User talk:DennyColt/Archive 1

I think it is semi-protected. I just put the wrong tag on. Try to edit it and let me know if it doesn't work. --DanielCD 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it's semi-protected. - Denny 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other accounts have you used in the past? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think hobbies are beyond trivial, but I won't fight over it, if you want to put it back, go ahead. Corvus cornix 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out where in policies and guidelines it says that we should include hobbies? Corvus cornix 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no hobby policy that I can find, but most bios have interesting sourced information that expand what we know about people and help put things in context. Plus it doesn't hurt a single thing (especially since it's sourced). Just looking through some random astronaut articles like Michael E. Fossum, Kenneth Cockrell, Gus Grissom, William G. Gregory, Mary L. Cleave, and Michael R. Clifford I found loads of personal little things like hobbies, club memberships, etc., and it's fine. - Denny 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denny the Nowak court hearing image was courtesy CNN

I reverted back to an eariler version that didn't contain that text. Hang tight, several admins are working on the article right now.--Isotope23 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job! Thanks for the help! GreenJoe 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best. If you read WP:NPOV, it doesn't have to be balanced either positive or negative, it just has to be free of personal bias. There's a difference, though with RegisterFly, it's hard not to put in bias if you had domains with them. GreenJoe 15:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never had/certainly won't have anything with them now, but the story is so interesting... well, that's why I built it up. I mean, a chihuahua... - Denny 16:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. Note your most recent revert was, in fact, your third, meaning that your next revert would be a violation of the rule. I have not stated that I believe you are engaging in vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want either of us tagged and blocked for that (3rr), I want to work it out on talk. It doesnt hurt anything to leave it there for now and it'll be silly to slug it out source by source for an article that will have 100+ sources when its done. none of it is a controversial/blp thing, really. I just got miffed when you implied vandalism in the summary of that edit. Lets work it out on talk. None of topics on that article are a race to fix, we can move though it at a rational pace. I wasnt able to work on it much over the weekend during other commitments and was going to get back to it this week. - Denny 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

revert, adding item that was removed revert revert. If you actually want to discuss how it was a phenominon, do so, but if you were discussing instead of reverting you would have written more than this nondefence of your actions. I would be more convinced of your desire to fix the article if you actually spent some time on the content that has not been looked at, both removing and reinserting things as they were verified, than rechecking my work which I already did throughly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted... do you agree on my idea to sort out the naming first? I think that name and the unique (lax) qualifiers of 'phenomena' are the real problem. It sounds like a ginchy title but it's too unwieldy as a basis. - Denny 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so much for your warm welcome! As English is a language I'm not using every day I will be always glad for getting support. I made a few contributions to english WP as an IP but got the idea that it might be only fair to let everybody know that I'm not very familiar with the language. Yours, --MrsMyer 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominate a page for speedy, and it gets deleted, that means an admin agreed with you. I always take that to mean I can speedy it immediately every time it comes back, but up to you. I suppose being nice has it's merrits :-) Someguy1221 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a technical note, would you mind refactoring that huge source list to the Afd talkpage and linking it in your opinion... I imagine this debate will be huge as is so just to make life easier on the closer it might be nice to have that linked on another page.--Isotope23 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, replying there on afd. - Denny 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) - Denny 19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but:

• this AlterNet article is just a copy of this Salon.com article;
• this ZDNet article is just a copy of this CNet article;
• this article in the Sydney Morning Herald is just a copy of this article from The Age;
• this article in the Seattle Times is just a copy of this article in the New York Times;
• this item from a SEO newsletter is just a copy of this item from a SEO newsletter;
• you have listed this news article twice;
• you've described this article as "establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy", even though it was written by Brandt.

Hopefully this will help you improve your list. --bainer (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! If it's ok I will cross post what you wrote on my talk as a reply to the section on the talk page (more visibility). - Denny 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. --bainer (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rv did indeed go back to a state with no blogs. Gwen Gale 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! No prob!  :) Cricket02 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know it's more the fault of this "twinkle" script than your own, but if it's not too much of a bother, is there anything you can do about edit summaries such as this one? I fail to see how this could possibly be taken as a "good faith" edit. The user saw the "edit" link, hit it, erased everything on their screen and hit "Save". It happens thousands of times a day – and sure enough, no sooner had you reverted them than they did an identical thing to a different section. Yes, I have read WP:AGF and I'm fully aware it's an "official guideline", but "reverted good faith edits per policy concerns" just sounds wrong, as it isn't just assuming good faith, it's actually labelling the edit as good faith, when it's overwhelmingly likely not to be one. Is it not better to stick to "revert edit by...", which makes no assumptions about anything? Thanks – Qxz 07:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I assumed (wrongly) that the first was just... a mistake. TW lets you flag as AGF, Vandal, or just generic. I'll start using the generic, it's smarter--you're right... Sorry. - Denny 07:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the "good faith" one is intended for edits that contain useful information and are relevant to the subject of the article, but fall foul of a policy such as WP:BLP, or constitute a copyright violation, or something like that. Also, if a user makes a useful change and in the same edit removes a large amount of text, as in those cases it's much more likely to be a mistake. Thanks, and thanks also for your help reverting vandalism; much appreciated – Qxz 07:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm going to use the generic RV tag for all the borderline ones like that. And for RC, its... oddly relaxing. - Denny 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there – Qxz 08:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the incorrect edit. I'm a noob, and I just started doing anti-vandalism work, and i'm new at it. Scottvn 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Casey Jones#Proposed split. I proposed that the section be split out to its own article on Feb 28 and waited for discussion. Hearing no objections, I did the split. Slambo (Speak) 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you beat me to the revert. haha. just having a smashing anti-vandal time. - Pandacomics 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. Just thought I'd point out something that may be of use to you in the future. When users blank pages with no explanation, it's usually vandalism, but occasionally they're acting in good faith – they've seen an inappropriate version of the page, and they've dealt with it the only way they know of; by removing it. Case in point, the situation at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. If you check the five edits prior to the anonymous user's blanking, you'll see that, good-faith or not, they weren't really suitable for the article. By reverting the anonymous user only, you restored the good content but also the bad; in this case I think it made more sense to revert the previous five edits as well. In summary, before you revert any edit – but especially a page blanking – it's often a good idea to quickly double-check what you're actually reverting to. Thanks, and keep up the good work – Qxz 06:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... you'll pick it up, and you're doing an excellent job already. I think experience is the best thing, over time you'll figure out various things with practise. For example, the fact that articles about schools are so frequently vandalised and infrequently maintained that it's sometimes necessary to go back months to find an un-vandalised version. If you haven't already come across it, have a look at Wikipedia:Most vandalised pages, which gives some of the popular and/or controversial pages that attract a lot of vandalism. Treat edits to those pages as suspicious and check them all; same goes for Today's Featured Article, which rather annoyingly changes every day :) – but is easy to see simply by going to the Main Page. If you warn or report an anonymous vandal, and they are blocked, and shortly afterward a registered user starts vandalising in the exact same way, skip the lower warning levels as it's obvious they've just created an account to circumvent an anonymous-only block. Likewise for the same thing in reverse. If you see a page blanking that looks to be quite a short article, and the edit before the blanking was by the same user – and in particular if that edit says "Created page with...") then check the history as it may well be that the only contributor to the page has blanked it, in which case rather than reverting it should be tagged with {{db-g7}}. Similarly, if you come across an article that even when reverted looks unsuitable, be sure to check the history and tag it for speedy deletion if there are no acceptable versions. Non-speedyable articles that need listing at AfD can generally be dealt with in a more timely manner, and I doubt anyone's going to come after you if you don't nominate those as you encounter them, so don't feel forced to do so (AfD listings can be a bit annoying to do). If possible, try to make sure you don't warn users for edits they made before you previously warned them, if that makes sense. In other words, ensure they've had time to read one warning before leaving another (though in the case of vandals who obviously aren't going to stop, it's usually best to forget about this and just leave token warnings so they can be listed at AIV as soon as possible).

