After Midnight (talk | contribs) →Recent closure: thanks |
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) m →A category issue: corr link |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 729: | Line 729: | ||
:::This aside, hope you're having a great day : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
:::This aside, hope you're having a great day : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Thanks, as usual, for your encouragement. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
::::Thanks, as usual, for your encouragement. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
== A category issue == |
|||
Hi, some time ago you closed [[Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:User ke and subcats|this CfD]] and deleted [[:Category:User ke]] and subcats. Now, a friend who was on wikibreak at the time, [[User:NikoSilver|NikoSilver]], tells me he would like it back ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=157732679&oldid=157464806]). His point, which I think has some merit, is that "Ancient Greek" and "Koine Greek" are sufficiently different that many people would classify themselves as knowing Koine without knowing A.G. to the same extent. I guess this applies especially to many native speakers of Modern Greek, for whom Koine is significantly easier than "real" A.G. Indeed, there are a good number of users who give themselves higher Babel ratings for Ke than for Grc (see besides [[User:NikoSilver]] e.g. [[User:Kimon]], [[User:KRBN]], [[User:Brianbeck]], [[User:Kupirijo]], [[User:KaragouniS]]). |
|||
This has quite a practical significance for Wikipedia: if you seek a fellow editor who can verify a Greek quote from the New Testament for you, you might want to turn to somebody different than if you need someone who can translate a line of Homer. |
|||
Is the lack of an ISO code a serious problem? I'm not aware if there is a general consensus that only ISO-coded languages can be Babelised; I guess practical Wikipedian considerations should always take precedence. |
|||
I'm not sure this is an issue for [[WP:DRV]], because it's not a procedural challenge of the deletion closure, which was obviously valid. It's rather just an application of "Consensus Can Change". Would you mind terribly if he just re-created the category? We have no standard "official" process for allowing such recreations, I think. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 07:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:12, 14 September 2007
Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave me a message to discuss my actions or tell me about something that you think I might want to know. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
- Please place new conversations at the bottom of the page, not at the top.
- I prefer to keep conversations intact, so if you ask me a question here, I will reply here, unless you indicate otherwise.
- If I left you a message on your talk page, I have added you to my watchlist, so if you reply there, I will see your response (unless several weeks have passed). One exception to this is if my message was a "semi-automated" edit such as concerning an image deletion, in which case I have not watched your page, as I do far too many of these.
What's the problem? I haven't see any obvious issues with the "Foo seasons" template I surveyed. Circeus 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I was seeing issues with articles that used {{Copa Libertadores Seasons}} and {{CAF Champions League Seasons}}, such as CAF Champions League 2007. I made some reverts to both of those template and the problems went away, but now they are no longer "standardized" I think. --After Midnight 0001 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect what happened was that changes were made to the software that broke the (silly, IMHO) system of noinclude-ing the {{fb start}} template. Circeus 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I could easily believe that. --After Midnight 0001 22:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect what happened was that changes were made to the software that broke the (silly, IMHO) system of noinclude-ing the {{fb start}} template. Circeus 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
User:UBX/MSF
The MSF userbox, located in user space, was not part of the category discussion. Please restore the deleted userbox. --DieWeisseRose 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. I don't know how I made that error. I must have thought that I was deleting the category and accidentally deleted the userbox. Thanks for pointing it out and please accept my apology for the inconvenience. --After Midnight 0001 21:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I accept your apology and thank you for your refreshingly friendly and cooperative response. --DieWeisseRose 22:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: Article Improvement
Thank you very much, I wasn't really expecting anyone to see it (and certainly not that fast). I found it while making a dab page and ended up fixing it instead of doing what I had planned ;-) Thanks again, TewfikTalk 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}} Request from Ttturbo
After Midnight, please look at one of the most recent communications from Ttturbo which appears to summarize his mindset and goals. Given its content and the nature of the back and forth communications of the past few days, I'm suggesting that the best course going forward is to not directly engage Ttturbo any more (including responding further to his Help request). Even the most conciliatory and rational communications with him prompt suspicions of secret police machinations and accusatory responses. There seems to be a deadline approaching over the next five days that is driving his crusade. It's possible that once this deadline passes, Ttturbo may move on to other projects. Feel free to review all of his Talk page: it ALL bears on his request (as well as Red army crimes in Lithuania).
Jim Dunning | talk 03:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: it seems like he needs to write a historical treatise very fast (within the next five days), and he may be only here on English Wikipedia to get help on that treatise, because he got banned from Lithuanian wikipedia [1]. Googling, I found that metai means a "year" in Lithuanian.--Pan Gerwazy 09:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hiya
What do you think of the Miss USA year articles now (the latest is Miss USA 1990). I'm improving as I get through the years, and one of the things I love the most now is being able to include scores (thanks to Youtube). Is there anything else you think would be good to add? I've now done Miss USA & Teen USA back to 1990 and will work to complete the Teens and then do more of the Miss articles. PageantUpdater 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very good. The colors in the table are a nice touch. No additions come to mind at the moment, but I'll keep thinking about them later. --After Midnight 0001 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Burger King logo
Why did you remove the File:Burger King.svg? I put the fair use statement as per the notice on the discussion page from 1 June 2007, was there another issue that needed to be addressed? If there was, why did you not post a warning on the discussion page? Could you please reinstate the image so that I may correct the problem?
Jerem43 16:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I am assuming that you mean Image:Burger King Logo.svg... I did delete this about 6 hours ago, but no edits had been made to the image since it was tagged on June 1, so maybe you put the rationale someplace else? I will restore it now, but I'm going to leave it tagged for deletion, so please go out there soon and put the rationale on it and then remove the tag. If someone else "re-deletes it" before you get to it, let me know and I'll restore it again. --After Midnight 0001 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I thought I tagged it as such, if I did not that was stupid of me. As soon as it reappears I will put the proper tag in place.
The tag is in place and I believe that it now conforms to the standards of Fair Use as required by Wikipedia, I thank you for your assistance with the issue.
Jerem43 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC), revised 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. --After Midnight 0001 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Your deletion of Image:Ilaiyaraja_-_Thiruvasagam.jpg
Dear After Midnight: This image (Image:Ilaiyaraja_-_Thiruvasagam.jpg) was deleted because you said it has a "fair use tag but no fair use rationale for more than seven days". I uploaded the file, and may have forgotten to type up a fair use rationale for the image. I would have provided the fair use rationale had I been notified that the file was up for deletion in seven days. I wasn't. Could you please undo the deletion so that I could add the following fair use rationale: "This image is a digital camera image of the album cover for Ilaiyaraaja's Thiruvasagam album. This image is used because there is no other way of depicting an example of this artiste's album. A digital camera photo is used so that readers can see what album this artiste has released, and how the album cover looks like." Thank you. AppleJuggler 09:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have restored the image for 24 hours to give you time to post a rationale. --After Midnight 0001 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. AppleJuggler 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
McGloff redux
Hi, just to let you know, I found the detailed log of a past vandalism you posted here very helpful in making a case against the same vandal(s) over here. Thanks. --CliffC 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it. That all happened before I became an admin. I do remember being a bit sore that more action wasn't taken at the time, as you could probably tell from my long post. I still notice that vandalism showing up on the JoeD page from time to time, but not often anymore. I'm glad that my analysis was helpful. --After Midnight 0001 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I am concerned about your decision to delete this category here. The votes were basically evenly split, yet you deleted the category anyway. Can you give me any insight as to why you did this beyond what you wrote at closing? I read the arguments for and against deletion and both seemed of equal strength to me.
Cedars 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the deletes were based in policy of WP:NOT, while the keeps were based on WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Also if you look at some similar recent discussions like Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Political Compass Categories and Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:WSPQ Wikipedians, you will see that they were both closed delete as well. Hope that helps. --After Midnight 0001 00:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I was doing it too fast...
I am going to Vanish soon, so I was changing my signature to remove my name. AVTN 06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I changed the license to fair use and deleted the notice as some can be deleted... this obviously shouldn't have. Noles1984 17:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigma Lambda Beta
Thank you for bringing that fact to my attention. The image is being used under fair use policy and I have illustrated that fact. Again, thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nguerrero03 17:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about this, I started writing a comment then changed my mind and deleted the whole section by accident, rather than just my post. --Deskana (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh - no problem at all. If you hadn't told me, I might not have noticed. --After Midnight 0001 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Miss USA/Teen USA articles
Hiya! What do you think of all the additions to the Miss USA/Teen USA state articles? I see you've been doing some cleanup... I did a bit myself last night. I think that quite a bit of this stuff is good but there are quite a few formatting issue and wl's for the year articles (of Miss Universe, Miss USA, Miss World etc) that needs to be added. I've been taking out references to some of the less notable pageants (Miss World USA, Miss Asia Pacific, America's National Teenager and a few other even more obscure ones). Does that sound like a good idea?
