User talk:CactusWriter/Archive 2009

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

→

Archive 2015

Image Replacement

This commet is from File talk:HesABullyCharlieBrown.jpg. This Image needs to be replaced with a screenshot of the title, is there anybody who is able to accept my request? 68.34.4.143 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why one screenshot of the program needs to be replaced by another screenshot from the program? I don't understand your reasoning for this. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What he meant was a screenshot of the title HE'S A BULLY, CHARLIE BROWN. 76.100.93.229 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the Films 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) 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Stopping a cartoon vandal

I noticed your warning on User_talk:205.125.19.88, this guy has been vandalizing another old cartoon article as well, how can we put a stop to this? Is there a way to tag the IPs (there are 2) so a mod will stop them? Tyciol (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is often difficult to stop the IP vandals until they have made repeated attacks on articles. The one you mention has only been active today with three reversions - and, unfortunately, that isn't usually quite enough for a block yet. If any IP address needs to be continually reverted (say, 4 or 5 times in a short period) than you should place a report at WP:AIV so that they can be blocked. Cheers - — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Rollback

The Golden Wiki Award

I give you The Golden Wiki Award for handling the vandalism on VeggieTales. Not only that, I'm giving you the chance to be an Administrator! If you want to I can ask severel Administrators to see if can grant my request. 68.34.4.143 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It was little more than the push of a button, But you're welcome and I was glad to be able to help. Please do not approach anyone about adminship on my behalf. I would prefer that that did not happen. Thanks anyway. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I again encourage you to register a personal WP account (read WP:WHY), especially since you are trying to maintain talkpages at two public IP accounts which are open to other users. You will be able to create your own username with a personal page and have greater editing privileges. It makes good sense. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you CactusWriter for your kind offer to have an account, but I perfer not to have an account at this time. 68.34.4.143 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jada Pinkett Smith...help!

Hi there. I got your user name from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors list and noticed that you mainly help with biographies. I have the Jada Pinkett Smith article nominated for FA status here and have been advised by several editors to find a fresh pair of eyes to conduct a thorough copyedit of the article. I was just curious if you, by any chance, would have the time to help out. I would appreciate it so much. If you can't, no worries at all. Thank you for your time. Let me know! – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ms. Sarita. I'm sorry that I can't help you with the Jada Pinkett Smith article, but I am floundering under deadline pressure from some "real life" projects. I don't have the time to properly devote -- especially with your article already under the FAC gun -- so it would be best for you to find an editor who can leap in right now. Best of luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dogvilledvdcover.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Dogville DVD cover image has been repaced with an image of the original movie poster. Since the poster is the preferable image for movie articles, I've requested a G7 CSD of my old upload. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Couvrette

Right then, Paul Couvrette has already used up a greater percentage of my lifespan than he merits. His article is still a hugely oversized pile of ordure, but the reek is not quite as overpowering as it was a couple of days ago. (This is a matter of some personal regret, as my gut feeling [or lower intestine feeling] is that vani "conflict of interest" articles are best experienced, and deleted, at their fullest and most odoriferous flowering.) Anyway I'm sick of Couvrette's article and warmly encourage you to hack away great chunks of it. Don't be at all deterred from cutting something by the thought that I've already worked on it.

Incidentally, I notice that a number of the claims made for Couvrette are actually backed up in this or that source that's already been adduced somewhere in the article. Indeed, the relationship between more or less meaningful/impressive claim and specific claimed source seemed little better than random: all in all, reminiscent of the work of a lazy or dim university freshman doomed to repeat the year. I haven't bothered to "source" even from among the external links already given, because I thought that the article still calls less for a scalpel than a machete.

I'm in Japan. Here, for decades, commercial/fashion photographers have been largely unknown as commercial/fashion photographers, other than within the biz. Hideki Fujii is a rare counterexample. Other commercial/fashion people, like Yutaka Takanashi in the 70s and 80s, use their loot and spare time to create other, unrelated, far more interesting work, and it's this that's widely celebrated (at least among people interested in photography). The commercial work then becomes a mere footnote in the photographer's retrospective. Which I think is a healthy state of affairs; certainly, I find it hard to be even slightly excited by others' wedding photos, photos of slebs, frocks, etc.

