. He did. So how is that vandalism Kevin? He mentioned Wikipedia and elephants. That is factual information. Tell me exactly how I should phrase it so that you can label it "truth." It seems like, even though Wikipedia is open for everyone, some people feel superior and that their ideas of truth overrides all others' information. If you want your "vandalism" on this page to stop, then you should acknowledge it in some way on that page, and mention Colbert's comments about Wikipedia. I have just as much right to edit these pages here as anyone, and the information I provided was true, so don't act like I committed some crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mabus Kombatant (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. "The population of elephants has tripled in the past ten years." is blatantly false information, however, The Colbert Report is not a reliable source for information about animal populations in africa. Kevin_b_er 08:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Violation

My information on the Colbert Report's page was deleted in which I mentioned in the Trivia potion that Colbert mentioned Wikipedia and elephants. He did. So how is that vandalism Kevin? He mentioned Wikipedia and elephants. That is factual information. Tell me exactly how I should phrase it so that you can label it "truth." It seems like, even though Wikipedia is open for everyone, some people feel superior and that their ideas of truth overrides all others' information. If you want your "vandalism" on this page to stop, then you should acknowledge it in some way on that page, and mention Colbert's comments about Wikipedia. I have just as much right to edit these pages here as anyone, and the information I provided was true, so don't act like I committed some crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mabus Kombatant (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. "The population of elephants has tripled in the past ten years." is blatantly false information, however, The Colbert Report is not a reliable source for information about animal populations in africa. Kevin_b_er 08:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rfa

Hi! You might be interested in Rfd for Al Fateh. Tazmaniacs 15:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My photos

Hi Kev,

Yeah, anything with my photos is umabiguously released by me. When I started here the image rules and templates were different, and it was not always possible to know what one should be used, because there was confusion and unclear instructions. So not all early photos I downloaded were captioned correctly. WP now follows different rules which makes it difficult sometimes to untangle the mess of the early ambiguous rules. But anything by me called my photos is automatically released. That was my intention. Some no c/r were based on the fact that the owner of the copyright was impossible to establish (eg, some religious images are used used by the billion, and no-one has clue who created the original much less when). But most no c/r tags meant they were mine and they were being waved. Some may have been no way of finding who owns copyright so I can't say every single one was mine and was being waved.

Sorry I can't be more clear. WP rules at the time were all over the place. Dodgy templates existed for photos and even more dodgy interpretations of law existed. (Some of our current interpretations are also pretty dodgy but in the other extreme. Whereas 4 years ago was the problem was ridiculous laxity, now in some areas it is illogical and legally dubious over-strictness. One very senior lawyer I know draws a distinction between using fair use images in templates for decorative or for communicative purposes. He argues that as textual graphics on an internet site may be affected by computer settings, meaning that a headline in a template may not instantly readable at the wrong setting, a "communicative" image, once used to augment recognition, would be acceptable. So using a British crown in a template would be acceptable because it would communicate a clear meaning as to the topic. But using a French crown would be purely decorative because being generally unrecognisable it would not add information, merely decoration, to a template. So he argues legally that WP is perfectly able to use some images in templates where they are universally recognisable and communicate through image, meaning that even if the text is difficult to decipher the image does the communication. He regards WP's interpretation of 'no fair use images in templates' as ludicrously over-strict.) I have downloaded so many images over four years that I cannot remember the vast majority. But if you come across one at any stage, feel free to ask me. If I said that it is my image, then I unambiguously wave copyright. That was always my intention. You have my full permission to change the template to state that, and to add in the line earlier as evidence.

Slán

FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}

My photos

Hi Kev,

Yeah, anything with my photos is umabiguously released by me. When I started here the image rules and templates were different, and it was not always possible to know what one should be used, because there was confusion and unclear instructions. So not all early photos I downloaded were captioned correctly. WP now follows different rules which makes it difficult sometimes to untangle the mess of the early ambiguous rules. But anything by me called my photos is automatically released. That was my intention. Some no c/r were based on the fact that the owner of the copyright was impossible to establish (eg, some religious images are used used by the billion, and no-one has clue who created the original much less when). But most no c/r tags meant they were mine and they were being waved. Some may have been no way of finding who owns copyright so I can't say every single one was mine and was being waved.

Sorry I can't be more clear. WP rules at the time were all over the place. Dodgy templates existed for photos and even more dodgy interpretations of law existed. (Some of our current interpretations are also pretty dodgy but in the other extreme. Whereas 4 years ago was the problem was ridiculous laxity, now in some areas it is illogical and legally dubious over-strictness. One very senior lawyer I know draws a distinction between using fair use images in templates for decorative or for communicative purposes. He argues that as textual graphics on an internet site may be affected by computer settings, meaning that a headline in a template may not instantly readable at the wrong setting, a "communicative" image, once used to augment recognition, would be acceptable. So using a British crown in a template would be acceptable because it would communicate a clear meaning as to the topic. But using a French crown would be purely decorative because being generally unrecognisable it would not add information, merely decoration, to a template. So he argues legally that WP is perfectly able to use some images in templates where they are universally recognisable and communicate through image, meaning that even if the text is difficult to decipher the image does the communication. He regards WP's interpretation of 'no fair use images in templates' as ludicrously over-strict.) I have downloaded so many images over four years that I cannot remember the vast majority. But if you come across one at any stage, feel free to ask me. If I said that it is my image, then I unambiguously wave copyright. That was always my intention. You have my full permission to change the template to state that, and to add in the line earlier as evidence.

