User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive 25

Re: Jimbo is coming to Sydney

Thanks for the heads up. I haven't been as active in Wikipedia as I would like to have been, partially because I'm in Canada which is the major reason I won't be at the Wikimeet. jnothman ^talk 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On the same topic, I'd like to come as well, and if you could possibly forward me the consensus on the time and place, when a descision has been made. Thankyou and best regards, --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Any word on when Jimbo might be free? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Instant gratification! Thanks. Ben Aveling 08:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts to Windows 2000

Hey, just letting you know that you are very close to breaking WP:3RR, but I'm not going to block you. Take it easy next time. — Alex^(T|C|E) 09:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Only thing keeping you from it is the 24 hour time frame. — Alex^(T|C|E) 09:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did consider warning him, however I read over the edit summary, and I tell you, I've seen much worse ones. That one wasn't half bad. As for the SVG logo, look on the Windows XP page, there's an SVG logo there. — Alex^(T|C|E) 07:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yuor AfD nominations today

What are you thinking by nominating decent articles like Architecture of Btrieve and USA PATRIOT Act, Title II with half-irrational reasons? I will close all of them by midnight (UTC+10) unless you can say more sensibly what deletion reason you have. (Right to vanish doesn't count BTW.) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 11:09Z

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architecture of Btrieve

Giant Big Breath Break Pictured left: A very cutely confused wolf spotted on my user page, previously quoted as saying "What's going on?" Sometimes, Wikipedia processes just plain don't make sense. Sometimes, thinking really hard about Wikipedia processes may make one's head spin, and it may cause unprecedentedly alarming nausea and dizziness. Sometimes, the Machinery breaks, and causes Really Weird Things, Unjust Things, Bad Things and Awful Things to happen. This may have been one such occasion. But, you know, things tend to fix themselves - at least in long run. We all feel fits of rage, but instead of those, it is often more productive to just calmly take a look at what's wrong and fix things in a calm and orderly fashion. It really does save a lot of trouble in the end. A slightly wounded article doesn't need a killing blow, it just needs the same care it has been given previously. Lastly, happy editing. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I know. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear

that you're feeling disillusioned by Wikipedia and its editors right now. I'd suggest a break from it; a break is better than total burnout, that's for sure. If you want to talk, email me through Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've done something as insane as to speedy keep AfDs that you opened. Will you forgive me? —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 12:48Z

I'm sorry that things haven't been going too well. Yeah, what Morven said. On an unrelated note, do you happen to know how Foomatic got its name? Is it merely derived from a certain variable name, or is it a backronym? Andjam 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, hope you're well, and maybe see you tomorrow?!

Hi Ta bu - i don't think we've ever crossed paths (i'm a little wiki gnome really....), but i've noticed you around and it's nice to say hello! - i don't know much about the stresses you seem to be having above, but hopefully you're doing well.

I came here from the wiki meetup page, where i'm excited to note there's something planned for tomorrow arvo. - my reading of it is that i'll see you guys at 5 ish on the Town Hall steps - myself and a friend will be joining the gang for drinks / food / whatever debauchery is involved in a wiki-meetup (add usual nervous giggle of a meetup virgin......) - let me know if there's anything else i need to do or know, and hopefully it won't be as damp as today......

cheers ta bu... Petesmiles 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Playing up

Thank you, Ta bu shi da yu. I added a parameter which should make the bot function better. Also, I never heard the phrase "playing up" before. That was neat! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 07:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Wiki-Meetup

G'day Chris! I am bitterly dissapointed that I was unable to attend the third meetup and meet the God King himself. I see from the pics that you grown goatee, nice (but what does you misses think of it?) So, what did you discuss? Did you find out gossip worth sharing? What were Jimbo's plans for Wikipedia and Wikimedia for future? Any future meetups plan in the near future? Looking forward to your reply. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

MDAC

Article has been reassessed to Mid-importance. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation bug

Hi Chris, Your citation bug should hopefully be fixed now. You might have to wait a week or so before the version on the servers gets updated for it to take effect though. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 08:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle meetup