Feel free to reply or not to reply; if you reply, please do so here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you've done much more than the article deserves. You were actually kinder in your editing than I would have been. I went ahead and made a few more deletions and revisions. After this passes Afd, I'll keep it watch listed and, if no citations turn up for those fact tags (proper cites, that is), I'll remove more of the extraneous commentary. These "self=promotional" articles on borderline notability types can definitely wear you down. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been any more ruthless than I'd intended to be. My impression is that PC is good at his job and a good businessman; once he makes money he gets stronger and generates publicity, which feeds into organizational recognition, which feeds awards, which feeds -- well, it's all a kind of inflationary spiral, and Wikipedia is supposed to play its little part in this. Missing is any book or exhibition of his work and I sense that there's nothing much there. Still, the awards do sound kind of impressive -- even though absolutely none of the other winners of the Canadian monster award sound even dimly familiar (quite a feat as a lot of them have distinctive surnames) -- so I suppose he gets in on that. And a lot of the claims made for him are sourced, though the hack put in charge of producing the article lacked the competence to link assertion and source.

Did you notice that the link to Wallace Heaton has turned blue during the day? Good work there. And talk of Heaton may bring up chronological conundrums -- no, better not get into that; I'd be better off spending my limited time on Fujii, let alone Takanashi, a copy of whose wonderful book Machi I bought with (quite a lot of) my own money. -- Hoary (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for having kept this article on your watchlist. Long may it remain there -- unless of course it gets re-AfD'd in the meantime. (If it gets zapped a second time, I shan't shed any tears.) See its talk page for some grumpy thoughts. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I added my own bleak thoughts on the talk page. I'm feeling guilty about the time that you and TheMindsEye are putting into this -- I am fairly certain that if I had not started off the Afd by making a case for notability (weak as it was), this page would have been long gone by now. I wish this notability guideline specifically geared towards photograpers had been linked from the main notability page or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, (I didn't see it until afterwards, when I had perused TME's user page and found link to that project page.) I now believe your initial assessment was correct -- this "article" is self-promotion -- and is a case of covert, if not blatant, advertising. Spam is spam is spam, in any form, it tastes just as bad. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hej!

I see you're American, but I had a nice Danish user translate this message for me, so I might as well not let it go to waste. :)

Jeg kan se at du er aktiv på den engelske Wikipedia, og at du er fra Danmark. I skrivende stund, diskuterer vi på landsbybrønden et nyt forslag, om at starte en national afdeling, der vil blive kaldet Wikimedia Danmark. Hvis du er interesseret i at bidrage med noget tid til at få startet afdelingen, kan du skrive dit navn på denne side hos meta. Tak for din tid! Mike H. Fierce! 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

At your earliest convenience, can you respond to me please? I don't wish to be rude but I didn't send this for my health or anything. Tak. Mike H. Fierce! 15:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. I apologize for the delay in responding to you. I didn't mean to leave you hanging. I went ahead and added my name to the list on the Wikimedia Danmark forslag page. However, I must confess my complete current ignorance about the parameters, functions, duties and benefits that a chapter like this would entail or provide. But I certainly am interested in seeing the proper expansion of any good cause of the Wkipedia within Denmark. So, for the moment, while I figure out what a Wikimedia Danmark chapter actually means, I will participate as I can. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this note until now! Basically what a chapter entails is one common goal: to make Wikimedia projects more well known in their country/region. In Denmark Wikipedia is well-known, but there's always room for partnerships, like with national libraries for freely licensed documents/photographs, and also to give a louder voice to smaller projects (for example, there is no Danish Wikinews at all). Mike H. Fierce! 09:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Help, Help, HELP!!