Slán

FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}

Dear Kevin

Thank you for your kind and careful approach regarding that image, dear Kevin - and for the most kind words you expressed at my RfA! :) I'm currently looking into it, tho I won't have much spare time until weekend - perhaps it would be better to remove it from the article until its proper status can be determined, what do you think? You are absolutely right, the image matters should and must be taken with great seriousness. As I expressed there, I don't intend to make a single upload until I get deeply familiar with everything involved (well, except self made images of course! ;) and I've promised Jkelly to ask him personally whenever I want to upload one in order to get proper guidance and input. This is, by far, the chore in which I need to improve the most; and tho I tried never to take it lightly, my past mistakes are evident, and I deeply regret about them. This will serve me to focus on such aspects, and since we all find ourselves at the point when we spot a picture and think "this would look great at Wiki!", further research from my part will only be for the best. Once again, thank you, dear K - we'll talk more soon, I'm sure ;) Take good care! Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite

Could you weight in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite? If you don't feel like it, I completely understand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, History21 has been proven to be a sockpuppet, so it's all moot anyway. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

History21

I read your comments on ANI, and replied. I've blocked both JoanB and Lilyana, and have given History21 a final warning. The abusive comments made by Lilyana were becoming excessive. I'm not going to let History21 do any further hoaxing. I'm going to be keeping him on a tight leash. And I've tried searching for "Eyre" throughout Wikipedia, but haven't found anything else. I'm sure it's there somewhere. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Axe Murder Incident

Can I ask why you reverted my change to Operation Paul Bunyan? Doesn't it make sense to have the Operation refered to under the Axe Murder Incident article rather than the other way around? Bobo12345 05:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and thanks for the suggestions. I will do as you say and Move the article, and then make the changes. Cheers. Bobo12345 06:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Coolcaesar"-related redirects

I have deleted them as misleading, thanks. I don't think anyone will raise a fuss about the process, at least I don't see any good reason too. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Salt the talk page too

Done, cheers.--Commander Keane 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ==journeyman==

What, yes it can!?; I have so much sexism to retype, I'm just moving everything now, & editing everything later!?100110100 04:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to this user on the user's talkpage. Just so you know. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ==Please talk about the journeyman article.==

Most people would argue that your reason is not enough, unfortunately, those people don't know about this article. Do not move it back.100110100 08:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending my talk page

While that pesky vandal was attacking it. :) MER-C 10:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Excuse me, I am a practicing Sikh for 40 years and have over 25 years expert knowledge in Sikhism, I have helped Sukh (a friend) who is one the main contributors on the Sikhism articles. What are you taking about Spam; those links are to detailed articles on those Gurdwaras (most of the Gurdwaras in Punjab I have visited and paid my respects to). As an Orthodox Khalsa Sikh, I'm very offended by your comments to me, those are valid good articles (they are NOT commercial links or personal links). The site in question is one of the most respected Sikhism sites on the internet, a lot of the other most important Sikhism articles use it in their external links on Wikipedia e.g. the main Sikhism page. I don't know whether you misinterpreted something on my part, I don't know. --Sikh historian 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(Reguarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodgyism)

Yeah, yeah you are definately narrow minded. Read what I posted in the discussion thread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryan** (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, you shouldn't try to delete a deletion discussion that is in-progress. And, as I said, it does not stop the deletion discussion. If you take issue with the discussion, you may talk about it, on the deletion discussion, without deleting others comments or the nomination. Kevin_b_er 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC) -- passed on by --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ==journeyman==

What, yes it can!?; I have so much sexism to retype, I'm just moving everything now, & editing everything later!?100110100 04:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to this user on the user's talkpage. Just so you know. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ==Please talk about the journeyman article.==

Most people would argue that your reason is not enough, unfortunately, those people don't know about this article. Do not move it back.100110100 08:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending my talk page

While that pesky vandal was attacking it. :) MER-C 10:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Excuse me, I am a practicing Sikh for 40 years and have over 25 years expert knowledge in Sikhism, I have helped Sukh (a friend) who is one the main contributors on the Sikhism articles. What are you taking about Spam; those links are to detailed articles on those Gurdwaras (most of the Gurdwaras in Punjab I have visited and paid my respects to). As an Orthodox Khalsa Sikh, I'm very offended by your comments to me, those are valid good articles (they are NOT commercial links or personal links). The site in question is one of the most respected Sikhism sites on the internet, a lot of the other most important Sikhism articles use it in their external links on Wikipedia e.g. the main Sikhism page. I don't know whether you misinterpreted something on my part, I don't know. --Sikh historian 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(Reguarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodgyism)