Newcastle Meetup

You're invited! --One Salient Oversight 15:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I read your comment. Is that a definite indication you're coming? --One Salient Oversight 11:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Always welcome, friend --Altruism^{To talk} 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MASH Goodbye.jpg

Hello Ta bu shi da yu, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:MASH Goodbye.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/ArchiveLeavingWikipediaResponse. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Atlanta city seal.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Atlanta city seal.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Iaaf logo.PNG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Iaaf logo.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:IRiver logo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:IRiver logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Windows xp file associations.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows xp file associations.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Moe ε 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominating articles for AfD

Please follow all the instructions for creating AfD pages. Your nominations for Captain Hareblower and Afternoon Fun were not created correctly. Be sure to user {{subst:Afd2}} on the article's deletion discussion page, rather than making a header, and add the page to the log using {{subst:afd3}}. The full templates appear in the AfD box on articles you nominate making it easier to do. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• The problem was strictly with the {{subst:afd2}} tags on these two pages, plus three more, which I have fixed. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was quick!! It took me half a second to fix. It's been the proceedure for nominating for AFD for a few months at least. See WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. The only major change I've seen is that there used to be a link to a preloaded debate in the AFD box on a page that you nominate. I found that convenient. Anyway, carry on! Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Academics and the Wikipedia, nupedia, citizendium

Ouch!

I think you might have misread me, my friend--or at least my intention. As a proud wikipedian (I started a featured article and took care of most of the proofing to get it over the top), my goal was to find a model that fits with the real economics of academic life. You don't have to like it, but it is a fact that professional participation in the Wikipedia depends on finding a model that provides some kind of incentive for professionals to take part.

The great mystery of the Wikipedia--I mean in the Catholic sense--is how well it works. Having run quite a number of wikis, I can tell you that professional ones on the whole do not work as well. My argument was (I thought):

1. The Wikipedia is a fantastic success no matter how academics put it down
2. The key to the Wikipedia's success is the low barrier to entry
3. Since the Wikipedia is increasingly the first place novices turn to discover something about a subject, it is in all out interests to make sure it is accurate
4. Current academic models do not make it worth any one academic's while to moderate pages in their expertise. Those that do--like myself--do it pro-bono
5. Recognising that this IS a public service is a way of making academic participation respectable.

My own view is both that the Wikipedia could not--and should not--become the preserve of professional academics. They would ruin its strength, and the economics are against it any way. But academics should--and could--be far less suspicious of the Wikipedia if they realise what an important statement it represents about amateur interest in the type of thing professional scholars do for a living.

If anything in the above is arrogant--as opposed to attempting to diagnose and solve a real world problem--I apologise.

Newcastle Meetup

Full details are here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Newcastle/Newcastle 1. There was only two of us, which was disappointing since 2 other Novacastrians indicated their intentions to go. Newcastle is a small city so it doesn't really surprise me that numbers were low. It was also wet and cold and people are probably still repairing their houses. But we both had a good time. It would've been great to see you there but, given the numbers, it was probably good you stayed in Sydney! I'll make sure I go to the next Sydney Meetup. I'm going to try another Newcastle Meetup in September. --One Salient Oversight 13:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably see you next month. I've already made an executive decision to have another Sydney Meetup. --One Salient Oversight 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Ta bu, no, I didn't get it. Can you resend? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The admins' channel? Give me a few minutes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block of User:124.185.80.216

High five! Keep fighting the good fight! --Kizor 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks. As I've pointed out elsewhere, I can't actually reveal any information about that editor, since I know absolutely nothing about them. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:CharlotteWebb

Hi there; I have come away from the WP:RfA page because, as you say, the discussion on open proxies is no longer appropriate there.

May I say two things; firstly, in self-defence, I did not originally ask her why she was using a TOR-proxy; I only pointed out that having said she could answer the question posed, she had not done so. She is clearly a good editor, and I had hoped that her answer would prevent the oppose pile-on.