And on the subject of wikilinking the year articles... I don't know whether you have time but if you do at some point, would you be able to wikilink in the new year articles I've created for Miss USA and Teen USA. I hadn't really thought about it until now and will do some myself but some help would be nice :) I've got down to 1990 for Miss and up to 1986 for Teen (although they mayaswell all be linked because I'll be writing the last 4 articles when I get a chance. Just a question... I'm not that good with AWB... can I only use find/replace to do one year per article, or can I do multiple find/replaces? Or is it just easier to do them individually?
Thanks! PageantUpdater 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I saw all the activity going on from the new anon. I've been fixing really obvious wikilinks, but I've been leaving the rest as is for now; figuring that they are still hitting the articles multiple time. I thought it would be easier to do all the notability clean-up at once instead of bit-by-bit. Is Miss Oktoberfest notable? Regarding the wikilinks for the years, I can knock that out easy. I'll get it later this week. Best regards. --After Midnight 0001 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Miss Oktoberfest is a bit of a moot point but I think it's just notable enough and has some really interesting results. If I get a chance I might see what news stuff I can pull up on it and possibly even write an article. Many of the contestants/winners competed at Miss USA and America and some international pageants as well. I'm busy working on updating my own pageant website right now so am a little distracted. PageantUpdater 06:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Heh I've found tons of articles on Miss Oktoberfest... definitely worth an article when I get time. PageantUpdater 06:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've linked all the years for the MTUSA and 1990-present for MUSA. If there is anything else, just let me know. --After Midnight 0001 22:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Category:Port towns in the United Kingdom
The result of the debate was rename to 'cities and towns'. Why did you drop the word 'cities'? --Redaktor 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is actually a page (WP:CFD/W) where the closing admins list instructions for the bots and their operators that control this activity. It looks like the closing admin made a simple mistake when listing the instructions for this one, which I then followed. It also looks like someone else alerted the closing admin to this and he has listed new instructions to correct it. If someone else hasn't gotten to it by then, I will talk care of it when I get home from work. Thanks for the alert and also for your understanding. --After Midnight 0001 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Phiacrest.png
Added Fair use rationale for Image:Phiacrest.png. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Hopefully I did it right 2much 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
MAOTeen again
Well the original nominator clearly doesn't like my compromise solution.... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants PageantUpdater 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: Gal Gadot
Hi, Sorry it took me so long to respond, but your message got lost among others. Do you still need help with it, and if so, what specifically? TewfikTalk 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Shakespeare authorship
I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[2]] (Felsommerfeld 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
- Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
Both of you should know that I will not get involved here. Please stop posting to multiple admin pages. If you have a need go to WP:AN or WP:ANI as appropriate. Do not WP:CANVAS or forum shop. If you continue this behavior on my page or that of other admins you may both be blocked. --After Midnight 0001 01:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
A deleted image.
OK, you probably have nothing to do with it but you were the person that deleted an image and I noticed an undelete option that is restricted to administrators so I wnated to know is there any option I could get the image for my personal use, some cache or whatever. Simply, like if I would had saved it to my computer before deletion. 354d 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It says that it came from [3]. Is it still available for you to get from that location? --After Midnight 0001 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! just what I needed 354d 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Somebody told me.png image deletion
Hi there,
This image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Somebody_told_me.png
is up for review. I am really not familiar with copyrights or fair use. Although I did upload the image, I had actually just re-edited another version of that image that was already uploaded, just removing some JPG compression artifacts. You may want to contact that user (Tnman). As far as I recall, however, that original image did not have any source information or fair use rationale. -Tejastheory 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Watch this page...
Amy Polumbo is a current event on the news w/the NJ Beauty Pageant Scandal. Beauty pageants aren't my forte. However, since the subject is a living person and is a current topic of the news, thought you should look after the article. Miranda 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
RE: Fair use rationale for Image:Das testament.jpg
Is this better?--Entoaggie09 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- That should easily pass the I6 test. You should be fine unless someone disputes the rationale, but then you would get another warning before it was deleted. --After Midnight 0001 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Around the horn
You said: "no need to tag it, just remove it per WP:BLP". I probably should've done that, but I was confused as the what the hell he was talking about. Seems now that he's talking about a person in the show and not a user on Wikipedia. Thanks for removing.++aviper2k7++ 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I hope I didn't put you off. By the way he was talking about Tony Reali. --After Midnight 0001 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Closing my RfA
Thank you for closing my RfA and notifying me; I really appreciate the notification. Thanks for your time! Neranei T/C 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I do hope to see you there again in the future. --After Midnight 0001 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale
- The template I applied was perfectly appropriate under Wikipedia policy at the time I applied it. Can you not figure out how to write a fair use rationale for a the use of a college seal to appear on an article about the college by yourself? What makes you think pasting giant warnings on my talk page is a better use of your time? Are you paying me to improve Wikipedia on your behalf? You see a problem, fix it yourself. --Dystopos 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Mentmore_Towers image
Would you please exlain this edit [4] to me. Why has this picture been speedy deleted and by whom? How can an image of a house illustrating an article on that house not be fair use? Giano 13:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted the image because it was tagged with {{no rationale|month=June|day=29|year=2007}} by Durin. The image may indeed be fair use, but there was no rationale posted. If you would like for me to restore the image so you will have another week to post one please let me know. --After Midnight 0001 13:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, it is already restored. Don't people ever read what is written or where images link before placing these tags, or are the admins concerned on commission. Giano 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but at the same time, there was no rationale posted there at all. At any rate, I'm glad it is sorted out. --After Midnight 0001 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, it is already restored. Don't people ever read what is written or where images link before placing these tags, or are the admins concerned on commission. Giano 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Gretchen Carlson
Would you mind helping with the Gretchen Carlson article? I regret that User:TanningLamp has removed the section on controversies three times, while I have put it back twice. I do not wish to violate the 3RR rule. I also would be open to any compromise, but TanningLamp appears to simply wish the entire section gone. TanningLamp is a new user and has already been involved in some edit wars, has been banned for insulting other editors and may be pushing an agenda, though perhaps just needs a bit of guidance. Thanks Arjunasbow 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like you have each reverted the other, but edit summaries do not count as a true discussion. Please try initiating one on the talk page of the article to build consensus among the editors of the page. Once there is a consensus, the path should be clear. --After Midnight 0001 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:Daniel
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Daniel (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DanielTemplate:Highrfc-loop]]. -- j talk 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
wikiporn enjoyers
"The result of the debate was result" ?? Too much after midnight reading? Johnbod 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've corrected that. Fortunately that one was obvious enough that there shouldn't be any issues. Hey, it took 3 days for anyone to notice I did it wrong! --After Midnight 0001 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks:-)
Thanks for correcting the category F14 and F16 into military history as per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 8. I had created the earlier catergories since I had got the impression that categories could be created anywhere we wanted;-)--PremKudvaTalk 12:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome. That seemed like the bast place to put them, rather than having you "by yourself". Over time, if something else makes sense, it can always be changed. If you want, feel free to use Category:Wikipedians interested in aviation as well or instead of the one for military history. --After Midnight 0001 12:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
AWB
Oops - I have been previewing rather well, but I must have misread some. Ive noticed the diff engine highlights some lines with no difference, i'll watch more carefully in future. Sorry! Also, I thought reorganising the stub tag orders etc was significant, its still a minorish edit, but its useful and worthwhile. If i misunderstood that part of the manual, please forgive me, and i'll stop doing that now. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that is unusual, is there any way to selectively turn off that behaviour? The general fixes etc are very useful, but I don't want to be doing something that a bot reverts several days later. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on user's talk page where thread began. --After Midnight 0001 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Abbott Cup
I am not the uploader, but I would be capable of adding fariuse rationale to "image Abbott cup.jpg", could you please undelete it so I can add fairuse rationale and it can go back on its appropriate article. DMighton 15:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Here is it. I'm bumped out the deletion date a week to give you time to post the rationale. Please remember to remove the tag when you are done. --After Midnight 0001 15:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. DMighton 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
CfD
I see it's too late. Oh well. Honestly, I think it's a good point that there's not much reason to collect the category. I did like it existing, so I could see how many users were using the template. :) But that's not a very good reason in the end. Mangojuicetalk 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, counting transclusions doesn't get those who subst the template, and I imagine there are a good number. But really, the days when it was exciting to see how the idea was catching on are past. What I should work on is finding a way to do the same thing with perfectly hiding commitments. Mangojuicetalk 11:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Blue Network
I see that you made two deletions on the Blue Network page of images. I had attempted to fix the rationale on these images, but found it difficult to do so. I had reloaded the images with what I thought was a better fair use rationale, but frankly the person who had been tagging these things was extremely unhelpful, and did not respond to a request for assistance in getting the tags corrected for the images.