I don't know if you're already doing any of these things, but they're things I've come across, so just checking. Hope this helps – Qxz 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion here? I was editing to help cleanup and saw GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN BEFORE I TAKE MY BELT TO YOU!!! on Womens rights? I reverted and receive a warning from you for vandalism? wtf is that all about? New Inn Winchelsea 07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless a bit of confustion after the page was vandalised dozens of times in a very short space of time, by mutiple users. I almost did something similar myself a few minutes earlier. Easy to get confused when you're trying to find the good version of a page in such circumstances – Qxz 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, no email address specified? I was gonna shoot you a quick note. Well, whatever. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, just to inform you that the Wikipedia-screenshot tag you placed on Image:Essjaywikiascreenshot.jpg has been removed due to the fact that screen shot according to the source details you added is of a Wikia page. Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that doesn't work. Where's the history of the development of that page? In order to qualify under that license the screen shot must be taggable like this which without the history of the page's creation it obviously cannot be. (→Netscott) 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a technicality really but let the discussion you started be answered by the folks over on Wikipedia:Fair use. In order to qualify for {{GFDL}} there needs to be a history to trace contributors edits back through the creation of the given content. (→Netscott) 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new template that depending upon what happens to Essjay's Wiki page you might be able to use. See Template:Wikia content. Cheers. (→Netscott) 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DennyColt,

Do you think it would be alright if I revert all of your edits to the "capital" field in each of the US state templates that you made, and just place the Tnavbar-header in the master template? The original point of including the parameter "temlate_name" in this template was the future implementation of the Tnavbar feature in the master template, and it seems to make little sense to do it by adding it to the "capital" parameter" in all of the child templates instead of just once in the master template. Let me know what you think, and if you agree, I'll make all the changes. --CapitalR 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good idea; sorry--still learning the templates. I'll roll them back myself to save you the trouble, give me 10-30 minutes tops. could you show me after which diffs are for the final changes? really curious to learn that! - Denny 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sure, I'll send you the diff after I implement it. By the way, I noticed how fast you were making edits; I was just wondering if you were doing them by hand or if you had a special tool to help. I'd be interested in knowing about any helper tools that you have, as I often make such repetitive edits myself. I use the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser often, but am always looking for new tools. Thanks, --CapitalR 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff of the changes I made to add the Tnavbar to the master template: [1]. It just adds the same code you used inside of an #if statement to make it optional, and using "template_name" parameter for the name of the template.--CapitalR 18:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thats much more efficient of an edit than my hands-on method. but... it's not taking to the templates? do we have to do something else with it? - Denny 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be working fine on my side. You might need to do a cache-clear refresh to see the updates. Another way to force a refresh is to do an edit on the New York template, and then preview the result; that should force a refresh. Let me know if that doesn't work, and then I'll take a look to see if there's another problem. (I checked all 56 templates that use this master template, and they all seem to be ok to me). --CapitalR 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just cacheing on my end. Thanks for the help, that is way better! :) - Denny 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DennyColt! I saw that message you posted on that IP page about Ford. I've been looking for a good vandal warning, so do you think you could show me the one that you use? Thanks!! Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi! It's WP:TW, check out my monobook.js file's code for how I'm using it currently... the monobook has a few tools, that I cribbed and took from other's pages after I saw what they were using. TW--it's an awesome tool. I usually do that, and the tools provided by the script's amazing author, and run it vs. recent changes. The messages are just the template ones that are standard, but TW has a simple way to spread them out in the 1-2-3-4th warning formatting... - Denny 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you! (Sorry about spelling "vandalism" wrong above! :) ) Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you explain exactly what you meant with this comment? To the best of my recollection, I've never deleted the fascist category under discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that, I'll go reply on drv--sorry! I completely misread the deletion log I suspect or had a minute of total brain stupidity as to who actually deleted it... - Denny 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DennyColt/Back to the Future themes --w^{L<speak·check>} 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DennyColt. Thanks for being bold and adding the v/d/e links to every state template (with the help of CapitalR). I have some bad news for you, however — you see, before you added those links in, there was a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates (currently the focal point of discussion on state template standardization) regarding whether any links should be included in the template header or not (our discussion focused primarily on show/hide links). Ultimately, it was decided that show/hide links should not be placed in the state template headers, and I know that I assumed that this was a consensus to omit all links except for the "State of (State Name)" and "(State Capital) (capital)" links in the header.

Originally, we used this basic example as a basis for state template standardization (with CapitalR's later edits), and if you observe the efforts we have made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates, you'll notice that we spent quite a bit of time on conciseness and clarity (perhaps these are constituted of clean aesthetics; in my opinion, they are)!

I think that you and I should start up a discussion over at that Wikipedia talk page regarding whether the v/d/e links should be included. Thanks very much! ;) — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding! — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I got the message you left on my page. I will have you know there was nothing unhelpful to what I just did. Double Up is the name of more than one album now and I diasambiguated the page to show the changes. Maybe you should have double-checked the page before you left a message on my talk page. Admc2006 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was a general message. I'm pretty sure you should create the Double Up album for R Kelly before making the diambig page, since only Ma$e's album is that now on Wikipedia. It shouldn't be a redlink disambig until... Mayish 2007. - Denny 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thanks. TigerShark 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good read, as I said I rarely hang out at AfD so hadn't thought too much about it. Also edited a poorly worded sentence while I was there. Geez, I'm getting bold... Risker 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denny!

I'm more than a bit confused about the high traffic website banners being on the Terry Shannon discussion page, not the actual page that is cited in the referring article, especially since the referring articles are about the Wikipedia article itself.

Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denny. Thank you for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Citizendium should be there as a fork of Wikipedia? I added it, feel free to rv it out if you don't think so. Also, how can I get your ads centered on my user page? I can't seem to get the code right to have it center-aligned... - Denny 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium isn't actually a fork of Wikipedia (it originally was but they decided to delete all the Wikipedia articles and start again), but I think it definitely qualifies as a related project because it compares itself to Wikipedia and is generally regarded as an attempt to re-invent Wikipedia with different policies in order to eliminate percieved flaws – Qxz 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To center something, use:

<div align=center>

[insert item here]

</div>

– Qxz 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denny! I love Wikipedia and just edited vandalism from the Roger Mudd Article. (Today is 3/15/2007.) The user who inserted the vandalism (on 3/12/2007) received a message from you the same day for his vandalism to Connie Chung and Maury Povich. I don't know much about Wikipedia -- this is the first article I've ever edited -- but I would love to see the vandal blocked from editing. Thanks for your good work on Wikipedia! Curt

Thanks for uploading Image:Scwartzbarbaratribune.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Colt, regardless of whether or not it gets used I just wanted to tell you, "Well done on that". :-) (→Netscott) 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Talk:Essjay controversy/sandbox. Cheers!-- Chaser - T 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you had something else in mind altogether :/ Gwen Gale 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for helping as always... I seriously don't understand why Quack is getting so wound up. :( - Denny 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only to let you know, blogs shouldn't ever be cited or linked to (they don't meet reliability or verifiability needs). I've left them be cuz there's an exceptional "public service" helpfulness to them but they'll have to go sooner or later. Gwen Gale 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the POV/content fork link: WP:POVFORK. Interesting reaction. Risker 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support during my recent RfA. I'm glad to say it was successful, and I hope to put the new tools to good use. Shimeru 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing time lag.

I have found four additional sources with identical content. Is this adequate citation? -- Cat ^chi? 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at then now and replied to you on the afd also. My 5 days comment was just in regard to how long Afds typically might run... - Denny 06:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. :) I misunderstood you. In any case, I would welcome any assistance -- Cat ^chi? 06:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been sorting the article. It appears there are multiple groups doing the same thing. Do you think it would be better to change the scope to include all attacks by the various Armenian groups? Or maybe 3 separate lists? -- Cat ^chi? 09:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main ASALA article only has a handful of attacks listed, so I'd guess it would be probably be easier/better to make it all-inclusive for now. all Armenian groups/attacks, then it can always fork later if that gets too big. - Denny 13:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. This has a lot of attacks listed, not all aimed at diplomats. Certain insignificant-looking events (such as incidents were one pesky security guard is killed) turns out to be a full fledged hostage crisis. The more I read about this stuff the more stuff that comes up. I haven't even mined half of the stuff on www.atmg.org. -- Cat ^chi? 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, would you care to assist with mining of this source? [2]. Its too demanding work for a single person to do. -- Cat ^chi? 09:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try this week, but I'll be a bit pressed for time from IRL stuff the next 10~ odd days. - Denny 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a speedy tag on the CU you posted. Gwen Gale 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. Gwen Gale 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, it was removed for a reason. See the talk section. If you disagree, let's discuss it there...although the topic been open for a week without disagreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.23.77 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I am Archimedes Plutonium. I respectfully request that the Wiki page on Archimedes Plutonium be immediately removed because there is no fair and objective and reasonable editor in the Wiki organization. Wiki page of Archimedes Plutonium has been a ten year old joke and mockery.

Wikipedia does not deserve anything dealing with Archimedes Plutonium, please delete his page immediately and without having to go through any process, just delete

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I added info to the article. In what way is that being disruptive. I already took it to the talk. I fixed the wikiboxes and added more detail. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a specific question. In what way am I being disruptive. I already took it to talk before I edited. This is a very serious matter about your allegations. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if I could ask you, since I've seen you use it... how do I get the optional anon IP message to appear when using the new UW vandalism tags? Thanks, JRHorse 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for AP has become a mess (due to edits by "AP")? I'm hoping you will reorganize it so newcomers don't first see his post ... and so readers can follow the discussion around his other inserted comments. I'm not quite brave enough to do it myself ... but will if asked by another. Thanks for your efforts! Kind regards, Keesiewonder ^talk 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Just taken care of by Uncle G. Keesiewonder ^talk 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in heaven's name is he up to? I wasn't a huge fan of the article, but after so many people had worked on it to get it to survive AfD, and genuinely felt it was worthwhile, this must be a kick in the head to them. I am really drawing a blank on what is motivating him. Oh well - he has had many editors reach out to him and offer guidance (though some of it may have been less than completely helpful), he seems to be getting it then goes galloping off in all directions again. My patience is certainly wearing thin. Risker 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's actually any content you believe ought to be preserved from the article, say what it is or merge it into the wikipedia article. I've had a discussion section open on Talk:wikipedia and no one has disagreed with the suggestion. Don't just revert unless you think you're actually making the encyclopedia better, instead of just trying not to go against a supposed consensus. We're supposed to be bold here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dennycoltmine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've double-voted here (support votes #12 and #26). It may be an idea to strike one. Cheers --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i m very sorry for that but i m sincerely telling that i dont have any intentions to destroy the subject matter. so please forgive me and once again i am asking sorry for that thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uplakshgupta (talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not on a shared IP, just a lowly comcast inet connection and I certainly did not vandalize the Women's Rights page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) page. Feel free to contact me at victor at fourstones dot net but don't ban my IP since I use wp as an important resource in my work. (this is me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fourstones-framed_bg.jpg ) -- 24.5.196.208, 22:18, March 8, 2007

I put a fair use disputed tag on the image you put on the article Barbara Schwarz. Don't get me wrong - I think an image would add nicely to the article, but that particular image doesn't have enough of a fair use reasoning behind it. There are a coupla things that could be done - You could add a "Fair Use Rationale" subsection to the image description page, with about 4 or more "points" as to your fair use reasoning, or even better, attempt to contact The Salt Lake Tribune, and see if they will give permission for the image to be used on a non-profit encyclopedia with attribution given - for education non-commercial purposes only ... Let me know what you think. Yours, Smee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

hi, I'll reply on the Schwarz talk page to everyone. I didn't realize we weren't linking to the mirror SLT article so will DB self the image for now, and mail SLT for an OK. if they give it, I'll reupload the image then with an email authorization from them. thanks! - Denny 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denny, thank you for your efforts with seeking permission from the SLT to use their image. Sorry it didn't work out. Best wishes, Orsini 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks again! There are probably more public domain documents somewhere... Smee 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Denny,

We currently attend Bates College. The Bates College Rough Crew is a crucial aspect of the Bates College student life. There is no joke here. The Rough Crew is as much a part of student life as the pub crawl, Newman Day, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstrumol (talk • contribs) 05:36, March 22, 2007

Hi. Any word on this ? Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You reverted the vandal within a minute. Amazing! Well-done! I applaud your diligent, righteous, safe-guarding efforts! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Denny. I appreciate your fairness and decency. I imagine that the enemies I made 2 years ago won't be happy with the edits and will want to revert everything, and if you would be kind enough to be on guard for that I'd be very grateful. I've written to the administrator asking for relief in the form of either removing the page, freezing it in a fair format, or else "salting" it I believe is the proper phrase. It's difficult work being a whistleblower, and to have to bear the burden is hard, especially since my wife is disabled from what happened to her in 2001 and the smear campaign has dampened my job prospects. I'm hoping the sun will shine again, and I pray every day in Christ's name. So I know God is watching.