Secondly, she could have answered immediately with an answer such as "I am in a geographical/political/personal situation where I am obliged to use TOR". I would not, very obviously, ask her to say that was a resident of Beijing with the thought police at her door. But by her persistent failure to give any answer at all she gives the impression (at least to me) that she is using an open proxy by choice, and as you know full well this is against wiki policy. Whether the policy is a good policy is really beside the point; it exists, and admins should in my view abide by it unless there are sensible extenuating circumstances. None have been provided. Charlotte appears to be a good editor, and if she would give a sensible answer to the question "why TOR" then I, and I suspect many others, would reverse their votes.

I do accept that the question asked relating to proxy editing was, as you say, wholly out of order, and the editor in question should have done it via e-mail to the applicant or perhaps to Arbcom members. But once the situation is exposed, it has to be resolved, and I have got to say that Charlotte's ad hominem approach has not helped her.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:USA PATRIOT Act/History

If you do not restore its move. I will move it again. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Namespace, and Wikipedia:Article. Mkdw^talk 09:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very stead-fast policy about remaining civil, not only in your messages to other users, but also in your edit summaries. Cursing and swearing can be seen as disruption to Wikipedia which can lead to being blocked for a period of time. I highly recommend you try to treat others as you wish to be treated. You should also know that all content on Wikipedia, including content in your user namespace is still open for free editing by anyone at anytime. You may wish to read over Wikipedia:Namespace if you missed this greatly emphasized point in it. Also, no one per say, owns Wikipedia or its content. Please read WP:OWN. The fact that you are the major contributor, creator, and user whose namespace the information is under, still means you have written something to a wiki. Its then free content to which anyone has the right to edit, arrange, modify, and even sell as per Wikipedia's agreement. Mkdw^talk 10:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Patriot Act, etc etc.

[illegitimate warning removed]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're becoming confused. The warning is about your edits to the article Wikipedia as stated above in the warning. Also, WP:POINT is about action taken to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Reverting vandalism and moving articles to their proper namespace is not disruptive and I should say its the other way around. Please try and calm down with out making threats to other users. Be civil and let's find some common ground. Mkdw^talk 10:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt you needed to go to the WP:AN/I about this misunderstanding. I have left my experience of what happened in the same section as your filed complaint. Please understand that my motivations were not for disruption, but to revert vandalism and to maintain the structure of Wikipedia. I spend a considerable amount of time on the Wikipedia doing so. In the circumstances surrounding this incident if you had explained that it was a draft and had been working on it in a WikiProject or user namespace, nothing would have come except the edits to the article Wikipedia which I did not apply a warning as I assumed it was an error. Assuming good faith will take you a long way and most likely avoid many situations of a similar nature. Also, regarding your lost edits, if a page is modified while you're editing, it will inform you of such changes before erasing your changes. If not you can always click the 'back' button and it should bring you back to your edit screen with your modified text. Mkdw^talk 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia edit

Thanks Ta bu. Don't worry, I knew that you weren't vandalising or anything like that, I just wondered what had happened. I hope everything is sorted out now. Take care, Sarah 11:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image----Plz. help

Hi Ta bu shi da yu! I request your help with respect to an image and a party logo(infobox) in the article Lok Satta (party). The article is about a political party in India, which is involved in an awareness and membership drive. Its website is http://www.loksattaparty.com.

The issue is regarding, how I could upload the relevant image on the Wikipedia page, without violating Wikipedia's restrictions regarding "image use". Would an email permission from their official website suffice? Hoping to hear from you soon, Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 11:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Morgan spurlock.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Morgan spurlock.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Past

Misunderstandings happen. It was a teacher who was a hero of mine that said, "it is not how get into bad situations that makes us great, but how we look to get past them". I've always looked up to that advice and I'm better for it. I made a reply on Talk:Wikipedia of my take on the situation, both the cons and the pros. Mkdw^talk 08:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Ta. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Roving wiretap

I wouldn't have thought so, try some imaginative google searches. SGGH ^speak! 08:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit's death