The images that had been uploaded (and which you deleted), plus one other image this same person tagged, were all advertisements taken from newspapers. They had been emplaced by the American Broadcasting Company to promote their broadcasts, and as such were clearly promotional materials. Ironically, neither of the two now-deleted images, nor the current tagged image, use logo trademarks. The advertisements were used in the article to illustrate certain points (that is, how ABC promoted its change from the Blue Network to its new name, how it was using the Blue Network name even after the change, and its post-1942 use of facilities at Rockefeller Center), points that could hardly be made by other means, especially given the way Wikipedia emphasizes the need to document facts in articles.
I would note for the record that I happen to be a lawyer, and one with experience in copyright law. In my frank opinion, the use of these excerpts from newspapers clearly falls under the fair-use doctrine.
As such, I don't think the two deletions, and the current tagging, were justified. The manner in which this was done, in particular the ignoring of a request for assistance (plus the added tagging of a third image) has left a very poor taste in my mouth. Hopefully, I can get some better assistance from you. Eric O. Costello 00:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Here is what we can do.... If you can give me a lead on which images were deleted, I can undelete them for a short time to allow you the opportunity to get fair-use image rationales posted onto them. The key is, I need to know which ones to help me find them and I need your word that you will try your best to post legitimate FU rationales on them. I think that I know which 2 you need from Blue Network, namely Image:ABCBlue247.jpg and Image:ABCKATE645.jpg, but I have no idea which other image(s) you want. By the way, it looks like you tried to put a rationale on both of the images that I deleted, but there was noting actually there, but we can cross that bridge later. Let me know what you want and we'll go from there. --After Midnight 0001 02:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct on both images, the ones that were deleted. The third image is Image:BLUEKATE344.jpg, which is also on the Blue Network page; this one has been tagged for removal, but nothing has happened yet. I think the problem was I had a hell of a time (and unsuccessful) figuring out how precisely to edit the image so that the rationale could be inserted. (As you note, evidently my good-faith attempt to fix this didn't work.) A pointer as to where I can find the best script to plug in and fill out in order to meet standards would also be of great help. And thank you for responding promptly, I might add. Eric O. Costello 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Non-free media rationale guideline, which discusses how to use {{Non-free media rationale}} which you can just copy add to the image and then fill in the blanks. It also tells you how to just type in free text which will also work. I've restored both images for you now. I've pushed out the date on both of them to give you a week to resolve them. When you have you may remove the deletion tag. You should probably take care of the 3rd image 1st, since it is scheduled for deletion in about 2 days time. --After Midnight 0001 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have followed your advice, and have inserted rationales on all three. Thank you very much for (a) your patience, and (b) your helpfulness on this matter. Eric O. Costello 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am happy to have helped. --After Midnight 0001 01:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Need your expert help!
Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Done --After Midnight 0001 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Brought this to WP:DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by pet. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Húsönd 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
STAR TV's logos
Hi, just wanna know why the STAR TV Channel logos were deleted. Did it violate any policies? Im not really familiar with wikipedia's polices for image use. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.49.97 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure of exactly which images you are referring to, but generally, I have been deleting images recently in this category. Any image in here was tagged for deletion as a result of not having a fair use rationale added to it to justify the use of copyrighted images. If you can tell me which article you are wondering about, I can possibly be more specific. I don't see any images that were deleted from STAR TV, so I must be looking at the wrong one. --After Midnight 0001 10:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ambulance artice image
Oops - I didn't realize that image was on the speedy delete list - thanks for being up on that --Badger151 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Any chance that a free image might be available to use in its place? --After Midnight 0001 14:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
CFD?
Regarding your edits here, and here, with your edit summary referencing Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007#July_17, this page does not appear to exist. Additionaly this User Category was just discussed and was the TARGET of a merge discussion at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007#Category:Pastafarian_Wikipedians. Where is the discussion you are referring to? Please reply on my talk. — xaosflux Talk 04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, looks like this one went back and forth quite a few times! It seems that the lateset discussion was possible from a COI nominator, but I really don't care enough to go to DRV (apparently AGAIN!) and the !votes were favored delete. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 04:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Need your help!
Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I need a help from you with regards to templates. For more information, please view this page. I feel that it is paramount to achieve consistency with regards to templates. If you know how to correct this, it would be much appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like someone else already got to this.... --After Midnight 0001 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Category
I just wrote to MSJapan about the same issue, as he also asked about it. I don't meant to be a nuisance over a category, and if everyone feels it should go, I'll fall in line, but I'm curious to know what harm anyone feels it's doing. Or is it duplicated somewhere, or something like that? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of [[::Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 09:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
DRV
I don't get it. I close something based upon precedent, and it gets overturned because I didn't count votes of consensus. You close something based upon consensus and people come out of the woodwork to overturn based upon precedent. We should really get these two groups together. I'm guessing it'll be like matter and anti-matter, and we'll be able to power a small city with the energy produced. --Kbdank71 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, just make sure we stand back far enough in case it explodes. BTW, they really come out of the woodwork when someone canvasses 40 people who used to be members of the category.... KABOOM! --After Midnight 0001 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: Fair use rationale for Image:WFLX.png
An appropriate fair use rationale was added shortly after your warning was placed on my talk page. Thank you for your attention. -- M (speak/spoken) 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I've removed the tag. FYI, if you place a good faith rationale on an image page, you can feel free to remove the deletion tag yourself in the future. --After Midnight 0001 21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Smile
- Thanks. To what do I owe the honor? --After Midnight 0001 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Non-free image rationales
I see you are busy trying to find any logo that does not meet the requirement. Has there been a crackdown on the policy? It seems like a lot of work to located every single logo that does not have a Non-free image rationale. Strafidlo
- Hello. I am actually not focused on logos; I am looking at any non-free images. This includes all sorts of things such as screen shots, posters, logos, album artwork, box covers, and more. Yes, there has been some increased attention paid to these across the project by a number of editors. Bots are also involved to a great extent to aid in identification. For more information, you may want to check out some of the following: WP:AN/FURG, foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy, and Wikipedia:Non-free content. There is probably much more discussion on other pages also. As far as how much work it is, it's really pretty easy. With popups, twinkle and tabbed browsing you can easily open multiple articles at once, each of which seem to contain numerous images, none of which often have rationales posted. These can be quickly tagged after glancing to make sure that the tag is appropriate. Twinkle does the work to notify the uploader and update the article to communicate to people that they can fix the rationales so that the images may be retained. --After Midnight 0001 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not PD! How did it end up as PD?
