This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zscout370. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Order of Canada (Member).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Order of Canada (Member).jpg. 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.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chernenko 1984.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight000117:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Awards Role Call
WikiProject Awards Rolecall
To check whether all of our members are still interested, we have blanked the members list, if you still wish to take part please add your name back on the list. Please wait until the 4th January to re-add your name.
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Your recent edits to my user page
I am sure you will not mind that I write on my user page that the user page has been edited partly by you against my will? --Law Lord (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Coat of Arms of North Korea.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of Arms of North Korea.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Image creation?
Hi Zscout, I was wondering whether you or whether you know anyone with the knowhow to reproduce this excellent Britannica image I found of the growth of Russia. [1] Obviously I can't upload the Britannica image and I also wanted to make it chronological moving image like this [2], but making it move is not necessary. Best regards, --Miyokan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
.. this wed site is referenced all over wikipedia and its images are also uploaded in several articles. Do you know why the images of the previous pages were deleted from Wikipedia? I can not find a reason.
On 19 October 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Flag of Belarus. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your copyedit request
On 28 October 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Fursuit. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Userpage
This has become quite disturbing as my page keeps getting deleted, first of all my image got deleted supposedly because of Copyright violation, the image of which I created as well as produced for my patent...
Then my entire page was deleted for what ever reason I don't know, however I do assure you all the information was an original work by me...
Any and all materials not by me has been referenced...
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Seal of New Milford, Connecticut.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Seal of New Milford, Connecticut.svg. 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.
I took the image from Wikipedia itself, although strangely, I've found it difficult to find the same image again.
With that said, the work by Taschen isn't original: They're reproductions of public domain Chinese propaganda posters owned by Michael Wolf. Would that therefore make them in violation of copyright? I'm not sure. I guess from what I've heard that if you reproduce something in the public domain (i.e., photograph the Mona Lisa, record yourself playing Mozart on a violin), then your reproduction can be copyrighted.
I did some digging and found his personal website here [4]. I sent him an email just now, asking him permission to use the photo and if he has a large copy that isn't branded with "TASCHEN". If he doesn't respond, any idea on what I could do? I.E., he released the image to be used by Taschen and an Art Exhibit. If it's not possible to get into contact with him, what should I do?
Another thing, too, China has very limited intellectual property law and to my knowledge, it was even worse in the past, back when that poster was likely made. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
All works made in the People's Republic in China, with some exceptions, are protected by copyright for 50 years after the death of the author (or if no author, or the author is the government, 50 years after creation). The only material that is public domain upon creation are laws and other regulations by the national government (also their official translations), news events and formulae/calendars. But your original statement is correct; if you photograph a public domain work or reproduce a public domain song on your own, you can copyright it. Wikimedia works differently, so it will depend on what the work is and how it is treated. The only thing I can suggest is contact Michael Wolf, and if that doesn't work, then don't upload this specific image again. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kazakhstani_tenge_symbol.svg
Thanks for uploading this image! I'm sure that as the creator of this image you can provide some dearly needed source as to the validity of this image. In other words, where did you find out that this is indeed the new symbol? Source(s) for that article please! Thanks a bunch. Nesnad (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
It does appear that user did leave Flickr, but he gave specific permission to me in an email to use the work on wikipedia. Is there any way that I can save this picture from being deleted? Remember (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I remember when seeing the flickr permissions, it didn't give exactly what we want. Another user, Miranda, is sending flickr mail to a few users to see if we can get a few photographs. So, most likely, the image you have right now is going to be deleted sometime in the future. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it's a shame that there is nothing that can be done to save this picture given its a good picture of Smith, there is nothing else out there and the author specifically gave me permission to put it up on wikipedia. Remember (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but there is so many questions about the image, it might be easier to just sadly part with it than trying to revisit the issue everytime someone wants to bring the article to your FA standard. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Symbol of Ibraki Prefecture.svg, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Facarticle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
My recent edits on Japanese flags began just because I saw lots of "sin bandera" on the list and I thought it's ugly. But I confess I've been a long time flag-fan, visiting flag-related websites frequently. I liked flags from my childhood, but my interests really grew when ex-Soviet nations adopted new flags around 1992.
As for JIS Z 8721, I (carelessly) presume it to be same as Munsell, and use the software 色出し名人 (Irodashi Meijin) to get corresponding RGB. To me, it becomes more troubling when a regional govt states the color in Pantone, DIC, or worse yet, does not. (Happens very often for Japanese subnational flags: they exist, but only on de facto usages without written announcements.) Kzaral (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I added some construction sheet URLs for your list. (Some prefectural databases do not arrow direct links, so you have to log in at the indexes.) I hope it helps. As for Nagano Prefecture, my software says its color (10R 6 14) is equivalent to RGB 247 96 49, web #f76031. This relatively reliable website uses similar color, though not exactly the same. Kzaral (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I will change the Nagano-ken flag later, unless you want to do it for me. I used Inkscape to craft the images, so if you also have it, it will be easy to change. I will book mark that link and see what else we can do in the future. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I added web colors converted from Munsell on your list, excluding something obvious like #ffffff. It seems Gunma and Miyazaki use a different scheme (presumably something called PCCS), which I could't convert. Kzaral (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BLR NOC logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:BLR NOC 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 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.
I'd encourage zscout to ignore stupid conspiracy theories about established editors having a secret agenda. I'd also reassure him that picking on the article of the day on the article's talk page is common for people who wouldn't do any useful editing themselves. 70.64.77.186 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't chose when the article was going to go on the main page, that would be Raul654's decision. But I do find Belarus to be an interesting country, so that is why I write about it. It will be useless for me to talk about how bad article quality is and not do anything about it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know exactly who has written on commons Image:Flag of Croatia.svg that there is a need of using 2:3 ratio version for icons. I only know that this is written on that page, some of commons users listened to that pleading and use 2:3 for their icons. -- Imbris (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What does that mean anyway? There is always some need, pressing or not. The image of Croatia may be more complete (on Wiki) if her symbols would be more readable. -- Imbris (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is your final oppinion. Maybe if Neoneo13 and I waited for a couple of months (maybe another 2 years should pass - like from the first proposal by coleauge Neoneo13). Why is this so difficult. Unlock and I'll do it. Or we may as well give up (for now) and wait a few days to cool-off. -- Imbris (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I cannot unlock, it is a High Use Template and those are always locked. Honestly, I feel like this is an issue that never was an issue. It is fine the way it is, just trust me dammit. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's because I saw no problems with the change, so I did it for Serbia. There are other flags with other ratios of 1:2 or even worse, so that wasn't a main concern from the people who made the templates. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So Serbia - yes and Croatia - no. The officiality plays no role in this case but visibility and readability. As for I know Serbia do not have anything of official flag ratio, it is just a recommendation, and you use 2:3. Why not Croatia? -- Imbris (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)
Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.)
The article on circumcision mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet.
Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Wikipedia standards. And if people's edits are automatically deleted, people won't want to get a user name and contribute in the future.
This article has been having issues for a while now, so you're not the only person having this issue. I am think the problem is the placement of the text, probably should be more downwards in the article. Who knows, it might have been covered already. Just be patient. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Archtransit
I don't know if this guy should be banned or not, but I think it's waaay too soon to come to a conclusion on this. Please at least allow more than a days worth of discussion on this, and possibly allow arbcom to continue their investigation, before actually blocking. -- Ned Scott05:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, don't misunderstand me. I have a great deal of respect for you, and it's likely he will be banned in the end, but several people have specially asked to take this slowly, and there is no need to be so urgent with the block. Please, yield to the discussion, that's what makes a community ban a community ban. -- Ned Scott05:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think we all just felt the block was a bit pre-mature, though may be required later on. But we need to finish the investigation first. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me the reason for deletion. Is licence was not good? I have premission of site webmasters for using any picture. --Pockey (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that we need the permission on file, since we have a lot of people who claim they have permission to use the images, but the sources said otherwise. I suggest you forward your emails, if you have them still, to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. Then, if it checks it, they will either restore it themselves or they will ask me to do it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Belarus portal/Featured picture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Request for comment on main page deletion incident
As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)
This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event
Hello! I notices that this article hadn't received any rating on the importance scale, and I didn't find where to promote it at the WikiProject Belarus, so I rated it as "Top importance" myself. I see you participate in the project, so I wanted to ask you for suggestion, whether you agree or disagree with this rating, since I don't even know whom else I could ask. Thanks! --Betty kerner (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Criteria A5: "Transwikied articles. Any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition, has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wiktionary or Wikisource), or has been discussed at Articles for deletion with an outcome to move it to another wiki, after it has been properly moved and the author information recorded." The first part already occurred with the Gallery of astronomical flags, so it can be speedied. Plus, transwiki was also the outcome of AFD on galleries of flags be design (not by region). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Plus, transwiki was also the outcome of AFD on galleries of flags be design (not by region)." Where is the evidence of a consensus on this? Or is this just your personal opinion? --ScottMainwaring (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Brevet rib.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Brevet rib.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Civilwar rib.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Civilwar rib.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Collection Simple Plus Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Collection Simple Plus Cover.jpg. 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.
Your summary for this edit on Noble Woods Park says Removing image using an automated process, see my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. How about saying why the edit is being made and what is being done? The automated process information doesn't matter so much. —EncMstr04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And I will tell you why now. I removed the logo from the infobox, because of fair use issues. We can say the park is in that city without having to show the logo of the city. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of times when I am using that script, I am not removing a fair use image, but I am removing an image so I can either delete it for being on the Commons or a copyright violation. So I have to use that standard summary and welcome you and others to come on my talk page to hear the full reason. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Under British Law (our site is registred in Britain) our picture is not in public domain.
We have paid a high fee to the publishers to reproduce it on our site, and hold the copyright for the elctronic version on our site. If people wish to have our electronic image they have to contact us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HasHasBoomBoom (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This website is under US law, and the image is of a Frenchman. We do not have to contact your website for use of the images, since they are public domain under the relevant laws of the US and France. Since the UK and France have the same copyright laws, it is also public domain. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again.
When in 1997 we set up our academic site on Berlioz we sought legal advice regarding our intellectual property rights over the content of the site and their protection from abuse, as we have always done for our print books and articles.
Following our lawyer’s advice regarding our rights in UK and international laws, we put the following notice on the home page and all other major pages of our site and a shorter version on all other pages:
Copyright notice: The texts, photos, images and musical scores on all pages of this site are covered by UK Law and International Law. All rights of publication or reproduction of this material in any form, including Web page use, are reserved. Their use without our explicit permission is illegal.