Yeah, yeah you are definately narrow minded. Read what I posted in the discussion thread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryan** (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, you shouldn't try to delete a deletion discussion that is in-progress. And, as I said, it does not stop the deletion discussion. If you take issue with the discussion, you may talk about it, on the deletion discussion, without deleting others comments or the nomination. Kevin_b_er 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC) -- passed on by --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my page! -- Lego@lost 05:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could you move my userboxes from the column on the right hand side to under the catgory userboxes, I'm having alot of trouble with it, Thanks! -- Lego@lost 06:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Dude -- Lego@lost 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gem pebbles pic

Please see here for my reply to your question - Adrian Pingstone 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment re Christopher Nathan Geary discussion

I have been going through the items on the verify list, and frequently recommending deletions. The ones that get left for long periods of time are vanity or advertising that asserts some sort of claim of notability that sounds somewhat plausible - like, "I created a special new type of martial art" or "I've won these awards and had these plays produced" - that take a good bit of special knowledge or research to really refute. If it is too much work, people will tag it with NPOV or verify and let it stay, and I can't blame them... --Brianyoumans 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA Question

I just figured I would let you know that I answered your RfA question. Thanks for posing such an interesting question. Let me know if you need clarification. Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 05:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Sure, if you want to, go right ahead. I'd appreciate the help, as i have no computer skills whatsoever; the warning is just so people don't write on the template which then appears on everyone's pages. But helpful additions and edits are moer than welcome. Edit away! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

74.117.200.10

They changed the victor from the vague "Muslims" to the more specific Ayyubid dynasty. You should pay more attention to the content of articles. Adam Bishop 05:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Amend AFD

No objections, thanks for the notice KnightLago 19:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

monkey

I made the negative comment about "monkey" a few minutes ago. I did not know i could be blocked from Wikipedia. Please do not block me, I promise it will not happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.34.28.54 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Help me out with a copyright tag

Copyright notice is to be found at http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/d00/copyrig.htm and there it says: urheberrechtlich geschützt - so none of the text or pictures found on the university pages might be used for Wikipedia as far as I understand. But for the book(s) the statements of the template might be true. In the link of the template search for PUBLIC DOMAIN and in that paragraph it says something like the text of the book are not that interesting but the pictures are still interesting for educational reasons and are put in the public domain...

I wrote an email to v.Sengbusch_Verlag(at)t-online.de who holds the copyrights of the pages and wait for an answer. --katpatuka 08:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

it requires a mindset for use

I liked that, I think that states the situation clearly at [1] Terryeo 14:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

An automated message from Werdnabot

Hi there, I tried to archive your user talk page, but it seems that you have an error in your Werdnabot directive that prevented me from correctly archiving your User talk page. Please review this error, or contact Werdna648 for assistance. Werdnabot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

oh that

Sorry I had to delete that section of talk, I stuffed it up. Now anyway... I got that Imaage from the article Diamond clipped it into Photo Editor and 'Blued' it. -- Lego@lost 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII FAC

Thanks for your input. I think I've managed to reduce the wikilinks to the most relevant. Please let me know if this addresses your concern and lifts the objection. Ryu Kaze 04:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That really did need to be done. It looks a lot better. Ryu Kaze 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner

Draicone ^(talk) 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

what?

- Looks good to me. "Actual Reality" is mentioned VERY breifly an almost inconsequentially in the article. The link that was readded was to a site with what appears to be a particular company's laser sensor (and possibly equipment). Its almost useless to the reader of the article. Also one of the diffs I checked with a brief arguement by the anon is a straw man arguement ("the other links are still there" and its relatives). Last, the other diff I saw with 5 or so links added is clearly not a good idea.

i'ven been called many things.. but thats a new one. really i gotta know

~whatever~ 

look i'm meeting you hippies halfway. --whatever 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For reverting vandalism of University of Texas at Austin, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Thank you! Johntex

RFA forum

I wonder if you were offended by me posting a vote on the RFA. I made some more edits, if you don't mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reggae Sanderz (talk • contribs) 01:49, July 13, 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Habbo

Haha, I see what you did there. Fight on, /b/rother.

California State Normal School article

Thanks for your support of this article, or at least nuetrality. It has been redirected by NeoChaosX. How can I find out if this was done with proper authority?

Also, you said you had saved the article for integration with the San Jose State University article. Can you do that? Thank You.

Michaelch7 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Orwell

All those pictures, which were entitled "...for non-profit, and/or educational purposes" have no actual copyright. I just labeled them so because i didn't want those pictures to be stripped of their source. Those images are scanned from The Road to 1984 by Peter Lewis—a comprehensive biography—and though the text was under copyright of the publisher, all the images were from the Orwell archive, which gives free license for those images.

Please save them, I believe them to be quite important to Orwell's life.

Tom Knapp of Lancaster Newspapers

Kevin,

I would like any additional encounters you've had with Mr. Tom Knapp for a matter of record. I have had an incredible crush on him for years. He is my type of man. Please forward it to thebrandnewcrow@gmail.com.

By the way, I do truck stops if you are interested.