I don't know if you got this or not but I replaced the PD tag with a logo one and added a rationale. Does that make you happy? -- M (speak/spoken) 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like you put the {{PD}} tag on it in this edit 2 years ago when you fixed a typo. At any rate, yes {{Non-free logo}} is correct here. --After Midnight 0001 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you undelete this please? As indicated on the article's talk page, the picture of her as she appears today totally does not do her justice as an ex-porn star, and a comparison between the two qualifies as fair use. I have the article watchlisted, but not the image, otherwise I would have caught it before it was deleted. I will write a proper rationale for it. -Nard 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I have restored it and moved the deletion tag out another week to allow you to post a rationale. When you have done so, please remove the tag. --After Midnight 0001 00:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I just started watching the Little Green Footballs page yesterday, but it seems odd that there could not be a fair use rationale written for a major blog's logo. Can I convince you to reinstate the image, if I promise to compose a rationale? --Knulclunk 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done - I've put a new deletion tag on it which you can remove once the rationale is posted. --After Midnight 0001 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Knulclunk 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep on Word Association
Hi, I noticed your speedy keep on Word Association but the deletion tag is still on the page. Should someone remove it now that the discussion is over? I think it's confusing, as I clicked on it to leave my vote and found the archive instead.CindyBotalk 06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, sorry. I've cleaned it up now. --After Midnight 0001 12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Juanjov1 still at it
Looks like Juanjov1 immediately started adding fair use images to articles after his block expired: [5]. —Chowbok ☠ 16:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've tagged the image for deletion and left another warning. Keep an eye on it and let me know. Next time I will make the block longer. If I'm not around, feel free to post to WP:AN/I and reference this discussion. Next block should be either 2 weeks or 1 month, I think. --After Midnight 0001 16:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
req photo tag
why do you keep removing them. I went though this with Yamla he thought they were for talk pages only after a discussion he came to admit it doesn't say that anywhere. [[6]] I put the link to the page with them. [[7]] no where does it say that the tag should only be on the talk page. No reason tags can't be on both pages. No rule against. Users come to the article see that an image is needed. Until there is a wiki rule stating that the tag is only for talk pages or a rule saying if the tag is on the talk page don't put it on the main page I'd appreciate you not reverting my edits adding the tag. Those articles need images per wiki rules and people just glancing at the article will not see that and may be able to help. Anything like this that can help improve wikipedia can and should be left. Thank you for your time. --Xiahou 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- heck, you took the tag off Kockásfülű nyúl and there is nothing on the talk page? So the fact that some have a similar tag on the talk page doesn't even apply. Why would you remove the tag requesting an image? I see from your contributions you deal alot with images. Thats great. Good but I am lost at why removing a tag made available on the cleanup page requesting images is something you want to remove. Till there is a rule agaist and there is every reason for I am just going to put it back in its deserved place. I am breaking no rules adding a necessary tag. One could say you removing them especially when nothing is on the talk page is. --Xiahou 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want this to become a personal issue at all. Reading my text one could read into and see that. I don't. I felt those articles could be improved by adding that tag in hopes someone would see that and possibly take action. I read the fine print on the tag. The talk page even has a discussion saying it isn't set on if its for article or discussion page only. Never resolved. I am trying to be bold and add the tag. Where needed. Possibly you see the tag color and think its for talk pages only. But then I am confused on the pages you remove it from and there is nothing on the talk page. I await your response. I just want to know where you are coming from on this. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I am back now. I can see that you are editing in good faith. My experience has been that these tags are depreciated on the articles themselves are are much more commonly found on talk pages. There has been a move towards putting more of that type of information of the talk pages, but it does appear that it is not settled. I like that you have started a discussion on the talk page of the template in question, that should resolve the matter. I would like to suggest that you consider making a post at the village pump directing people to that discussion in the event that you do not get sufficient feedback at the talk page to reach a consensus. As to the way that I rolled back your edits, I will apologize, I had recently had to do a numbers of reverts of another editor who had performed a large amount of image vandalism and I confused you with that other editor. I would also like to point out to you, that if the article that you are wanting a photo on has an infobox on it, you might want to use Image:Replace this image1.svg in the infobox. --After Midnight 0001 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much getting back to me. Please let me know how any kind of policy change comes out. There needs to be an official say on this. If its down to the brown color a simple tag color change would be an obivous thing. I personally think its needed. I don't look at the talk page myself when just browsing a topic. thanks again for getting back to me. I will try out the infobox template thanks for the help. Again, whatever comes of that can you put a message on my talk page and let me know if something comes of it. Thanks.--Xiahou 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead and add Template talk:Reqphoto to your watchlist. Then you will be able to see yourself when the consensus is achieved. --After Midnight 0001 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I misread what you wrote and took it to mean you had started a talk. Big OOPS. Anyway thanks for pointing out the infobox tag to add. I fixed any I could with an infobox and will use it for that from now on. Thanks. --Xiahou 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi, After Midnight, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for starters - not spamming me would be good.... I'm afraid that you and I are not currently on the same page. That may change, but it will require time. Please don't re-apply without actually addressing the concerns, rather than merely rebutting them. --After Midnight 0001 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Submilli
Darn! Anything we can do about that? It appears to be his perennial quarrel with KP Botany again. >Radiant< 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I be joining your brigade
I'm going to be brute forcefully tagging ANY fair-use image without citations, and I'll in some cases, be resizing images to satisfy fair use requirements. ViperSnake151 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
On the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition and all subcats
Hello! Where you see a "delete all by strength of arguments", I see a very clear "no consensus", which should have defaulted to keep. I was thus curious to see which arguments you felt tipped the balance in favor of deleting the group of categories.--Ramdrake 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the delete votes cited concerns regarding WP:OR and a lack of legitimate collaborative potential. The keeps cited being able to collaborate easier. For this issue, WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOCIALNET tips the balance. Also, Black Falcon's comment on Deceased Wikipedians was particularly strong. The deletes also did a better job of refuting the arguments of the keeps. --After Midnight 0001 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Becon.gif
The image Becon.gif which I uploaded almost a year ago is the logo of WPPB-TV. As the logo for that tv station wouldn't it be considered fair use for it to be in the article about that tv station? --PiMaster3 talk 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it very well may qualify for "fair use". There is no rationale stated on the image page, so you probably just need to go ahead and do that. I recommend that you use {{Non-free use rationale}} and fill it out as shown on the template page. Once you do that, please feel free to remove the tag that I placed on it for deletion. --After Midnight 0001 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods & WikiProject Saskatchewan
Even though you are an American we could use an admin on these projects:
Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject and WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan. |
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! |
Mr. C.C. 04:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that I received this invite as a result of some vandalism I removed a short while ago. I am honored that you remembered me. I have no real knowledge of the subject matter, but if you ever need me to perform an administrative action, please don't hesitate to let me know. --After Midnight 0001 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Deletion Review : Information
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Please note that this deletion review includes ALL subcats related to this one which were deleted at the same time. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 09:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Broken warnings
Just wanted to let you know that both of the CfD warnings you left on my talk page have been incorrectly formatted (with that Category:category thing breaking the link). I presumed the first one was a one-off and so didn't say anything, but since it's happened twice figured I'd better let you know. I've never used that template, so I'm not sure where it's gone wrong. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Responded on user's talk page here. --After Midnight 0001 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thought you'd like to know
I placed a DRV request regarding one of your closures: Category:Wikipedians by generation and subcats.
Incidentally, I've been reading through the UCFD archives (I've been away from Wikipedia since late June), and it's been interesting reading. I'll be proposing a couple things on the UCFD talk page soon, and I'd welcome your thoughts. Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I know that you have much experience at UCFD, and I'll look forward to discussion regarding this topic. One issue that you might not note from looking in the archives is a growing sentiment to allow canvassing of votes for usercat discussions. I must say that I have some particularly strong feelings regarding this particular issue and I hope that it is included in the discussions. --After Midnight 0001 12:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, according to WP:CANVASS, there are rather specific criteria in which canvassing is permitted. But if they're votestacking, that's a whole other thing altogether. As for my proposals/thoughts, I'm still thinking about how best to put them into words. For example, one is somewhat extensive, but, in my opinion, necessary. And btw, it may or may not mean much, but the DRV posting(s) aside, I think you've been doing quite a decent job at WP:UCFD. Too often we all just hear the negative. I think a bit of positivity is nice once in a while : ) - jc37 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I have been on DRV a bit recently, but I think that most of my decisions have held up so far. The only time I get bothered is when I don't find out about the DRV for a couple days while the discussion is going because no one left a note on my talk page, but I'll get over that. --After Midnight 0001 23:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, according to WP:CANVASS, there are rather specific criteria in which canvassing is permitted. But if they're votestacking, that's a whole other thing altogether. As for my proposals/thoughts, I'm still thinking about how best to put them into words. For example, one is somewhat extensive, but, in my opinion, necessary. And btw, it may or may not mean much, but the DRV posting(s) aside, I think you've been doing quite a decent job at WP:UCFD. Too often we all just hear the negative. I think a bit of positivity is nice once in a while : ) - jc37 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Davina Kotulski
An editor is removing the afd tag on Davina Kotulski and well, the current outcome of the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Kotulski looks like it'll be keep. Can we quickly close over WP:SNOW, so I don't have to give warnings to an editor who could be acting in good faith? -WarthogDemon 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I'll probably keep watch over the page and try to clean it up. It's a keeper but it'll still need fixing. Are the external links okay? That's the only part I'm not sure of. -WarthogDemon 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - I tried to respond sooner, but I seemed to encounter some connection issues right after I finished cleaning up after the keep. Personally, I would prefer that the external links were worked more into the references using the <ref>...</ref> syntax. By the way, did you just get lucky and find me online? I don't think I have any history with you or with this issue. (I apologize if I've forgotten). At any rate, I'm happy to help whenever I am available. --After Midnight 0001 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia was odd for me too. :) Anyways, I don't believe our histories have crossed before even though your user name isn't light blue. I found you by the logs; if ever there's something that I think needs to be checked/cleared quickly, I consult either the Block Log or the Deletion Log and speak with whomever was the last to block/delete something. Nine times out of ten I get someone still online. :) -WarthogDemon 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - I tried to respond sooner, but I seemed to encounter some connection issues right after I finished cleaning up after the keep. Personally, I would prefer that the external links were worked more into the references using the <ref>...</ref> syntax. By the way, did you just get lucky and find me online? I don't think I have any history with you or with this issue. (I apologize if I've forgotten). At any rate, I'm happy to help whenever I am available. --After Midnight 0001 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Troubleshooting?
Can you please take a look at this table I'm working on: User:PageantUpdater/Miss America award winners? I am at my wits end as to why the rowspan isn't working in the bottom instances and I don't want to do the rest until it is resolved! Thanks :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Done You had some ref tags that you hadn't closed.... --After Midnight 0001 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Questionable categories?