Warm regards, and thank you.

Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.202.104 (talk • contribs) 06:44, March 24, 2007

Have a nice w/end, SqueakBox 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite you, when moving an article, as a consequence of a discussion or debate to also do some talk-page and debate-housekeeping.
One model is here at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move.
I can't find a policy guideline for this kind of thing, but if you do, please point it out to me.
What is helpful about doing this housekeeping is that it affirmatively closes a debate, and gives notice that the move has been accomplished, which...might not be clearly closed without the housekeeping.
(The move at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Requested move is what brings me to make this suggestion, which I marked concluded, after your move.)

-- Best regards, -- Yellowdesk 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A follow-up and another caution.

For your information, the moved page has a reason for being moved in your edit summary remarks (as related to similar pages, titled Political views of ..... listed at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Requested move) that is erroneous. I had initiated the discussion because of the exceptional character of the move, and so we would not have future "move wars" on the page because this page doesn't follow similar article titles. Perhaps the proposal's intent to not follow other pages of the same name is something that should have been said on the project page, and that the move was exceptional...and now (for the moment), intentionally unique. For an outsider, I can see it might be a challenge to see why the discussion was created. -- Yellowdesk 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, got your message. Haven't been online very consistently so far today, but I will gladly take a look at that article sometime within the next 24 hours and make minor cleanups/tag, and leave a note on the talk page at minimum. You seem to be having an interesting evening ;). Risker 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Denny, give me a few days to go over the article. I get back to you then. :-) (→Netscott) 20:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article over the course of the day (you can probably see a few of my edits), but failed to get back to you until now. I did put a couple of cite tags in where there are quotes that are not specifically attributed, down near the end of the article; I know I may be a bit cite-happy given recent editing experience ;-). I am of the overall impression that the introduction could use some further discipline in its structure, in particular bringing to the surface why the failure of RegisterFly is significant in a world-wide sense, and not just to those domain holders. It will probably be difficult to really flesh this out before the expected announcements from the ICANN meeting later this week; and of course when the deregistration occurs later this week, there will also be yet-to-be-seen impacts on the customers that will be reported. What you have here is a good base for moving forward in the next couple of weeks as the situation continues to evolve. While I think it will be a while before this will be eligible for GA status (simply because it is a current event), you might want to see if there is a really good sentence or two that might be suitable for Did You Know; perhaps talk with one of the editors there? Risker 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit, the sentence is a direct quotation; the source itself is good. Did you mean that the quotation itself--that's literally what the person said--is incoherent, or the way I referred to the quotation? - Denny 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation itself (on Registerfly is incoherent, and lacks a subject to relate to the verb "understand". If maintained as a quotation, it needs a [sic], ; even better is a different quotation that makes sense in English, or better yet, paraphrasing in a non-quotation context, or editorial insertion of the subject of the sentence with [I] ; or something like that. -- Yellowdesk 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jesse, updated (sorry, I forgot!). - Denny 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This image is a repost of an image that has been deleted as a replaceable fair use image.

Since this person is not a recluse, fugitive, nor prisoner, it is possible that this person could get a free image created which does not restrict the usage to non-commercial entities, so this image fails the requirement that a fair use image be unrepeatable. He could grant permission to use this photo under a free license like the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses (which are not version 3.0 (which has a clause that prohibit derivitives that infringe on the moral rights of the licensor) nor have the noncommercial attribute attached). Jesse Viviano 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to comment at WP:AN3 under "User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)". Note that the words "in principle" are contentious; people have been inserting and deleting these words from question 1. Two of Marskell's five (alleged) reverts in my allegation that the user violated 3RR were restoring the words "in principle" (among other words) which you had deleted. The user claims those were not reverts because you are now in agreement about the wording. What do you think -- were they reverts? Do you now support having the words "agree in principle" etc. in the question? --Coppertwig 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied as requested. - Denny 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  :-) --Coppertwig 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, thanks for your enthusiasm in defending the article. Aaronbrick 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two days later... interested in RFC or arbitration for this? apparently some people still think they can unilaterally delete the article. Aaronbrick 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to tell you that the message you left at my talk could be deemed rather far out of place. Inappropriate speedy nominations with wrong template use is something I can live with, but I will thank you not to welcome (!) me to Wikipedia and direct me to the sandbox. Regards, Punkmorten 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a complete mistake (I had just woken up). :( - Denny 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but on the other hand I apologize for not keeping a sufficiently cool head about the issue. Punkmorten 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... if it makes you feel better, you'll always remember this as the time someone accused a footballer of being a no-name musical act. - Denny 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I removed your speedy deletion tag from this page. The article does indeed assert notability, it does so in the first sentence. I replaced it with a prod. You shouldn't just throw on a7 speedy notices on articles you don't think are notable, it doesn't work that way. Please be more careful in the future.

Other than that, have a nice day :) Oskar 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my notice. I've tweaked the block to 1 week. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Denny, please see above page where I requested a checkuser. If it wasn't you, please don't be offended. The sheer sensitivity of this article outweights personal issues in my opinion. For the record, as long as there is a diff on the talk page linking to your removal (which I added), I have no objections to the removal of the comment by Brandt itself. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As confirmed it indeed wasn't you. Thanks for understanding my request though. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerned is covered by {{SharedIP}} which covers for everything. -- Avi 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the template deletion page. :) - Denny 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Denny, Thank you for the warm welcome. I am new and could read up more on how I can contribute. I am concerned about contribution's to bio's from sources that use "self hypnosis". Which if you know much about the vast anti-mormon community you will find a plethora of opportunists who would prefer to distract or redirect the readers attention from the fascinating scholarship and faith of Hugh Nibley, to his estranged daughter's disingenuous "so called memory" of her father.

Is Martha Beck his only child? Where are the comments by his wife or all of his other children? (I noticed there is no mention of his wife Phyllis or their marriage, or their children and their names.) Can you see the potential snowball effect of allowing such defaming comments. I hope there is concern here for defamation of character. Obviously Martha has distanced herself from the LDS church. I hope she is not given a platform here to blemish her fathers memory because of her distance from his faith.

I point this out to show the motivation force behind this. It is driven by a hatred for Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) & gains momentum from sites that propagate its so called contributions cloaked in honest or fair rhetoric. Well I don't know what outcome will prevail, all I can do is attempt to remind the powers that be, that responsibility precedes credibility. I can only hope that authenticity prevails over objectivity.

Sincerely,

Derek Harris User:SentinelLion

Hey, since I'm doing things that affect you so much, I feel I need to explain why I'm asking you to slow down so much. One reason is due to scaling issues, our software will not easily allow such a large number people to use a single page, as you may by now be aware.

