User talk:B/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:B. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Scout and Guide logo poll
Please vote in the poll at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Project_logo which closes on November 20 Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This was a picture that someone took of myself when I asked them to "please take a picture for me". It never left MY camera. It was exclusively taken FOR me. The copyright is mine and mine alone and I properly released it under GDFL. Please undelete this and, more importantly, why was this not placed under WP:IFD? — BQZip01 — talk 23:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- "The legal rights for images generally lie with the photographer not the subject." The term used here is generally, not exclusively. Furthermore, the image copyright talk page addresses this issue. In all seriousness, there is NO evidence that the person ever made an attempt to copyright the image, retain it, state anything to the contrary or make any claim of its use. Please explain how you can justify its deletion. — BQZip01 — talk 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as interesting as all of this may be, another user removed the {{pd-self}} tag from the image and added a fair use tag. If you, the photographer, or whoever owns the copyright for the image (I don't know nor, frankly, do I care who that is) is willing to release the image into the public domain, we can use it. If not, we can't. It's as simple as that. --B (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the fair use tag was added in response to the logo of Texas A&M being used in the photo. I read through the rules and realized that this really didn't apply since the logo was not copyrighted, but was trademarked. The photo was (and is) in the public domain. Please replace the tag.and restore the photo. Additionally, all this information was included in the text. While templates provide information is a clean manner, it doesn't mean that the information isn't appropriately published. Thanks for working through me with this. — BQZip01 — talk 02:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored the image and blanked out the non-free gobbletygook. You need to be the one to add {{PD-self}} (I can't release it into the PD for you). Just remove the replaceable non-free tag and replace it with {{PD-self}}. --B (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for fixing the misunderstanding with me. Glad to work with you on it. I'll take care of the DRV below. — BQZip01 — talk 02:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored the image and blanked out the non-free gobbletygook. You need to be the one to add {{PD-self}} (I can't release it into the PD for you). Just remove the replaceable non-free tag and replace it with {{PD-self}}. --B (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the fair use tag was added in response to the logo of Texas A&M being used in the photo. I read through the rules and realized that this really didn't apply since the logo was not copyrighted, but was trademarked. The photo was (and is) in the public domain. Please replace the tag.and restore the photo. Additionally, all this information was included in the text. While templates provide information is a clean manner, it doesn't mean that the information isn't appropriately published. Thanks for working through me with this. — BQZip01 — talk 02:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as interesting as all of this may be, another user removed the {{pd-self}} tag from the image and added a fair use tag. If you, the photographer, or whoever owns the copyright for the image (I don't know nor, frankly, do I care who that is) is willing to release the image into the public domain, we can use it. If not, we can't. It's as simple as that. --B (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Image:TAMUQ_Profs_and_Students.jpg
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:TAMUQ_Profs_and_Students.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — BQZip01 — talk 02:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Dji19165 and Godlovestruth
Thanks for catching those guys. Also, not sure it is relevant but as an FYI based on their fondness for "rebuking" people I'd guess that they are socks of indef blocked User:Starfire777. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- From a quick look at edit summaries, they look very similar to Starfire777. --B (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and the tendency to use full capitalization for emphasis. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc images deleted with out explanation.
Hi. You deleted images at Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc. Was this in response to the OTRS request listed on each image? If not, please explain why you deleted before this request has been addressed? Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(t)/(c) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The images were deleted because they are non-free images that are replaceable and have been tagged as such for over a week. If you have obtained an appropriate license for them (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc), that permission needs to be forwarded to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Your email needs to clearly identify the names of the images. If the permission is suitable, the person handling the OTRS queue can restore the images. But just putting the "OTRS pending" tag in there is not a license for the image to stay indefinitely without license information - if you have been given permission to use them, then you should put that licensing information on the description page, even if OTRS hasn't gotten around to your email yet. If there is no licensing information, then exactly what just happened will happen - the images get deleted. If you want to use special:emailuser/B to send me a copy/paste of whatever correspondence you have from the copyright holder, I can help you pick out the copyright tag. That won't replace the need to send it to OTRS, but it will let me restore the image and properly document the license in the interim. --B (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation about the images. I sent a request to an admin listed as working on the OTRS project with the email from the person granting permission and image names/locations, but it sounds like I missed a few more steps. I will work on this as soon as I can. You will receive correspondence between Simon Timberlake and myself, which lists my real life identity (for the record): Laurie Fait. You have been very helpful which I really appreciate. Kind regards. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(t)/(c) 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the email you sent and unfortunately, that permission is not sufficient for our purposes. Wikipedia content is replicated a number of other places (called "downstream" uses). For example, about.com and answers.com copy every Wikipedia article. There are CDs of Wikipedia content created (see WP:CD). Content is translated into other languages (for example, the Spanish Wikipedia). Because of these "downstream" uses, just granting Wikipedia permission to use the image is not sufficient. Wikipedia requires that the license granted be a "free" license that allows for modification and redistribution, including commercial use (about.com and answers.com, for example, are commercial websites). The "GFDL" and "Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA" licenses are the two most commonly used. WP:COPYREQ gives more information about requesting suitable copyright permission and Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries has a good license declaration that he can use. This form ensures that there is no misunderstanding - the license is spelled out and he understands (in plain English) the consequences of it. (If he has no preference as to the license, the "GNU Free Documentation License" and "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0" license are the most common. My personal preference is GFDL because I feel that it better protects my works from unrestricted commercial use and that's what I use for my own uploads, but that's just my personal non-legal opinion.) Please feel free to link to copy/paste this explanation into an email if you make another contact to request appropriate permission or feel free to ask if there is anything I'm not being clear on. --B (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- More great information, all very helpful. I will see what kind of permission I can secure. Bye for now. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(t)/(c) 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I sent another email for your review; hopefully this version will work? Thanks. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 05:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good to me - please forward it to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Once the permission is confirmed, they will add the OTRS tag. I will restore the images and add the appropriate licensing tags. --B (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored the images. You can re-add them to the article. --B (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fabulous! So is there anything left for me to do to complete the process? ~ Geaugagrrl talk 05:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- All you need to do is forward the email to the permissions-en address and make sure that you include a link to each image (you don't want them guessing what images it is for). Once they read it, they will file it away and tag the images so that in case there is ever an issue, they can look up the permission. --B (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fabulous! So is there anything left for me to do to complete the process? ~ Geaugagrrl talk 05:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored the images. You can re-add them to the article. --B (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good to me - please forward it to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Once the permission is confirmed, they will add the OTRS tag. I will restore the images and add the appropriate licensing tags. --B (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I sent another email for your review; hopefully this version will work? Thanks. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 05:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- More great information, all very helpful. I will see what kind of permission I can secure. Bye for now. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(t)/(c) 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the email you sent and unfortunately, that permission is not sufficient for our purposes. Wikipedia content is replicated a number of other places (called "downstream" uses). For example, about.com and answers.com copy every Wikipedia article. There are CDs of Wikipedia content created (see WP:CD). Content is translated into other languages (for example, the Spanish Wikipedia). Because of these "downstream" uses, just granting Wikipedia permission to use the image is not sufficient. Wikipedia requires that the license granted be a "free" license that allows for modification and redistribution, including commercial use (about.com and answers.com, for example, are commercial websites). The "GFDL" and "Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA" licenses are the two most commonly used. WP:COPYREQ gives more information about requesting suitable copyright permission and Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries has a good license declaration that he can use. This form ensures that there is no misunderstanding - the license is spelled out and he understands (in plain English) the consequences of it. (If he has no preference as to the license, the "GNU Free Documentation License" and "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0" license are the most common. My personal preference is GFDL because I feel that it better protects my works from unrestricted commercial use and that's what I use for my own uploads, but that's just my personal non-legal opinion.) Please feel free to link to copy/paste this explanation into an email if you make another contact to request appropriate permission or feel free to ask if there is anything I'm not being clear on. --B (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation about the images. I sent a request to an admin listed as working on the OTRS project with the email from the person granting permission and image names/locations, but it sounds like I missed a few more steps. I will work on this as soon as I can. You will receive correspondence between Simon Timberlake and myself, which lists my real life identity (for the record): Laurie Fait. You have been very helpful which I really appreciate. Kind regards. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(t)/(c) 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc You've been very patient with all my questions!
~Geaugagrrl talk 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Nice
Made me chuckle, anyway... Sad but true. MastCell Talk 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess that once you trim out the people who are getting blown out, the pool isn't that bad. Of the ones with over 70% support, there's nobody who is really awful and even if you drop it all the way down to 50% and above, SirFozzie is really the only one that makes me jump up and down screaming bad choice. (I'm going to take a closer look at some of the ones I don't really know that much about, though.) --B (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused as to how many people can be "elected". I thought it was just 7, so Sir Fozzie has no shot, unless he bumps up the rankings quickly. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter
The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Moulton
(Comment by banned user redacted)
- Anything to avoid a little introspection, eh? :) MastCell Talk 22:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder if he would be happier if I unblocked him to remove whatever illegitimate block there may be, then reblocked him myself after which point he can be considered to be "community banned" by virtue of being indefblocked with no admin being willing to overturn the block. --B (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've been considering that myself - and MastCell IS a vandal. It said so right on his user page at some point, along with being a pro-health shill, the bastard.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Someone needs to warn me whenever MastCell is accused of anything. I need to add a Support whenever it shows up. And I heard MastCell is also a Phillies fan, which is like lower than a vandal. It's almost Visigoth level. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you can add me to your Google Alerts. MastCell Talk 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Pfft. Eagles fans make the Phillies fans appear on the level of Saint Theresa. rootology (C)(T) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Almost. And what the heck is a Google Alert? (B must wonder if his user talk is going to end up being the local bantering location). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. If only there were a free online knowledge resource where you could look up Google Alert and educate yourself.
Besides, I'm not "pro-health" - I'm anti-freedom. It's all in my own personal version of Did you know? (since removed from my userpage after I decided it was too sarcastic). MastCell Talk 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- You sarcastic? I'm fairly surprised by that statement. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm terribly tempted to block MastCell for inappropriate sarcasm.--Tznkai (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was in tears because of his sarcasm. I'm probably going to need therapy. Not to be completely daft, I just noticed the title of this section. Moulton is back? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- He is stirring up trouble via the dynamic IPs of Verizon's wireless network. I'm imagining a new Verizon commercial. Dad says, "when I work remotely, I'll have the network." Cut to clip of the army of Verizon guys plugging on their blackberries. Mom says, "when I want to make sure you kids are ok, I'll have the network." Cut to clip of Verizon guys with phones up to their ears. Son says, "when I want to post pictures of human genitalia to the biographies of political leaders I don't like, I'll have the network." Cut to Verizon guys with the Wikipedia logo on their screen and a badly photoshopped picture of George W Bush and Barack Obama. --B (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was in tears because of his sarcasm. I'm probably going to need therapy. Not to be completely daft, I just noticed the title of this section. Moulton is back? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm terribly tempted to block MastCell for inappropriate sarcasm.--Tznkai (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- You sarcastic? I'm fairly surprised by that statement. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. If only there were a free online knowledge resource where you could look up Google Alert and educate yourself.