I'm aware of your intent, and appreciate it, but the main Signpost editors are able to write an article without adding sensationalist elements, and if such elements persist in the article, I will remove them or re-write the article if necessary. The reason I removed that comment is because I felt, as worded, that it might be read as inflammatory (even though I'm sure you didn't mean it to be so), and that that might be enough to spark another forest fire, like the one that happened about a month ago on the page, when users started arguing with one another, and my attempts to stop it only made it worse. Ral315 » 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Way to go. Removing comments before discussing with the editor rarely assists the process. I could clarify the comment, but unless I'm asked and it gets removed then I can't address the problem. Frankly, I find this sort of approach to be appalling, and a little insulting because it is assuming that I'm trying to inflame a situation. It would be nice for people to assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message on my talk page. By the time that I saw the comments on the signpost tipline, Benoit's death had been confirmed by police and reported in every television and newspaper in the country -- in fact, the story of the strange Wikipedia edits had been reported too. Hence my confusion about your comments! --JayHenry 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kuenseonline-ss-05june27wiki.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kuenseonline-ss-05june27wiki.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Hi, you available for an IRC or Gmail chat? -- Cat ^chi? 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dalkowski FAR

Steve Dalkowski has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The replacement of Image:Windows 2000 Professional.png

has been discussed at User talk:Akhristov#Windows screenshots and User talk:Tyomitch#Windows screenshots. You are invited to join the discussion if you have any objections to the new image. --tyomitch 09:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You might wanna discuss it on Tyomitch's talk page. The discussion there is longer. I moved your comment from my talk page to that one for you. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued at Image talk:Windows 2000 Professional.png --tyomitch 19:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

Ta bu shi da yu, are you asserting that the bot is malfunctioning or acting outside its approval? Or are you asserting that you don't agree with the policy from which the bot works? If it's the former, I suggest you make that clear and explain why you think so, or else I'm going to unblock the bot. (Also posted in the WP:AN thread.) --bainer (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am now going to unblock this bot per consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Advise requested on User:BetacommandBot. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I blocked this same bot just over a month ago for pretty much the same problems, and received a fair amount of criticism. At that time the decision was to halt the bot for a few weeks and try to resolve some of the issues. If you want you can read the old discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG and [1]. - SimonP 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: BetaCommandBot

I think it's absurd that the fair use criteria applies to logos. And I'm the guy who started deleting masses of TIME covers unilaterly. However, I blocked indefinitely while it got sorted out. That's why I put the comments on WP:AN - for full and transparent action, to be reversed if the decision was wrong. I then discovered my wife is pregnant (truly!) and so to be honest I forgot all about the issue... probably not the greatest moment to have blocked a bot.

I should point out that the bot did this.

One last comment: should we be allowing a user to run a bot when they disguise their signature, and don't respond to messages about their bot? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is an example of the bot malfunctioning, which is a good reason to block a bot. Disagreeing with the policy under which a bot is operating, however, is not a good reason to block a bot. You need to have the policy changed first. The last point probably relates more to the bot approval process, but if you thought it was relevant, you really should have brought it up at the time you made the block; all that people reading the WP:AN discussion had to go on was what you said there. --bainer (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Ta bu shi da yu, that’s a massive priority. --Van helsing 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Worst ostrylians

They're all the same, kev, allan, we have the data - you ask a name we dig :| SatuSuro 08:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

lol Ta bu shi da yu 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

anecdotal evidence is that he has a network that does that - but then the other side clearly do the same - Perth is a very small place in the end, sigh SatuSuro 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ljhooker logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ljhooker logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This notice looks problematic. I have responded on the noticeboard, though. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: BetaCommandBot redux

That bot keeps playing up. I only recently got told that the L.J. Hooker logo was an orphaned image when was is not. See my user talk page. The bot seems to have stopped now, but seriously: this bot is far too disruptive. It often plays up and people have to go cleaning up after its mess. I blocked it for a short time this time for disruption, Sir Nicholas seems to believe that it's not going to reoccur so I have unblocked. Still... I'm not particularly impressed.