I don't know if you're presently online, but obviously I know that you care about and are involved in the maintenance of categories. :) There's a user presently busily creating the category Category:Pilot Cans at the Queer of God, which sounds like patent nonsense to me, particularly given the dissimilar entries he's linking. The user involved, Macarion has twice been blocked. Since I'm not familiar enough with the category maintenance yet to tackle this, I thought to point it out to you. Given the speed of his work, he's quite likely to be detected soon anyway, but I hate to just watch vandalism happen and do nothing. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've nominated it for CFD, let's see if it gets speedied. --Kbdank71 15:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thank you both. I see that this was an obscure reference to a song by The Flaming Lips here. I have speedied the category, rolled back all the edits and reblocked the user. --After Midnight 0001 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Happy to help.... Admin rollback with tabbed browsers make for fast reverting of vandalism. --After Midnight 0001 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Mankiewicz family CFD
I have to ask, is there some reason why you ignored overwhelming precedent and guidelines in favor of a pack of WP:ILIKEIT histrionics? Otto4711 13:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I felt that the keeps made a reasonable case that the precedent did not apply to this category. The consensus that made that guideline is subject to change and is often challenged. I think that each category deserves to present why the precedent may not apply. --After Midnight 0001 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could you point out that reasonable case? Because what I see is: an assertion that being in a prominent family means there should be a category (clearly not the case as evidenced by the several dozen deletions of similar categories); an argument that there is no consensus on family categories in general (irrelevant as this was not asserted in the nomination as a reason to delete); the number of articles in it (irrelevant, as we routinely delete categories with far more material, also doesn't address OCAT); an objection that it was discussed in terms of "Hollywood" instead of "Jewish" or "American" (which, why does the parent category matter?); and a somewhat hysterical screed about the non-existent data loss that would result if the category were deleted. Seriously, where is the argument in any of that which overcomes the OCAT guideline and the extensive precedent? Otto4711 16:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Otto, I can see pretty clearly that I am not going to satisfy you in this discussion. Seeing as how this is a guideline and not a policy, I am not going to throw out a strong majority consensus against your nomination, despite what you feel to be an illegitimacy of your opposers' arguments. Certainly, were I to do so, this would have gone to DRV, which is where I expect it is now headed regardless. --After Midnight 0001 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not going to take this to DRV. Your close was a mistake but it was within your discretion. Otto4711 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, if you truly believe that I have erred, go ahead and take it to DRV. If the opinion there is that I did make a mistake, I will surely admit my error and adjust my closing philosophy accordingly. --After Midnight 0001 17:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not going to take this to DRV. Your close was a mistake but it was within your discretion. Otto4711 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Otto, I can see pretty clearly that I am not going to satisfy you in this discussion. Seeing as how this is a guideline and not a policy, I am not going to throw out a strong majority consensus against your nomination, despite what you feel to be an illegitimacy of your opposers' arguments. Certainly, were I to do so, this would have gone to DRV, which is where I expect it is now headed regardless. --After Midnight 0001 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could you point out that reasonable case? Because what I see is: an assertion that being in a prominent family means there should be a category (clearly not the case as evidenced by the several dozen deletions of similar categories); an argument that there is no consensus on family categories in general (irrelevant as this was not asserted in the nomination as a reason to delete); the number of articles in it (irrelevant, as we routinely delete categories with far more material, also doesn't address OCAT); an objection that it was discussed in terms of "Hollywood" instead of "Jewish" or "American" (which, why does the parent category matter?); and a somewhat hysterical screed about the non-existent data loss that would result if the category were deleted. Seriously, where is the argument in any of that which overcomes the OCAT guideline and the extensive precedent? Otto4711 16:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- (outdent) Since it looks like you aren't taking this to DRV, I'm going to ask 2 other admins who spend alot of time at CFD to provide a 2nd opinion. I don't know that they will respond, but I want to be sure that I have been as fair as possible in this matter. Further, I respect their opinions a great deal and hope that they really will help me adjust if I have gone astray. --After Midnight 0001 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't call it a mistake or anything, but with respect to strength of argument, Otto has a point. The problem is that if you have nine individual debates on similar categories, you'll find that people are in agreement that certain categorization is inappropriate, and if you hold a tenth debate on the same issue, you'll hit the one category that was edited yesterday by someone who Likes It, and the debate will get hit by a number of people who don't want their information to be lost, despite it already being covered elsewhere.
- This is somewhat more important with templates, categories and other metadata than with articles, because consistency is more important in the former, and it's why I probably would have closed this one as a "delete" myself. Of course, this is the precise reason why deletion debates have moved away from vote count to judging argument and applying guidelines. Closing a debate against the majority wish is certainly an option, albeit one that requires an explanation in the closer's rationale. Such debates sometimes end up on DRV anyway, but the "appeal to vote count" does not hold much weight in Review. HTH! >Radiant< 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Based on multiple inputs, I have taken this to deletion review myself. --After Midnight 0001 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Cgingold 12:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Based on multiple inputs, I have taken this to deletion review myself. --After Midnight 0001 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Ultratech
Hello, on June 26, 2007 you deleted a page with this name. I presume it was from: Ultratech - a fictional company from the Killer Instinct videogame series. However, there is a real international quarter billion dollar corporation listed on the (nasdaq:UTEK) with that name, and I intend to recreate the page for that real company as Ultratech, Inc. I just want to run it by you first here, just in case there is any issue. Thanks, Steven Russell 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the page which I deleted was based in fiction, though it appears to be more generic than Killer Instinct. At any rate, there is no problem that I see with you creating a wholly new article that happens to have a similar name. As an aside, I would also not have a problem with the article that I deleted being restored, as any prod'ed article mat be restored for someone who presents a good faith attempt to improve it such that the article would survive an AFD. --After Midnight 0001 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. I will use the new name for my stub for now, with an "otheruse" tag pointing to the Killer Instinct article, since that's what kept coming up in my search, I think.Steven Russell 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedian Toastmasters
Hi. I recently nominated Category:Wikipedian Toastmasters for renaming. However, in my nomination (link), I mistakenly specified the target as Category:Wikipedian in Toastmasters International, whereas it should have been Category:Wikipedians in Toastmasters International (with an 's' at the end of "Wikipedian"). I specified the correct target on the category page, but not in the nomination itself. Is this a sufficiently uncontroversial issue that you could rename the category again or shall I make a quick nomination under the "Speedy nominations" section of WP:UCFD? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I probably should have caught that when I did the rename. I'll fix it. --After Midnight 0001 18:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
EFD
After Midnight, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:R/EFD#After Midnight and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the editors for deletion template from the top of your userpage; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :).
You asked for that one you know =D. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Tomás Ó Criomhthain
Hi, You deleted an image I uploaded of Tomás Ó Criomhthain. I created this imaghe myself by scanning an old postage stamp and I included text to indicate this when I uploaded the image. Yet I received a warning when I logged into Wikipedia at a later date saying that I had not given the image a proper copyright status description...which I did, most deliberately, by selecting one from a drop-down menu, when I first uploaded it. Now you have deleted the image. I will visit here again in the next few days to see your justification for your action.
169.133.253.21 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- The image did not have any copyright tag on it. I don't mind undeleting it, but someone is going to need to tag it properly, or someone else will end up deleting it again in another week. You can find it here. --After Midnight 0001 23:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You closed this as a snow closure for speedy keep. I wonder if that was exactly appropriate. You closed it less than two hours after it opened. There was clear consensus to keep at that point. However only one person who commented on the deletion has never edited the page, two of them have once before and everyone else is an active contributer to the page. Because of this, there is only one impartial comment. There wasn't much time to get a wider community consensus here. What are your thoughts? i said 01:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- It looked like a pile on to me and I don't think it would have ended differently. Considering that accusations had started, I thought it good to snow before anything got out of hand. --After Midnight 0001 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the thing is that it was a pile on by people who have participated in the page. One outside opinion does not mean everyone else will. The bad faith accusation was only by one user, and was quickly curtailed. i said 02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've never participated in the page, and I don't see any reason to kill it. It's in user space, and (IMO) that makes all the difference. It's silly, and I think that the "targets" need to be carefully screened (Miranda obviously didn't appreciate the humor), but as long as it stays in user space, and doesn't become some sort of by-invitation-only type of thing, I don't see the harm. How's that for an outside opinion? Horologium t-c 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the thing is that it was a pile on by people who have participated in the page. One outside opinion does not mean everyone else will. The bad faith accusation was only by one user, and was quickly curtailed. i said 02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Help With Out of Control User
After Midnight,
I hope you don't mind me asking for your help.
I've been editing some articles on Wikipedia for awhile. It's a lot of fun and I'm always happy to contribute when I can. However, someone named User:Nascentatheist has really irritated me.