- Almost. And what the heck is a Google Alert? (B must wonder if his user talk is going to end up being the local bantering location). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Someone needs to warn me whenever MastCell is accused of anything. I need to add a Support whenever it shows up. And I heard MastCell is also a Phillies fan, which is like lower than a vandal. It's almost Visigoth level. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've been considering that myself - and MastCell IS a vandal. It said so right on his user page at some point, along with being a pro-health shill, the bastard.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder if he would be happier if I unblocked him to remove whatever illegitimate block there may be, then reblocked him myself after which point he can be considered to be "community banned" by virtue of being indefblocked with no admin being willing to overturn the block. --B (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: Wow
I don't really believe it either. I thought this year would be like 2002, and it was ... except we won the conference. That's really stunning. Hope someone took pictures. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I hope there are some pictures - from looking at the stands, there weren't very many people there, though. --B (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've got someone who's willing to let us use his. Where's that boilerplate legal form they need to "sign" via email? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Make sure that you or they clearly indicate what image(s) the permission is for and forward the email they send (or have them send it) to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" or "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". --B (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. Couldn't remember where that permission page was after we went through this with last year's ACCCG. Now it's time to tackle the 2009 Orange Bowl page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's a half-dozen or so photos on it now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did he give you blanket permission to use any photo there? Can you get permission for (if needed) and upload [1] to use of Jim Weaver (athletics director)? Also, I think this is John Swofford next to Beamer isn't it? Thanks, --B (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he gave blanket permission. I forwarded along the e-mail to the permissions address, so if you wanted to, you could upload those under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution, I think. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would probably be better for you to do that and re-send the email to OTRS with the new URLs so that they can tag the images. --B (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he gave blanket permission. I forwarded along the e-mail to the permissions address, so if you wanted to, you could upload those under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution, I think. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did he give you blanket permission to use any photo there? Can you get permission for (if needed) and upload [1] to use of Jim Weaver (athletics director)? Also, I think this is John Swofford next to Beamer isn't it? Thanks, --B (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's a half-dozen or so photos on it now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. Couldn't remember where that permission page was after we went through this with last year's ACCCG. Now it's time to tackle the 2009 Orange Bowl page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Make sure that you or they clearly indicate what image(s) the permission is for and forward the email they send (or have them send it) to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" or "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". --B (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've got someone who's willing to let us use his. Where's that boilerplate legal form they need to "sign" via email? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://vtphreak4evr.com/P1110712.JPG){kind=link}
I apologize
I apologize for the actions that my IP did yesterday. It was probably my brother who was doing the silly vandalism. I promise to never vandalize again, and will create an account.
74.70.250.49 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Calvary Chapel
Hi. I am notifying everyone who participated in discussions on Talk:Calvary Chapel last July or so that I have posted some proposed principles on the issues that were under discussion then. Your input is welcome. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Opposing other candidates
I hope it will help if you understand "why", and also I would like to understand any concerns you have, so I have initiated a discussion here. I would appreciate your input on this. --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
New FAC
I know you're not big on reviewing FACs (at least from what I've seen ... I may be mistaken), but I've submitted another in the line of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games articles for FAC. 2006 Gator Bowl is now awaiting reviews and comments, and any questions, concerns, or support you'd care to add would be appreciated. I'm planning to submit the ACCCG article once this one passes or fails, and that likely will be followed by the Orange Bowl article, hopefully. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, 2006 Gator Bowl passed and is now an FA, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've submitted a new FAC. 2003 Insight Bowl is waiting for comments when you get a chance. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Tj terrorible1
- Tj terrorible1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
That is ridiculous that the user is not getting blocked. He clearly violated 3RR and he has had many warnings and last chances. Take a look at the history of Barney Gumble, people would copyedit it and he would just revert back to his version. He has done this many times on many pages and all he gets is a bloody warning, every time. I didn't even get one warning before my first 3RR block. What is the point of the damn rule if violating users never get blocked? -- Scorpion0422 04:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the problem - if one side is clearly in the right and one side is clearly in the wrong, that's a nice neat package for an admin looking at WP:AN3 and it gets handled quickly. But one like this isn't a nice neat package. You reverted three times. He reverted four times. Another user reverted twice using an anti-vandal tool without using an edit summary. There's no right answer here. If it had just happened, I would protect the article, but that isn't overly useful (and just causes a headache when done after the revert war is over). What's the point of blocking someone after he stops reverting? Blocks are preventative, not punitive. But there's nothing to prevent if he has obviously moved on with life. It's not my job to declare someone to be the winner and someone to be the loser (who gets blocked). --B (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I reported it nine hours ago! It's not my fault that it was ignored for that long. It's not like this is an isolated incident, he's a serial edit warrior, he's had many warnings and he just keeps doing it. He deserves a block. -- Scorpion0422 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not assessing blame for he delay. Again, AN3 is not about declaring someone to be right and someone to be wrong - it's about eliminating disruption. At the point at which I looked at it, there was no disruption to prevent. AN3 gets backlogged a lot and non-obvious cases that someone can't just look at in a "drive by" don't get handled right away. Admins, just like everyone else, are volunteers and there's nobody whose day job it is to sit there and monitor AN3 for new reports. I will keep an eye on him and if revert warring resumes, I will block him. --B (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh please, tomorrow he'll do it and you'll just think of some other lame ass excuse about why he shouldn't be blocked. If you're not willing to use your tools to block disruptive edit warriors, then you should resign and leave. -- Scorpion0422 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not assessing blame for he delay. Again, AN3 is not about declaring someone to be right and someone to be wrong - it's about eliminating disruption. At the point at which I looked at it, there was no disruption to prevent. AN3 gets backlogged a lot and non-obvious cases that someone can't just look at in a "drive by" don't get handled right away. Admins, just like everyone else, are volunteers and there's nobody whose day job it is to sit there and monitor AN3 for new reports. I will keep an eye on him and if revert warring resumes, I will block him. --B (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I reported it nine hours ago! It's not my fault that it was ignored for that long. It's not like this is an isolated incident, he's a serial edit warrior, he's had many warnings and he just keeps doing it. He deserves a block. -- Scorpion0422 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
User GoldDragon
- GoldDragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Please look at the number of times user GoldDragon has been reported to Administrators. I know you found no violation this time, but I have never reported anyone to admin before, so I may not have put the notice in the correct place. It turns out he has been reported a number of times, I'm just the newest one to report him. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are some links to where he has been reported by other users:
For using Sockpuppets / Meatpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive18#User:GoldDragon
For 3RR, it looks like GoldDragon was hounding this user, because it occurred on two pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive32#User:GoldDragon_reported_by_User:CJCurrie_.28Result:No_action.29
There are more, but that should be enough. User GoldDragon has been repeatedly involved in activity that violates both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's rules and conventions. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Giano and his talk pages
Per your request on Requests for arbitration, when Giano was blocked he decided to use his talk page (the only page he could edit while logged in) to work on developing an article about the Banqueting House. I am inclined to view that as a positive move much to be encouraged. He wanted to keep communications away from that to stop edit conflicts etc., and for that he needed a separate page - or in other words, he was compelled to set up a separate talk page.
Now, technically it was not an absolute requirement, but it was a reasonable one especially if it enabled his article work. At least that was what I meant (and it was originally intended only for arbcom-l, not for wider circulation in which case I might have been slightly clearer). Hope this explains everything satisfactorily. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Think about if this principle were to be applied to all blocked users. Blocked doesn't really mean blocked - it really means edit from your talk page and make up a sock when it's more convenient. That's a really bad precedent to set. Extending the block rather than talking with Giano first was really rude, but that doesn't make the underlying actions ok. --B (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
important
GO HOKIES! Hokie Hokie Hokie Hi! Tech Tech VPI! Solirex Soliri! Polytech Virginia! Jwalte04 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring block
I saw your block of both users on Vijay_Eswaran. Given that one was removing well sourced material (International Herald Tribune) and the other attempting to censor the article don't you think blocks of different lengths for each may have been better. As a general principle in wikipedia do you think this would be a useful idea to develop? ie please don't edit war but content is vital.Mccready (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Both were single-purpose accounts doing nothing but edit warring repeatedly over the article. 3RR does not say it's ok to edit war as long as your motivation is good. I'm also not entirely convinced that Lawranceofarabia's version meets BLP requirements. Your's is better, but one place that you have a fact tag either needs to be sourced or removed. --B (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments B. What of the general principle trying to focus more on content and developing better mechanisms to do so (for example during an edit war)?Mccready (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Image Deletion
Thanks for deleting Image:Mayor Giuliani.jpg and Image:Rudolph Giuliani.JPG for me. I uploaded Image:Michael Steele.jpg to wiki because I could not get it on commons. Now that I uploaded it to commons, can you delete this version? Rockyobody (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. --B (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Can You do the same for Image:Ken Blackwell.jpg and Image:Gov Jeb Bush.jpg? Rockyobody (talk) (UTC)
Edit War
Regarding the warning that you put in my talk page, I should say that another user named: Kauffner is ignoring the sources I mentioned in the article discussion page, removing the sourced text and has engaged in the edit war and you haven't written any warning in his talk page. according to the rules you can not block just one of the partcipants in the edit war and forget about the others. Transparagon (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Sofia Rotaru - Alla Pugacheva (user Eric's mess)
Please, take into consideration one fact. User Eric renders his clearly personal oinion as the "ultimate truth" by posting a note about me as an edit warrior, whereas User Eric himself, edited more than 3 times, and the only goal of "complaining" (falsely) about me was to legitimize his own personal opinion.
There was suggested to look for a consensus. However, all what happened, and User Eric even explicitely confirmed it by saying "I will not stop this war", is that User Eric keeps reposting his highly controversial edit, entirely colored by his personal vision.
These are the sources I provided. http://www.gallup-international.com/ http://romir.ru/en/ They clearly say, who has the iconic status in all fo the former USSR and Eastern Europe and is considered as the most popular singer. It is Sofia Rotaru.
As for Alla Pugacheva, she is clearly less popular and popular only in Russia, that's it.
I hope Wikipedia is not a place for lies. Please, help bring some objectivity on Wikipedia, and this article in particular. Thank you.--Nextvital007 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Confusion on Jimbo's talk page
"In the history of arbcom, only four arbiters have sought reelection and been reelected. All three of them had previously served only partial terms."
I completely agree with your general point, but the first two sentences left me somewhat confused...