The other thing I'm not impressed with is Betacommand's signature. For someone who runs a bot that tags so many images, you'd think that he wouldn't disguise his signature. It confused me the first time he replied to WP:AN (I didn't realise it was him), so I wonder how many new users or at least inexperienced users he's confused.

Overall, things don't look too good in this department. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to be some issues with identifying orphans when the bot was first approved for that task, see this. I just noticed the current ANI thread; I suggested there that the bot stop using dumps (which seems to be the cause of 99% of problems with orphan tagging, since the data is just out of date) and use the API instead. --bainer (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Harry_Potter_refs

Writing as the editor of your mouse picture ... :-) ... do you mind if I speedy close this TfD? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed {{HPFref}} and {{HPQref}} are not nominated for deletion, I suppose you overlooked those? —AldeBaer 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And what about {{HP6ref}} and {{HP7ref}}? Btw, I manually "substed" those to not use {{HP ref}} anymore. —AldeBaer 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The template talk pages link to —hopefully all— the templates. Since the TfD is going to result in a keep (and since I agree that the number of different templates is unnecessary), what do you think of my alternative idea to create a single template with the individual references as parameters? I'd implement it if people think it's an idea. —AldeBaer 08:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean wrt template inside another template, even if it appears to be technically allowed, it still hurts my aesthetic feeling. I think I'm just going to go ahead with that single template idea and boldly instate it in the articles sometime soon. —AldeBaer 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw: {{HP unlinked}} {{HP1 unlinked}} {{HP2 unlinked}} {{HP3 unlinked}} {{HP4 unlinked}} {{HP5 unlinked}} {{HP6 unlinked}} {{HP7 unlinked}} {{HPF unlinked}} {{HPQ unlinked}} —AldeBaer 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And: {{HP1}} {{HP2}} {{HP3}} {{HP4}} {{HP5}} {{HP6}} {{HP7}} {{HPF}} {{HPQ}} —AldeBaer 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit on Wikipedia

Good thoughts. I've always wondered why mirror sites exist. -- Altiris Exeunt 13:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never really thought of that. Now that you mention it, they always trace their texts back to here. Ayah, I think I perspective on mirror sites has just changed drastically. -- Altiris Exeunt 13:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Will you PLEASE leave that article alone?

"Tyomitch, the only thing that you have contributed to the Windows 2000 article is a change to the first screenshot, which was controversial anyway and to be honest, not necessary at all. Perhaps do some real work on the article before making changes like that one?"

Why, I also uploaded the logo used in the top infobox, that was back in 2005. Does that make me eligible to add screenshots to the article? --tyomitch 07:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Briefing

I've noticed your work on the Gordon Cheng article, so I was wondering if could take a look at the current debate to delete The Briefing article.Knobbly 06:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles that are more comprehensive than on Encyclopedia Britannica as miscellanea for deletion. -Icewedge 05:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Re:this - congrats. Raul654 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Offical complaint to the BBC

Hey. I was just reading about and saw the complaint that you sent to the BBC with regards to the Scott Mills Show. I just wondered if you still had the reply (if they sent one) as I would be interested to see it. Thanks  Tiddly Tom  21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, No problem. Thanks  Tiddly Tom  16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Hi. Featured Article Review should help you, I think, by attracting more people to look for and add sources. Don't mix it up with Featured Article Removal which is a different thing altogether. SP-KP 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I'm a long time editor too and still learn new things regularly. Good luck with the referencing work. SP-KP 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Infra Corporation

Hi TBSDY I added your Infra Corporation from WP:AFC article into the mainspace. If you want to you can put a {{COI}} tag on it, but it may be better to let your competitors loose onto it! Graeme Bartlett 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu shi da yu--Regarding ITSM, yeah, I think that there really needs to be something that doesn't end up to be a spamlist. Not that there aren't a lot of companies on the Pink list, but at least there is a filter. Tjarrett 14:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AFC

You posted a question on my talk page about AFC. Please ask it on WP:WPAFC. As for the article you propose, read WP:COI and the links from that page for guidance. If there is a related article, consider discussing your proposal on the related article's talk page. Consider creating a draft on a user-subpage, perhaps [[User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/proposal]] or something like that.