This user has recently vandalized my user page and marred my talk page with all sorts of accusations. It all started when I disagreed with him about a link on the Kearny High School (San Diego) article. See the talk page here [8]. After he started being really aggressive to me, I didn't say much because I didn't know what to do, but it has only gotten worse.
This user has attacked and belittled me and I just don't know what to do. He has said that I'm a worthless contributor . . . and he has hurt me deeply. Please see what has happened and help me. I'd like to continue contributing, but I don't know if I will unless this guy stops. --Creashin 04:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have time to do much research of this right now, but it appears that you are being accused of being a sock puppet identity of a banned user. I would suggest that this might be better resolved at WP:ANI where more admins can get involved and take any necessary action. --After Midnight 0001 11:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll follow your suggestion. Thank you. --Creashin 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Image question
- THERE WAS NO NEED TO REMOVE BEBE BUELL BOOK COVER*
- When a book is published and in public domain there is no need to remove any references to it- it is okay to use as promo and or in a Wikipedia context. I checked with the publisher- St. Martin's Press- and the author. This cover can be printed in newspapers, articles, Amazon and any other public domain that touts it's contents.
If you need me to contact Danny Wool about this I will be more than happy to. Please advise. I have NO idea why you removed the book cover and would appreciate you putting it back asap. Thanks!
- note* as a NY Times Bestseller the book will frequently be used in many variations- Wikipedia being just one of many.
21 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aerocrew (talk • contribs) 16:51, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
- OK, well let's see. I think that you are refering to the Image:Bookcover bebebuell rebelheart.jpg which deleted on August 18. When the image was deleted, it was also removed from Bebe Buell. I deleted the image after it was tagged for deletion on July 25. The image was flagged for deletion as it did not have a rationale posted as to how it qualified under fair use, which is required of all non-free images. Such images may be deleted after 7 days, but this one was so tagged for 24 days. The uploader of the image was notified of this on July 25 also. Had a rationale been posted the image would not have been deleted for this cause. If you will commit to posting such a rationale, I will restore the image for you. Incidentally, unless the publisher is willing to release this image under the GFDL, their opinion on this matter is of no consequence. I'm not sure what Danny Wool has to do with this, but I doubt that he will mandate that an image be restored without a rationale. --After Midnight 0001 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that the issues have (to an extent) been erased, do you think you could add it to the checkpage again? Giggy Talk 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since you used up your 50 trial edits already, I'm not comfortable re-adding you yet. I would feel more comfortable after more discussion on the BRFA and a new trial approval/extension/etc. --After Midnight 0001 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since the issues were fixed, I extended for another 50 edits so we can test it properly. Please re-approve for AWB. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: instrument categories
- We were almost done though. I'd say ignore the "no consensus" and go through with the rename. The closer's call for a "babel expert" is misguided because the point of this was to deviate from babel. Since there's no consensus to delete, it should be fixed. Unfortunately I don't have time to help with this in the short future. –Pomte 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nice.... --After Midnight 0001 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Could you clarify? - jc37 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just being a bit of a smart ass. I was mildly insulted by Pomte and I was a bit indignant, but I'll get over it. We can just let it pass, unless you want me to elaborate. You are on my watchlist, so if you do want me to respond, just let me know here, or catch me anytime on IRC. --After Midnight 0001 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. At this point, I'm only concerned about it if you are. To clarify, this was a part of an effort (prior to my recently being away from Wikipedia) to fix some templates which populated categories, and the names of the categories thereof. Your input would be welcome, of course : )
- Oh, and I don't have/use IRC or an IRC client. Thank you for the invite though. Hope you're having a great day. : ) - jc37 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the invite about the categories. As far as IRC goes, let me say that I used Wikipedia for almost a year before I tried IRC. I was always intimidated by the thought of it, but I really needed to use it to get some help with something in real time, so I gave it a shot. I have since found that it is really very easy to use and is very helpful for having quick conversations without having to mess with talk pages all the time. If you think that you would like to try it at any point and would like a fried to help you put with it, please think of me. --After Midnight 0001 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- No offense meant at all. I don't wish to elaborate either, not for this minor an issue. –Pomte 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine. We have never had a problem with each other in the past and I doubt that we will in the future. Thanks for stopping by to make it clear that no offense was intended. --After Midnight 0001 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just being a bit of a smart ass. I was mildly insulted by Pomte and I was a bit indignant, but I'll get over it. We can just let it pass, unless you want me to elaborate. You are on my watchlist, so if you do want me to respond, just let me know here, or catch me anytime on IRC. --After Midnight 0001 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Could you clarify? - jc37 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
photograph for Joyce Elaine Roop
Dear After Midnight: You deleted the photograph for Joyce Elaine Roop because you thought it was a fair use posting, but it was actually posted by the photographer (me), so it is under license. Please restore it. Joseph D. Schleimer Schleimerlaw@msn.com. I took the picture myself in 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.226.92 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you are probably talking about Image:JoyceRoop.jpg which actually had no license tag on it at all. If I restore it for you, will you agree to tag it properly? --After Midnight 0001 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Random Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)
Luksuh 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- thanks --After Midnight 0001 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Category en-ie
I noticed you are processing the merges for the en-xx cats; can you change the target cat for the Irish ones to en-ie, as per the nominator's rationale? That sorta got lost when I combined the noms. Thanks! Horologium t-c 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done --After Midnight 0001 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Help with disambig fixing via popups
Thanks for your help on Lupins talk page, and for changing my monobook :) It's worked in some respect, that when hovering over a link (such as Glory in the table (under Reading Saturday) on this page) that has a disambig. page, it says:
Click to disambiguate this link to: Computer Game, Europa (wargame), GMT Games, Glorification, Glorificus, Glory! Glory!, Glory (board game), Glory (comics), Glory (film), Glory (novel), Glory (optical phenomenon), Glory (religion), Glory (satellite), Glory (singer), Glory (single), Glory (song), Glory Be to the Father, HMS Glory, Hod (Hebrew), Imperial Glory, KMFDM, Napoleonic Wars, Persian mythology, Perth Glory FC, Richard Berg, Television, Underworld, Vladimir Nabokov, canonization, wiktionary:Glory, remove this link
But when clicking on Glory (singer), the correct disambig. link it goes to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reading_and_Leeds_Festivals_line-ups&action=edit&autoedit=s~\[\[\s*([Gg]lory(?:#[^\[\|]*)?)\s*\]\]~[[Glory%20(singer)|$1]]~g;s~\[\[\s*([Gg]lory(?:#[^\[\|]*)?)\s*[|]~[[Glory%20(singer)|~g;s~\[\[Glory%20%5C(singer%5C)\|Glory%20%5C(singer%5C)\]\]~[[Glory%20(singer)]]~g&autoclick=wpDiff&autominor=true&autosummary=Disambiguate%20[[Glory]]%20to%20[[Glory%20(singer)]]%20using%20[[:en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups|popups]]
But when clicking "Save" no changes are made. And on looking back and checking the edit box, it still shows [[Glory]]
. -- Halo2 Talk 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- For me, when I click the link you describe, it does what you are saying, but there is a message at the top of the window which says The Show changes button has been automatically clicked. Please wait for the next page to load. A moment later, it shows me a preview edit with the change appearing correctly. I can then click Save Page (but I didn't) to commit the change. Are you possibly not seeing the wait message and clicking on save too quickly? --After Midnight 0001 13:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. I waited, but still it didn't change it. It's not even showing the change in the edit box -- Halo2 Talk 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Possibly there is something else in your monobook that is causing a conflict? Did you consider removing everything except popups and trying it? If it works, then you can re-add things one at a time until you discover where the problem is. --After Midnight 0001 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've just done that. It seems that the problem is with the WikiEd editing box. This diff (without WikiEd) works http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHalo2%2Fmonobook.js&diff=153749799&oldid=153749375 When I deleted that text, the popup disambig thing worked perfectly. Any ideas with what the conflicting thing is? I've check the FireFox error console, and there's no warnings shown.-- Halo2 Talk 14:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like WikiEd is written by User:Cacycle. Maybe he has some ideas. I would guess that WikiEd may not allow the automated action, but might be able to be changed. I see that there are some notes at User:Cacycle/wikEd#Known general issues and below that appear relevant. Let me know if I can provide ny more help, but I think that now that we have isolated it, I might not be of use to you any longer. If you do get it fixed without me, I would be interested in knowing, so please do drop me a line. --After Midnight 0001 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I contacted User:Cacycle, and he said I need to look at User:Cacycle/wikEd#Making scripts compatible with wikEd. I'm not sure whether I fix it when importing the script, ie including the above text into my monobook, or I contact the author of the Popup script (User:Lupin). Just thought I'd let you know about it. -- Halo2 Talk 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, for the update. I personally think that the issue is for Lupin rather than you (bit I'm not 100% on that). --After Midnight 0001 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yikes
I just saw the size of the UCfD archive for the 17th. I promise NEVER to do something like that again. 96K? Horologium t-c 14:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. I am still completing all the moves and deletions. :) --After Midnight 0001 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings After Midnight. I started the category originally titled "Songs with gay themes" and noticed it was renamed "LGBT-related songs". If you don't mind my asking -- was there any particular reason for this change? (Mwmalone 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC))
- Sure, I can help with that. There was a discussion to rename the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 10#Category:Songs about queer issues. An admin (User:Kbdank71) closed the decision agreeing to the rename. My involvement is that when that admin closed the discussion, he listed it for processing at WP:CFD/W and I have a bot that I used to actually move the contents of the category and as part of that I deleted the old category and created the new one. I hope that clears up everything, but if you have any other questions, please just let me know. --After Midnight 0001 03:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Caitlin Upton
I think there might be the need to semi-protect a few articles to prevent vandalism relating to Caitlin Upton's final question answer. Initially I thought it should not be mentioned anywhere, however I am now thinking that it is probably worth making a brief mention of it in the Miss Teen USA 2007 article... I don't have time to do it now but this has now been covered by a few reliable sources... a few Australian newspapers have even picked it up. Anyway I just thought I'd see what you thought about the possibility of semi-protection until things settle down. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I actually salted Caitlin Upton yesterday. I am just getting back from work, so I haven't seen the other articles yet. I'll see how bad they look and then think about semi-protecting. --After Midnight 0001 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
CSD AutoReason Updated
Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. ^demon[omg plz] 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Quick archiving
As I've said previously, I think you're doing a decent job with the WP:UCFD discussion page. (I seem to find myself commenting more than closing...) And that includes archiving. I used to keep a full month on the page before archiving, though I think we all would agree that it left the page rather long and troublesome to navigate.