Incidentally, Nextvital007 is wrong - Wikipedia is a place for lies, as we all know. I'm surprised we haven't changed the name to Liepedia yet. ^_~ arimareiji (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
HoHoHo
Resident Mario (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
New FAC
I know you're not big on reviewing FACs (at least from what I've seen ... I may be mistaken), but I've submitted another in the line of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games articles for FAC. 2006 Gator Bowl is now awaiting reviews and comments, and any questions, concerns, or support you'd care to add would be appreciated. I'm planning to submit the ACCCG article once this one passes or fails, and that likely will be followed by the Orange Bowl article, hopefully. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, 2006 Gator Bowl passed and is now an FA, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've submitted a new FAC. 2003 Insight Bowl is waiting for comments when you get a chance. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
States that do not copyright
I know that Florida does not copyright their state photos, but do you know if any other states do the same. File:Arnold Schwarzenegger bio.jpg and File:Governor-huntsman-headshot-1-.jpg probably mean California and Utah do not copyright, but I wanted to double check. Rockyobody (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've heard it claimed about California, but I don't think it's true. I searched awhile back and couldn't find anything confirming a claim that works of California are PD and their own website (ca.gov) claims copyright. --B (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
To You To
To you too! Resident Mario (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, although my holiday isn't until the 2nd. Go Utes! Cool Hand Luke 20:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking forward to that one too - that one should be an exciting game. This year, for the first year in a while, the BCS matchups really look enticing. I watched a few Utah games this year and they certainly look like the real deal. It should be a good matchup with Alabama. --B (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Back atcha! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking forward to that one too - that one should be an exciting game. This year, for the first year in a while, the BCS matchups really look enticing. I watched a few Utah games this year and they certainly look like the real deal. It should be a good matchup with Alabama. --B (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
The only game that matters this year
2009 Sugar Bowl. What else would I watch?OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Miami-Cal interests me as a good yardstick game. Oregon-Okie St should be a nice shootout. The Rose Bowl and the MNC should also be good games. I watch all of the bowl games, but these are probably the ones that most interest me. I also had Notre Dame on my list, but somewhere around halftime with the score around 500-0, I lost interest. --B (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Simulation12 evading block.
Thanks for blocking Sim12's Ip, but while the IP was unblocked she created a sock-puppet account: Tddmoines. Could you block that account too? Elbutler (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, the sock-puppet was blocked.
Horn_speaker NPOV dispute
Please see the Talk:Horn_speaker page. There is a disagreement between me and another editor about the page, and I think he convinced you to lock it. I think it would be appropriate to at least put a {POV} tag on the section in question. Rather than repeat the details here, I encourage you to read the Talk:Horn_speaker page. Zyxxy (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, that guy never quits. I figured I'd be reverting him for days :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
SA's private civility policy
Per my private civility policy I will gladly refactor the comment that I made about your support for User:Profg. Obviously, you were never running a real protection racket for him, and I'm suprised that you took it that seriously. I thought the comparison apt since your support for him extended way beyond what I normally see in administrators. I simply do not have very high tolerance for administrators who try to support editors with agendas that extend to whitewashing, defacing, and destroying the best writing we have about scientific material.
In the future, if you ever have any civility complaints about me, take them directly to my talkpage and follow the recipe I outline there.
ScienceApologist (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- In what way is extorting money from Profg (what you accused me of) an "apt comparison" with unblocking a user whom not a single uninvolved editor even supported blocking? At the time, in [2] this thread, I expressed this concern:
| “ | Something is really bothering me here. The diffs above don't seem particularly bad and I've seen far worse from a number of admins. The article talk pages in that topic area are largely a cesspool simply because emotions tend to run high. Pick out a few diffs from anyone who edits controversial topics and you'll find some things here and there. It looks like there was a previous well-earned block but since then, the only diffs provided are that he has opined on an arbitration case. Good grief, should we go block everyone who does that for "stalking"? Unless there is something more, I oppose this ban. I'm not saying there isn't something more - just that I haven't seen it. | ” |
- At the time, not a single uninvolved editor weighed in to support his ban. The admin who had blocked him was clearly involved and should not have made that decision. (He was later desysopped, although I strongly disagreed with that decision and supported his effort to regain his adminship and will do so again if he applies again.) With 20/20 hindsight, we knowing now that Profg would not avail himself of the opportunity that he was given, I would not have unblocked him, but nobody can predict the future. After I unblocked him, he had all of SEVEN mainspace edits for the rest of eternity and, as we would find out months later, he started socking immediately upon being blocked [3] and continued to use that sock so it didn't even matter that the block on the main account was lifted - had he remained blocked, he still would have evaded it with a sock puppet anyway. So the action I took was to remove a wrongly placed block that no uninvolved user supported and which wound up making no difference. There is nothing whatsoever similar between this action and a protection racket, an extortion scheme in which someone extorts money from the victim. Your "refactoring" [4] is taken in exactly the spirit in which it is done. --B (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Look, we have our differences of opinion on the matter. However, your claim of the "spirit" in which I refactored not only does not assume good faith, it actually is dead wrong. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- SA, I was also upset with B regarding Profg. What I've realized about B is that he's a legal absolutist rather than a constructionist, so even though many of us despised Profg, B correctly determined he was more annoying than anything. But once Profg socked, you can see that B changed his opinion on the editor. I'm not 100% sure I know B's background and POV on various topics, but I know he's an absolutist with regards with things like racism. This is all IMHO. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Look, we have our differences of opinion on the matter. However, your claim of the "spirit" in which I refactored not only does not assume good faith, it actually is dead wrong. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus; there is no such thing as a 'private' policy. Dlabtot (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey B. :) User:Ed_Fitzgerald requests to be unblocked. Your comment would be appreciated there. — Aitias // discussion 08:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Explain this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therascal99 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You're out of line. Do not revert my edits without proper cause. Discuss any reverts in the talk page of the article or on my talk page. Beware of the 3RR, you are dangerously close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therascal99 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Make worthwhile edits and they won't be reverted. --B (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say anything for fear of jinxing them, but yes, I am very happy right now. Not even the fact that it's -50F outside right now can bother me. Well, not very much. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was getting nervous. When we kicked the PAT on that last TD, I had visions of an ECU-like ending where Cinci scores 2 TDs at the end and wins it 21-20. Having a team that finds a way to win close ones is a great thing. --B (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was more interested in the Rose Bowl today, what with my living in SoCal. I just saw the highlights of the Orange Bowl, and I'm sure I'd be drinking heavily. :) Well, glad you go the win. Tomorrow is my alma mater up against Alabama. Not sure I'm going to be on the edge of my seat. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Utah is going to keep it close - it is not going to be a blowout. Alabama doesn't really have it in them to blow out anyone who is well-disciplined. (I thought you went to SU? Or is one your grad school and one undergrad?) --B (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Undergrad, Utah. Graduate school, Syracuse. I also went to medical school in Syracuse, but not SU, since they don't have a medical school. Because I spent more years at SU than I did at Utah, I tend to wear orange rather than red. Utah actually has a strong athletic tradition, recently in football, but they have a lot of basketball victories and a few final 4 appearances. I think my heart is more at SU than Utah. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Utah is going to keep it close - it is not going to be a blowout. Alabama doesn't really have it in them to blow out anyone who is well-disciplined. (I thought you went to SU? Or is one your grad school and one undergrad?) --B (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was more interested in the Rose Bowl today, what with my living in SoCal. I just saw the highlights of the Orange Bowl, and I'm sure I'd be drinking heavily. :) Well, glad you go the win. Tomorrow is my alma mater up against Alabama. Not sure I'm going to be on the edge of my seat. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks…
…for your assistance on the User:CoreEpic matter. Hopefully, he will use this as a means to improve his editing skill and style. Happy New Year! - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. However, in the interests of administrator fairness and objectivity, you may also want to leave a warning for User:Taivo since he too exceeded 3RR (actually, even more so than me). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Arabic Lang Page Protection
Thanks for protecting the page, however I believe that we will be able to come to a fact based compromise before 9 January. I presume we can ask you to review the talk page and then unprotect at that stage. As for our friend, I would observe that Taivo was merely implementing a compromise regarding Malta that, on facts and modern linguistics, was entirely defensible. Given the large and aggressive convo in the Arabic Talk Page (now removed, see history) about Swahili, it would appear the above user is playing a little wikistalking. (collounsbury (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC))
- Sure, if everyone is happy before January 9 say something here or if I am not readily available, you can ask on WP:RFP for another admin to unprotect it. "1 week" was just an arbitrary time from the drop box, not a firm date. --B (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well understood, no worries then mate, thanks again. (collounsbury (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC))
If you don't mind breaking yourself from the TV
- Seriously, the best way to resolve the issue is for both sides to walk away. You have archived the offending section - just let it go away. --B (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Stereotypes_of_Jews
Unless someone can come up with a darned good reason not to, I'm inclined to delete this thing under G4. There is an ANI discussion going on now about this, by the way. --B (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete it, and I will happily withdraw the 3RR complaint.travb (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've reverted the article to an older version of the article, but am asking for input on whether or not that version should be kept.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I g4'd it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- All of it should be deleted. If there is a single stereotype worthy of an article, make an article about it. Otherwise, it's just a collection of random opinions about white people. And the same goes for any of the "stereotypes of ..." articles. In the now deleted revisions of this article, you can see that Deeceevoice's original reason for creating them was anger over Stereotypes of black people not being deleted. Well, two wrongs don't make a right - that article should be deleted too. --B (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Intellectuals and Nazi
Are you still going to move the Nazi article? You locked it without making the move. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is Nazi ideologues the target you want or List of Nazi ideologues? --B (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello B,
The move of this page to Nazi Ideologues or List of Nazi Ideologues was the outcome of an ongoing attempt at consensus on the talk page but just the idea of Richard and a partial idea of ChildofMidnight, most editors have not expressed agreement with this move, these DGG, Shoess, and myself. Nor did others agree to a move, though they were less involved: Colonel Warden, -Cerejota. During the Afd the overwhelming choice was Keep and not Move nor Keep-Move, this had the support of Shoess, Totnesmartin, Celarnor, csloat and myself. The only name change suggestion in the Afd was to lower the case of Philosophers to philosophers. The original request for deletion of "nazi philosophers" was made by ChildofMidnight who in his application for deletion specifically asked regarding the category "Nazi Philosophers", the majority thought it a valid category.