Thank you very much.

Steve Markle 342 Hillside Terrace Leola, PA

I do truck stops if you're interested.

Speedy deletion of Operation Cactus-Lilly, explanation for contesting

Hi Kev, I don't think you noticed that Helibridge over Meghna redirects to Operation Cactus-Lilly anyway. They are the same operation, the latter page only gives the name of the operation. The contents were the same, so I redirected that page to Operation Cactus-Lilly. You can't merge it with the helibridge page since it doesn't actually exist anymore under that name.User:rueben_lys. PS: Know should've signed in, but don't have the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.159.185.5 (talk • contribs) 10:13, August 14, 2006 (UTC)

Universe Spam

Thanks for the heads-up, I hadn't encountered him/her before but I'll keep my eyes open. Cheers. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 03:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Border & Background

Could you please add a red border and a green background to my userpage, I can't do it. And yesterday I asked User: Master of Puppets to do it for me, he did it, but my text was shrunk and the border was not joined in places, and in some places was not even there, he said it displayed fine on his PC, could you do it? PS you can have a look at it, by clicking on the Master of Puppets version, it does not look good --Lego@lost 03:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

King of Thailand

It's a framed photo, not a painting. Adam 04:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's on public display in Bangkok. The photo is probably of official origin. But the photo uploaded to Wikipedia was taken by me and is tagged accordingly. Adam 09:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

I really do apologize: I meant to make one modest change in the introductory paragraph and somehow stupidly ended up reverting to an entire earlier version, complete with a multitude of differences I didn't mean to include. Sorry for the confusion.Hal Raglan 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper

You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of Artwp's vandalism

How come the summary says "Reverted edits by $2..." instead of "Reverted edits by Artwp..."?? Georgia guy 01:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Beat me to it

Flagged OpenOnline as a copyvio two seconds before I was about to. Sure wish the advertisers would go elsewhere. VoiceOfReason 03:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dinohunter

Hi Kevin,

I don't see a link between Dinohunter (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Universe Daily (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Could you please fill me in? --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  07:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the vandal revert on my page. Those silly vandals. :) --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,,,,

Dang. Thanks for catching that. Herostratus 06:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki/CC Image Copyright Questions

Would you please have a look at the CC image copyright question question posed at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Wiki.2FCC_Image_Copyright_Questions and chime in on the correct answer? Thanks -- Frothy 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

US housing bubble for featured article?

Thanks again for making the effort to provide comments and feedback on the US housing bubble article. As summarized at the page Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Response_to_objections_raised_above, I believe that all the objections and issues raised have been addressed. Would you please have a look and consider supporting this for "featured article" status? Especially given the (unfortunate) recent news (see, e.g., today's New York Times "most-emailed" Op-Ed "Housing Gets Ugly" here), this would be an especially timely featured article, and help "Wiki" live up to its speedy name. Frothy 02:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

dublin region

hey thanks for the template help. Yeah, its actually better not to say the dublin region part (because nobody does that). Can you help me do the trick you were talking about?

thanks again --RCSIRCSIRCSI 03:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry for my changes to Welcome page Kevin. I am creating my own Wiki, and am using Wikipedia as a guide... and accidently edited in wrong window (doh!). I was about to revert back my edits but you beat me - will be more carefulnext time! thanksJimmyem 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage revert

Thanks for reverting my userpage. I thought a 48-hour block would cool him off but I guess I was wrong. Oh well. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the fix --RCSIRCSIRCSI 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, do you happen to have admin privileges to add userboxes?

--RCSIRCSIRCSI 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sports journalism, List of sports writers, redirects of sportswriting

To Kevin Brietenstein: I restructured the Sports journalism page, created the List of sports writers page, and restructured the redirects of sportswriting and sports writing to help these pages fit better into the mix of journalism articles. Please don't revert to the previous version without discussing it on the talk pages first. Gladmax 23:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you redirected a page with a huge edit history to a redirect page. I mearly cut in moved the page because of a cut and paste move in progress. Kevin_b_er 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Yes, I made all those maps. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. I did reply here, but I guess Wikipedia wasn't working at the time. Thanks for asking again. I got the base map from Statistics Canada's website. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Defcon

Doc originally moved it per GUS. I'm adopting it for now, I won't be online for a little bit, so I recommend talking to him for now. Yanksox 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you about my cut-offs

Thank you for your advice/reassurance on my cut-off problem with carborane. I cut and paste data from technical sources, and these actions cause trouble because of some hidden embedden stuff that I have yet to figure out how to reveal. I am totally about content, but I apparently need to absorb more about methods if I want to go hard core WE. --Smokefoot 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Gulp, yes I have cut and pasted numbers (like a boiling point or a MW) but maybe I cannot do this. My sense was that numbers imply no creative content vs words from text (which should be strictly forbidden, as I observe). Specifically, where I was having troubles in carborane was cutting an 8-digit CAS reg # from a ChemAbs query and attempting to paste it into the article, since it is nice to have CAS # for each cmpd.