Over the years individuals, institutions and websites from around the world have respected our rights and have contacted us to seek permission to use some of our materials.
It is in the spirit of cooperation and internet citizenship that I am writing this. All I am asking you is to respect our copyright for the electronic image for which we have paid and do not treat it as a public domain item. Please tell your readers to contact us if they want to reproduce it, we would be very happy to oblige on condition of acknowledgement of the source. It's mutual respect and understanding that I am asking for.
We will still credit the URL source, as required with all images regardless of their copyright status. However, these items are public domain and they will remain on our website as such. Our concern is only the public domain status in the United States and France, where Berlioz is a citizen of. They are public domain there, so we can host the images on our website under that status. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments.
I have enjoyed my discussions with you and your colleagues. By the way, someone had removed the link to our site as the source of the image and replaced it with a different URL. I have now reinstated the oriiginal link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.225.209 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Zscout370
Who is this person who keeps replacing the original link to our site for this image with his own URL? This is a dishonest act and should be stopped. Could you please do something about it.
Hi. Just curious why you reverted the Canadian Air Command badge back to the CF roundel given the fact that the symbols shown for the other two branches of the Canadian Forces are also badges. The roundel is not the badge of the Air Command; it's just an identifying symbol used on aircraft.BC (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Constitution of Belarus 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. ProhibitOnions(T)10:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The source was mentioned, but the license was lied about. The uploader of the graphic was not the creator of the image and had no right to give it a free license. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
your edits re: Japan's recognition of Kosovo
Hi there. You moved Japan from the going-to-recognize table to neutral or ambiguous states table, but, pray tell, on what grounds? Just read the Forbes article [8]. Does this sound like a neutral stance? And I don't understand the edit description about the press having put Japan in the "pro-recognition" column. The press reports what the government says or leaks, as it didin this case. Japan is light blue (indending to recognize), and your displacing it to the rank of undecideds distorts the issue and throws a monkey wrench in the works. Best wishes, --Mareklugtalk00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC) P.s. You claim to be able to handle some Japanese; if you read kanji, you may wish to scan somne Japanese press on the subject.
I been keeping watch at the websites of the Japanese MOFA and Prime Minister, ditto with the Japanese papers. I have not heard much debate about Kosovo recently, so early reports from the wire services I don't give much credence too now. I have seen reports that Japan has said no, then another report today from the Russian Foreign Minister that Japan already recognized. I personally do feel they intend to maybe recognize, but I have not seen anything new. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
Is it really necessary? The article is current news; bound to be updated like mad in the next little while. Pre-emptive full protection seems a bit too much for me. Thoughts? Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺23:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is fully protected on it.wikipedia, and given we are the largest wikipedia, a little preventative medicine will solve any problems. Plus, I don't trust auto-confirmed if the wait time is only a day or two. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
I created Flag Dude a long time ago and at one point I forgot the password. I just started editing with my current account. Also, is there a way to take ALL THE FREAKIN' WORK I DID PUTTING ON MORE THAN 50 KILOBYTES OF FLAGS!!!!: to a Commons page? If so, tell me. Tascha96|Talk13:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, why didn't you say so. Anyways, what I can do for you is one of two things. First, I can move everything to your new userpage now. I will have to create a subpage. As for moving the work to the Commons, I need to copy the code from the last edit, then move it there. What title do you suggest? I am an sysop at the Commons too, so I can easily do everything. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As for the Commons title, I think Flag Dude again would be good. D YOU need the code from the last edit? If so, I'm not sure how to get the code. If not, will....that's good then. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!! User:Tascha96Talk13:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The article was previously deleted under consensus for being poorly sourced. It has been several months, and the version you deleted had 2 television news sources, several newspapers, and print magazines. Please restore it so it may be put up for AfD vote. Thank you. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Can the original stub go back up before then? So that non-administrators viewing the arbchat discussion will have some perspective? Thank you. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I am being civil with you. The article has been deleted in 2006 and stayed dead since. It was remade because another sysop remade it, not knowing about the previous issues with the article. All attempts at an DRV in the past have failed. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)09:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2006 is two years ago. It was deleted for non-notability. The previous incarnations were obviously worthy of deletion. This one was meticulously well-sourced. Please be civil, restore the stub and set an AfD. --Truthseeq (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I took the photo of Hank Worden which you deleted, and I authorized its usage in the Commons. It may have shown up on Ebay at some time, but it's my photo and its use on WP is authorized. Can you replace it? I'd rather not go to the trouble, having once already done so. If not, I will. Jim Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.243.170 (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why I have to do the work when you undid work I'd already done? A scan is a scan, is it not? I'll do it (putting a new copy into Commons) if I must, but I find it quite tedious, especially having already done it once. Jim Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.243.170 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Because we have a lot of people taking images from eBay and claiming it as their own. We remove those all of the time. Plus, if you have the original image that is large, not only it will rid of the watermark from eBay, but it proves to me that you are the real owner. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There's an Ebay watermark? Okay, something's weird here. What I posted to Commons was not from Ebay, it was from my personal collection. I was Hank's roommate for four years and have lots of personal photos. I'll scan something good and post it to Commons. That will end the controversy (I hope). I'm not sure how something with an Ebay watermark got on there. Jim Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.243.170 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked the Commons and the image wasn't there at all. Was it there as another name over there? The Commons and Wikipedia are two entirely different projects. Anyways, what I mean by an eBay watermark is if you looked at the image at the bottom right corner, there was a small mark that was placed there. That mark is commonly seen on photos at eBay. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)09:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Perverted Justice screenshot-5-18-2005.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Perverted Justice screenshot-5-18-2005.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OSCE logo.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:OSCE logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
I suggest you look at User:Michxel. He's doing many a bizarre page move... He seems to be creating a nonsense article, then redirects it to another and then another. -WarthogDemon05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
revert war on Commons is f-up content on Wikipedia -- flag of SADR/Polisaria vs. Western Sahara
Help. As a Commons admin and Wikipedia user you are in a position to restore order here. Presently, I discovered that it's impossible to find the SADR flag on Wikipedia where you expect it, including in the infobox where it continues to be described yet the picture over the description is the UN flag. Yes, everywhere on the Wikipedia, the SADR flag has been replaced by the UN flag, perhaps as an unwitting consequence of other Commons renames, now subject to edit warring of uploads.
I am agnostic as to which flag belongs in the infobox of Western Sahara, if any, but I am vehemently opposed to a state of Wikipedia, where graphical content is blatantly misrepresenting what it's supposed to be depicting according to accompanying text.
Flag of SADR.svg or something along those lines should exist on Commons independently of Flag of Western Sahara.svg -- which would save us from idiotic outcomes... The revert war is in the upload of the Flag of Western Sahara.svg. I noticed it because mysteriously the UN flag appeared in teh Kosovo international reaction article in place of the Polisario flag in the table. That's not right -- we are describing what SADR people said, not what some UN-flagged entity has said. Please fix it if you can. --Mareklugtalk16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been like this for a while now. Even on the Commons, people are screwing around with the files. I am going to look at this now and see what is going on. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with not allowing college logos on user badges (like {{User Gustavus}})? I can understand not using a corporate logo (i.e. someone who makes money from their brands), but colleges and universities have no financial ramifications either way from logo use on a webpage (i.e. colleges make their money from donors and students paying to go there). Don't know about anyone else, but my college's financial windfalls from all things with their logo was so small as to be ridiculous anyway (I'm guessing it is the same most places, else the college would be out of business, or fraudulent). If you don't mind, I'd like to see Wikipedia's written policy on this - having the logos would indeed spruce up those templates. From where I sit, seems like that would fall under the fair use stuff that governs other images (oh, and one more note - I consider the template to be one document, regardless of the number of users who attach it to their pages; kind of like a magazine being one volume/issue per time period, regardless of readership). Nickersonl (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Pay attention dude! The other MFD was closed with exactly the same rationale as I had provided. This MFD is very much more a no-brainer. Could you please not re-open disruptive MFD's? Thank you VERY much. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the user we are dealing with, it might be a good idea to keep it open. The last one occurred months ago, so mind as well let it serve out it's course. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To document our earlier discussion: This would probably set enough of a precedent to kill the MFD prerequisites section. That would be bad, since that was initially negotiated as part of MFD. You are essentially allowing an impromptu policy/project vote on MFD, with the additional risk that (historic) documentation becomes lost. This had already been demonstrated to be a Very Bad Thing on VFD, long long ago.
You proposed to at least let the MFD run for a few hours? I still don't entirely understand the reasoning, but alright, as I don't want to edit- or wheel-war. How do you propose we proceed after that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to talk, btw :-) I don't think zenwhat would be too angry at you. He's not crazy, just... he tries to speedread too much. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Everyone appears to be ignoring it wholesale (including you ^^;; ). Which means it has effectively become a dead letter. I normally don't mind, because it's a healthy sign of consensus changing, but in this case, it's veering off towards a cliff, basically. Oops. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Do we have binding precedents here? I thought that for the most part, xFD operated under rules kinda like Article 59 of the ICJ statute. Anyhoo, I've seen a lot of lame MFD nominations these days. Maybe we should start voting speedy keep for that kind of stuff? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, are we pretty much allowed to vote however we want, or will I be considered an ass if I vote outside of the realm of what policy/guidelines would suggest? Can't people get blocked for trolling for doing that? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically, No. Only if your opinions are also outside the realm of aiding the encyclopedia. It's a bit of a judgment call, though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Expanding on that: If you actually manage to convince/persuade others and form a consensus, anything goes. But the difficulty of doing so can vary widely. What works in one place might fail elsewhere. It takes a bit of "getting a feel for it". I've been here for a couple of years, but still occasionally blow a call. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hah! Fully vindicated yet again! Twice in so many days! \o/
Oh hmm... well yes. Except for the part where you reverted me to keep the MFD open. That's still sort of setting a 'precedent'-ish ... <scratches head> :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Precedents" are irrelevant. If any user thinks something is a good idea, they can do it. If any user thinks something is a bad idea, they can undo it. If they disagree, they discuss it. If they'd like to edit-war, canvass, or otherwise attempt to push their edit through by force, they can do that too if they like, although they will probably be blocked unless they're well-respected administrators.