The other reason I wanted you to slow down is to slow the rate of people coming to the page for a while. You can still try and reach the entire 3 000 000 registered userbase, but please give us some space and time to handle the new people and stay organised?

If everyone hears about this at once at the rate you've been advertising, it's like mopping while the tap is still running. It just can't be done. We'll all end up with a big mess, rather than a well organized process, which is probably what you're looking for.

So could you maybe give us all some time to figure out how to deal with this rather novel approach? Else the new groupings will spawn faster than I can handle them. --Kim Bruning 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh, before it sounds like I'm harping on you or anything, did I mention I admire your energy and can-do attitude, and that it's that attitude in people that really makes wikipedia great?

But at the same time, you do have to be a bit careful to not bite off more than you can chew all at once. Especially when you're not the one having to do the chewing :-P We have plenty of time. Right now I'd really appreciate it if you could direct your energy towards talking with the people already present. Preferably about ATT itself. (Since I'm already swamped.) Later on we can then try and advertise and pull in more people. But there's some issues with that we may need to look at.

--Kim Bruning 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was shocked to see you add that screenshot in so fast! Thank you for self-reverting, I didn't want to have to have an edit war about it. If that article doesn't stay diligently neutral, it will be back on AfD. Keep the focus on the controversy itself, and its outcome. Remember the mantra of this article...talk for at least 24 hours about anything...I know it's not exciting, but I can tell you there are plenty of people watching this article all the time who won't hesitate to nominate it again. Risker 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A picture has nothing to do with an AFD. These comments are branded. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop attacking me on the admin board. You don't own that poll, and people who think it is a bad idea have the freedom to state so. >Radiant< 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly do have that right. I mentioned you by name, yes, but that was hardly an attack, please AGF. If you guys don't think there should be a Poll MfD the whole thing and stand up to Jimbo. I also have the right to stand up to El_C's abusive misrepresenation that I did something wrong. Up to when I posted, only an extreme minority complained in the way that people are now. I was only trying to help. If people were unhappy, why didn't they SAY so? Also, his assertation that I was keeping things out of the pre-poll was a flagrant lie meant to disparage me. I don't care if someone has 300 edits or 30,000. I have every right to defend myself if made to look bad with false statements... I never once remove a single thing that anyone added, and in fact INTEGRATED two other suggestions (Q4, Q5) that I said I didn't care for. Look at my history of editing--I go out of my way to not try to own stuff, and to add in suggestions that people give me since I've been here... if you took it as an attack on you, sorry, it certainly was't meant to be. El_C was 100% out of line in singleing me out and I wasn't going to let him make me a patsy for the problems some obviously have with Jimbo over this. - Denny 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay. I had the impression you were grouping me with El C. I'm glad to hear that's not the case. I wish you best of luck with sorting out WP:ATT/P, but it doesn't seem very stable yet. >Radiant< 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have less hope now. I know polling is evil, and I do agree, but to be honest, like I said on the talk page, we'd be at it till christmas jus to figure out Q1 without some forced structure. I figured, let me see what'll happen if I try to ram some structure down their throats for how to at least approach the problem, just for that one thing. I thought if it works, great, if not, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Worst case I get laughed at and it goes back to what it was, right? I was more surprised than anything that people not only ran with it, but liked it, and actually got people to focus more. Do I think the policy itself should be decided by poll? Probably not... but do you agree it would be interesting for finality to see what a tremendous number of people have to say about this? I think no harm from that exercise itself could come... - Denny 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Colt, this is somewhat related to what is happening between you and Radiant! here. You may want to comment there. (→Netscott) 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? No it isn't. >Radiant< 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I think the problem is that we already had a tremendous amount of people speaking about this (check the several megabyte archive of WP:ATT), and a secondary problem is that people seem now to be arguing about the poll about the poll. It's positively herculanean. I'm honestly not sure how to untangle this mess except by giving it a few days to calm down first and stopping any further forest fires. I'm afraid that not everybody in the discussion understands the underlying issues (and that would be worse in a poll). This has the potential to be closed as a lack of consensus either way, and we'd end up with four att-related policies (3 - 2 = 4 ? ). Which I don't think anybody really wants. >Radiant< 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I like you a lot, but I rv'd your closure. you and I are not neutral parties and shouldn't be closing that (no one really involved on that poll page should, and the nonsense about the poll being dead needs settling/attention). Another neutral party can close later. Please don't take it the wrong way. - Denny 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't going to delete the poll pages. That isn't how things work. I know that you mean well, but you're creating a needless distraction from the real matter at hand.

I'm biased against the poll, so there's nothing wrong with me applying common sense in deciding to keep it. —David Levy 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David... the matter at hand is that there is overwhelming desire from the most people (including our founder) to run the poll. The same admins saying over and over again "NO POLL NO POLL NO POLL" is meaningless--please don't take this the wrong way. Admins have no more value/voice in policy than every one else on this one. If there is support to kill Jimbo's idea, lets be done with it. Letting the MfD run a day at least won't hurt anything. - Denny 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. We certainly should discuss whether or not to kill the poll. MfD is not the correct venue. No matter what happens, we are not going to delete the pages. The question asked at MfD is not the one that needs answering. —David Levy 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. --Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that section/date would be twice over archived by now, dunno how to get it back cleanly. Post on the Poll talk page. A veteran can probably get it easily. - Denny 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get personal in edit summaries. If you check the talk page you will note several people agreeing with me. It is simply improper to remove a {{guideline}} tag while a {{disputedtag}} dispute is ongoing. >Radiant< 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant, sorry -- it was based just on the edit warring that is going on over the tags. Others should step up if they agree to edit the tags--from an outsider's perspective it ends up looking like (based on edit history) that you are exerting authority over policy to a degree that gives you some special rank/authoritative position when none exists. :( - Denny 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look a bit deeper. This page has been an accepted guideline for awhile. Some people don't like that, so they added {{disputedtag}}. I have no real objection to that, we can always discuss such disputes on the talk page. However, two of these people think that a dispute is grounds for immediately revoking the guideline, which is obviously false (per WP:POL; if a simple dispute was grounds for revocation, we would simply delete CAT:G). The general wiki principle for disputes is to retain the present version, add a dispute tag if wanted, and discuss. >Radiant< 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, here's the thing: we can have discussion with polling and discussion without polling, but we should never have polling without discussion. That is why the page is called "polling is not a substitute for discussion". That title does not mean "polling is forbidden", indeed the page explicitly states that it's not. If you were to say "polling is a supplement" that would seem to imply that discussion should always, or generally, be supplemented by polling, which isn't really the case. >Radiant< 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Polling can be a supplement to discussion? Current wording makes it sound like a dirty thing to be avoided, which can give just the loudest/most frequent voices on an issue authority, which is very bad, right? Just thinking aloud, I guess, based on my experience. Dropping that silly pre-poll poll on the ATT thing was the only thing that broke the deadlock to make any forward motion and cut out half the crap. - Denny 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite see how "is not a substitute" is a dirty thing? The old wording was "Voting is evil", which does sound dirty (which is why we changed it). If you're saying "X can be Y", you're in essence not saying much (X can still be Not-Y, or Y can be Not-X). Note that ATT is the exception rather than the rule, and by now has hit 3.5 megabytes of discussion and counting. We usually don't do things that way. The issue there is that controversial issues are messy regardless of whether or not there is a poll. >Radiant< 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you returned the neutrality tag to this page. The tag was originally added a long time ago and much work has been done to make the page more neutral. Please can you comment? --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page very much reads like it advocates their positions and views, which is not a NPOV state, and will be removed (by me, when I have time soon)... we can talk about their positions of views, but NOT ever advocate them even slightly. Especially not bigotry and hate speech towards homosexuals which that Europeon gang of trolls keeps adding (also why I requested semi-protection). - Denny 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. How long do protections last for as I would like to trawl through the article and remove as much NPOV as I can. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 15:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think just a day or three(ish) or until concensus is sorted a bit on the talk page. That article definitely needs to stay under semi-protection for a long while however to keep those related trolls/vandals out. - Denny 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I'll make the edits in word and paste them in later on! Thanks for your time. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! feydey 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which was this about? - Denny 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.107.166.135. feydey 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Before listing a vandal here [WP:AIV] make sure that:

1. The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances.

The above from WP:AIV.

User:67.107.166.135 last warning on 13 March 2007 <-- not very recent huh? And it's also a shared IP. feydey 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP, yes, but still blockable for long-term abuse like any school IP. I added warnings based on the current vandalism of today, including a last based on the abusive and ongoing nature. - Denny 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope he stopped. feydey 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You inadvertently voted twice on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Akhilleus. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the double, sorry! - Denny 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, sorry I haven't gotten a chance to give a good look at Registerfly but in the meantime considering the "hotness" of the whole polling issue I've decided to make an effort to reestablish this above page to guideline status as such a thing is greatly needed. I would like to invite you to join in editing and discussing this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this edit wasn't appropriate, as it is unsourced, inflammatory, and self-referential. Thanks, - Denny 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that the article reflects this nature of the Wikipedia-Watch website. I understand that the fact could be inflammatory, but there is at least one page in the Wiki-Watch site that lists editors who have committed some sort of offense. I suppose that the line I added could have been worded better, but I think that the article should at least mention that Wikipedia-Watch displays information about wikipedia editors, as well as criticizing them for their individual conduct. Do you think it would be appropriate to add the note back in with better wording and a source, or are you opposed to even mentioning it? Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Not completely, no, but given how heated it is, I would guess that a concensus on language like that should be reached. Besides his endless legal threats, my understanding from what I've learned... is he was blocked also for stalking/harassment tied into that stuff. Thats why I was thinking to slow down and see what the group concensus is for that. Check out the new thread on the talk page of his article about this. :) - Denny 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd struggle to find evidence that Brandt has stalked or harassed anyone on the wiki. It seems to be a theme with you, Denny. Grace Note 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. Could you explain? Could you show me where I said Brandt stalked people on-wiki? - Denny ^(talk) 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked, so far as I know, for entirely onwiki behaviour. I have no problem with his being blocked for the offwiki bullshit. So far as I'm concerned, apart from his article, Danny isn't welcome here and never should be again. Nor should anyone who makes it their business to harass and "out" editors. Grace Note 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace, do you have any sort of a problem with me, or are you following and reviewing my edits? You seem to follow in the wake of much of what I do since I commented on the Brandt matter with scorn and hostile or excessively questioning tone, and I am concerned about it. Please let me know. - Denny 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you think I might have an issue with you. Why do you think I might? I've previously worked on WP:Attribution (check my contribs if you like) and WP:BLP (ditto), and I occasionally look at editor review (again, this is clearly visible in my contribs). If you are active on particular pages, as you seem to be, you have to expect to run into the same editors.

There's nothing hostile in asking you whether you have previously edited. You asked to be reviewed. That's what has struck me about you. You can email me if you want to discuss it further. There is also nothing hostile in suggesting that an editor with only a few weeks' experience does not invent new policy or new instructions/templates/bullshit to clutter up pages with.

Now I will tell you something. Posting passive-aggressive whining to my talkpage does aggravate me, particularly when it is manifestly not assuming good faith of me. Try not to do it again and I'm sure we'll be best of friends. Grace Note 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had (rather out of the blue) vigorously countered me--which is fine--on my edits on the Brandt issue, my addition of WP:FORTHEPEOPLE on the deletion arguments to avoid page, on the ATT polling, and then with negative comments on the BLP category idea. All of which is quite fine, but I was concerned that after never having seen/interacted with you before I disagreed with you re Brandt, that you were perhaps seeing what I was up to. For example, you had never once edited Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before 03/22/2007 23:25, a full ten days after I had first touched the page. No worries, however. Happy editing. - Denny ^(talk) 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I edited the Danny Brandt article long, long before you turned up, and have vigorously supported its deletion on several occasions. Your appointing yourself saviour of the Brandt article does not give you licence not to be disagreed with. As for the deletion thing, I'd forgotten that was you. I'd suggest that unilaterally deciding what arguments people can use in deletion debates is not seemly in a "new" editor. And I followed the link to the deletion page. Someone had used it as though it was policy and I checked it out to see what someone had invented this time. You'll find my edits all over deletion pages, policy on deletion etc. I'd suggest once more that if a "new" editor turns up and starts rewriting policy as soon as his feet are under the table, he's going to meet some opposition from editors who have previously been involved. That's just natural, particularly if you are going to make a beeline for controversial articles and policy areas. Grace Note 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up; I understand now. - Denny ^(talk) 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on your talkpage and thought it looked interesting. Whenever someone comes and whines about nothing much on my talkpage, I have a look and see who else they've been talking to. I think you'll find that's quite normal. So I followed the link. Now, I have to ask you to stop wasting my time. I have better things to do than read your conspiracy theory about me, and I'm sure you do too. Isn't there a policy that needs your input somewhere? Grace Note 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll find one sooner or later I want to learn more about. :) - Denny ^(talk) 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