thanks 84.203.45.65 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
- Discuss it on the talk page and get agreement there. --B (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
25 minutes of fun
But couldn't pull off the upset. But UNC went down. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I turned off the television midway through the second half - it was terrible. We're a young team this year, but I really think we've taken a step back with the talent level. We had a lot of really good players come in Seth's first year, but they are all gone now and we're kinda out of phase in recruiting. We lost most of the team two years ago and then our best player - Deron Washington - last year. Now it's a very young team that has a long way to go. --B (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Va Tech is just not a basketball school. Kind of like Syracuse is just not a football school. A few programs can win in both games (Florida, for example), but most major programs just don't have the wherewithal to win in football and basketball. I wonder if it's a money thing. USC has all kinds of money, has been a power in football since I was a kid, yet never makes major strides in Basketball. I think I can name maybe 8-10 programs that do well in both (and I'm wondering if I'm ready to add Utah to that list, although they've dropped off in BB since Rick Majerus left. But they're the 10th most winning team in NCAA basketball.) One of the reasons VA Tech joined the Big East (a sore point for me) was to upgrade its basketball, although the ACC is maybe a nano-step above the Big East (and much better as a football conference). But we'll see. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- For Tech, joining the Big East was about getting back into a major conference. We used to be in the Metro Conference, which had some really strong basketball programs in its day. When Loserville and their allies decided they wanted a football conference, Tech wasn't interested because we were already in the Big East for football (with an automatic Alliance Bowl bid, now the BCS). So they came up with the scheme of kicking us out of the conference, then "merging" with another conference to avoid having to pay exit fees. Virginia Tech and VCU both sued the other members and each received a settlement of $1 million, so they made t-shirts at the time that said, "Thanks a million, Metro". In 1995, when this all happened, the football schools all threatened to leave the Big East and form their own league if the basketball schools didn't let everyone in. But they compromised with just taking Rutgers and West Virginia (both of which were potential Big 10 expansion targets - everyone assumed that they would quickly go to 12 teams) and left Temple and Virginia Tech out (nobody was beating down the door to invite us into their league). We joined the A-10 after that snub. While our article Mid-major#Basketball may say they are a major conference, most people recognize there's a huge dropoff between the BCS leagues and the others. When we were in the A-10, our profit sharing was something under $500K. In the Big East, it would have been around $1.3-1.5 million for non-football sports, except that we never actually saw any of it - part of our entrance fee was no revenue sharing for the first five years and then we left during the fifth year. --B (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Loserville. LOL. I'm almost certain that Va Tech was a Big East football school too? Didn't the get rid of that weird system where some schools played basketball, some football, etc.? Now I have to read the damn articles. Grrrrrr. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, now I understand what you were saying. Va Tech was a football only school (in the Big East), until 2001. I am getting old, because I thought it was earlier than that. As an aside, Temple was a joke in Football...I hate to see you lumped with them. Anyways, I was hoping that SU would join you, Miami and BC in the ACC. SU vs. Duke and UNC every year would have been great to watch (no offense to the other teams). BC and SU have had an incredible football rivalry, so I'm sad that's gone. And honestly, Miami and Va Tech were the only reasons why the Big East rated a BCS slot, although I think today it's still worthy (but just barely). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- A little more history - the Big East started as a basketball league in the 70s. They were mostly small Catholic schools with no football teams and the few football schools they had (Pitt, Syracuse, BC) were independents in an era when major independents were common. (Penn State, Florida State, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, East Carolina, and Miami were all major east coast independents.) Two changes drove teams to join conferences. One of them was television - it used to be that the NCAA controlled all television rights and then the College Football Association controlled TV rights. Either way, there was no advantage to being in a conference. But in the early 90s, conferences started handling their own TV rights, so if you wanted to be on TV, you needed to join a conference. Also, it's not like today where most 1A games are on TV somewhere, even if just local TV. Back then, ESPN was in its infancy. The second thing was bowl tie-ins. It used to be that it was a free-for-all, but bowls were starting to pair off with conferences, so if you weren't in one, you weren't going to a bowl. The three Big East football schools realized they needed a football conference, but they weren't about to leave their basketball home. Penn State wanted to join, but Pitt wouldn't allow it - they didn't want their in-state rival in the conference. In hindsight, that was a terrible decision, obviously. Penn State in the Big East probably would have resulted in the Big East football schools breaking off and gobbling up ACC schools to get to 12, instead of the other way around. Anyway, they wanted Miami - that was the marquee team, so they were allowed in for all sports. Beyond that, they needed bodies and those bodies were Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia, and Virginia Tech. East Carolina narrowly missed being picked - again, that was a bad decision. ECU has a rabid fanbase and was actually very good at the time. With major conference status, they would have grown like Virginia Tech did and would probably be a perennial powerhouse right now. Anyway, the basketball schools did not want to dilute their conference, so the four expansion teams not named Miami were in for football only. So that's where the split conference membership came from. In 2003, when the realignment happened, one of the court documents that became public record was minutes from a Big East meeting. They all but said in that meeting that their intention was for the conference to split up after five years (which would be July 2010 I think). There is an NCAA rule that in order to get autobids to a sport, you have to have 6 teams playing together for 5 years. So after BC/Miami/VT left, they picked up enough teams to have 8 football schools and 8 non-football schools. That lets them all play together for 5 years, then get a divorce. Each new conference can then keep its NCAA tournament bids and the football league could expand to 12 teams. Whether they will still go through with that or not, I don't know, but the mixed conference has never worked very well. I'm sure it is working much better now that it's only one way - when there were football-only schools, there was a lot of resentment and there were institutions that really just had incompatible goals. Every school wants to be in a major conference and for the football-only schools, there is no loyalty whatsoever to the conference because if any major conference ever came calling, we were gone. That's not a way to run a business. At least now, though, there are no football-only schools so I'm sure everyone gets along better than they used to. --B (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- One correction to the above - Penn State wanted to join the Big East when it was originally formed, not when they created the football conference. When they were rejected, they went to the A-10, then eventually to the Big 10. --B (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't follow the Big East during the 90's very carefully, so your history is very interesting. I wonder about your theory of 2010 however (I won't quite label it WP:FRINGE). A school like SU must have some conflicting issues, which probably existed in '03. SU has longstanding rivalries with non-Football Basketball institutions like St. John's, Villanova, and Georgetown. The SU-Georgetown basketball games are almost always have the highest attendance at the Dome (which is hard to sell-out, so the definition of highest attendance varies from year to year). So if they split off with Loserville (LOL), Pitt, UConn and the other football schools, some of which have powerful basketball programs (Loserville again), they're going to lose the Catholic school rivalries (my terminology). BTW, I agree with you about ECU. Although South Florida has had a few good years of football, it's still a commuter school without a rabid alumni base. ECU fans are nutters!!!! (Said in all good faith.) I remember reading about Penn State back in the day. Although hindsight is 20/20 from today, back then Penn State had a lousy basketball program. In other words, Penn State needed the Big East much more than the Big East needed Penn State. My secret dream is that SU joins the Big 10, but I don't think it's the quality of research institution (although it is a member of Association of American Universities) like Ohio State or Michigan. So, I guess in a couple of years, I'm going to see a new conference with Pitt, Uconn, SU, Loserville, Cinci, USF, Rutgers, and West Virginia. That's not bad, I guess. But it's not the PAC 10 or Big 10, which are more than just athletic conferences, they kind of represent Academics too. Saying I went to a Big East (or Mountain West) school has less cachet than say Big 10 or Pac 10. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- One correction to the above - Penn State wanted to join the Big East when it was originally formed, not when they created the football conference. When they were rejected, they went to the A-10, then eventually to the Big 10. --B (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- A little more history - the Big East started as a basketball league in the 70s. They were mostly small Catholic schools with no football teams and the few football schools they had (Pitt, Syracuse, BC) were independents in an era when major independents were common. (Penn State, Florida State, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, East Carolina, and Miami were all major east coast independents.) Two changes drove teams to join conferences. One of them was television - it used to be that the NCAA controlled all television rights and then the College Football Association controlled TV rights. Either way, there was no advantage to being in a conference. But in the early 90s, conferences started handling their own TV rights, so if you wanted to be on TV, you needed to join a conference. Also, it's not like today where most 1A games are on TV somewhere, even if just local TV. Back then, ESPN was in its infancy. The second thing was bowl tie-ins. It used to be that it was a free-for-all, but bowls were starting to pair off with conferences, so if you weren't in one, you weren't going to a bowl. The three Big East football schools realized they needed a football conference, but they weren't about to leave their basketball home. Penn State wanted to join, but Pitt wouldn't allow it - they didn't want their in-state rival in the conference. In hindsight, that was a terrible decision, obviously. Penn State in the Big East probably would have resulted in the Big East football schools breaking off and gobbling up ACC schools to get to 12, instead of the other way around. Anyway, they wanted Miami - that was the marquee team, so they were allowed in for all sports. Beyond that, they needed bodies and those bodies were Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia, and Virginia Tech. East Carolina narrowly missed being picked - again, that was a bad decision. ECU has a rabid fanbase and was actually very good at the time. With major conference status, they would have grown like Virginia Tech did and would probably be a perennial powerhouse right now. Anyway, the basketball schools did not want to dilute their conference, so the four expansion teams not named Miami were in for football only. So that's where the split conference membership came from. In 2003, when the realignment happened, one of the court documents that became public record was minutes from a Big East meeting. They all but said in that meeting that their intention was for the conference to split up after five years (which would be July 2010 I think). There is an NCAA rule that in order to get autobids to a sport, you have to have 6 teams playing together for 5 years. So after BC/Miami/VT left, they picked up enough teams to have 8 football schools and 8 non-football schools. That lets them all play together for 5 years, then get a divorce. Each new conference can then keep its NCAA tournament bids and the football league could expand to 12 teams. Whether they will still go through with that or not, I don't know, but the mixed conference has never worked very well. I'm sure it is working much better now that it's only one way - when there were football-only schools, there was a lot of resentment and there were institutions that really just had incompatible goals. Every school wants to be in a major conference and for the football-only schools, there is no loyalty whatsoever to the conference because if any major conference ever came calling, we were gone. That's not a way to run a business. At least now, though, there are no football-only schools so I'm sure everyone gets along better than they used to. --B (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- For Tech, joining the Big East was about getting back into a major conference. We used to be in the Metro Conference, which had some really strong basketball programs in its day. When Loserville and their allies decided they wanted a football conference, Tech wasn't interested because we were already in the Big East for football (with an automatic Alliance Bowl bid, now the BCS). So they came up with the scheme of kicking us out of the conference, then "merging" with another conference to avoid having to pay exit fees. Virginia Tech and VCU both sued the other members and each received a settlement of $1 million, so they made t-shirts at the time that said, "Thanks a million, Metro". In 1995, when this all happened, the football schools all threatened to leave the Big East and form their own league if the basketball schools didn't let everyone in. But they compromised with just taking Rutgers and West Virginia (both of which were potential Big 10 expansion targets - everyone assumed that they would quickly go to 12 teams) and left Temple and Virginia Tech out (nobody was beating down the door to invite us into their league). We joined the A-10 after that snub. While our article Mid-major#Basketball may say they are a major conference, most people recognize there's a huge dropoff between the BCS leagues and the others. When we were in the A-10, our profit sharing was something under $500K. In the Big East, it would have been around $1.3-1.5 million for non-football sports, except that we never actually saw any of it - part of our entrance fee was no revenue sharing for the first five years and then we left during the fifth year. --B (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Va Tech is just not a basketball school. Kind of like Syracuse is just not a football school. A few programs can win in both games (Florida, for example), but most major programs just don't have the wherewithal to win in football and basketball. I wonder if it's a money thing. USC has all kinds of money, has been a power in football since I was a kid, yet never makes major strides in Basketball. I think I can name maybe 8-10 programs that do well in both (and I'm wondering if I'm ready to add Utah to that list, although they've dropped off in BB since Rick Majerus left. But they're the 10th most winning team in NCAA basketball.) One of the reasons VA Tech joined the Big East (a sore point for me) was to upgrade its basketball, although the ACC is maybe a nano-step above the Big East (and much better as a football conference). But we'll see. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a quick question about your block of 154.20.40.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You set the block at 3 months, but noted it as indefinite on their talk page. They're petitioning for an unblock with the "It was my sister" defense, so you may want to have a look and clarify the length of the block. Thanks, caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Simulation12 is banned from editing under any name or IP. We don't indefinitely block IPs because they can change over time. 3 months was an arbitrary period of time - if that person returns to that or any other IP, they are still banned and should be blocked. --B (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Two things then. 1) There was a request to protect the talk page based on the unblock request silliness. Do you want the honor of yanking their talk page privileges? 2) You noted in your block summary that it was likely a static IP. Should we consider a longer IP block then? Cheers, caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Call me wishy washy