The ability to arbitrarily close an MfD early or not isn't important, because it depends on how it's done. It can be done by users attempting to shut down MfD's they're worried will be successful. It can also be used to shut down inappropriate MfDs, which may lead to silly flamewars.
There is no intrinsic authority here with particular actions or particular users. It depends on what they're doing and why.☯Zenwhat (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Late reply re Obuibo Mbstpo and binding precedents. Wikipedia does not have binding precedents. However, consensus does shift around, and you can often "read" what the consensus is or is changing to before it actually gets written down, with a little experience. By ignoring a rule and reverting me, Zscout could be read to be shifting consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I objected also to closing the MfD early. I've been aware of that page for some time, and always intended to try to do something about it--I think its a standing invitation to spam and to violations of NPOV. I would like to try to shift consensus on this one, & would appreciate the chance to argue it. I dont expect to win the argument this time, but I want the opportunity to try to persuade people, for it may bear fruit in the future. Dont assume that because one person introduces an XfD, and is prepared to edit war over it, that there is nobody who will support it in good faith and -- possibly--even for good reasons. How can anyone assume that the MfD nominator would necessarily stand alone? I dont want to revert the close yet again, of course, I think it will be better to go to Deletion Review, unless one of the people who closed it is prepared to revert their own closure. As a general rule, premature closes of matters where there is either some real disagreement of some doubts about the motivation of behavior (justified or unjustified) produce less drama if they are simply let run. As you should all see by now, that's the case this time. Among the virtues of following procedure is that it avoids complaints that you didn't. DGG (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've finally discovered that "there" is "here". Argh!
If you have issues with the reward board, discuss those issues on the talk page, and attempt to apply a {{historical}} to the page.
The MFD should not go to DRV, as the MFD was closed correctly, as per procedure.
The closing was not premature.
I agree about the virtues of following procedure. The correct procedure for an MFD on policy/guideline/essay/project/deletion pages is to close the MFD and warn or block the person submitting such an MFD.
Why?
Why is the correct procedure to close the MFD? Because it is not permitted to nominate those pages for deletion. And why is that? Well, if you don't, you get all kinds of wonderful mind bending recursions, loops, and catch-22 situations in the policy and deletion system. Have you ever had to enforce a policy for which the policy page was deleted, for instance? I have, and had to get a steward to back me up! %-(
To prevent such crazy things from happening, (among other things) VFD was split into AFD and MFD. MFD could then more easily be patrolled for potentially insane situations. (And trust me, they get to the insane drama stage very quickly if you leave them be).
If you don't accept the insanity approach, perhaps you may accept the hypocrisy angle. Why do you suggest that we should keep open a consensus discussion, that is discussing the deletion of a consensus discussion (the talk page and history page of any of the above classes of page can be said to count as a consensus discussion on policy). No matter which way you choose argue your reply, you're likely to get tied up in your own arguments.
If you don't accept the insanity or the hypocrisy arguments, we can try the argumentum ad absurdum. Imagine trying to delete a deletion discussion (for the ultimate in twisty situations). This really happened, and then there were deletion of deletion of deletion discussions, and drvs of deletion of drv discussions, etc. You can recurse infinitely, and certain very silly bureaucratic type persons actually tried to follow that approach. They ultimately lost, because anyone with common sense saw what was going on (hundreds and hundreds of comments about essentially hot air).
"Fortunately", the deletion of a project "only" goes to a depth of 3. You discuss(1) the reopening of the closed discussion(2) about the policy discussion(3). Well, unless the project lists notability criteria or other things related to deletion. Then the fun can begin... ;-)
If the depth and breadth of the stupidity of opening MFD discussions on policy/guidelines/essays/projects/deletions is not yet fully documented, we shall have to document it fully. Don't you agree?
As I told you already, there are many people who do not agree with your close. As an non-admin, I have the ability under WP:DPR#NAC to reopen any discussion closed by a non-admin. 2 admins and at least 3 other users wanted the discussion to continue, only you want the close it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No. It is policy to close it. I want to close it because I agree with the policy (I was there when it was formed). The policy represents earlier consensus among many Wikipedians. Consensus is often a compromise. The compromise was reached to allow the deletion of misc items. But we are not policy wonks. If people no longer agree with the compromise, they can simply renegotiate it. I am now asking you why you are ignoring this policy, do you indeed wish to alter it? If so, is the above your entire reasoning? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I went to the MFD page, all I saw there was "maybe" "could be" so there is nothing set in stone over there. However, I am happy with the MFD running now, it should be done by Thursday or so. My reasoning above is it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So on the one hand you're (sorry, being frank ^^;;) an admin violating policy, and on the other you're let off by a technicality in wording. Not good. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
Note that the reward board is essentially similar in nature to the above, and similar reasoning applies. (Also, the same reasoning applies here as for esperanza and ama)
Done: please comment on my recent edits to MFD policy. As your current actions actually work in the entirely opposite direction, you may wish to remove that section entirely. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright. We had a bit of a chat and a cooldown. In this case the situation is/was terribly unfair on you, as you're caught in the middle. :-/ Have fun editing in mainspace. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please if we could refrain from personal details, like this one. People from former "East" block are especially careful about such things. Even frightened. Please do not do this any more. I taught we were coleagues. We do not have to go this way.
Also such harsh criticism that I do not deserve. Especially for the issue of the Irish CoA. I just offered help and proven a point. Such details should be included, even if strings remain white.
I would rather if you should delete that part which is obvious informing of the general public about certain information that - not a lot of people know how to get - it is up to every single user to become so smart to search for such info. There should not be any help with it. -- Imbris (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you or be able to update this [9] graph with the 2008 figure (2008 population was 142,000,000 million)? Thanks.--Miyokan (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Peer review for Homerun (film): I am the primary contributor to this article and am aiming for GA status; I do not intend to take this article through the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. This article has already received two reviews; you may wish to do the other one first.
I'm a bit frazzled from some RL stuff. Hope I didn't come across as angry at you. Heimstern? Yes. You and MB? No. I have no idea why Heimstern was trying to get the image deleted. Would you mind removing the tag now, as the "issues" have been resolved? BellwetherBC05:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Already beat you to it. I pulled Heimstern aside and analyzed the image with him and just explored all options. You had it going right in the article, but as a person who deals with fair use all of the time, I expect to see more. But I don't mind editing either. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Bellwether, I think I said a few times that I was trying to get the image deleted because it was non-compliant with our fair-use policy. Now that it is, there's no reason to delete it.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rothe Gertrud.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I know a coupe years back we re-tagged all logos as non-free. How should an image like Image:PC flag.png be tagged? Its a logo, but its obviously free as a non-copyrightable shape. So it should have the logo license, but not a non-free cat inclusion. Any ideas. MBisanztalk06:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as I can stop it from being deleted, I have by adding a FUR tag. But I do wonder if the idea of having a single Logo license is a good idea. Maybe a non-free and a free license on the upload page? MBisanztalk06:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I know there is a way to mark this kind of image on the Commons, since they keep German logos that are simple in design (at the behest of de.wikipedia) so I suggest asking them for advice. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Was at a meetup and ran into a dev and asked about this. He said our best bet is to create a Cat:Free Logos with corresponding license on the upload page. Seems the rename to Nonfree Logos should've included the creation of a Free Logos cat. I'll get on it later this week. MBisanztalk07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Zscout. Thanks for the involvement in History of Lithuania. It is always interesting to see new editor on this page. However I would like to speak about different event involving your sysop rights again. Speaking particularly about user:Piotrus unblock and motives to do so, as stated in unblocking by you: I looked at the diffs, both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism. Just work it out. I am the person who filled the complain, due to persistent edit warring of particular contributor (involving multiply pages), which is lasting for great time now. Therefore I feel responsible and if my report was somehow improper it should be corrected. Plus per whole my participation in this project I did not witnessed such rationale. Due to these reasons I would like to ask these questions:
b) did another administrator was consulted before you took such action.
c) There exactly 3RR policy suggests that there is made an exclusion from the rule due to “dealing with IP edits”
d) Which exact IP account’s (is it IP 62.212.208.65 ? ) contribs you identified as “possible vandalism”. If it is **.***.208.65, I reviewed those contribs and there is nothing which could imply involvement of vandalism.
I hope you will produce an answers to my specific questions, due to the reasons presented above. Best, M.K. (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
3RR is always discretionary, so what one admin thinks violates 3RR another might not think. Piotrus, just like any other user, has more than one way to seek admin help in dealing with the unblock. Not only he has his talk page, but also email and IRC. He chose the third option, where he discussed with me the problem and asked if I or other admins can look at it. I did look at it and I personally feel that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR. So that was my justification for the unblock. As for who the IP address belongs do, I do not have the ability to check that, and checkusers who can decided not to run a checkuser due to possible violations of EU law. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the reply. Your replay is a bit puzzle for me. Especially part that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR., I just looking into RCR article history and can see only one IP adress the same one consistently [11]. There do you found that it got new account? M.K. (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That I don't know, since I do not have checkuser ability. If you read above, it will state why a checkuser wasn't done. But if I can be frank, this is an issue that happens a lot on Eastern European articles (I work on Belarusian articles) so I know the possible gaming tactics. Anyways, I have strongly warned and cautioned Piotrus to just sit down and start discussing. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see, now things going a bit clearer to me. And I am saddened because he violated 3RR and you shouldnt have overturned it by yourself, because this at least required some discussion at the public board, not some back-stage tinkering. I am not in any case arguing to reinstate the block now of course and I am not a supporter of excessive blocking. I now am primarily concerned about openness of the process being violated and not about keeping Piotrus blocked. Too bad he pulled you into this back stage affair. M.K. (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Any block, including 3RR, can be overturned using non-public methods. That is always an option available to all users, not just admins. We have a unblock mailing list endorsed by the Foundation, so it's more common than what you think. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not involved in the article in question and, additionally, I never tried to get Piotrus blocked (despite lack of reciprocity in this matter). So, I will provide an opinion exclusively based on what I see.
I would not have submitted the 3RR report on Piotrus, but the existing 3RR report was an onwiki rationale of the block. This rationale may be faulty, and I have no opinion whether it is, but it is important that the blocking rationale is onwiki.
There is a glaring lack of an unblocking rationale onwiki. IRC is simply not valid for any wiki action. Blocking or unblocking. All the rationales must be onwiki. (OTRS, RFCU and other few matters excepted.)