For an image of a living person to be allowed on Wikipedia just to show what he or she looks like, the image must be under a license or other condition that allows anybody to reuse the photo in any way, including commercial works. The only restrictions that Wikipedia allows on photos are that the photo may require attribution, and that the photo may require that any derivatives be relicensed under the same license. Since official photos of Canadian politicians disallow commercial reuse, the image is permissible if and only if a similar work that achieves the same purpose is impossible (e.g. the person is a fugitive like Osama bin Laden, looks very different compared to what the photo looks like (e.g. had his face disfigured or is much older than when he or she had that photo taken), or is a prisoner like Dennis Rader a.k.a. the BTK killer, where prisons probably do not want people taking photos of their prisoners because some of them, like Rader, are media hounds who get their jollies by getting their images taken by either still image or television cameras). For us to keep the photo, we must receive explicit permission to use the photo under one of the licenses listed here. Permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough, and photos used with permission where a free alternative could be created are disallowed. Jesse Viviano 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I retagged for speedy myself, and will find a better free one. - Denny ^(talk) 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful that you understood instead of reacting negatively when he or she is shown that he or she inadvertently violated policy. It is a refreshing breath that you understand and comply with policy unlike others who violate polciy like R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (this user failed to meet the burden of proof that the images he uploaded are permissible reacted negatively to anyone who called him for this failure) and Primetime (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (this user committed unrepetant mass plagiarism and copyright violations). Jesse Viviano 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no problem at all, I didn't realize I had asked for the wrong permissions. I rewrote them and the PMs office as well to ask for a better one under GFDL. :) - Denny ^(talk) 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words Denny :) Gwen Gale 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, if we were going to have all vandalism patroling done by mindless bots, ... we'd cut out the middle men. :) I'm blathering about this revert. You managed to revert the covering edit but not the initial suspect edit. Watch out for stuff like that.--Gmaxwell 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a man! Oh, wait. Sorry! That was amateur hour by me, good eye. :) - Denny ^(talk) 06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Serin. The whole article is just a glorified attack page, as far as I'm concerned. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to make sure my userpages follow wikipolicy.  :-) Lawyer2b 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay WP:BADSITES, by its own admission, is not a Wikipedia policy. Thus, you have no business "enforcing" it by altering other people's comments on talk and project pages. *Dan T.* 13:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I not the page made any "admission" of its merit. New pages start as Essays, move to guidelines, then policy, I believe? The essay/guideline/policy 'status' is fluid, and the true status is what reflects actual practice and precedent. Anyone can enforce anything that is applicable and 'right'. We do not support hate, or attack sites. Do you support in any fashion websites that can cause personal harm to editors here? - Denny ^(talk) 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last question has a vaguely McCarthyist sound to it, like "Are you now, or have you ever been a communist?" And it seems like your campaign to suppress links to such sites is a witch-hunt. Personally, I think we ought to "know our enemy", meaning that it is sometimes necessary to read and discuss the things they write on anti-Wikipedia boards. It does us no good to suppress such discussion by banning such links. *Dan T.* 14:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Events can be discussed, but can you think of a single, solitary good reason to link people BACK to revealed personal info of editors here? NONE. - Denny ^(talk) 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like editing userpages to conform to your essay is poor form. Consider simply dispensing advice about links you find offensive on the users' talk pages and soliciting feedback. Vees 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 raised an important issue here, and I would like to hear your response. Assuming a reliable news source like the NY Times publishes a story in which it links a user to a real name, exposing him (or her) and/or mentions the name of an attack site: May that article be linked to? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me there. Yes, it's purely hypothetical as of yet, but it's not too farfetched and may happen any minute now, considering the media attention the Essjay story received. Wikipedia has become prominent, and prominent users may gain sufficient mainstream attention. I'm asking this question because if and when such an article appears, the information published in that article would be suitable for citation, effectively circumventing any attack site policy. Then we'd have a whole new conflict at our hands: We could not censor a reliable source, but the article would still pose a threat to the mentioned user/s - either through linking to an attack site or by publishing real names (or talking about agendas and whatnot). Again: Yes, it's still hypothetical, but it could happen real soon now and I believe we should be prepared for the impact - and hope it never comes to this. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse AGF with criticising your lack of experience. Seeing you lack experience is not the same at all as assuming you are not coming from a good faith space. I suggest you wait till you have 6 months experience before starting to write policy as you inevitably still have a very poor understanding of wikipedia due to not even 3 months here and even coming from aa good faith space you have a tremendous capacity to unintentionally damage the project, IMO, not due to bad faith but due to inexperience and hence a poor grasp of how wikipedia actually works, SqueakBox 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, in my opinion, you're right. The mentioned sites are indeed attack sites. I just want to lay emphasis on the ambivalence I'm having, because I believe those sites offer at least some valid criticism. Dang. Someone should make a site that collects the better bits and pieces from those attack sites and leaves out the attack crap. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, and you're right: a straight criticism community that scrubbed abusive nonsense, and outing, could be an asset. - Denny ^(talk) 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:William_Oefelein#Apology_requested - Denny ^(talk) 17:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. - Denny ^(talk) 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you either look at the diffs I posted on WP:AN/I or not get involved in this. There is no point in complicating the matter and your suggestion of banning me from the article reflects poorly on you. KazakhPol 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated by the ArbCom case linked to by arbitrator Kirill Lokshin in the Mongo request for carification and as transcluded to Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites in response to the request for clarification, there seems to be no binding ArbCom ruling pertaining to links to attack sites. I reverted your revision of WP:BP. And besides: Calling a good-faithed edit vandalism as in "rvv" [3]/[4], is not the preferred way. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming another law-abiding user supports personal borderline terrorism is way out of line. Please stay calm and dont attack other users as you are making for an unsafe wikipedia environment in doing so, something I thought you were trying to prevent? SqueakBox 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MONGO! - Denny ^(talk) 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wil you agree to mediation, given this completely out of order accusation it is, IMO, entirely necessary, SqueakBox 17:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only mediation needed is that you stop challenging everything I write all over Wikipedia endlessly. Re: my harassment statement -- I posted a question on the BLP page. You per the edit logs had never touched that page before you replied to me minutes later, your first edit ever there. I don't care if you're following my contributions to contest me at every step of everything I do--your right, I suppose. But be honest about. :) And don't be surprised if it goes on for weeks or months if you find yourself on the other end of arbitration/ANI for harassment. Your jousting against anything I do lately is amusing but if you keep this up much longer it will not be. - Denny ^(talk) 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a yes or a no? You suddenly start attacking me with serious accusations and I have not been attacking you. Please calm down and answer the question. I've had BLP on my watchlist for longer than you have been editing here and you have no right to claim I cannot edit there. Your aggressive thrreat in your response and your failure to answer my question are not shoiwiung any good faith towards me, SqueakBox 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that every single time I write a single sentence related to the Brandt or attack site issues, you swiftly come after what I wrote. For the BLP page. You've had it a long time watchlisted, ok. Why did you NEVER touch the BLP talk page until I posted THAT question? Please answer that question. And please, please, please start doing indents like everyone else on WP does. You don't need to outdent every four seconds. - Denny ^(talk) 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, if you're concerned others might read and/or comment on what you write, you're most definitely in the wrong place. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. Squeak's apparent tracking of my activities, however, makes me pause and consider why he is doing that. - Denny ^(talk) 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a phrase for that and it's different from "assumption of good faith". Look, you two are heavily engaged in the same debate, it's very understandable that anyone in that situation makes use of the most basic Wikipedia tools to keep up with the debate. Please consider that nobody did accuse you of "secretly obtaining ammunition for the discussion on Attack sites". Whether or not Squeakbox ever edited the page before today doesn't matter, and if you cannot accept that, mediation may indeed be a good idea. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are refusing mediation then? SqueakBox 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will address any mediation questions after you answer my question about the BLP page, based on your answer. Why did you NEVER touch the BLP talk page until I posted THAT question? - Denny ^(talk) 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You what? I can make no sense of your question. I watch BNP because of Brandt, and I only post when I have something to say, SqueakBox 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop outdenting. Yes or no question: did you ever post on the BLP talk page BEFORE I posted my question there? - Denny ^(talk) 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err that information is publicly available so you can answer the question for yourself though I fail to see why your question has any relevance to my request for mediation, or indeed to anyhting But here is a handy tip. You can access the whole history of the talk by adding an extra 0 to the 500 page and you get this which gives 5000 of the last edits (all in this case. Then with Ctrl F just check the irregular expression kbo and you'll get your answwer without too much effort. The mediation, I should add, is entirely about your personal attacks against myself and other users and not about your attemptints to write policy or your POV's, SqueakBox 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know how to search history, and confirm your reply to my question was your first ever edit to the BLP talk page, even if you do not wish to simply say so for some reason. :) Were you following my edits? If so, what were/are you looking for? I am not trying to entrap you but understand your point of view and also the point of view of anyone who defends that hate site. Thanks. - Denny ^(talk) 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am happy to talk. I certainly do not defend any hate sites, and if by that one you refer to WR I dont defend that site either. I have my own page there (Mr Squeaky) which isnt complementary and I am very unhappy at having my name and city location on the HM page at WW so to accuse me of supporting these sites or Brandt is plain wrong. I am one of those being outed! I've clearly antagonised Brandt etc (as has Tobias) and now we appear to have antagonised you too. So perhaps I am following a middle path. I was linking to HM until someone asked me if I would remove the link and I was happy to so its not about me wanting to link to these alleged attack sites either. If I remember correctly you had mentioned BLP at the attack sites page and so when the page cam up with your name on as editor on my watchlist I naturally went and had a look. I should add that my response here doesnt look like harrassment to me inder even the most liberal interpretation of that word let alone cyberstalking. I would have thought my intererst in BLP would be self evident due to my long standing interest in the Brandt case, I have quoted it many times etc, so my having posted there or not before April 11 is completely irrelevant, SqueakBox 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've no idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this: {{subpages}}? Returns like this: all subpages of this page. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding! Thanks guys. This was the actual syntax I remembered vaguely. - Denny ^(talk) 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a mediation request or a third opinion is a better idea for starters. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am awaiting a mediation response, certainly refusing mediation and going to Rfc isnt a good idea. And am filing a mediation request, will let you have the link, SqueakBox 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here, SqueakBox 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A series of edits like this [5]/[6]/[7]/[8]/[9]/[10] could be considered canvassing. At the very least, it's not best practice. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have 7 days to accept mediation with me. I hope you do so. I dont see this a s a steeppiong stone to an Rfc but a potentially useful process to help us for any further collaboration in the future. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..it's good to say hello! - hope you're well, and thanks for your note - i couldn't find any mention of us being involved with an arbitration case, but maybe it just moved on over the last couple of days?