However, could you keep discussions on the page at least 5-7 days after their closure, before archiving them, for various reasons that I'm sure you can imagine already? Thanks in advance. - jc37 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- If my closing allows you to comment more, and you enjoy that, then I am happy to serve. As far as the archiving goes, I'm a bit conflicted on it. On one hand, I understand that some people may find it easier to find the recent activity when it remains on the page. On the other hand, the edit summaries need to point to the archives for permanence (linking to diffs is too hard), which means that it is good to get the history moved there for people who get that edit summary and want to know what happened. I think that it may actually be more important to accommodate those people, who are less familiar with the process, rather than the editors who come to comment and are more likely to know where/how to locate the archive. Also, it is worth noting what the other XFDs do; CFD archives after 5 days, regardless of whether the discussions are closed or not. RFD archives after each day has the last entry complete and TFD does the same (I think). MFD is (it seems) arbitrary, but those items get archived very quickly sometimes, or at least moved to the bottom of the page without transclusion. I am leaning towards staying with the way I have been doing it. Finally I should mention that I really started archiving after I noticed Black Falcon doing it, so even if I didn't archive it, someone else probably would. Do you find any of these points convincing? --After Midnight 0001 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the obviously well-thought out answer.
- And I agree about the conflicting perspectives on this. It sounds like the main concern against waiting the few extra days is edit summary links. (Others archiving can be resolved by a comment on a relevant page somewhere.) My main concern is transparency. Closing a discussion, and then archiving it could seem to those unused to the discussions as if we're "hiding" the discussion. While that is obviously untrue, I think it wouldn't hurt to attempt to prevent confusion and disruption (per WP:BITE, etc.).
- In looking the page history over, I'm not seeing a pattern. Could you explain your personal methodology? - jc37 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, personally, I never close a discussion until it reaches 5 days old (unless I mess up my subtraction) unless it is a speedy like Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Users. Once all of the discussions for a day are closed, and there are no older sections still open, I move it to the archive. --After Midnight 0001 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that seems understandable. Though I still am leery of the idea of archiving a discussion the same day that it's closed. How about splitting the difference and archiving right away (or even perhaps waiting a day) as you suggest, but waiting several days before actually removing it from the main page? - jc37 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that you are asking if the discussion can be on both pages for a few days and I have no problem with that. Only potential issue is if someone tries to change a closed discussion, but that's easy enough to revert. --After Midnight 0001 10:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me : ) - jc37 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that you are asking if the discussion can be on both pages for a few days and I have no problem with that. Only potential issue is if someone tries to change a closed discussion, but that's easy enough to revert. --After Midnight 0001 10:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that seems understandable. Though I still am leery of the idea of archiving a discussion the same day that it's closed. How about splitting the difference and archiving right away (or even perhaps waiting a day) as you suggest, but waiting several days before actually removing it from the main page? - jc37 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, personally, I never close a discussion until it reaches 5 days old (unless I mess up my subtraction) unless it is a speedy like Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Users. Once all of the discussions for a day are closed, and there are no older sections still open, I move it to the archive. --After Midnight 0001 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Bot request
You mentioned on the UCFD talk page that you have a bot that can potentially tag categories for deletion? If so (if it isn't too much trouble), would you be willing to help in the tagging of several dozen categories? - jc37 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem, assuming that you are looking to do a group nom. Just list your request at User talk:AMbot/requests. There are brief instructions at the top and you can just list the request at the bottom. Note that many people list every single category that they want tagged, but if you want every subcategory in a parent tagged, you don't need to list them all. --After Midnight 0001 10:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Since you seem to be online now, I'll list them now, so that we can coordinate efforts (in other words, so that as soon as you tag them, I can then list them). Thanks again : ) - jc37 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess I was mistaken about you being online : )
- Have a great day : ) - jc37 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had popped online just for a short while this morning before I went to work, but I am online now. BTW, from reading your request on my bot page, this would be one of those times when it might be convenient to have IRC. I'll follow up with some questions about your request at the thread on the bot page.... --After Midnight 0001 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Since you seem to be online now, I'll list them now, so that we can coordinate efforts (in other words, so that as soon as you tag them, I can then list them). Thanks again : ) - jc37 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
AMBot
See diff -- Your bot is accidentally removing newlines after category deletions. It would be awesome if you could change it to not do this. If you don't have time, or whatever, email me (I've enabled it) and I'll be glad to help. (I've left a similar note on the bot's page) --Silas Snider (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify -- the newline deletion is a problem only when done in the middle of wikitext that depends on the new line (lists, tables, etc.), not in general. --Silas Snider (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of the issue and there is an AWB fix pending for it. The edit that you cite is from 2+ weeks ago and I have been watching the usercat edits more carefully since then to reduce the change of occurrence. Ideally, these templates would not be getting subst into user's pages as that would make it easier, but I realize that the bot does ultimately need to handle it. I do expect that the AWB version that corrects this will be available soon. --After Midnight 0001 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: David Beck
Thanks for the catch - I usually check the article's history, but this time it appears that I didn't... GregorB 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on user's talk page where thread started... --After Midnight 0001 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Best seller no more
So it is. I stand corrected. Thanks :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I know how it can be when things seem to happen without a reason. --After Midnight 0001 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ammi Burnham Young portrait
Hi After Midnight. Would you please provide some guidance on what is remiss re licensing here? Would you share with me or give a little guidance as to what license you would like to see used? Thanks. CApitol3 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Portraits of Vermont Governors
Hi After Midnight. I've found what I hope is a more suitable license. Thanks. CApitol3 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, the portraits are not PD. You are taking pictures of the portraits and then claiming that you are the copyright holder. This is untrue; your photographs are considered derivative work. If you want to use these images, you would need to put non-free license tags on them and then apply non-free use rationales for each article that they are used in. --After Midnight 0001 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- A number of the images you tagged are derivatives of pre-1925 portraits so are not in copyright violation. The portraits in the VT State House are apinted as the governor leaves office so this gives a good rule of thumb. Admittedly, some of the images concerned are of post-1925 governors, but not all. I have indicated this on the relevant deletion list, but thought you might appreciate the info Mickmaguire 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. If the proper information was added to those images pages, that would be helpful so that they might not be tagged by someone else again in the future. --After Midnight 0001 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- A number of the images you tagged are derivatives of pre-1925 portraits so are not in copyright violation. The portraits in the VT State House are apinted as the governor leaves office so this gives a good rule of thumb. Admittedly, some of the images concerned are of post-1925 governors, but not all. I have indicated this on the relevant deletion list, but thought you might appreciate the info Mickmaguire 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I left a message...
I left a message on User talk:Anoshirawan's talk page, with some further advice about how to address the problem that although native English speakers think they know "Afghan" means a person from Afghanistan, people with local knowledge of the reason say that Afghan only refers to people from the most numerous Pashtun ethnic group.
In my comment I made some suggestions, and I suggested that you might offer some further help. I hope you have time to read it. And, if you have any further advice I hope you have time to offer it.
Cheers! Geo Swan 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Question?