Piotrus did not just "choose" IRC (as you said above.) He contacted you individually via IRC PM. The choice is peculiar since both you and Piotrus have an excellent history of interaction onwiki (nothing wrong with that) and it is known that you are a kind of guy who does not like to withhold a favor. This request, however, was improper. You were duped here, Zscout, and you were being drawn into acting without on-wiki discussion.
I am sure that in no time you will be contacted (again off-line) on this matter and "discussion" of this conversation will take place elsewhere. This is rather sad, but it's a wiki-reality that some prefer to act in a way that they cannot be seen. It is up to you whether or not to engage into such discussion of course, but just be cautious when anyone (myself included) asks you to take any action onwiki and uses IRC or email rather than wiki for that. It may be innocent, but you may be being played. And please don't forget to justify wiki-actions onwiki every time.
He asked in a general channel to all admins, then those willing to take on the case were sent PM's. As for noting everything, I answered all questions typed by MK. But as for discussion off-wiki, it happens all of the time, especially with unblocks. Asking for unblocks on IRC is not only comment, but frankly welcomed. I remember booting users from #wikipedia in the past asking for unblocks, but it got to a point where other channel ops were telling me to knock it off. Given the new block options, such as email, and other administrators have no email addresses set up, IRC and the mailing list are people's only chances to get unblocked. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How he asked does not matter. What happened off-wiki does not matter. What happened (or did not happen) on wiki does. Sorry that you have been played :(. Please avoid acting onwiki based on purely off-wiki reasoning. Even if asked by me :). --Irpen08:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
re:ANI
Eh-hem. A little umbrage here on my part from your ANI remark. I'm sure it was not personal, but still, AGF and all. I've made thousands of edits here, four GAs, one FA, etc. To have even the suggestion of a block below my name for six photos that may or may not be improperly tagged out of one hundred to a brand new user, is disheartening. MrPrada (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Until there is a way to restrict uploads only, the only real way that people who upload images with copyright issues is blocking. What I would suggest is to stop uploading any new images and fix the ones that are presently on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, we are talking about 7 improperly tagged images out of 105, two of which I located on flickr and were marked as "Some rights reserved", and one which I replaced for another user who did not tag it properly to begin with. That may have been BS on the uploaders part, I do not know yet, however I fail to see how that would warrant a block. In any case, I will work to replace the other ones with free images. MrPrada (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, the only way to prevent uploads is to block the account. Just like the only way to stop one user from doing moves is to block the account. We been mandated before to block users who simply refuse to follow the image policy or fix problem images. In your case, you will not be blocked at all. You realize what is going on and you seek to make corrections and changes. This is what we want to do with all users. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Unblock of Poitrus
This matter has been brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Piotrus_incident:_policy_corrections_needed_either_way. I should be grateful if you would comment there on both your reasons why you agreed the unblock following a request at #admins - rather than via the unblock request option available to all blocked editors - and why you didn't clarify your reasons for unblocking when doing so. I am most concerned that it appears a sysop used avenues not available for the majority of blocked accounts to contest and reverse the block, regardless of whether the block was appropriate or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted there already twice and much of the discussion linked at the section is occurring a few headings up. Anyways, we been asked before in #admins to review blocks and unblocks. Even without admins asking for unblocks, it happens all of the time. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the Lithuania matter that has recently been discussed, since some users have expressed concern over what went on. link. Thanks, and let me know if anything's in need of correction! FT2(Talk | email)09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that the unblock has caused you so much trouble. Too many users love to wikilawyer, it seems, instead of think what is best for this project. In any case, I hope you'll feel better after I tell you that your quick action allowed me to create this DYK, which otherwise would be significantly delayed (as right there, right then, I had access to sources from library and databases which would have been much more difficult to access elsewhere).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
During that 14 or so hours (more like 11), I took a trip here with the significant other, had ramen for lunch and spent time with pals. I just needed to get away from here. I will try and do that more often. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Constitution of Belarus
I completed an initial copyedit of this article, but I will be going through it again. There were some sticky spots that required a lot of rewording so I'm certain I've overlooked other minor issues. At any rate, you might remove it from the LoCE page eventually. It looks like that have quite a backlog. --Laser brain (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I take that back - I shouldn't post full-text articles anywhere here. I will e-mail you the sources if you are interested. --Laser brain (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Tocino, Tibet, Russia, undescribed, unreasonable reverts, Brazil -- all at the international reaction to Kosovo article
I am at my wits end. Did you look at what User:Tocino is doing? The Russian minister's statements entered as an entry for Free Tibet? Every entity in the article's tables speaks for itself, except in the case of Tibet, where Tocino makes it into a satellite entry for Russia's foreign minister!
Also. The Brazil entry has been blatantly misrepresented on the basis of a Portuguese-language source. In a nutshell, FA Minister was attributed quotes which he never made, and all that, in the context fo a Ministry press release, which does not quote him! I fixed it, used the correct sources, translated the relevant bits from Portuguese correctly and left the entry in good shape. Before then, I documented the problem ont he talk page and provided a link to the relevant press release. But Tocino keeps reverting this because the Portuguese title of the websource states Portugal does not recognize Kosovo without Serbia's consent. That's completely unreasonable. Not only that, doing his reverts he throws away all the other work that wen into putting fixes elsewhere.
This is extremely disruptive.
My leaving a stub "Silence. they said nothing" type entry for Tibet was part of moving the Russian stuff back under Russia. I was the one who put the [citation needed] there, to buy time...
I am an admin, I am keeping watch. Other admins are keeping their eye on the article and I will call more in when needed. Just relax, I will get everything under control. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware of this development: On Commons, User:Avala whose block ABF without notice shortened to a day while extending mine to 5 days, promptly reverted User:Patstuart's justified resetting Image:Kosovo_relations.svg. This is just continuation of revert wars, especially since there's no reason to believe Patstuart acted for any other reason than to improve content. Furthermore, in the talk section, Avala justifies his actions by pointing to your revert on English Wikipedia immeidately before page protection. It is my understanding, that you did this only to preserve evidence, to keep it unobscured, and not for any other reason, and in any event, taking sides on "the Wrong Version" and adjusting it before reverting would be a gross violation of admin responsibilities. But Avala, who is an admin on Serbian Wikipedia and obviously knows this, is claiming that your revert shows that present content of International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence validates the merit of current page content. And then proceeds to use it to justify his revert of Patstuart's editon. Since I am blocked and Avala isn't, I can't even voice a comment in this matter. (ABF did not even deign to inform me, that he extended my block.)
I remind you, that the page continues to contain a fabricated quote under Brazil, which continues to be used to justify Commons content, despite debunking documented by me and a Portuguese user/admin's translation of the crucial sentence, omitted by Avala from the source. Also, in his source/evidence posted on the Commons talk page, he obscure that Libya continues to be sourced to Serbian Foreign Affairs Ministry, by using and only annotating the source link to the clearinghouse of diplomatic traffic, diplomacymonitor. That action alone is unethical. I drew attention to both of these, and they have been ignored, not rebutted.
Avala also refered to edits as Commons uploads as malicious, meaning my edits. This is completely unreasonable and maligns me without basis, and is harmful to my reputation. I am editing in good faith, and to document the most NPOV, accurate and precise accounting. Incidentally, I was not given any notice or allowed to make my case, before ABF adjusted the symmetrically imposed blocks for edit warring. He has not reated to my polite mail. I don't think I am being treated fairly or impartially, and this is expecially galling, since my objections on the merit of things are going unaddressed, but they are evident (Patstuart reverting to my version is one piece of evidence; Husmond's trnaslation of Brazil fragment another; Serbian sourcing for Libya another; ignoring Slovakia's self-imposed 4-month period of evaluating its formal decision, another. Basing coloring of Uruguay on anonimous hearsay, yet another. Et cetera.) --Mareklugtalk23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I am an admin on the Commons and I have been keeping some watch on the images. Honestly, we tried to lock the images before but the Commons admins keep on saying no, no, no and just block every user. That wasn't the approach I took here; I wanted to lock the article to get yall talking on here, but it seems to be not working. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, you just messed up on reference fixing -- the ref marked "Slovakia" (capitalized) and the one marked "slovakiaref" are not the same sources. If you had used the cite news template I prepared for you, you would have used the correct reference. This reference was used before, but that text was removed by yet another user who was in good-faith streamlinging this overlong entry at the time, whifch is the reason it's broken, not as a typo harking to the reference named "Slovakia". If you read the references themselves you will see this readily. --Mareklugtalk01:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The only problem on the international reaction page is that we have a few very anti-Kosovo/pro-Serbian users who have made it their mission in life to cause as much disruption as possible. Can we deal more with that instead of locking the page? Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Pahonia.svg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Replace this image with [this one] because it's of really good quality there
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Pahonia.svg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
In what way did you modify it? The shield or what? I'd just like a better image to be shown at pages, cause the previous svg is of really dreadful quality.
I just thought you might like to know the new Wal-Mart here in Havelock is open! Its just like every other Wal-Mart you may find anywhere else. Also you have an image of the gold star variant of the Service flag here. I've seen a few decals (but not flags - they seem to be hard to find) of the gold star service flag and there is no blue outline on the star and the gold color is darker. Are you sure the SVG is correct? Have a good one, my friend. - Thanks, Hoshie22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Hoshie, thanks for telling me. I am glad the government decided to let Wal-Mart in. Anyways, about the banner, I made it according to the specs issued around World War 2. Granted, I have seen the gold star banners at MCAS Cherry Point and the star is all gold. I will look it up more and fix it according, if needed. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
International reaction
Mareklug and Tocino have been edit-warring today. I'm pretty sure they've broken both 3RR. As you are somewhat involved, you might not be able to enforce ARBMAC yourself, but I strongly suggest you file an AE or 3RR reports or ask another admin familiar with the area to take a look, such as Future Perfect at Sunrise or Moreschi. Regards, BalkanFever03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I resolved the main issue (the flag's status in '89-'91) quite satisfactorily. However, I do have similar questions regarding the flag of Lithuania, so do watch that talk page over the next couple of days. Biruitorul (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A little while back you unblocked Domobran (talk·contribs) with an agreement that he wouldn't upload again. It definitely looks like there's uploading still going on and still copyright/unfree issues arising. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks, Metros (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. At times it seems like people with a differing POV are unwelcome, nevertheless I will continue to edit, but with a cooler head. :) --Tocino20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind people from other POV's coming over, I need to be kept in check. As you could tell by some of my postings regarding Japan, I do like the move Japan has done with regards to Kosovo. But that is what my blog is for. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Then we will note the name in the article text; since you're still new here, I'll explain everything. On the English Wikipedia, we go with the most common usage for article names. In our case, most of the English world knows this place as Kosovo, long before the DOI was issued. Because of this, our article will be at Kosovo. In the text of the article, of course, we will mention the country officially calls themselves as the Republic of Kosova. I hope this explains everything. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You've got to do something. After a pause in operations, back to disruptive reverting, and calling names (he called me a liar on the talk page, while producing evidence that I am not lying -- personal attack of worst kind). And he is reverting forcibly reasonable edits re Brazil/Prishtina, which were justified on the talk page and discussed to death, might I add, with deliberately misleading edit summaries such as "fixing spelling". --Mareklugtalk
We have finally got a working NPOV intro done on the Kosovo article, if you have further suggestions please make them regarding the intro. I'd like to discuss the info boxes now and would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Beam (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on UFc 86, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because UFc 86 is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting UFc 86, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
But it stops us from adding undisputed content so please we need an update on Iran. Instead of the current Iran content (previous statements by minister and ambassador) we need this:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that Iran, after considering the region's issues and conditions of the region, decided not to recognize the independence of Kosovo.[1]
Original content is: "Ahmadinejad also said that Iran had not recognized the independence of Kosovo after considering the "region's issues and conditions of the region."