Oh, I do cut and paste journal references verbatim from searches, my own bibliographic database, and from journals tables of contents, i.e. page numbers. author lists. and titles. Usually such pastes require lots of cosmetic work by me. I suspect that if such actions were forbidden we would go back to the dark ages in WE-Chem where those without access to scholarly sources would rule content. But if what I am doing is incorrect or unethical, then let me know.--Smokefoot 02:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Drini and the CVU deletion

You, like so many other Wikipedians, seem to have felt that Drini's actions in the CVU deletion proccess were wholly inappropriate. As a result, I'm forming an ad-hoc group of sorts composed of people interested in removing Drini. If you'd like to be involved, just drop me a note. ShortJason 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit his deletion of the page was out of process, but such actions are not worth it. Kevin_b_er 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

13 digit ISBN

I looked at the following invalid isbn:

• J.K. Beatty, C.C. Petersen, A. Chaikin, ed. (1999). The New Solar System (4th ed.). Cambridge press. ISBN 9780521645874.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

It seemed completly invalid at first, until I realised. Its using the 13 digit ISBN number. Unfortunatly, most libraries doesn't appear to track 13 digit isbn numbers yet. Don't know if you're accounting for this yet or not. Kevin_b_er 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kevin, I'm working on it. It's one of the reasons I'm doing the project in the first place (see Template:Auto isbn). Thanks for the info. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52 1 September 2006 (GMT).

Thanks!

Thanks for your perspective with Bones_for_Life. It got really ugly there and it probably would have much better for all if I had sought out people such as yourself long ago. Thanks! --Ronz 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For your msg and for filing that report. I am trying to choose the lesser of evils (hate edit wars), but I am _not_ violating 3RR. A couple of things FYI: 1) ParadoxTom actually made 5 reverts and 2) I'm not suggesting that you should do this, but the article still needs to be reverted to the pre-Tom state as he removed a lot of WP:RS. Thanks again. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 05:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful question. I actually learned a lot about image policies in thinking about it, and, I can certainly say it's made me a better admin. Best Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 05:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RFCU request

OK, that's fine. I still haven't really gotten used to the new RFCU; I'm accustomed to just adding a section and not having it be so damn complicated. --Rory096 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

copyright reply

You raised a question regarding the wording of the licence grant associated with one of my photographs. I'm unsure what the position is internationally, but in the UK at least there is no conflict between me retaining all rights to a work, and granting you a specified subset of those rights under the GFDL. In other words I as licensor can continue to do what I like with the work, including exercise any new rights that are established in the future, such as signwriting it in the sky, or carving it on the face of Pluto. You as licensee may do any of the things allowed by the GFDL. Since the GFDL does not allow revocation, you can excercise those rights in perpetuity.

If this is a problem in another copyright domain, and not simply misunderstanding, can you point me to some references?--Shoka 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Animal names

Crap Well, I apologize for the headaches. I had no idea that the naming conventions were inconsistent about capitalization. I feel like an idiot. So sorry, Kevin. I'll try to be more careful in the future. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiger book

In response to your question on the Talk page of Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs, about the tiger book, I'd say you have done everything you can do to identify the reference. The main India national library seems not to have an online catalog. I have been replacing invalid and unfixable ISBNs with the phrase 'No ISBN available', sometimes with an explanation on the article's Talk page. Otherwise we'll be carrying along these unusable ISBNs indefinitely. See some discussion on Rich Farmbrough's Talk page... By the way thanks for adding that colon on my user page! EdJohnston 03:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cicero's Pizza

I've significantly modified that content and added an additional WP:CORP compliant ref. I figured 2 months was more then enough time to wait to give it another go. Gateman1997 04:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mito2005

I see that you reverted vandalism by this user on the Rudolf Vrba page. However, you did not give him a warning, and he is most certainly in need of one. His edits---i.e., repeatedly putting the number 88 in the article---are of a blatant neo-Nazi nature, and this is not the first time he has done so. All of his edits have been of this type. I fail to understand why he did not receive warnings in the past. At any rate, if you would give him a stern warning, I think it would be a good idea. Thanks. ---Charles 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Please be careful when reporting as you removed the header for the page. --Deenoe 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBNs starting with 6

As I understand it, no ISBN should start with a 6, it is a reserved range. I've looked unsuccesfully for information about other books published by the same people, perhaps you could email the publishers? Rich Farmbrough, 10:28 13 September 2006 (GMT).

There are a lot of google hits for "ISBN 6" but not as many as if it were valid...

Rich Farmbrough, 11:10 13 September 2006 (GMT).