Note sure how to do that. Please give me a step by step. JDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.41.17 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I ready have no idea what you are referring to. Did I leave you a message that you are responding to? I would be happy to help if you can provide some detail. --After Midnight 0001 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert
Sorry this is late, but thanks for the revert done on Nan Kelley. I really appreciate it. Chris 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Happy to help! --After Midnight 0001 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Help with Delta Sigma Theta Page
Hello After Midnight. I am attemtpting to add some information to the DREF section of the DST page. I not sure how to cite sources and references. I was attempting to post the information first. Then it was my intention to go back and post the sources where I obtained some of the information, before I could do so Miranda deleted my information and said that I copied without providing a source. Well, when I attempted to go back and cite the source to some of the information Miranda deleted my DREF sections again. First, I am not an expert. Are posters given an opporunity to correct or make changes to the information before it is deleted? Even now when I attempt to go back and post the sources with the DREF inforamtion cited she deletes it. Thanks for your help. You can also email me at historicdst@yahoo.com. Also, I post under ueser name HistoricDST (which was created first) and HistoricDeltaSigmaTheta. I was not sure if I could get my account back when I decided to leave initially. Also, if I am wrong can you show me how to cite the sources correctly? Thanks. HistoricDST 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if the information that you are trying to post is a direct copy of something else, you really can not copy it, even if you do reference it. What you would need to do is to paraphrase the information and then reference it properly. I would suggest that you take a look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia and WP:CS. --After Midnight 0001 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Typo fixing within reference tags
I agree that there's no particular benefit in correcting capitalisation / spelling of text within reference tags, but since there's also no particular harm, I don't bother to override the 'corrections' suggested by the AWB typo script if other genuine corrections are made at the same time. Thanks Rjwilmsi 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted category=broken template
04:08, 23 August 2007 After Midnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:User en-ca-N" (perWikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#August 17)
You deleted this category, but when users have {{Babel|en-ca}}, it has a redlink to that category. Please fix the template. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done --After Midnight 0001 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Bookcover of this author has been deleted.
- I don't know why.
- Can you help restore the image?
- Thanks.
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- The image was deleted because it did not have a rationale posted. I have restored the image to allow you to post one, but if not, it will be re-deleted in another week. --After Midnight 0001 12:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
CFD
Ugh... CFD was wrong on this one.... Category:Leporids is better than Category:Leporidae. Please pass any biology categories by some folks at WP:TOL before making these changes.... or at least alert us there is a CFD up that we might be interested in. And please undo the change made. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I actually didn't make the decision here. This was an old CFD which I found which I thought was not implemented, so I did so. The actual decision was made here over a month ago. I have notified the admin who made this decision. Before I take any action, I would like for him to decide how he would like to proceed. Please find that discussion here. It is the bullet saying "Similar action...". --After Midnight 0001 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:PCD.jpg
Hi. You recently reverted an I9 speedy that I tagged this image with, with the edit summary of "rv - fair use was asserted - please read the CSD criteria that you are using to tag this". I have reverted this because you didn't check the previous content. The fair use summary was for a Buffy the Vampire Slayer image and had evidently been copied and pasted from another image the user had uploaded (which I checked in their contribs). Therefore it remains a copyvio. Seraphim Whipp 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I need a bit of help
Hey, it's been a while. If you can do me a favor, can you delete all previous versions of my talk page except the most recent one as you did with my user page? If you can, thanks. •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Do you mean just the main one or the 3 archives also? --After Midnight 0001 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead with the archives. •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done --After Midnight 0001 00:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead with the archives. •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
A question
"Miss World USA" - worthy of mentioning in the "notes" section of Miss USA state articles... or not? I thought I'd better get a second opinion before I deleted them all. I am definitely going to be getting rid of "Miss All Nations" and things like that :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think that representing USA at Miss World is notable, so that person deserves a note, but I don't think that the lower placements are worth keeping. --After Midnight 0001 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Image restored
After Midnight, I noticed you (correctly) deleted Image:FRIENDS.PNG after 7 days because it didn't have a fair use rationale. Just an FYI, I've restored the image and added a rationale. I knew you wouldn't mind, but wanted to let you know in order to avoid any appearance of conflict. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Works for me. FWIW, I would never complain about someone restoring an image and tagging it properly, but I do appreciate you coming by to let me know. --After Midnight 0001 00:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee
Amen. --Boricuæddie 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If people want to comment on the process, they're free to at WT:MC. Cheers, Daniel 04:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
CFD
Thanks, looks like I missed those. I'd suggest that a dispute about "leporid" be taken to that article's talk page, because at present the cat name reflects the article name. >Radiant< 12:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm at work right now, so I can't just go to playboy.com to confirm something. So, would you mind going there and confirming the spelling of Ms. Daston's last name? The article uses the spelling "Datson", not "Daston", several times and I just want to be sure which is correct. Dismas|(talk) 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done - I've confirmed the spelling and fixed all the instances (I think). Would you believe that it was one of my first 100 edits, and my first page move, to send that page to the proper spelling, but I neglected to change all the spellings in the text at that time. I was such a n00b. :) --After Midnight 0001 04:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
UCFD for Category:User programmer
Regarding Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/September 2007#Category:User programmer, I'm concerned about the process followed. I noticed when the {{cfr}} (not cfd) template was placed on the categories, and decided "I don't care one way or another if they are renamed in the stated fashion" so I thought nothing further about it. Then today a bot comes along implementing a "delete" verdict, which causes me to think "WTF? It was supposed to be a rename discussion!". I haven't decided whether I care enough about the matter for WP:DRV, but since one of the steps there is to contact the closing admin, I am doing so now. Anomie 14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your concern. When a discussion begins on either CFD or UCFD, sometimes an unexpected result will occur. Sometimes a suggestion to rename will result in a merge or delete and sometimes a delete will result in a rename. At any rate, in this case, the minimal amount of comment (UCFD doesn't always draw very much) was in agreement, so I decided accordingly. If you feel that you would like to have the discussion reopened, I have no problem with you taking this to a DRV to see if there is consensus to reconsider. I am not so hung up on my decision that I would be bothered by whatever the DRV result was. --After Midnight 0001 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Recent closure
I am confused about your closure of Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. No one suggested that all the cats should be deleted, just Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. (Including Black Falcon, which makes demon's "delete all per Black Falcon" apply only to the single cat as well?) Could you clarify? - jc37 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- (Incidentally, I never tagged the operating system cats.) - jc37 01:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Holy cow. That is one of the more stupid things that I have done. I have changed the decision, undeleted the 3 categories (with 1 talk page) and rolled back all of the edits that I could find. Fortunately, I have good edit summaries for my bot, so I think that I got all of them fixed. The categories look pretty well repopulated. Feel free to look things over to make sure I didn't leave anything out or screw things up more. --After Midnight 0001 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's avoid the word "stupid" and go with "mistaken"? (I personally like the word "oops" : )
- And I think you did a good job at undoing it. If anyone was missed, they can always re-add themselves.
- Someone else was concerned about this, I'll let him know it's been taken care of.
- This aside, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, as usual, for your encouragement. --After Midnight 0001 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Holy cow. That is one of the more stupid things that I have done. I have changed the decision, undeleted the 3 categories (with 1 talk page) and rolled back all of the edits that I could find. Fortunately, I have good edit summaries for my bot, so I think that I got all of them fixed. The categories look pretty well repopulated. Feel free to look things over to make sure I didn't leave anything out or screw things up more. --After Midnight 0001 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A category issue
Hi, some time ago you closed this CfD and deleted Category:User ke and subcats. Now, a friend who was on wikibreak at the time, NikoSilver, tells me he would like it back ([9]). His point, which I think has some merit, is that "Ancient Greek" and "Koine Greek" are sufficiently different that many people would classify themselves as knowing Koine without knowing A.G. to the same extent. I guess this applies especially to many native speakers of Modern Greek, for whom Koine is significantly easier than "real" A.G. Indeed, there are a good number of users who give themselves higher Babel ratings for Ke than for Grc (see besides User:NikoSilver e.g. User:Kimon, User:KRBN, User:Brianbeck, User:Kupirijo, User:KaragouniS).
This has quite a practical significance for Wikipedia: if you seek a fellow editor who can verify a Greek quote from the New Testament for you, you might want to turn to somebody different than if you need someone who can translate a line of Homer.
Is the lack of an ISO code a serious problem? I'm not aware if there is a general consensus that only ISO-coded languages can be Babelised; I guess practical Wikipedian considerations should always take precedence.
I'm not sure this is an issue for WP:DRV, because it's not a procedural challenge of the deletion closure, which was obviously valid. It's rather just an application of "Consensus Can Change". Would you mind terribly if he just re-created the category? We have no standard "official" process for allowing such recreations, I think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)