Also we need this addition for India:
On March 31, Indian Ambassador to Serbia Ajay Swarup, said that "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries. We have always believed in peaceful solutions, because there is no issue that cannot be resolved through consultations and dialogue."[2]
Original content is: Indian Ambassador to Serbia Ajay Swarup confirmed his country's stance on Kosovo in an interview published today. "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries," Swarup told the daily Večernje Novosti. "We believed that the Kosovo issue could be resolved in a peaceful manner, by way of dialogue and consultations, and our stand has remained unchanged ever since 1999, when India upheld UN Resolution 1244, which ended the war," the ambassador continued. "We have always believed in peaceful solutions, because there is no issue that cannot be resolved through consultations and dialogue," Swarup insisted. He added that a "high level of India's support to Serbia" can be seen from the comments and articles which appeared in the Indian press following the unilateral proclamation of Kosovo's independence. Swarup also pointed out that Kosovo "can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world".
Thanks for your effort (especially due to illness) but I don't know if they will do it now. Mareklug has made a lengthy opposing post on addition of text on India and update on Iran. Why? He believes Iranian journalists did not translate the tense from Persian language to English correctly (his personal opinion, there is no Persian version to compare or anything similar) and that the ambassador of India makes statements out of courtesy and not based on real Indian position (again just his opinion disguised in a lengthy explanation). Also he thinks it's poorly paraphrased even though I posted original news content for everyone to see (based on previous experience with Mareklug where he always claimed that someone is falsifying quotes by foreign officials but never managed to point at falsified words). He did not suggest anything himself so far, just stubbornly opposed. He also tried to fool others by saying I never discussed the issue before making an edit request but I quickly proved him wrong by posting a link to another section on the same talk page from the other day where I posted news on Iran for everyone to discuss (where he had no complaints). It equals to his reverts and content removal from before, because of which you previously locked the article.
I just noticed the above indictment/complaint and would like to note that thanks to the intervention of admin user:Ev, the issues were resolved on the article talk page, with neither editprotect request as cast by Avala performed. An edit was made for Iran by Ev without removing the content Avala wished to remove, and without adding the paraphrase Avala prepared. In the case of India, the proposed source was not used and no edit was made. I strongly object to continued misrepresentations of my edits and discussion by Avala on various administrators' talk pages and noticeboards. I have documented fabricated quotes and suppressed evidence in the cases of Brazil, Armenia, Slovakia, to name three. Several editors have taken issue with inappropriate sourcing or false translations (Algeria: a crucial "yet" omitted, Libya: its position sourced to Serbian government and Serbian state TV, Uruguay: "has not recognized" paraphrased/mistranslated as "will not recognize" and attributed to unnamed sources). In no case so far has anyone made a frivolous, obstructing objection to an editprotect request, and some have been carried out. Administrators can read, and surely the talk page is forum enough; soliciting interventions on other talk pages and noticeboards with biased, one-sided characterizations, without notifying the other party, is way uncool by bending the process. --Mareklugtalk09:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Alf Garnett image
Hi, were you the creator of the excellent Alf Garnett/Union Jack image that you removed from the Alf Garnett page? If not, do you know who the creator was? I'd like to use it on my own webpage (I downloaded it some time ago). Thanks. --Frankieparley (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't create it, I removed it and deleted it from Wikipedia. Due to copyright issues, I cannot restore the image to allow you to use it on your userpage. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You could possibly use that Japanese cosplay source, i would have to read it myself to see if its ok, if you provide me a like on my talk page ill look at it and lt you know. Realist2 (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
from the 3 links you put on my page, use both the 1st and 3rd link. Together they will be strong enough to support the statement. Realist2 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I will leave a message on the talk page about whats left to do, not much left i feel, damn i never realised you were an admin, im always left with the big shots.Realist2 (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Its looking really good, i think you need to find some stuff on music videos/popular culture. It might fail the broadness test otherwise. Bulk that up and it itl be good. Do a google search. Realist2 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Flag of Scarborough, Ontario.svg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gary King (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Canadian Duality Flag.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Canadian Duality Flag.svg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Kazakhstan
I am doubt about the accuracy of the Flag of Kazakhstan. I got a 2x3 metres official flag of Kazakhstan which was hangouted on one of the administrative building in Kazakhstan. The image of the eagle on the original flag is different than on the image Flag of Kazakhstan.svg.
Could you send me the Construction sheet of the state flag by the Kazakhstan Government mentioned in comments? My email: BernardTom (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am going to the dentist now, but I will be willing to make the construction sheet. However, I can tell you now that the ratio for the flag is 1:2, so I am not sure why an administrative office was using a 2:3 flag. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! What I meant by 2x3 metres is: the flag size is HUGE! The actual size is 1.45 x 2.90 metres. Here are the pictures of it.
The sun and the ornament look the same, just some style differences between the eagle on the flag and the sheets I have. I notice a lot more pointy edges on the flag. If the government updated their construction sheet, then I will update the flag. I do have a Kazakh flag flown on the Russian/Kazakh border, but I need to see what the eagle looks like. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I see ref. 26 is using that book. Could you change that ref. to use the page number that it refers to, to be more specific? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
MJ
Hi there again, the Michael Jackson article is up for FA. Ive completed the requests of all 3 people who have commented and it has since had 2 further copy edits. Since you have some experience on these things would you mind taking a look to see if it meets the FA critera. Realist2 (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:O Canada sheet music.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:O Canada sheet music.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. GaryKing(talk)17:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:O Canada English Weir 1928.ogg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. GaryKing(talk)17:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:O Canada instrumental 1916.ogg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. GaryKing(talk)17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
I can't believe this. You say "...remember, this article is on ArbCom probation and we been asked to be harsh on users who cause problems. Locking didn't work, so blocking has to come." That is ridiculous. Please go check out the facts at User_talk:Beamathan#May_2008. I won't fill up the Kosovo Talk Page with this garbage, we should adress it at my talk page. I'm eagerly awaiting what you have to say for yourself, and your actions. Beam02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't, I blocked both you and the person you were reverting. I had to block either both or none, and since the article is under ArbCom purview, we have to take a hard line. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Question
In regards to this message you left on my talk page, I do not understand what you're saying in that context. [12] Is that supposed to be posted under the "Didi" section?
As for the comment, that user revealed his name long ago as Hdayejr, and his sockpuppets (and IP sockpuppets) have made changes on my page for several days now. One of his socks raised the issue here [13] while I was off wiki, and the edit was quickly reverted and the sock blocked by other, uninvolved editors.
Please do not remove or alter the comments of other users from talk pages. If you have a problem with something an editor has written, please take it up with them. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't heeded your advice, reverted that edit with the personal information from earlier. I filed it with ANI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.57.237 (talk • contribs)
As do I. If I may explain, you came to my page and made a comment. I had not been asked to remove the information before (by anyone except sockpuppets of a banned user), and the initial ANI report I mentioned above was dismissed quickly, without any involvment from me.
Your page does not identify you as an admin, so I came to your page to have a discussion about what was going on. You did not engage me in any discussion or respond in any way, you simply responded with "I don't care" and blocked me.
In fact from what I can tell, your only action for the last ten hours was to block me without explanation and then go off-wiki, making further discussion impossible. Please explain what I've done wrong here by trying to engage you in conversation and putting the username (not real name) of the banned user back in place on my page. Thank you for your time. Redrocket (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fonzie.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, since we collaborated together for Flag of Canada, would you like to work together on Canada Day to bring it to FA status in time for July 1 so it can be on the main page? My biggest concern is what we could put in the article — are you aware of any other 'holiday' FAs that we could compare to? Thanks! GaryKing(talk)03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could you please sort out 77.46.209.231 [14], take a look at his contributions on his recently created account, you will see that he has broken 3RR, he is incredably POV, he has vandalised pages and has personally attacked people such myself ;) haha Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Victoria Cross of Canada (Second award).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Victoria Cross of Canada (Second award).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cahk (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would dearly love to contribute to the editing of this man's work in Wikipedia. Any suggestions on how the protection issues with the page can be resolved?