Hi Kevin. See my note about ISBN 6 at [2]. EdJohnston 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Creek people

Thanks for the help on Creek people. It takes me forever to look up the info I need to report and deal with problems; best way is to learn by example, and now I see what to do. Bruce H. McCosar 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the use of ==== on the RFCU page. I didn't realise it was you, and I removed the possibly-misleading comment, because (as you correctly pointed out) the submitted of the request will probably be confused. I must remember to check the history in future :D. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Seabirds ISBN on Bonaparte's Gull

Hi Kevin, I just noticed you were the previous editor on this bad ISBN. I decided to just PICK one of Peter Harrison's books. Left a note for Jimfbleak who I figure must be the one who contributed the reference. EdJohnston 04:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"thrown out" template

Thanks for letting me know, it could come in handy. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent mass removal of links in arcade games

While I'm not the editor who recently added those links, I do have to say their removal is questionable. Those are not links to any of a bazillion fansites (which I agree should not be listed), but to the actual arcade flyers (the glossy promo's manufacturers used to promote the game to vendors and operators) for those games stored at the major image repository for arcade flyers on the web. I'd say the Arcade Flyer Archive and KLOV are the two largest and most referenced (including in wikipedia) arcade game sites on the web. --Marty Goldberg 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

While I won't argue the possible spamming (though being located in the same city is circumstantial at best), I do have to address this comment: "What relevance does it add the historical signifigance(sp)?" As a writer and site director of a major commercial website in this genre, I can say it has a large significance when discussing and informing about arcade platform games. These flyers represent the commercial viewpoint of the manufacturer and its vision for the game (which is a commercial product). This includes relevant vendor and operator info (if you're not familiar with the coin-op terms, vendor is the distributor or "middle man" and operator is the end location - i.e. the arcade owner), specifications (including design advancements, settings, available formats such as standup, cocktail, cabaret, etc.), artwork, designer info and more. This is also why these types of materials are frequently referenced and presented in books, articles, and references on the subject. --Marty Goldberg 20:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I support Kevin's decision to remove the links. The anonymous IP was clearly attempting to promote the site, regardless of the geographic location. I think it's important to be careful when removing spam, but the burden is ultimately on whoever wants to include the link to show that it is useful, not on Kevin to show that the link isn't possibly relevant to each article.

If Mr. Goldberg wants add the links to a few articles where he finds it appropriate, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But in general I oppose allowing blatantly promotional links to remain when they are borderline-relevant, because it encourages spammers to throw spam links onto many articles in the hope that some of them will stick. Wmahan. 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I also find removal of these links to be an over-reaction. Arcade flyers are a legitimate addition to the historical discussion of arcade games. I find nothing commercial about the site, and nothing blatantly promotional about the links. All arcade game articles should have the flyer included, wherever it is available.Edgewise 13:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If this pattern of edits isn't blatantly promotional, can you explain what would be promotion in your view? One IP added dozens of links to one commercial site, inserting the links at the top of the list, and sometimes adding more than one link. As Kevin explained, there is further circumstantial evidence to suggest an affiliation with the site. I'm all for being judicious in the removal of spam, but this seems like a clear-cut case to me. As far as I know no one is talking about removing links added in good faith. Wmahan. 14:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view, "blatant promotion" occurs when the link contributes nothing to the understanding of the topic. I do not consider it promotion merely on the basis on the number of times a contributor has posted links. I would hope we are a little more thoughtful than that.Edgewise 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My view is more towards Edgewise's, but regardless - long before you guys all started responding this had been moved on to my talk page and discussed further. :) --Marty Goldberg 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image Copyright Change (via)

Could you please provide a link to the page that you're referring to? I have no idea what you're talking about, considering that I've been working on images that are tagged with PD, which is deprecated. Since you didn't provide me with a link to an actual image, I can't say one way or another, but if I remember correctly, Texas' library of images contained a number of photos of old (over 100 years) works of art. Thus, I tagged them with PD-art, as the guidelines recommend. Anything that was ambiguous - or that I was unable to determine the exact copyright state of - I left unchanged. --Jeresig 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues with some External Links but not others. Why?

Kevin

This is Dan. I registered as a Wikipedia user and also realized that you have been policing the video game entries regarding external links. I also read the fine print about Wikipedia not being a links directory and while I appreciate that policy, your pattern of editing/omitting external link entries suggests you prefer certain external link sources over others. Is this true? And if so why?

I own the The Arcade Flyer Archive. It is the only library of video game flyers in existence, and provides authentic 'visual' documentation of these games. My contributions do not spam Wikipedia. I wouldn't dream of wasting my time. The flyers are unique documentation. Anyone doing research just might find value in TAFA as reference to the video entries on Wiki.

I will concede and apologize that some of my earlier contributions were 'incorrect'. I didn't understand Wiki's rules at the time. I want to continue my contributions but won't if you are going to continue specifically omit them.

If you aren't going to allow links from The Arcade Flyer Archive which is a free, non-commercial database of information, then you shouldn't allow links from KLOV and certainly not Moby Games. Their databases are more redundant with the Wikipedia entries than TAFA is.