Ok, I was asked about deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think any good can come from that especially given deeceevoice's stated intention of disruption. But regardless, of that, if this article is going to exist, there's some history merging from a copy/paste move that needs to be done. See Special:DeletedContributions/Deeceevoice to get the article names where half of the history is. --B (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the humour
This gave me a chuckle. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Heads up on the Rascal
Therascal99's edits appear suspiciously like those of blocked users Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe, discussed in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61 (3rd), i.e., editing beer-related articles, pointing out who is Jewish, editing sports-related pages, etc. Plus, she appeared as soon as Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe were blocked. Plus, some of her puppets have nearly said the exact words "Beware of the 3RR, you are dangerously close." Johnelwayrules (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
For your edification
See this. He's a loose cannon. But on to more important topics. Who's winning tonight? I'm calling my bookie based on your answer. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Between Tulsa and Ball St? A better question might be will the total number of points exceed the number of people watching? ;) Tulsa is favored by 3. Ball State isn't going to stop Tulsa - they hung 77 on UTEP. Tulsa played Bowling Green out of the MAC last year in a bowl game and throttled them. Ball State's schedule was atrocious and they really weren't all that spectacular. I'd say take Tulsa and give the points. Tulsa wins by 20. (For entertainment purposes only.) --B (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Duh. I meant Thursday night. But, I'll take this information. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Prior to Friday night, I would have said Florida in a blowout. I'm still saying Florida, but in a tight, lower-scoring game ... maybe 24-21 ... a Texas-OSU range score. --B (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Duh. I meant Thursday night. But, I'll take this information. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense - unless I am missing something, there are four possibilities and I shall use my mad wikisyntax skillz to demonstrate them:
| FT2 requested that the edits be oversighted | FT2 did not make a request | |
|---|---|---|
| The edits were correctly oversighted in accordance with policy | Good! | Good! |
| The edits should not have been oversighted | Bad! | Bad, but not FT2's fault! |
- Answering the question of which of the four possibilities is the case here should not be that difficult. --B (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are there some odds on this guessing game? I mean from a strictly random statistical POV, there's only a 25% chance that he's bad. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there's the general suspicion of "if there's nothing to hide, why hide it?" --B (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read his most recent comments? He seems to be reading Blago's speeches. Yes, I dislike corrupt D's as much as R's. And your call on Tulsa was right on. If only I really had a bookie.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there's the general suspicion of "if there's nothing to hide, why hide it?" --B (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are there some odds on this guessing game? I mean from a strictly random statistical POV, there's only a 25% chance that he's bad. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Straw Poll
You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you would be so kind as to remove your comments and place them in discussion. This simple straw poll WILL get quickly cluttered if everyone adds comments...responds to others...retorts...responses...etc. — BQZip01 — talk 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- You know, you and I seem to disagree a lot, but you are always so cordial and respectful. Thanks a lot! — BQZip01 — talk 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't pick on Virginia Tech. Just saying. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — talk 00:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't pick on Virginia Tech. Just saying. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
...has been pushing this same paragraph for nearly two years now. [5] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm looking through the contributions of his IP addresses now ... I'm considering whether to just go on and upgrade it to indef - if he were staying logged in on all of these edits, he would have been indeffed long ago. On the other hand, incentivizing him to edit from IP addresses that can't easily be tracked/blocked isn't a great idea either. --B (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- This issue showed up at WP:AN, I think it was. The guy had been editing from IP addresses for awhile, then went back to his long-dormant logon once semi-protection was put on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
SmoothFlow (talk · contribs) and Syracuse University
I know you've been trying to counsel SmoothFlow but he/she continues to edit war here. There are a lot of things suspicious to me about this account including being a SPA on something that I worked on, intentionally editing in spelling errors and irrelevant section titles, and the fact they started their account on January 6. SU students don't come back until January 13 (I know, because my son is a student there, and he's home annoying me). But I digress. HELP. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
Thanks for protecting my userpage. :) RainbowOfLight Talk 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello B. I notice you issued a short block to 83.254.20.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who signs himself as Mats (i.e. Mats Envall = Consist). See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Consist for some of his past accounts. Since Consist (talk · contribs) is indef blocked for disruptive editing, isn't a long block justified? E.g. 30 days at least? I didn't do this myself because I occasionally edit articles such as Cladistics. Thanks for considering this, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked the user based on a request at WP:AN3. Nothing in the report mentioned this user being a reincarnation. Obviously, had that information been available, I would have taken blocked longer and with a different message. I've hard blocked it for a week. If the user is hopping IPs, blocking this one for a month isn't going to do anything as they will be long gone. They seem to be semi-static IPs. I don't know if he has control over when they change (ie, turn off the cable modem to get a new IP) or if they just auto-rotate every week. In any event, a hard block for a week seems a reasonable step. dnsstuff says that this IP range is 83.248.0.0/13 ... but that would cause a heckuva lot of collateral damage and is really a bad idea if it isn't absolutely necessary. Anyway, prohibitions against involved admins taking actions are out the window when you're dealing with a banned user. Rather, it's a really good idea for involved admins to take action, because you have all of the background information. --B (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! After I looked at the article histories, I saw that he has changed his IP even in the past month, so my idea of blocking is more for poetic justice than anything useful. (People have had to revert him dozens of times even in one article, so he is quite a pest). I semi-protected four of the articles and closed the AN3 report that way. The next step (not yet taken) is to start semi-protecting talk pages. I have read that Wikipedia is not the only website where he is blacklisted for being a nuisance. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter
The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Userspace
You have deleted a user page without warning. What reason had I to know that this was even a remote possibility?
Please restore the removed text so that I can profit from the error you have now brought to my attention. If I don't understand, then your action was both pointless as well as intrusive.
I do not perceive this as either appropriate or laudatory; but since I don't understand well enough to be more specific, it is difficult to know how to express my dismay. --Tenmei (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would appear, based on the following, that you have identified a niche in which you hope to improve Wikipedia:
- One of the worst policy decisions Wikipedia has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. (Note that even though they can be blocked from Google with , mirrors can still pick them up.) This creates a space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless a top g-hit for any relevant search term.
- The whatever-it-was which led to you to do whatever it is you're doing is opaque. The policy which informs your edit is similarly opaque. In my view, you now have an obligation to explain and to mitigate the awkward consequences which now ensue.
- One thing should be clear: I have been heedlessly unsettled by your actions. Two questions are now implied:
- 1. How many others have been caught up in your novel tactic?
- 2 Am I the first, or only one in a strategy of edits which could have been handled differently?
- These questions are not merely rhetorical, but substantial. --Tenmei (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Umm ... yeah. Your subpage contained word-for-word copies of four New York Times articles. That is copyrighted material and not appropriate to use here. Deleting copyright violations is not awkward, novel, or anything else. --B (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- B -- Let's move further development of this thread to my talk page. I suspect I will want to archive this for future reference. --Tenmei (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Remember Smoothflow
This was fairly amusing. Don't hold it against the editor, I just thought you'd get a chuckle. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wow ... that one lasted for a while without being noticed. Now if we had flagged revisions ... --B (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks B! You fixed it. I appreciate that. Invertzoo (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
TfD debate
Thanks B for your comments here on the domestic terrorism template. I was on the verge of just deleting the whole thing myself as a BLP vio but figured that would likely lead to drama and deletion review so a TfD made more sense, though maybe I should have gone with my first instinct. If you are inclined to nuke it feel free and I would obviously support that, though if you want to let the TfD run its course that's obviously fine too. If you decide on the latter I may, as a stop gap measure, go through all the articles of living people and remove the template as we just can't have that thing hanging around on BLPs - a point which I'm trying to communicate to the editor who created what we became the template, I'm sure fully in good faith but without thinking about it in terms of BLP.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for taking care of that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --B (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi B, its now more than three months since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers, and I'm contemplating running again. As you were one of the oppose votes last time I wondered if you could give me some feedback as to what you'd like to see change before my next RFA? WereSpielChequers 17:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- What I said on your RFA was about it - your tone didn't sound like you were taking it seriously. You don't have to be rigid and formal, but Wikipedia is one of the largest websites and before you are granted the keys to the kingdom, there needs to be a demonstration that you are sufficiently mature for that responsibility. --B (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK thanks B, point taken. WereSpielChequers 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom enforcement
B, please reverse your change. The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion that admins are not to revert other admins in ArbCom enforcement matters. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity. Let's just let the ANI thread run its course, okay? --Elonka 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right. That rule only applies when you get reverted, not when you're the one doing the reverting. Thanks for clarifying. --B (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The rule means that once an administrator is taking actions pursuant to an ArbCom ruling, that other admins (such as yourself) should not reverse those actions. By deleting that section off the article talkpage (including the list and all the related discussion), this was interfering with arbitration enforcement. So could you please restore the information, at least while the ANI thread is active? Thanks, --Elonka 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- FloNight makes it clear in her comments this is about administrative actions, and I think you're smart enough to recognize that was the intention of the ruling - it certainly wasn't about giving a blank check to admins to declare themselves unrevertable. I see that you tried the same nonsense with KillerChihuahua, with whom I have probably never agreed about anything up until now [6]. You have been attempting to claim ownership over that article for months. Adding the list was not an effort to resolve any problem, but, rather, to intimidate your opponents and to declare by fiat the very thing you are trying to prove. --B (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, "opponents"? Who do you see me as opposing? And what ownership? I've never edited it. My goal here is stabilizing the article, towards lifting the indefinite page protection that is currently on the article. I've been issuing warnings to all "sides" of the dispute. So what are you talking about? --Elonka 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- FloNight makes it clear in her comments this is about administrative actions, and I think you're smart enough to recognize that was the intention of the ruling - it certainly wasn't about giving a blank check to admins to declare themselves unrevertable. I see that you tried the same nonsense with KillerChihuahua, with whom I have probably never agreed about anything up until now [6]. You have been attempting to claim ownership over that article for months. Adding the list was not an effort to resolve any problem, but, rather, to intimidate your opponents and to declare by fiat the very thing you are trying to prove. --B (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The rule means that once an administrator is taking actions pursuant to an ArbCom ruling, that other admins (such as yourself) should not reverse those actions. By deleting that section off the article talkpage (including the list and all the related discussion), this was interfering with arbitration enforcement. So could you please restore the information, at least while the ANI thread is active? Thanks, --Elonka 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Apologies for the intrusion, but I came here due to a post by B mentioning this, on ANI. B, I believe I have agreed with you at least once in the past before this - it had to do with a BLP if I recall correctly. But as you have noticed we virtually never agree, I wish to say that I do always respect your position. You are temperate and clearly think things through. Our paradigms are different, I think. But I respect you as a person and an admin of integrity. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. --B (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly kind! I tend more towards the blunt than the kind, I think. But certainly honest. A sincere compliment. You are more than welcome if this little statement of mine was in any way pleasant for you to hear. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- B, now you're officially prohibited from recalling Elonka per her tendentious recall requirements that were a bad faith revision of her original promise. I think even Jimbo would be prevented from participating. This is too funny. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly kind! I tend more towards the blunt than the kind, I think. But certainly honest. A sincere compliment. You are more than welcome if this little statement of mine was in any way pleasant for you to hear. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. --B (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
ElectricRush
Would you mind taking a look at the ElectricRush situation again? He created an article about the site just an hour ago. Additionally, he added a "script" for the intent of sending out invites to the site around the same time as well. either way (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The Chuck Missler procedural dispute
I appreciate your willingness to get involved at Talk:Chuck Missler. The discussion between Hrafn and me reached a complete impasse, so we need others to participate.