No disrespect but the picture you've just deleted, on the grounds that it was owned by the BBC, was taken by a mate of mine from 1RTR. Can you kindly restore it please?GDD1000 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
couldn't help notice that you are talented with image work. Was wondering if you could make a hybrid of EU flag and British flag for me please. A bit like this. You dont have to, but i' would appreciate it. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:1946 Canadian flag proposal.svg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. GaryKing(talk)04:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
The problem with naming that template {{Non-free currency}} is that it's not a non-free image copyright tag: if you read the actual text on the template, it says the image may or may not be free, and in practice quite a lot of the images tagged with it do seem to be free. Since image-tagging bots tend to get confused if an image is seemingly tagged as both free and non-free, and tend to assume any such images to be non-free, treating this template as a non-free image copyright tag is obviously problematic. That's why I reverted Sherool's year-old addition of {{non-free media}} to that template and moved it back to its original title. What I didn't do was fix any instances where the template had been changed to be transcluded using the incorrect "non-free" title, but I was going to ask MBisanz if he might be willing to run his non-free template renaming bot in reverse for that case. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that we had to rename the money template according to new rules set down by the Foundation. We had to have machine readable templates. Plus, even if people want to use the money tag to say this is a unit of currency, people just use that as a license template and that is it. We can't have that anymore; we have to either say it is a currency image being used under fair use, or use another tag that pretty much says currency in X country is public domain. I'll work with MBisanz about the image tags and I will personally review the images too. I'll move some to the Commons, if needed. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to say this politely, but you don't seem to be actually reading what I'm saying, or what the template says. I fully agree that we need to have machine readable non-free image copyright tags (though it's kind of funny, seeing as how some time ago those very same tags were essentially deprecated to try and force people to write out their non-free use rationales by hand) and that standardizing the names of all such templates to begin with "Non-free" and marking them with {{non-free media}} are both useful steps in that direction. The problem, in this case, is that {{money}} was never intended to be a non-free image copyright tag. Here's what it looked like in 2005, before some IP went and rearranged it to look like a non-free image copyright tag. Anyone who tagged their images with it back then would've reasonably assumed that it was going to remain what it was — not a license tag at all, but an informational tag that mostly just served to place the images in Category:Currency images — rather than sneakily transforming into a "this image will be tagged by a bot for deletion in 7 days, since it has no non-free use rationale" tag.
Then again, it's true that this template has been broken for at least a year, and possibly several, depending on what one considers the actual breaking point. At this stage, a lot of the images formerly tagged with it have probably already been deleted, or else have had (possibly needless) non-free use rationales written in response to tagging by bots. Meanwhile, I guess a lot of more recent images probably do use it as a non-free use copyright tag. I suppose it might be best to just IfD it — by now it's pretty much useless for telling if an image is free or not, and only serves to confuse things. An alternative might be to leave it as is, and just run a bot to remove it from images that also have a free license tag applied. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am reading what you are saying. You are saying that not everything tagged with this is unfree. If that is the case, then we should use a better license tag than {{money}}. We have been asked many times to change the license tags to make it easier for machine readable stuff to occur. Just having {{money}} will make it hard for us to comply with the Foundation's goal. As I mentioned before, I am looking at the images affected by this template and give them a better one. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you make some assessment icons for me?
I noticed you created the good article icon (). I want to create some derivatives of this picture, but I'm clueless when it comes to creating .SVG files. Don't feel as if you must create these, but I would really appreciate it...:
(note: I'll tell you what color to use on the outer circle and on the letter (I don't know the method for determining the color of the inner circle) as well as the letter to place inside the inner circle)
A start-class icon, with a #ffaa66 shade, using the letter "S"
A list-class icon, with a #aa88ff shade, using the letter "L"
A portal-class icon, with a #808080 shade, using the letter "P"
A redirect-class icon, with a #c0c0c0 shade, using the letter "R"
A disambig-class icon, with a #00fa9a shade, using the letter "D"
A category-class icon, with a #ffa500 shade, using the letter "C"
A template-class icon, with a #ffccff shade, using the letter "T"
A image-class icon, with a #ddccff shade, using the letter "I"
Okay, well can you at least change the Start-class icon () picture to orange for me? That way it would at least match the color of the text it correlates with. Thanks, 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1, 2, are the only things I can find. But you can ask the uploader of that picture if he has a bigger image. --Exec8 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sfseal.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sfseal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Japan
Will try to have a look in the next day or two, but don't have much time for Wikipedia right now. I do notice a number of subject / verb problems in the Postwar period section. Awien (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A few weeks back you asked me about adding in functionality to change license templates. I have now added in this functionality in a very general way (see here). If you are looking to do something very specific and want a single click to make certain changes (similar to how the free logo tab works now), let me know and I can put something together for you (though if it is highly specialized it might be outside of FurMe). - AWeenieMan (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
On what interpretation of G12 did you delete this page? The page itself does not appear to be a copyright violation. I also don't see any notification or response from Tabercil. What, precisely, is the alleged response from OTRS on which you are basing these seemingly inappropriate deletions? Gimmetrow06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That the permissions were forged. The discovery was made at the Commons, so as a Commons and English Wikipedia administrator, I was tasked to carry out their deletion request. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying there is no way to verify that the deletion of hundreds of images was done correctly? Gimmetrow08:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It was done correctly, since OTRS advised us on every single step we took and every deletion we done. It was their decision to have all of his images removed from here and the Commons and any and all comments should be directed to OTRS. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to think a heads-up about a problem with the permissions would have been appreciated here! For you to delete the permissions page I had on the English wiki page because of a lack of OTRS permissions implies that I'm a liar (by forging Luke's emails where he gave consent) and a thief and I don't appreciate it!! Everything was done on a good faith basis and I've had email communications with Luke on numerous occasions! Hell, he was the one who pointed out to me that he had photos on lukeford.net that could be used on Wikipedia! To say I'm flat-out pissed at this sudden Soviet-style purge would a very mild way of putting it. Tabercil (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, to start with, which volunteer is handling this from the OTRS side? Without any on-wiki discussion, I really find this all rather strange. You can send me email if there is something "sensitive". Gimmetrow16:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And I'm in communications with Luke via email. Based on what little has been said on the Village Pump here someone is claiming Luke doesn't have the rights to the photos he took. Luke is asking what evidence there is to back up the assertion and for a chance to rebut. Tabercil (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I confess I am mystified here. I have no opinion yet on whether there is or isn't a permissions issue, but I am completely baffled as to why this page User:Tabercil/Luke_Ford_permission was summarily deleted. You've been asked that a few times and your answer is not satisfactory. I reviewed the deleted material and I do not see any possible copyright infringement, or BLP issue on the page itself. I suggest that a more standard deletion request be made and that the page be meanwhile undeleted. This is what I propose to do unless you can give me a convincing reason not to. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that. As discussed on IRC, I think everyone in this matter acted with the best of intentions and in good faith, trying to do the right thing for the projects. Be of good cheer. ++Lar: t/c04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
None is needed. You had the perfect reason to be angry at me; a bunch of your images here and Commons are gone in a blink of an eye. Anyways, I told Lar in private that if the images are allowed by OTRS to exist on Wikipedia, all en.wikipedia deletions related to this will be restored, by me, as soon as I am notified. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... if there are any on en.wikipedia, then they ought to be moved to Commons. Give me a shout if/when you do the restore... I'd like to make that move. Tabercil (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Zscout, who was the OTRS volunteer who said the permission was a forgery? Brynn says you were the person who dealt with them. Kellyhi!16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
So you don't care about the discussion and correspondence with their offices and about the law you just act solely on your personal view? What is that all about?--Avala (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Our Logo
Zscout, I keep trying to upload the new logo of the organization I work for (Interfaith Alliance), and it keeps getting removed. I used the exact template I could find for the fair use rationale, but it still isn't working. What am I doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InterfaithallianceDC (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The Interfaith Alliance wikipedia page that is currently up has our old logo, and i just want to update it with the new one. I want to use it in the Interfaith Alliance page, but wikipedia keeps taking it off. You say that the logo isn't used in an article, but that's because it keeps getting taken off. Not only do I want to ask what am I doing wrong, but also how exactly I am supposed to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InterfaithallianceDC (talk • contribs)
Hope you don't mind me butting in here, I saw your trouble elsewhere but figured I'd post in this thread since you're already discussing it. :-) If you look at the old logo's page (Image:The Interfaith Alliance logo 2007-02.png) and scroll down to the bottom, there's a link that says "Upload a new version of this file". You can use that to directly replace the old logo with the new one, and BJBot should be happy. Since the old logo was only being used under "free use" and is outdated, it shouldn't be needed anymore anyway. Hope that helps! --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
FSS logos gallery
I am sorry, but I don't understand. These are all former logos of the Football Association of Serbia and its predecessor, Football Association of Yugoslavia. It is clearly mentioned in the images descriptions that fair use applies to this article (and, in the pre-1992 cases, the Football Association of Yugoslavia article) only. I don't know if you are familiar with the situation in Serbia and former Yugoslavia, but the Football Association of Serbia is considered the only successor of the Football Association of Yugoslavia by FIFA and UEFA and, therefore, I can't find a single reason to remove the gallery, as there is no other place on Wikipedia where it can stand. Please, explain it to me. Thanks.--Vitriden (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Because their use was only for purposes of decoration. It doesn't expand the readers significance at all and we can mention the FSS is the successor organization to the FAY without using images at all. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)09:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion, you've decided it's just decoration. I think it's very informative, since it shows all the crests that can be found on some other sites and publications next to the name of FSS, so it prevents confusion. Just in the last 10 years four logos were changed and it can be chaotic when someone tries to understand whose logo it is and from which time. So, what should we do now? I know, until you name a policy you've followed here, a policy that says this gallery shouldn't be there, I'll revert it back. Deleting other people's hard effort without a proper explanation is very rude, so try better the next time you do that. Thank you in advance.--Vitriden (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, now I see some images were deleted, probably because they weren't used in any article anymore... How convenient. You don't deserve to be an admin here, you know? It's disgraceful how you don't care for other people's opinions. Hopefully you'll lose your adminship soon, and then, when we are equal users, I hope we'll meet on some other article. See you then.--Vitriden (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletions
It's very bad for an admin to ignore everyone and act alone. There was a lengthy discussion over this issue, we emailed many organizations, received some answers and clarified the situation (you did not participate). This is my 4th attempt in contacting you to let you know about this and hopefully the first successful attempt.--Avala (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not acting alone, since there are other administrators who have been asking for the images to be sorted out and deleted. Plus, some images in the PD-Serbia category are being kept due to being public domain due to age. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes and there was the discussion on deletion and the final decision of an admin closing the discussion is not to delete, but continue discussing on talk page. So based on which decision are you deleting? If you'd look at that discussion you would see that many images you have deleted were in PD. For some reason you lack on communication and that is causing problems because you don't pay attention to extremely lengthy and thorough discussion we had.--Avala (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I paid attention to all of the discussion and it was better, according to the admins, to delete questionable images and to keep the ones we know for sure that are public domain. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Then explain why would you erase a whole article saying "Blatant copyright infringement" for article that comes from website which says that their content can be reused? I still think your account is hacked as you are making irrational deletions. No administrator would delete the whole article because there was some copyvio content in history section and then reerase it under a claim "rm copyvio" including things like election results or sister cities section which are obviously not from the same site (supposed website as you didn't provide a link). Something is simply wrong here.--Avala (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Memphisflag.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Tunisian flag
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm not sure what I should do about the flag colors. Flags of the World and Vexillo Mundi provide different Hex triplets and Pantone numbers. Any ideas regarding how I should handle this? Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)05:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
FOTW got their source for their Pantone from a dead website, but it isn't connected to the Tunisian Government at all. Vexilla Mundi gets their colors from Album des pavillons nationaux et des marques distinctives (FOTW calls it Album 2000, but it is the exact same book), but uses a different program to get colors. I personally use Adobe Photoshop to get my colors, but I do have a Pantone document that has Pantone to RGB conversions. VM has a computer program from Pantone, but FOTW always uses colors that are web-safe. My suggestion is to leave the colors out until we get something definitive. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a permission to use content of the Belgrade official website on Wikipedia - [18] so don't remove any of the content that comes from there.--Avala (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Eskridge
Hi, Zscout370! How do I go about assuring that the Eskridge image (from the article Kelley Eskridge, the image Image:Kelley Eskridge.jpg) is fine? I originally uploaded the picture, and have sent in the appropriate emails and permissions from the photographer, but now I see from your edit summary that it's not correct. Can you help me out?