--Dan

As you'll see, there was a discussion regarding this in the next section up here and on my talk page. I think their issue (from what I got out of it) was that so many additions from a single person at a single time were being done that it constituted spam. Admittedly, they also weren't familiar with the material being added or the legitimacy of your site as a reference. I think it would be a mistake to remove links to references at KLOV, Moby, or your site, as they are all valuable retro gaming history references that have been such since long before Wikipedia was around. --Marty Goldberg 17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance

An individual named MookiesDad has issues with my placing a link to my FanFic site as Externals in the two articles about that character/series; and now I find he's been inserting the link at Fan Fiction after deleting it from the more relevant and appropriate location. (See Talk:Tom Swift, Jr. and Talk:Tom Swift--and if you dare, User talk:Doxmyth which despite its name is his work, not mine. I don't regard links to individual FanFic sites as appropriate to a page on what Fan Fiction is as a general phenomenon. I have RfC'd the content issue, and have just WP:PAIN-ed the man himself. All of which is to say--thanks for deleting the link to my Tom Swift FanFic from the general Fan Fiction article. -Scott Dickerson 67.101.86.109 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

SVG logos

Thanks for that info. I have since reworded the text of that message to indicate that CSD I7 does not take effect until the uploader is notified, and I have added an option to link to a replacement PNG. --  Denelson83  22:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding RFCU

Regarding this technical evidence, could you email it to me (using the email link from my wikipedia login)? This is in case you are concerned about privacy issues.Hkelkar 22:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me who does so that I may contact him/her and ask for the records?Hkelkar 22:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: My talk page

Thanks for alerting me about that. I have read it and responded to the user. Cheers. Iolakana•T 11:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infotech Strategies

I completely rewrote the thing, so I thought you may want to reconsider your vote. Cheers. Zocky | picture popups 07:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

This problem was resolved by Cantankrus. The images at USHMM may have been renumbered -- he located the updated URL. --Rrburke 03:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, then. I wrote to the USHMM for information on the provenance of the image, though it's unlikely it'll quiet objections from those editors, doubtless with Nazi sympathies, whose objective is to debunk the photo, not to confirm its authenticity.

I had a couple of questions I'd be interested to hear your opinion on: first, the image as it appears at the USHMM appears to be sepia-tinted, whether from age of the original I don't know. Do you think the version displayed at Einsatzgruppen needs to be identical and unedited? My second question involves cropping: there exist versions of the image that include more onlookers to the left and right. The common practice when displaying less than the entire canvas of a work of art, for instance, is to add the text "(detail)" to the caption. Do you think it would be appropriate to do that here? Personally, I'm of two minds about it: it's a faithful reproduction of the image as it appears from the cited source, so on that score I'm uncertain adding "(detail)" to the caption is necessary. On the other hand, since larger versions of the image do exist, it might be worth conceding that this is a cropped version of a larger original. What's your take?

P.S. Have you read the FAQ from the USHMM? It concerns me a little. An excerpt reads:

3. May I put images or text from this Web site on a CD-ROM or general access Web site?

No, unless permission has been obtained in advance from the Museum. The permission of a third party may also be required.

http://www.ushmm.org/priv_acc/index.php?content=disclaimer/

--Rrburke 00:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rrburke: see also this one Image:Nordhausen camp.JPG, which is also from USHMM. After contact with them, it ended up with a Creative Commons license. Who knows if we should stick with PD-US for stuff like this, and take the 1923 line off of the template. I'd like to hear what the museum says about this. DVD+ R/W 00:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: {{subst:nsd}}

Ok. I've deleted a bunch of these, but haven't done the tagging. What do you think of this one Image:Queensbridge.jpg? -- I'm hesitant because I like the picture but it has no source info, it should probably be done though. Is there any document on our image source policy? something like Wikipedia:Image source. There probably should be if were deleting so many. Regards, DVD+ R/W 07:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout this one Image:Tucker.JPG? Promo photos need source info too, right? DVD+ R/W 23:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the template for reminding users? DVD+ R/W 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I found it mysef {{image source}}. See ya, DVD+ R/W 01:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note. Still getting the feel of the forum. Cheers, Redux 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:PUI

[3] I think of WP:PUI as "Pictures under Investigation". Dr Zak 16:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Importing a Word article

Good to hear back. The equations are inserted via Microsoft's Equation Editor, which appears to be actually somebody else's program that Microsoft licenses. It's not so much the equations generated that way, but the use of the Word Symbol font to generate arrows, deltas, and some other greek letters commonly found in chemistry articles, to say nothing about the subscripts and superscripts for many substances or formulae. I have no author programs except Microsoft Word, Excel, and the simple text editor programs that come with any PC (WordPad, NotePad, etc.). I'm tempted to complete the article, set a bid to RentAcoder, and see if I can find some third-world person to reformat the entire article and insert it in Wikipedia for me. My time is more valuable than what I would pay the coder. 12.72.56.152 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're IP address changes too much(It was 12.72.57.69 and now its 12.72.56.152), so there's no direct way to contact you other than this page.(Unless you register) If you can publish the document somewhere and direct me to it, I'll gladly convert it for free. Respond here or at the help desk. Kevin_b_er 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Document conversion