My question doesn't relate directly to that dispute, though. One of your edits to the talk page had this ES: "I knew there was a reason we don't randomly subst templates for the heck of it". I couldn't see what was wrong with the former version, though. Would you elaborate? There's nothing wrong with your version, either; I'm just trying to increase my understanding of the substing of templates. Thanks for any light you can shed. JamesMLane t c 06:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at the previous version of the page in the history. The two deletion templates are formatted differently because one of them was substed. When you subst a template, it does not get updated when the template changes. With rare exception, only deletion templates and user talk templates should be substed. The former is because they contain date information {{subst:prod}} expands to include the date that the article was nominated, and that date would be changed if the template weren't substed). The latter is because if you leave a warning template to a user and they reply to it, if someone looks at the page history 6 months later, they need to see the message that the user replied to, not whatever the template currently says. With very rare exception, nothing else should be substed. The worst and most painful to cleanup is when people subst infoboxes, eg {{College coach infobox}}. Infoboxes are changing constantly and substing them results in the articles where they were substed not getting updates ... also, for the most part, it is undetectable since it will no longer show up on special:whatlinkshere. --B (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you prodded this article for deletion. For now, just for now, I have removed the prod. Currently, I'm attempting to contact the publisher's editor-in-chief so that the article will observe Wikipedia rules. (I go to the same campus as this group, so I'm in the better position to understand and communicate with the creator.) If there isn't any improvement after awhile, please contact me first before prodding it again. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, there are no issues to resolve with the article. It is a non-notable student group - the issue to resolve is that they need to become notable. --B (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are information in intranet that supports its notability. You don't have access to the intranet so I don't blame you for getting a low Google hit-count. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- What resources on your school intranet would qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? --B (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are information in intranet that supports its notability. You don't have access to the intranet so I don't blame you for getting a low Google hit-count. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Huckabee revert
LOL! I just had to comment on it. So true... ;) TheAE talk/sign 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Huckabee's fair tax would be a great way to fix this economic mess we're in. It would be a whole lot better than tax+spending like there's no tomorrow and hope some of it trickles down to people who are economically hurting. (Still waiting for my bailout) --B (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he would be good in a lot of ways. Let's hope for 2012. :) TheAE talk/sign 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly did you have this redirected and not deleted? In the past I've been told by an administrator named User:JHunterJ to always tag the discussion pages of redirects with {{db-maintenance}}, not re-target them. Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's no downside to redirecting them and the advantage of redirecting them is that if someone types in the old name for the page in the go/search box, they get sent to the right place. --B (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you implying that I should start making a few talk page redirects for articles? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I would just leave them as it. If there is a redirect that results from a page move, then at some point in time, the page was known by that name and so having a redirect there is useful. Also, it's possible that there could be inbound links to that redirect - even if whatlinkshere doesn't have any, edit summaries or old versions of pages might have them. If, on the other hand, it's not from a page move, then it's less likely to be useful. So my suggestion would be to just leave them in their status quo. If there is a redirect there, leave it. If someone finds a talk page redirect useful for whatever reason (eg if I want to be able to type Talk:Virginia Tech and go to the VT talk page), they will create it. If nobody cares enough to create it, there's no reason to create it for them. --B (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is complicated. Now who's advice do I follow, JHunterJ or yours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Different people have different opinions. Is there a policy or guideline (eg Wikipedia:Redirect) that specifies one way or the other? If not, there is no right answer and see point #1 - different people can have different opinions. My vote always go with the answer that creates the least busy work. Creating an encyclopedia is important. The number of talk page redirects isn't. --B (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I'll stop tagging redirected or otherwise empty discussion pages for deletion ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Different people have different opinions. Is there a policy or guideline (eg Wikipedia:Redirect) that specifies one way or the other? If not, there is no right answer and see point #1 - different people can have different opinions. My vote always go with the answer that creates the least busy work. Creating an encyclopedia is important. The number of talk page redirects isn't. --B (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is complicated. Now who's advice do I follow, JHunterJ or yours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I would just leave them as it. If there is a redirect that results from a page move, then at some point in time, the page was known by that name and so having a redirect there is useful. Also, it's possible that there could be inbound links to that redirect - even if whatlinkshere doesn't have any, edit summaries or old versions of pages might have them. If, on the other hand, it's not from a page move, then it's less likely to be useful. So my suggestion would be to just leave them in their status quo. If there is a redirect there, leave it. If someone finds a talk page redirect useful for whatever reason (eg if I want to be able to type Talk:Virginia Tech and go to the VT talk page), they will create it. If nobody cares enough to create it, there's no reason to create it for them. --B (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you implying that I should start making a few talk page redirects for articles? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I know you're a big football fan and have shown interest in racial issues. This movie, although about the Cuse, it is a good one for you to watch when it comes out on DVD. It's got a sad ending, being that it's about Ernie Davis. And it does take a bit of liberty with history (as all movies do), making West Virginia University a horrible place (in one scene). Anyways, watch it if you get a chance. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I have a coworker who is a Syracuse alum and he was excited back when it was first announced. --B (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OTRS uploads
Well it appears JKBrooks85 was supposed to send a follow-up e-mail regarding Ticket #2008120910013531, but I don't see any evidence of that. You might want to ask the ticket's owner Stifle (talk · contribs) if he ever received an e-mail again from JKBrooks85. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will let him know. --B (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: basketball
Holy. Crap. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in a THRILLED mood tonight. This is our first ever road win vs a #1. We've done it at home and we've lost by 2 to #1 on the road before (Duke on that last second heave the 04-05 season) but this is our first road #1 win. --B (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't we have a win at Memphis in the '80s sometime as well? Either way, it's still extremely crucial. That win may very well clinch an NCAA bid if we have just an average season from here on out. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- We beat #1 Memphis State at home in 1983. We beat #1 UNC at home in the 06-07 season. (We swept them that year, but they were #4 when we played @UNC.) I think if we get to 20, we're in, but that means beat the bad teams (@BC, NCSU, GT, @MD, @UVA) and at least split with FSU and Clemson. That would give us an RPI around 40 and wins over around four tournament-bound teams. Losses to Georgia and Seton Hall hurt, though, and we can't afford more losses to teams with 100+ RPIs. --B (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't we have a win at Memphis in the '80s sometime as well? Either way, it's still extremely crucial. That win may very well clinch an NCAA bid if we have just an average season from here on out. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflicts
I did not realize that you and I were both working on the same article at the same time. I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the PETA statement, although I personally think Goodell will not find that a major consideration. I will wait to see what you do with the recent edits before responding further. Vaoverland (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the blog entry I linked - http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/01/michael_vick.php - I'm generally very supportive of PETA and I actually volunteered with one of their projects a long time ago, but this is just plain loony. I don't think Ingrid's opinion belongs in the header of the article and I don't think Commissioner Goodell will take seriously "pressure" from PETA so the article shouldn't really use her opinion to justify a claim that there is pressure. If the television networks apply pressure, the Falcons ownership applies pressure, or there is political pressure, that's pressure. But a fringe organization objecting is not pressure. --B (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I removed PETA content from lead, as I tend to agree with you to a large degree about the importance (or lack thereof) of a PETA statement. I see no harm in mentioning it in the lower section details. While PETA may be more than a bit radical and fringe, they are not insignificant inasmuch as they get lots of publicity. At the end of the day, the NFL is a business and negative publicity is a factor the NFL most surely will consider. I don't think we need to elaborate on all that, any more than we need to point out that while Blank speaks of his belief in second chances etc and hopes and will support Vick playing again (for someone else), as much as he might leave us with the impression that he is doing so out of personal values, the fact is that his chances of recovering any share of the amount of money Vick owes his team also are directly and favorably impacted by him taking that position. Vaoverland (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hate interrupting a conversation between other users, but PETA has its good points and bad. But they lack any scientific or medical justification for asking for a brain scan to determine if Vick is a psychopath. See Pridmore S, Chambers A, McArthur M (2005). "Neuroimaging in psychopathy". Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 39 (10): 856–65. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01679.x. PMID 16168013.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which indicates that there is some evidence, but without some baseline (control) testing, it's going to be near impossible to make that determination. Therefore, I'd default to the DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder. And, because of numerous ethical or legal issues, there is no way we're ever going to know the results. I'm sure Goodell will require psychiatric evaluations, but if Vick doesn't play, I'm sure the NFL will make up some excuse other than making public psychiatric evaluations. PETA needs to get real, but then again, they block medical research on animals, so maybe they'll never get real. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)- I can't for the life of me figure out what PETA is doing here. Before Vick's jail term started, he went to PETA headquarters, met with Ingrid Newkirk, got some literature on PETA, and agreed to make a PSA opposing animal cruelty. PETA can't buy the kind of publicity they would get from having Vick in an animal cruelty PSA. Then out of the blue, they announce that they don't want anything to do with it and they demand the psychiatric test. I don't get it. There's a lot that I agree with PETA on, for example, factory farming conditions are deplorable. But this is just way out there and doesn't make sense - they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Also, with respect to animal testing, I have a friend who has worked for a couple of drug companies. What they told me is that anyone who says they don't test on animals is lying - every ingredient in soap, shampoo, skin cream, etc, was tested on animals at some point and if shampoo XYZ wasn't tested on animals, it's only because it only uses ingredients that were previously tested. I don't know how much of that is truth and how much is spin, but I've always found it interesting. --B (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Medical testing is the only place I feel PETA is off base. We just can't test new drugs and devices on humans, despite some of the wild ideas such as "test them on condemned prisoners." Animal models for drugs ands devices are the best we've got so that we don't kill human beings. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can't for the life of me figure out what PETA is doing here. Before Vick's jail term started, he went to PETA headquarters, met with Ingrid Newkirk, got some literature on PETA, and agreed to make a PSA opposing animal cruelty. PETA can't buy the kind of publicity they would get from having Vick in an animal cruelty PSA. Then out of the blue, they announce that they don't want anything to do with it and they demand the psychiatric test. I don't get it. There's a lot that I agree with PETA on, for example, factory farming conditions are deplorable. But this is just way out there and doesn't make sense - they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Also, with respect to animal testing, I have a friend who has worked for a couple of drug companies. What they told me is that anyone who says they don't test on animals is lying - every ingredient in soap, shampoo, skin cream, etc, was tested on animals at some point and if shampoo XYZ wasn't tested on animals, it's only because it only uses ingredients that were previously tested. I don't know how much of that is truth and how much is spin, but I've always found it interesting. --B (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hate interrupting a conversation between other users, but PETA has its good points and bad. But they lack any scientific or medical justification for asking for a brain scan to determine if Vick is a psychopath. See Pridmore S, Chambers A, McArthur M (2005). "Neuroimaging in psychopathy". Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 39 (10): 856–65. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01679.x. PMID 16168013.