I notice your username is not English. This is the English Wikipedia. If the company is notable only in non-English-speaking parts of the world, or only has minor notability in English-speaking countries, consider that it may not meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria for the English Wikipedia, but it might be entirely appropriate for another-language Wikipedia.

If you do create your own article directly, make sure it follows the WP:PILLARS, especially notability and NPOV. Also, put a disclaimer on the article talk page that the original version was created by an employee of the company. For that matter, if you wind up submitting it through WP:AFC or you have another editor create it for you, go to the talk page and put up a similar disclaimer. It's far better to be up-front about this than to have someone else bring it up later. Although it's not done very often, you may consider self-reporting the article to the conflict of interest noticeboard with a request that other editors edit anything inappropriate.

In summary:

• Read WP:COI and everything relevant linked from it.
• Draft an article that well-suited for Wikipedia and is "bulletproof" to criticism. If you cannot, or if the company simply isn't notable enough to warrant an article in the English Wikipedia, then don't write it at all.
• Put a disclaimer on the article talk page.
• Consider self-reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your 2nd msg on my talk page: Ah OK I missed the part about you being a long-time editor and administrator. I must've been asleep at the switch, sorry about that. I think you know what you have to do to write the article as if a disinterested person wrote it. If you do that, and you are clear about your position, and you err on the side of caution, you should be okay posting the article directly. As an administrator, you have a resource I don't have: access to the administrator mailing list. You can ask your fellow admins for advice. The en-wikipedia mailing list may also be helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Striker pack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Striker pack, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Striker pack is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Striker pack, 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. CSDWarnBot 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Chisholm School

Hi, you quite rightly !voted delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Chisholm School as I would also have done since the page was unsourced and lacked any pretence at notability. I have now sourced it up and included several clear claims for notability. Perhaps you would be good enough to take another look, please? TerriersFan 20:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fulch

Thanks for your concern, I'm not leaving, I just like to have a minimalistic talk page! The Fulch 12:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Image:Fedora-CUPS-gui.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:Fedora-CUPS-gui.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Win2000.png

It looks like I'm getting reverted again. Could you please add your 2cents to the talk page? Thank you! Astroview120mm 04:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate

I know it's no excuse for my behavior, but I am feeling really down today, thinking irrationally, and basically, behaving in a bad fashion. Please accept my apologies, it was an idiotic comment. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel I need to state it explicitly

I did not write (or mean) that I'm going to ignore you in person or your arguments in general. I wrote (and meant) that I'm going to ignore your upcoming comments regarding the legal status of the image, because they just went in circles and didn't add anything new to the discussion.

Also I don't know how it can help by describing each user's contributions to the article. The contributors don't own the articles they contribute to, nor they need to authorize any changes made by others. --tyomitch 13:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"It's immensely unfair and rather missing the point that you should decide to focus on my discussions of fair use, particularly when you were the first one to even make any mention of this area. [...] if you insist on giving an interpretation of the doctrine then I will also give my interpretation. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I can't talk about it."

Right, I was the first one to mention fair use, and I elaborated on that point until I realized my interpretation is conveyed clearly enough. After that, I withdrew from the emerging discussion of legal matters, as that's far beyond the scope of the screenshot debate.

How is this behavior unfair? Do I have to keep arguing about a topic endlessly, once I started it?

As to reputation threshold required to edit a FA, there is WP:BOLD, and even a whole essay on Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Quoting the guideline: "users often display ownership of the articles they've written, whether intentionally or not". --tyomitch 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows 2000 discussion

Hey, I hope you don't mind, but I'll probably end up commenting on the screenshot tomorrow. — Alex Khristov 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Nick littlemore.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Nick littlemore.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope all is well with you. BYT 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Wikibreak

...whoa, that's fast. Most people would take a Wikibreak for a few months, or forever. -- Altiris Exeunt 14:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)