Dear KB: This is a nice offer. I will proceed on the assumption that I can get you or someone else to convert the article. There are so many "free" or "trivial cost" word processing programs out there a;ready that I would have thought somebody would have developed one (or modified one) specifically for WikiArticles. Basically, I need to do my composing off-line so a WP program that could be used by an aspiring author to work off-line would be nice.12.72.57.52 23:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been pieces of it here and there, but nothing major yet. I know of many professionals at large who write their documents in $\mathrm {L\!\!^{{}_{\scriptstyle A}}\!\!\!\!\!\;\;T\!_{\displaystyle E}\!X}$(LaTeX). The equations from latex can be into wikitext, enclosed in <math></math> tagging, and it will work most times (though it may need to be slightly fixed to get it work). Also, if you're working on an article, please make sure to include lots of references. We value everything being well cited and without original research. If you can, reference everything. Kevin_b_er 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in

Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Floating message boxes

Thanks for your response ( wikipedia:helpdesk#How to vary width of messagebox? ). Is it is possible to float the box? I have the float attr. in the code but it is not being executed; the box remains in center of page. Obviously I got the syntax wrong. Bardwell 10:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please respond

You are insisting that there is a content dispute at redshift on the FAC, but you haven't said what the content dispute entails or how we can actionably work to resolve your objection. Therefore, please respond to my request at the FAC. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Of course global NPOV concerns are still worrisome, but we have other featured articles that have such concerned that seem to do okay (e.g. Big Bang). --ScienceApologist 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Passports

answered. `'mikka (t) 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your allegation of 3RR against me.

I obviously do not understand the word revert because the 3 reverts I understood I had undertaken were all designed to restore tags removed against process as per the policy shown at pui. The revert I got blocked for was actually removing the tags from two images where their free status had been established and I had withdrawn the nomination. Clearly I was foolish editing the section 4 times in 24 hours duringa dispute but I would have hoped that you might have actually checked to see what I was doing rather than just rely on the fact that I had edited the section 4 times during a dispute.

The allegation of sockpuppetry is unfounded and I have necroed the denied request myself asking to have it done to clear my name. Once this has happened I will be leaving the project because the whole affair has left a very sour taste in my mouth.

I don't expect you to apologise for your actions because I am sure you believe that you were acting in good faith, but I would like you to make sure that the images in the passport gallery are all cleaned up as I won't be around to finish the job myself. Spartaz 15:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

'Ello

I'm sorry, but what's a null edit en masse? I'm new here, so please forgive me. ^_^;

Ok...

I don't see anything wrong with what I did. But that's just me.

Personal page image idea

Hello again KB, I wonder if you could find me an image that is available to be displayed on my page, perhaps of WWE's Kane with his mask & old costume worn? Thanks :).

Hi Kevin

Yes, auto isbn is still a bit broken - It was a bit broken and I broke it more trying to fix it, and have now gone back to a bit broken again. Will let you know when fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:43 6 September 2006 (GMT).

Hi Kevin, should work now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28 6 September 2006 (GMT).

Woah Nelly!

Hi Kevin, WerdnaBot has archieved your entire talk page including the Werdnabot code! You may want to investigate. Also I left a note about template auto isbn, let me know if you have any problems with it.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:37 8 September 2006 (GMT).

Chapter Zero

For some reason I've never been able to put my finger on, most IT people have an immature, bad attitude. Maybe it's the Hot Pockets, maybe it's absemce of women, or the broader social neglect, but I've seen it for years. Forum moderators, IRC operators, newsgroup junkies. Maybe Lumburg strips their dignity away so power on a website is a first class ticket to flexing muscle. Either way, thanks for not being yet-another IT asshole.

The Chapter Zero company page was deleted after a single person, who was not an administrator, put it up for discussion and I repeatedly removed the AfD block. The discussion was never concluded or even conducted. Someone felt that if I didn't want an AfD conversation, they'd just remove the article entirely.

Chapter Zero, Inc. has thousands of clients, many of which search for information about our complex company. Many of our Entertainment division clients have extensive articles on their band on Wikipedia, which are not challenged at all. Such pages include discography information. Part of that information is who directed and designed the production of their CD packages- and it was Chapter Zero.

Chapter Zero is one of *the* most influential companies in the indie rock genre. Indie doesn't mean independent anymore either, our top 10 clients are platinum artists. That being the case, our company is at the very least "notable." There's no discussion to be had about it. Because some Hot Pocket-scarffing IT dude doesn't know anything about the music industry does not mean the company isn't notable. In fact, it's a huge insult.

And if those are the standards that Wikipedia operates by- credibility is determined by the narrow knowledge of individual tech guys- the project is a failure and I certainly won't contribute to it. In fact, I'll do all that I can to spite it just as it has chosen to spite me and the company I have worked so hard to make "notable."

Thanks!

Hey thanks for the update! :) I'd copied it from Illyanep's template ages ago and have been substituting it (user:Nichalp/sysop) for more than a year now without realising that it still linked to the VFD page. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»=

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infotech Strategies

Hello everyone, there seem to have been some misunderstanding. I began the page as a project and the information currently on the page is completely wrong. I would like to delete the entire page because the information currently on is incorrect. Most of the people listed with the company where never employees of the company, and info tech never took over any corporate entities. The company is also not a lobby group. I apologize for the whole mix up, and I would grateful if this page could be deleted. I am trying to avoided damaging a good company image with faulty informationL-KHNY