I'm also concerned that no one alerted me that there was a problem, neither time. That's really frustrating! We have all sorts of procedures in place for articles that are up for deletion - why don't images work the same way?
When OTRS spoke to me about the image, they received nothing at all regarding permission. My suggestion is to resend the permissions, then wait for OTRS to say OK before uploading the image. About the delay of notification, I deleted the image, then soon went to my job. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah - gotcha. Thanks for the reply - I worked with OTRS to find the missing info and asked them to restore, so everything is kewl. Thanks again! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)12:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Rann & Dunstan photo DRV
Thank you for being so considerate in relation to this DRV. While we may disagree on NFCC policy it is nice to see a Wikipedia user who is prepared to work with people in regards to non-free use images where the image is a "grey area" image (and not a blatant copyvio) rather than simply vote for deletion without further warning or consideration. Thank you. I really do appreciate it - it restores my faith in Wikipedia users somewhat. JRG (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem with this DRV is that not many people are actually looking at this image and are more focused about who deleted it. When I looked at the image, it did meet some of our criteria, but not all of it. It just needed supporting text in the article, then we could most likely keep it. A problem I encountered is that the original source of the image is gone, so I cannot check to see who was the main author of it. I have personally deleted press photos on a constant basis, including those of events that recently happened. I think that is what happened this case; a random photo from a press agency was used in an article with little to no supporting text. I want the user to create text that can help support this image, specifically Dunstan's influences on other politicians, especially Rann. Even talk about how Rann used to be mentored by Dunstan in the world of SA politics (which I personally have no knowledge of). But I am glad this restores you faith in Wikipedia. I still personally think while what we have is NFCC is a good start, it needs a lot of work, but no one wants to make it work or want to make changes. I wish it can be simple, but just like the main US Fair Use law, it won't be simple at all. People just need to realize that this policy needs to be applied on a case by case basis. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I don't know if you removed all those sentences because of a fear of FAR, but I stuck them all there to remind myself that it still needs to be cited, not that it was under the hammer. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
FAR wasn't a concern of mine, but I tried to cite some of the sentences myself. I was looking at the article after I did some artwork for it. I just wish I had "Australian flags" in front of me, but now, as an American, I probably can't get this book. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I already have the Australian Flags handbook from the Aus govt and cited everything that was possibly covered in the book. Same for Kwan's book. So I have to look elsewhere for the rest. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The Gov't book is free, so mind as well snag it. I used the Government website about the military flags to provide a citation about the Army's use of the blue ensign. Plus, I used the national archives to draw the image of the proposed Aussie flag that, lets say, lost. It's in the article already. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The newspapers and magazines you claim are editorials, they are not. I am an active subscriber to Newsweek an I remember that story you cite. Given that this is discussed about a military base, information that is out about it, it is going to be scare, but cited accurately. If you really want to tag specific facts with a citation clarification or need a source for it, put {{fact}} next to it. The only source I am not sure about is CounterPunch, which I never heard of before. Judging by the website, they have a lot of questionable stuff. What I would suggest is find the original article in "Le Monde Diplomatique" and use that. Frankly, I don't know much about Israeli topics, but I can try and watch it. But if you want my opinion, there isn't much problems with it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm not sure how I feel now, god knows who else has been copying that article, I bumped into that quite easily. I know from now on my work can/will be used elsewhere, and info from the article will be cherry picked to give a certain image of Jackson, good or bad, mostly bad knowing the media. — Realist208:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how can a flag be disputed on such grounds. Sure there are groups which would like the old flag instead of the current one, and I am sure such movements exist all over the world - in Australia and New Zealand they are quite strong, but the only valid flag of a country is the one that can be seen in front of the UN headquarters. We don't remove the flag of New Zealand with this just because there is a strong republican sentiment. Actually removing a valid Belarus flag of Wikipedia articles is POV for as long as it is justified by "some opposition parties in Belarus don't like this flag". --Avala (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The only time I removed the Belarusian flag was from the Template for the Wikiproject. When I started the Wikiproject, I also used the flag image, because other Wikiprojects did the exact same thing. However, other members of the project asked me to use the map, so that is what I did. Who has been removing the Belarusian flag from the articles? User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No I meant the template. But on what grounds do they request flag removal? It's obviously a POV request due to them wanting the white-red-white flag but it's just their wish which doesn't correspond to the current reality. It's NPOV to have an official and internationally recognized flag (regardless of the story behind) and it's POV to make the Belarus WP template different to all others due to political bias of project editors.--Avala (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
They don't want the RWR flag, but they don't want the current national flag either. I just felt like at the time it was more important to at least get the project going rather than fight over the template, so I chose the map and moved on. I believe other wikiprojects do not chose a flag to use for their templates. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes but obviously it is caused by some kind of political POV. They didn't dislike the inclusion of the flag because they proposed something else (that is why you had to put a map from the stub template on), but because they have something against the flag which is hardly a productive behavior. It wasn't a technical disagreement but a political one and that is what I dislike. --Avala (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
we haven't spoken in a while. I just got back from Quebec where I took a tour of the Citadelle of Quebec and actually had a random encounter with Jean-Daniel Lafond at the museum of civilization....but anyways I snapped a bunch of photos of the Order of Canada medals as well as the Cross of Valour and Victoria Cross, Order of Saint-John, Order of Quebec, Order of Military Merit, Order of the British Empire etc. They actually had the governor generals order of canada chain on display but I was forbidden from photographing it. I dont know much about creative commons licenses. Is there a page where I can find more info on them ?
plus if you wanna look at the images they are on these three URLs
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Would you please explain your rationale behind the removal of the Lola Beltran
postage stamp from the article? I am afraid that I cannot see a good reason for this, but I am open to discussion. Thanks.--Lyricmac (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The image was only used as decoration in the article. Since the stamp is tagged as "fair use," they have tough requirements to pass in order to be used on the article. Plus, the article has 3 other pictures, so having this stamp picture will violate our policies, and needs to be removed. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Then would you forsee a problem if one other of the images was dropped from the article and the stamp remained? A couple of reasons: 1) I uploaded the stamp from my collection to illustrate the article in question, and it would be orphaned and deleted without its inclusion in the article; 2) Lola Beltran was a sufficiently important figure in Mexican music that to delete the stamp seems, to me, somehow, irreverent; 3) Beltran is the only woman illustrated for reference purposes in a musical genre that has suffered its share of machismo over the years; 4) Simply put, she was, and is still, one of my favourite singers (I know, I know, subjective emotional reasoning, thats why I placed this reason in last place). I could easily see the Solis illustration removed, if necessary, even if he is also a favourite of mine.--Lyricmac (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is to remove the stamp from the Ranchera article and put the stamp in the article of the woman featured on the stamp. It would have a better chance of passing fair use there. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Another tip. You can also write about the stamp a bit too, such as was this in a set of stamps issued to honor, lets say, women of Mexico, ranchera artists of Mexico and try to give some background about it. If you can do that, that would even make it better. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
From what I am getting at, he is very aggressive in trying to get these stamps gone. There are some stamps that are just bad fair use, but I just need to deal with them one at a time. But as I mentioned, explain the stamp as much as you can in it's own section. I'll try and help out. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Here. From reading the stamp, it was part of the postage series about popular musical acts on the radio. The stamp came out in 1995 and we need to explain why she was honored. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Was there ANY mention of the stamp at all in the article Lola Beltrán when I removed it? If not, how on earth can the stamp be used there? I did take a look at the article, and didn't find any mention of the stamp there. As of this version, there is still not a single reference to the stamp in the biography. So, my rationale for removing the stamp is clear. That user:Lyricmac found a similar complaint from yet another user-who-doesn't-understand-FUC is not my concern, nor would it "illuminate" anyone.
I also understand people's anger when their favorite stamps are removed from their favorite articles ... but WP:ILIKEIT is not a substitute for bypassing FUC. Following Zscout's suggestion, I am not removing stamps from articles having substantial mention of the stamps used there, but I shall continue to do so from articles where an editor misused Fair use to illustrate the subject rather than the stamp. If anyone has any problems with the removal of incorrectly-FU-claimed stamps, please feel free to propose changing Wikipedia's Fair use criteria. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing all that I can to give suggestions to the editors on how to make the usage of the stamps qualify for fair use. As you pointed out, there is no mention of the stamp at the article on the woman; I told the user that there is pretty much no mention of the woman at the original location of the stamp. I have not found any information about the stamp in English and in Spanish. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you refrain from deleting comments on the CFS talk page. You have no authority to do so. Thank you. Nocandu1976 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Order_of_Canada_(Member).jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Order_of_Canada_(Member).jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
hi, for info, someone's added some citation needed tags which will need to be resolved before the article passes GA - i'm sure you know about the process. thought i would let you know. also, it says you're retired at the top of this page but you seem to be pretty active, are you sure you meant retired? Tom (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The tags have been dealt with. The ethnic flag has citations, but I removed the census count. As for the retired banner, if you notice, is spelled "r3tired" in the leet language. Plus, the "this user has" is hyperlinked to to the article "Lie." It was a joke set up before I went to Japan in July. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)14:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but just going by what was suggestion to me many moons ago. Generally, gif is only used for animated stuff, svg/png for raster graphics and jpeg for photographs and ogg for sound and video. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello - continuing your good work on the Rann and Dunstan picture, I was wondering whether you would help me with a fair use rationale to get it to comply with WP requirements. I don't think an accident can be decently described without an image of it, but there are no free images available due to the accident's remoteness and the fact that all images were taken by Government or media crews. Any suggestions on the Fair Use rationale here? Image is Image:Waterfallrailcrash.jpg. I'm also concerned about NFCC 6 - would this image (a Government picture subject to Crown Copyright and more available for public use than the ABC news picture) be a better selection?