- I removed PETA content from lead, as I tend to agree with you to a large degree about the importance (or lack thereof) of a PETA statement. I see no harm in mentioning it in the lower section details. While PETA may be more than a bit radical and fringe, they are not insignificant inasmuch as they get lots of publicity. At the end of the day, the NFL is a business and negative publicity is a factor the NFL most surely will consider. I don't think we need to elaborate on all that, any more than we need to point out that while Blank speaks of his belief in second chances etc and hopes and will support Vick playing again (for someone else), as much as he might leave us with the impression that he is doing so out of personal values, the fact is that his chances of recovering any share of the amount of money Vick owes his team also are directly and favorably impacted by him taking that position. Vaoverland (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Portal:City of Bankstown
Hi, I have replied here User talk:Longhair regarding the above topic. Cheers. Adam (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for restoring the portal. I may update a few things on it later on, thanks. Adam (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Baltic States Notice Board
Why did you delete the Baltic States Notice Board? PetersV TALK 04:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- If this external link has changed please let me know.
- It is located at Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. I deleted the redirect because it is a subpage of a non-existent portal, but the noticeboard is alive and well at Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. --B (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! PetersV TALK 06:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is located at Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. I deleted the redirect because it is a subpage of a non-existent portal, but the noticeboard is alive and well at Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. --B (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please check the history page more carefully when warning users of deletions. CJ is not to blame in this case. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Twinkle auto-warns whoever created the page, regardless of whether they created it in its current form. --B (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright question
Hello. User:Juliancolton has recommended you to me regarding certain external links I want to add to La Plus que Lente. Are [7], [8], and [9] acceptable? They're all old videos, and one of them is reduced to only an image and music from a piano roll. But I'm still unsure whether they can be considered PD. Thanks in advance. 
—La Pianista (T•C)
- There isn't enough information given to make a determination. If the materials are in the public domain, then yes, we can link to it. I would imagine, just from apparent age, that the two videos with people are probably copyrighted, but there's no way to know for sure just looking at a copy on Youtube. You would need to know what actual work they came from and then research the copyright status of that work. As for the first video - if the music is really from a piano roll, then there's no modern authorship in there and it would be public domain. But, if it is someone modern playing the piano, even if they are playing the same music note for note, that performance is copyrightable and we can't use it. I'm not good enough with music to tell whether it's a human or not. --B (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the one with the audio only is on a piano roll, but I see no way of finding out more about the other videos. Perhaps I should contact the uploaders? Forgive me for asking so many questions, but what, in particular, should I ask them? —La Pianista (T•C) 06:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Presumably, the videos are from a VCR tape, DVD, or TV show. The question would be which one and what year was it made. Unfortunately, though, there's no great way of knowing whether or not something is out of copyright without paying the copyright office to do research. Anything published in the United States before 1923 is out of copyright. These videos were almost certainly not. Anything published in the US before 1963 for which the copyright was not renewed is out of copyright. That's possible here, but you would have to know the name of the movie/performance and then research it. Stanford has a database of copyright renewals [10]. If you know for certain the name of the movie and that it was published prior to 1963, you can search this database to see if the copyright was ever renewed. If it wasn't, it is public domain. If it was, then it is still under copyright. An alternative would be to link to a different site that you know is not a copyright violation. There's no prohibition on linking to copyrighted works - only on linking to copyright violations. Somewhere like [11], for example, is likely copyrighted, but acceptable to link to because if it is copyrighted, they are using it with the permission of the copyright holder. --B (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the one with the audio only is on a piano roll, but I see no way of finding out more about the other videos. Perhaps I should contact the uploaders? Forgive me for asking so many questions, but what, in particular, should I ask them? —La Pianista (T•C) 06:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the point
"This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without homosexuality"? Would that be ok? Of course not and this is silly - it's so clearly a double standard" - I never said that the userbox is okay, indeed I said I would probably vote delete (even if I left out the "I will" part) if someone nominated the userbox for deletion. As I expressed later in my keep vote for the marriage userbox (unfortunately I left out a tilde so my name isn't there) I would not bother to nominate the religion box for deletion any more then I nominated the other userboxes for deletion. My comment however was entirely accurate, the userbox on religion does not call for the extermination or forcifible conversion of people (as you misleading claimed) any more then a userbox you suggested calls for the extermination of people (even though people can't choose to not be homosexual, they can only choose not to have sex with people they are sexually attracted to). So frankly I find your comment deeply offensive and ludicrious given that despite you screaming 'double standards', you haven't even tried to MfD the userbox on religion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tell me, how will the world ever be without religion? I can think of two ways - extermination or forced conversion. If a userbox is calling for a world without religion, that's what it is calling for. --B (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Good call
Your recent user talk post was very enjoyable. FWIW, I first used time stamp analysis on the Poetlister sockfarm in early '07 and didn't discuss it openly until the Mantanmoreland RFC. The more things change, the more they stay insane. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's one other sock case awhile back where I said something to this effect - if she isn't his sock, then I fear for her safety because he's her stalker. This one is pretty obvious. I hate to get all beansy, but if you're going to make socks, at least get multiple browsers going and edit at the same time once in a while. That would at least make it a challenge to prove. ;) --B (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Finally - a good reason to use Google Chrome! MastCell Talk 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Heehee, well you see why time stamp analysis wasn't discussed openly for so long. It can be powerful when it works and there are enough edits for meaningful comparison, but rather easy to defeat when the sockpuppeteer is aware of it. DurovaCharge! 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Finally - a good reason to use Google Chrome! MastCell Talk 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just passing by, but thought I'd note that it's also quite powerful when you suspect a link between editors on two separate wikis, as long as you adjust for any time differences. I once found an ED troll on WikiFur using that mechanism. GreenReaper (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
VT Basketball
What's up with the lack of a ranking????? It's a conspiracy, quite possibly started by the World Bank or Rush Limbaugh. Or both!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless your name is Notre Dame, you don't get into the rankings with five losses at this point. If we beat Clemson and BC, we'll be ranked next week. (Big if) --B (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, so there is a conspiracy??? LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, technically 2 or more people acting together is a conspiracy. ;) In all seriousness, I can't say that there's a team in the top 25 that we should be ranked ahead of yet. If we beat Clemson+BC, then we'll have a case. --B (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Based on your definition then I've been in several conspiracies here on Wikipedia. Uh oh, Elonka will use this diff as the actus reus of attacking her. :) Just so you know, BC hates ND with a passion. BC thinks it's the better Catholic school, and that ND is resting on its laurels from about 25 years ago (a truth if there ever was one). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, technically 2 or more people acting together is a conspiracy. ;) In all seriousness, I can't say that there's a team in the top 25 that we should be ranked ahead of yet. If we beat Clemson+BC, then we'll have a case. --B (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, so there is a conspiracy??? LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Quack
Her first edit [12] was installing a script in her monobook, and her 10th edit was requesting rollback. More clear indications. MBisanz talk 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Who gave that user rollback so early on?! :-| - I think I remember this one vaguely, MBi. I think you might be right. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I kinda thought about asking the admin who gave it to her about that - it could be that he knows her personally (and could vouch for her that she isn't socking and is an innocent victim of the crazy ex-boyfriend) ... or I could be reading too much into it and he just gave it to her without looking. --B (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Fallow thread
Thank you for your patience in waiting until I could re-visit User:Tenmei#User:Tenmei//Yōzei.
The simplest way to summarize the gravamen of issues is with the words of George Santayana -- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Although it may have seemed obscure to you, the fact of the matter was that I didn't understand enough in the context of an edit you made -- not so much that there was confusion about matters of right or wrong, but rather more to do with what I just didn't understand well enough. In other words, I would have been amongst those condemned to repeat past mistakes because I couldn't quite see how to mitigate avoidable future problems. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- You copied articles from the New York Times to your user space. I deleted them. Period. As with your messages above in #Userspace, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. --B (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy B/Archive 4's Day!
 |
User:B/Archive 4 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thank you
| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |  |
Final version
As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
New BP image
User:Rlevse suggested you might recognize this image of Baden-Powell. I'd like to add it to WP but don't know its origin and wonder if you might know it? It appears to be a formal portrait from about 1936. Rlevse thought you might be able to determine if I can add it to Commons.
http://www.whitestag.org/files/bp-1936.jpg
Let me know what you think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Btphelps (talk • contribs)
- The only suggestion I can offer is to email the owner of the website and ask if they can help you out with where it came from. Unless we know something of the history/authorship, there is no way to know whether or not the image has lapsed into the public domain. --B (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The photo is on a card in the personal collection of an individual who attended the 4th World Jamboree and lived in Hungary until 1948. It's like a souvenir or commemorative portrait. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The real issue is who took the photograph, not who owned the card. In most countries, copyright is life+70 (meaning, it is copyrighted until the author has been dead for 70 years), but some places it is only life+50. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The photo is on a card in the personal collection of an individual who attended the 4th World Jamboree and lived in Hungary until 1948. It's like a souvenir or commemorative portrait. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Response
Hi B!