let me know if i've just missed something obvious - and i'll probably see you over at the badsites page. If you are one of the editors concerned about me or the points i raise, please do drop by my talk page, and i'll happily chat away.

best - Purples 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: I hope you understand that others do not see this as black and white as you appear to do. I am all against attacks on Wikipedians, but... oh, what the heck. Nevermind. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denny. I find your above referenced statement interesting. I could just as easily say that I find anyone who advocates a policy that's likely to lead to increased harassment to be "of questionable morality". I don't think that though, it turns out. I think people can come to pretty different conclusions in perfectly good faith, due to differences in judgment.

Think about this, Denny: What if I, having carefully considered, decide that the best way I can help prevent harassment of Wikipedians is by opposing the policy you've suggested at WP:BADSITES? In that case, how can I do anything but oppose it, if I'm to have a clear conscience? Yes, I'm supporting the "right" to not have a misguided policy banning links to certain sites. I'm supporting that right for the express purpose of protecting and improving Wikipedia, and I've got some pretty good reasons behind that support. You can question my judgment, but my motives are the same as yours.

Feel free to reply here, or at my talk page, or by email if you'd like to chat. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that .V. indicated something about your comment on the TFD of {{TrollWarning}}. If you want to discuss it, go ahead—some intelligent discussion between both sides would be useful, if not novel, in that debate. Gracenotes^T § 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add that since deletion debates are not votes (not even !votes, for that matter), it may be helpful if you explained why precisely you deem that template useful. Just an idea. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the template to Wikipedia talk:Attack sites without any trolling whatsoever having happened there is, in itself, one more reason to oppose that template. It's the prototypical example for misuse of that template. Someone added {{calm talk}} though, which is very appropriate. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeede I think you owe all the good faith editors on the attack site talk page an explanantion for your placing this trolling template entirely inappropriately, especially given you appear to refuse to engage in mediation with me over your multiple personal attacks. Please remain calm and civil and dont go around calling people terrorists, cyberstalkers, trolls, etc, as this makes wikipedia a less safe place for everybody in which to work, SqueakBox 16:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been denied. Nor looking good. I hope you will now consider mediation as I definitely see the rfc as an attack and your comment here as a rather nasty threat and it appear admins arent willing to remove the evidence. This can all be resolved very beasily in mediation, or not. Your choice? SqueakBox 02:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your user page. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is indeed suspected or known to be a sockpuppet account, it should carry the appropriate template on the user page. —AldeBaer 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt support this on the basis of a suspicion, you should try a sockpuppet check (of course denny would have known where this page was), SqueakBox 23:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexisonfirelogo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not currently active, but I am not much either, except regarding the ongoing exegesis of the WP:BADSITES proposal you introduced into the Wikipedian system. Back in April 2007, I forked the substance of BADSITES over to NPA as an means of defeating it as a policy in itself. While you seemed chagrined before you left that "someone broke out the rejected tag," my moving the text over to NPA seems to have inadvertently given it new life, and I was wondering how you would respond to the subsequent accusations that you wrote BADSITES as a parody of sorts of the intentions of those targeted by "attack sites," as opposed to someone who earnestly proposed this believing it would gain widespread consensus. Those Wikipedians who saw fit to call you a troll after you left seemed to be those whose interests you were intentionally or inadvertently defending, while many other Wikipedians (myself included) are surely interested in hearing your point of view regarding all the issues leading into the current ArbCom case. I hope all is well otherwise. Regards,—AL ^FOCUS! 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely sorry that i have vandalised becuase it was another person who hacked into my accounts and vandalised. I am guessing it was my friend. Hope you'll forgive me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkchaotix (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:BLP Check (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --Darkwind (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:BttfSidebar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Essjay-GFDL-released.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Doc^g 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:QuestionATTtoalleditors.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==

Thanks for uploading Image:AOFGeorge13.jpg, which you've sourced to Jubella. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ==

Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Twinklepuffuserboxicon.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:580473948 l.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AOFWade4.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:AOFWade4.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:AOFWade4.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]