My suggestion is to try and use the Government image, since the only reason why they are not free is because we can't modify the images or use them for commercial purposes. Once you get the government image uploaded, I will help you with the rationale. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Help is more urgent as my friend Damiens.rf has decided in his infinite wisdom on all things copyright to nominate it for deletion. JRG (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of these two images, I'd like to point out (since their discussion pages are getting way too large) that these images are not under copyright in the US to the photographer. It can be argued that the original photographer was not "working" for the Nazi Party as he was forced to take the photos. This means that it can't be claimed that the Nazi Party actually owns these images (although I'm not sure on this since there's probably not a law dealing with forced creation). But even if one makes that claim, the photographer was taking photos of individuals who were forced to pose for them. I cannot take photos of you without your permission and then do as I please with them. If you took me to court, you'd win and get to control the photos. Similarly, if we claim the photographer did not give up his rights to the photos simply because he was forced, we must also claim that the people in them did not give up theirs simply because they were forced. This means that in the end, the photos belong to the young girl they depict who died more than 50 years ago. This is in addition to the photos being taken for public document purposes, being free under Polish law, and being taken of a prisoner in a Nazi Death camp. The photos also are fairly important to the article (the girl's notability largely stems from the photos). I hope that you will see that these photos are not currently owned by any living person or entity and will use these arguements to see that the photos remain in the article. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Images from the Kremlin are no longer accepted under that license anymore, since they cannot be used commercially and cannot be modified. The decision was made by the Commons, and it carries down to the local projects. The debate was at [19]. Plus, the PUI had no clue about the Kremlin license decision that was made earlier. Both bjweeks and j milburn know about my deletion and they had no objections. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons decisions are not automatically binding on Wikipedia (from WP:COMMONS... "Commons employs a more restrictive interpretation of international copyright law than Wikipedia"). Very often Commons admins are correct and the decisions should be implemented project-wide, but I reviewed the discussion you are referring to very closely, and the validity of Gmaxwell's declaration strains the norms of copyright paranoia even there. Even if it hadn't, however, the discussion should still have occurred on-project here. You yourself seemed to agree during the discussion that the license was free enough, and it's disappointing that you are changing you mind in response to a misleading and arbitrary deletion summary on commons. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
While I was disappointed that the images from the Kremlin were deleted from the Commons, we had to carry out the task. Even if decisions from the Commons are not supposed to affect us, their same rule when it comes to the freeness of images also applies here. That means we cannot use the Kremlin images under free licenses at all. So, that leaves it to fair use, but then again, we cannot use fair use images of people that are alive or places that currently exist. All of the pictures I deleted, if not copyvios from the South Osettia war, but were just replaceable shots of Medvedev or his wife, or are buildings of the Kremlin. I cannot cite a diff that bjweeks agrees with the deletion, but I did discuss it with him and J Milburn off wikipedia. They know me for doing a lot of image work. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a tricky issue, but I don't think dissenting from Commons is a good idea. We have enough problems keeping image that are non-free on Commons here as it is. The debate was cut short, so it might be a good idea to hold it in a less public part of Commons. BJTalk03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Look what happened with the PD-Art issue though. Unfree-in-country-of-origin, but free-in-the-U.S. was ultimately something where us dissenting from Commons on slavish copies of old works in countries like UK was a very good thing...vindicated in the end. And ultimately, it's not really dissenting from Commons per say. It's Dissenting from what GMaxwell's personal interpretation of some license on Commons is. I realize that counting !votes is not consensus, but there certainly seemed to be consensus that the license was free. A few loud voices seeing restrictive language in a license that just isn't there does not make a lack of consensus that the license is free (community consensus is a phenomenon that I assume even Commons ultimately should operate on). I'm all for discussing this on commons too (although I'm a bit confused as to why it should be a "less public part". I tried to participate in an undelete discussion, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere (as in, no one has said anything in days). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm unclear why any copyvio items would not simply be corrected, especially on an article at AfD rather than delete the entire article?[20] -- Banjeboi14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It removes the copyvio from the visible history. Now, if the copyvio only existed in one diff, then we can just edit it out. But since it was present in almost all of the edits, my only option was to delete. But I guess someone from OTRS got their hands on this article too. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That's been a source of confusion; my only intention there was to make a log note. Anyway, it looks like early revisions (before the prod) didn't have many copyvio problems. This revision contains only one phrase that's also present here, "the nation’s first [name of award]". Was there something else in those early revisions Zscout?--chaser - t18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking again, the second paragraph of the early revisions was copied from the site. I'd say it'd be easier just to rebuild this from scratch. To clarify, the OTRS request prompted the AFD, and a closing administrator could have considered it in closing the AFD, but my interpretation here is that nobody made such a decision before the copyvio deletion. I just wanted to add a note to the deletion log for those wishing to create a new article there.--chaser - t18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
...has been protected since 25th February. You cited BLP issues, and I presume the history has been heavily oversighted, too. Still, with nothing on the talk page I wonder if you'd review whether there is a continued need for full protection of the article. Thanks, Splash - tk20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article
I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe05:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing the Flag of Kosovo article that you nominated. If you have any questions or suggestions during the process let me know. Keep in touch by checking the review page. Also, I have a question about something you wrote. You said, I'll look and see if I could expand a bit, but honestly, there isn't enough information to shape this to my personal liking. I mostly still see news reports about the flag being new, Serbia hates it and it was used in a hacking attack 2 weeks ago. Why would nominate it if you feel this way? Should I go ahead and fail it? One of the quick fail criteria is about that the article is about a current event, and that's one of the things you brought up. Also if you don't have "much to work with" or "enough information" do you really think that this is GA worthy? Regardless I'll begin the review but I'm curious as to why you renommed it then. --Banime (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've reviewed the article in depth and I've placed it on hold for now. Unfortunately I believe it needs a good amount of work. You can see all of my concerns on Talk:Flag_of_Kosovo/GA2, and if you need any help or have any questions let me know. Hopefully one day this can get to GA criteria, but right now I'm very uncertain. --Banime (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to pass the article. Good work and great changes! Good luck on your future projects. Also, if you have time, please consider checking WP:GAN for an article you can review for GA status. --Banime (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This image is very common art with the series, I have seen this at least at 10 websites, and even one magazine. However, I would source it to Gonzo Animation, copyright 2005. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Virtuti Militari 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. --ROGER DAVIEStalk15:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I've seen you edit a lot of articles on Belarus, so I hope you can help me -- any idea where we could at least get the results of seats per party for the Belarusian parliamentary election, 2008? (I'm not even dreaming of actually getting votes per party, but that would be even better, of course.) My knowledge of Cyrillic is pretty abysmal, so I can't even tell you whether the official website of the Belarusian House of Representatives has the info or not... Thanks! —Nightstallion08:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
RfC/U
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x]15:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Images from Kremlin.ru are now allowed on here and the Commons. From the last time we discussed, several Russian users managed to ask the Kremlin to release their photographs to us, which they did. So, a lot of images of the Kremlin I deleted before, they are now allowed back on Wikipedia. I do not think I have the time to restore everything I deleted immediately, but I will promise you that everything will be restored, even if I have to get someone else to do it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats ok, Zscout I'll be free that day, and will swat thoes bastard students on sight! Congratulations again, and great work. Ceoilsláinte22:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
He's no troll. He has given insight on what was missing from other Belarusian FA's, so any insight he has will be good. So I need to use more book sources, no big deal. Just need to find said books to use. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo in diplomatic relations maps
Do you think that this idea is sound and could be made into a policy - I posted it here Image talk:Austria Belarus Locator.png. Basically it means that if both countries whose relations are supposed to be depicted don't recognise Kosovo as independent then the map shows Kosovo as part of Serbia. In case one of them does and the other one doesn't, Kosovo border is shown with an interrupted line (alternatively it could be a shaded part of Serbia) and if both countries recognise Kosovo then Kosovo is shown with a full border. What do you think? Can this be turned into an official rule for maps of this sort?--Avala (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me congratulate you on getting "Flag of Singapore" to GA status – it's been a rather painful process – by awarding you with a barnstar that you created! Thanks for helping to improve Singapore-related articles in Wikipedia. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that this idea is sound and could be made into a policy - I posted it here Image talk:Austria Belarus Locator.png. Basically it means that if both countries whose relations are supposed to be depicted don't recognise Kosovo as independent then the map shows Kosovo as part of Serbia. In case one of them does and the other one doesn't, Kosovo border is shown with an interrupted line (alternatively it could be a shaded part of Serbia) and if both countries recognise Kosovo then Kosovo is shown with a full border. What do you think? Can this be turned into an official rule for maps of this sort?--Avala (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ribbon Alternative
Hi Zscout370
I have just created a ribbon alternative in your style for the WP:ANIME's second award, but it seems to me that I cannot quite get it "right" (Refer to the images – Who would have thought that it is so difficult to get 2160 pixels right?). Would you mind having a go at it? (Please overwrite my version if you wish).
I am not quite happy with my design, as it does not match the barnstar version (compare my version with the other two examples – the ribbons look like natural extensions of the barnstars). I am unfortunately unable to come up with a better design; and as such I am asking your help in coming up with a better design (Your other ribbons are of excellent quality, and I am hoping you could design a equally high quality ribbon for this award). Would you be willing to help me in this regard? Regards, G.A.Stalk10:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of Arms of North Korea.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
). I want to create some derivatives of this picture, but I'm clueless when it comes to creating .SVG files. Don't feel as if you must create these, but I would really appreciate it...:
) picture to orange for me? That way it would at least match the color of the text it correlates with. Thanks, 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sfseal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
; see Talk:Flag of Kosovo for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Prince of Canada t | c 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[1]](http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3850004bz1.gif){kind=link}
![[2]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:US_states_by_date_of_statehood3.gif){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Flag_of_Croatia.svg&diff=next&oldid=2207625){kind=link}
![[9]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Population_of_Russia.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[16]](http://mullr.nfshost.com/DSC_3216.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://mullr.nfshost.com/DSC_3220.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