If you haven't seen it yet, I'd like to inform you about my response. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Gastroturfing
Nice term. Did you coin it? Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- JzG is where I first heard it from - not sure if he gets the credit or not. --B (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that makes sense, given the amount of time Guy put into that issue. Of course, since Jason's conflicts long pre-dated his time here, and actually arrived with him, it could easily be of pre- or extra-Wikipedian origin. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:Your RFA
If that's the case, I'll request a move over to User:Sabre after the RFA's finished, which is currently unused. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Does this mean I don't need to bother with the name change afterall? -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- You may want to ask a crat directly. @pple's RFA may have been before the restriction was added. I can only tell you that if I go to Special:UserRights, I cannot assign rights to you through the admin interface. The bureaucrats may have a separate interface without that limitation. The other question, which may need to be directed towards a steward, is whether or not they can desysop someone with an @ sign in their name. In other words, suppose your account is compromised. This has happened around 5-10 times or so over the last year or two. If a steward can't desysop it, then a developer would have to manually remove the flag from the database. Both of those questions should probably be answered. --B (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Its probably safest to go through with it anyway, I'll maintain the ursurp request. Besides, I've been thinking about ditching the "@" for a few months.-- Sabre (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have posited the question at m:Wikimedia_Forum#Technical_question_for_stewards. I think it's worth knowing the answer anyway, even if you are going to change your name regardless. It may come up again sometime. --B (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Its probably safest to go through with it anyway, I'll maintain the ursurp request. Besides, I've been thinking about ditching the "@" for a few months.-- Sabre (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- You may want to ask a crat directly. @pple's RFA may have been before the restriction was added. I can only tell you that if I go to Special:UserRights, I cannot assign rights to you through the admin interface. The bureaucrats may have a separate interface without that limitation. The other question, which may need to be directed towards a steward, is whether or not they can desysop someone with an @ sign in their name. In other words, suppose your account is compromised. This has happened around 5-10 times or so over the last year or two. If a steward can't desysop it, then a developer would have to manually remove the flag from the database. Both of those questions should probably be answered. --B (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Questioning My Name
Hi, my name is Rodney White. Let me repeat, my actual name is Rodney White. (Occasionally, I go by Rod.) You see, Rodney is a fairly common name. Same with White. If you would allow me to continue using my real name, that would be great! RodneyWhite (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Questioning My Edits
I edited articles on athletes with information I, as a reader, find useful. On a few of the top prospects, other editors were able to find more reliable sources, even if said sites have less information. Regardless of that fact, I'm fine with them replacing the link when they have a better source. I really come to question their behavior when it comes to the articles for lesser players, like Jerome Jordan. They are unable to find any free information from the likes of ESPN on that type of player. Instead of replacing the citation, they delete it entirely while leaving the text. Now, if that information came from such an unreliable source, why is it staying up? RodneyWhite (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Macho Harris
Larry English
I hadnt realized the old article was copy/paste. So the new article is fine, there probably wont be any problems with deletion or anything--Yankees10 18:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it looks fine. The player is clearly notable and there is no infringing text - I see no problems. --B (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok thank you--Yankees10 19:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
B
I'm not a great wikipedia writer, and I am perfectly fine with people editing my work. But I think it is obvious that a current University of Virginia student would know more about Craig Littlepage than a former Virginia Tech student. Your statement that Littlepage is extremely non-controversial is wholly inaccurate. It is obvious that you do not keep up with recent UVa news (and yes, it is UVa, not UVA, and it has always been. That's not new.)
Your newer article is much better than the old one, which did not even mention some of Littlepage's recent acheivements. I wrote the first paragraph under your section 'University of Virginia.' I then wrote about his most memorable moment: the banning of the pep band. It made headlines and is still frequently talked about among UVa students even though it's been six years. I also wrote about the controversy over the sign ban. As a former Virginia Tech student, you probably wouldn't understand this, but students here at UVa take freedom of speech very seriously. This even picked up the attention of ESPN's Rick Reilly, who suggested the students sneak in blank signs and signs that say 'this is not a sign.' The Pep Band and Hoo Crew worked together to comply with Reilly's request. What followed was a battle between the students of the University of Virginia and its athletic department, a battle that picked up national attention. Because of these events, Craig Littlepage is seen as one who is attempting to take away the University's tradition of student-governance and is therefore extremely unpopular among the student body.
That is the recent history of Craig Littlepage. I had citations to back them up, all of which you deleted. Unless you have better evidence to support your claim that 'Craig Littlepage is extremely non-controversial,' I must ask you to stop deleting my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.190.141 (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't need a citation to back up anything. Under the biographies of living persons policy, all unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, particularly that which is inflammatory is removed immediately and without discussion. I'm well aware that UVA students, like students at most other school whine about their athletics director. That doesn't mean anyone outside of one random ESPN columnist takes them seriously. In any event, the burden of proof is on the person seeking to add controversial content. You must demonstrate that it is factually accurate and well sourced - not just a "we hate our AD" whine. And yes, I find it ironic that a Tech alum is defending an article on a UVA AD against a UVA student who wants to turn it into an attack piece, but Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your college. Save that for TSL and Sabre. Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia - there are other outlets for whining about your AD or talking trash about your rivals. --B (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm curious: were you a student at Virginia Tech when that horrible incidence took place in April 2007? I'm a Wikimedian from Kathmandu. 202.79.40.134 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
rename on simple wiki
rename done :) (vector) --.snoopy. 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Vick
Hadn't heard from you in a while. How do you think we are doing on keeping this article in balance, up-to-date, and NPOV? A ton of work, I'll be glad when things settle down. Vaoverland (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why deleted? Bondage Boy 03:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Portals without a substantial topic base (at least three articles) are subject to speedy deletion. (Portals without a heckuva lot more than three articles are going to be deleted at WP:MFD.) From looking around at the deleted revisions, there wasn't even any actual content there - it was just redlinks that had been sitting there for months. (It's been three months and I've deleted thousands of things in that time, so I don't remember this deletion in particular so if there was any context beyond that I wouldn't remember.) --B (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Suggest unprotection of Cack
Cack has been fully protected for some time, and m:Protected pages considered harmful. A cack is, to quote Dictionary.com unabridged, "a soft-soled, heelless shoe for infants," so it seems a potentially legitimate page name. I would suggest the page be unprotected on a trial basis. Dfeuer (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- That page was protected as a repeatedly recreated nonsense page. If you have actual sourced content that exceeds a dictionary definition, you are welcome to create an article in your user space, then ask that it be moved or you may make a request at WP:DRV. But unless someone is interested in creating a decent article that is sourced, it's going to stay protected. --B (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
2009 Orange Bowl
I'm preparing 2009 Orange Bowl for FAC, and was hoping you've got the time to take a quick look at it before I submit it. Any comments, questions or things you think should be fixed would be helpful. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know you're not big on reviewing these kinds of things, but I just wanted to let you know that 2009 Orange Bowl is now an FAC, and the remaining Virginia Tech bowl games articles are up at GAN. Hopefully, it'll be a Featured Topic before the start of football season! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What if...
Randy says I should ask you. What if we find non-free images on Commons, that really should only be at en:Wiki? Is there a bot or a template that will move them out of Commons but retain the image elsewhere? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I know of - I think you just need to move it manually, then leave a speedy deletion template at Commons. Only en admins can upload an image to en on top of the same name as an existing Commons image, so if it is important that the image keep its same name (ie, a logo that is used lots of places and can't be fixed just by changing a template) you may need to ask an en admin for help. --B (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah ... I see you've got the VT ribbon, I met a bunch of people from VT when I took engineering courses at NCA&T.
Anyway ... I just wanted to drop by and clarify, because I hate it when people discuss important policy points with "dueling quips", and I hope I didn't come across that way. I totally agree with "If deletion of a particular article is complicated enough that it requires discussion at a noticeboard, then it should not be speedy deleted". I also agree with "xFD is the deletion noticeboard" ... but that's very unfortunate, because there is very rarely any useful discussion about speedy deletion at AfD, even when I ask for it; they focus on other things. At a minimum, I need some links of useful discussion to point taggers to when there's some point of disagreement, and usually, discussion at CSD doesn't deal with the finer points, although as you see, I'm trying to change that. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed community ban of NYScholar
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Freddy Fonzie pic
I'm curious as to how there was no consensus? Three people agreed that it should be deleted, and the only one disagreeing was the uploader. Was my opinion not clearly identified? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I saw your response, and the article says the commercial was frightening and that was why it was banned. It does not say that Freddy himself was the reason. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- You said "If we could get a source discussing how he actually appears, then a shot from the O.25 sec mark would be good." I took that to mean that you were agreeing to keep the image if changes were made (which they were) and thus no consensus. I have no problem if you want to relist that discussion on today's IFD page or open a new discussion and link to the previous discussion. --B (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are you allowed to do that so soon after one was closed? Isn't there something against doing it so quickly (something like WP:POINT)? Initially I was just curious as to how you came to "no consensus", and I was right it was because I wasn't very clear with my comments. What I tried to tell Scarce (which I have done several times, because I'm not sure that he has a full understanding of WP:FUC), is that the image does not have critical commentary. What Scarce did was change the specific screenshot, he didn't change anything else. The "new source" is talked about was merely the source he was using to get the screenshot. He didn't actually find a source discussing how Freddy appears in the commercial, and the source about Italy banning the commercial doesn't talk about Freddy's specific appearance either. I probably should have returned to the discussion to clarify that it was still missing that key element, but that was my fault. At this time, I don't want to make it appear like we're (I'm) picking on Scarce with the image by relisting it so quickly. I'll leave it as it is for now, and try and remedy the situation one way or another later. Thanks for the response. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Relisting it unilaterally would be rather rude, but doing it with the permission of the admin that closed the discussion (me) is not a problem. --B (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are you allowed to do that so soon after one was closed? Isn't there something against doing it so quickly (something like WP:POINT)? Initially I was just curious as to how you came to "no consensus", and I was right it was because I wasn't very clear with my comments. What I tried to tell Scarce (which I have done several times, because I'm not sure that he has a full understanding of WP:FUC), is that the image does not have critical commentary. What Scarce did was change the specific screenshot, he didn't change anything else. The "new source" is talked about was merely the source he was using to get the screenshot. He didn't actually find a source discussing how Freddy appears in the commercial, and the source about Italy banning the commercial doesn't talk about Freddy's specific appearance either. I probably should have returned to the discussion to clarify that it was still missing that key element, but that was my fault. At this time, I don't want to make it appear like we're (I'm) picking on Scarce with the image by relisting it so quickly. I'll leave it as it is for now, and try and remedy the situation one way or another later. Thanks for the response. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- You said "If we could get a source discussing how he actually appears, then a shot from the O.25 sec mark would be good." I took that to mean that you were agreeing to keep the image if changes were made (which they were) and thus no consensus. I have no problem if you want to relist that discussion on today's IFD page or open a new discussion and link to the previous discussion. --B (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)