Dear CactusWriter,

I am curruntly in a tight spot, It started when I was restoring Lila (Peanuts) and User:Minderbinder kept undoing it. The second time he/she undid my edit the person left a message in my mailbox saying:

Please do not restore the article Lila (Peanuts), it was merged after a decision to do so at a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila (Peanuts). If you continue to revert it, I will have to report you to an admin and you will likely be blocked. Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You know my fear to reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism! Can you help me in this? 98.218.94.104 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is important to understand that Wikipedia operates on a principle of consensus opinion. And consensus is found through a discussion by editors. In the case of the Lila (Peanuts) character, a discussion was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila (Peanuts) and there was a clear consensus that the character should not have a separate page, but rather should be merged. It was merged into Snoopy, Come Home. This is reasonable because on any page where Lila appears in a plot, the name can be linked to the information and when someone searches on WP for Lila they will still be directed to the correct info. Although you may disagree with the consensus, you still need to yield to it. There have been plenty of Afd discussions in which I also found myself on the opposite side of the final consensus. Every editor who works on WP does at some time or another. But we say "Okay", take a breath, and move on. When someone refuses to move on, it is considered disruptive to the project. So, in all fairness and consideration to your fellow editors, it is wise to simply move on. There are plenty of other places to help edit. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Carneglia

I speedied, then restored and sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Carneglia as the community has been divided over whether such are speediable or even should be deleted. Please take part in the discussion to establish a consensus. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the excellent make over on Thomas C. Wasson. I have corrected a confusion between the New York Post and the New York Times. Bravo.Padres Hana (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm happy to help. By the way, since you seem to have a particular interest in the Palestine-Israel conflict, I would think you might like to join one or more of the Wikiprojects that focus on that area. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine or Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. You'll find a lot of people with whom to collaborate. Good luck with future articles. Cheers — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - as a newcomer I am finding it a bit awesome. If you have time could you advise me about the speedy deletion I got? User:Padres Hana/Eva Ducas. All the bestPadres Hana (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the Eva Ducas article -- deleted because it failed the assertion of notability -- and I agree with that assessment. The references indicate she was only briefly mentioned in the press at the time of her death, and in Levin's published diary. That cannot be considered significant coverage, which, unfortunately is the case of almost all the 2500 Israeli casualties during that time period. In an encyclopedic sense (and only an encyclopedic sense), it appears Ducas has had no significant or lasting impact. Look at Esther Cailingold as a similar example. She is also mentioned in Levin's diary, but easily passes notability because of the biography about her as well as the commemorations and memorials in her name. I'm afraid a stand alone bio of Eva Ducas simply isn't warranted. On the other hand, I see that WP is missing a bio on Harry Levin who's notable not only as a middle-east correspondent and for his published diary, but he became the first general consul for Israel in Australia. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but did Esther Cailingod have a poster on a Jerusalem wall that was still readable seven weeks after her death? It would suggest that a lot of people knew Eva Ducas' story at the time. Perhaps I will find another way to have her remebered. I see an omission in Esther's bio. I'll gather my references!Padres Hana (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

←Many murder victims have tributes (posters, shrines, flower displays, etc.) created during the weeks following their deaths. These temporary memorials aren't usually unique enough to create notability. However, lasting tributes -- for example, naming of a park or a building, or a notable charity -- can confer notability. As well as, as you say, significant references about the person in books and newspapers, of course. On a side note, you my want to read WP:LEDE, especially the part about writing the first sentence. Putting "who the person was", "what they were" and "why they were notable" right up front. Looking at other biographies on WP, you'll find the format is fairly standard. Writing in that format will immediately strengthen any new biography you create. And help avoid those frustrating speedy deletions. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Weazel

Hi CactusWriter - where do you find this "references indicate nickname is weasel" - not in this case it isn't - see Rob_Brydon's_Annually_Retentive#Series_Two Regards...Zir (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick google search indicated the majority of sources like here and here used "weasel". I couldn't find any source for the "weazel" spelling which suggests the WP article is wrong. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Dave Willson preferred Weazel [1] but was often erroneously credited on TV shows as Weasel. The name had been shortened from Catweazel [2]...Zir (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Help

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veggie Rocks!

May you please join? Rowdy the Ant (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear (insert name here)....

Har Har. Nah... it weren't coffee.... or the lack. You know how it gets when the screen begins to get fuzzy at about hour 13..? Thanks for the chuckle. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi there. Being a non-native English speaker, it gets difficult to have articles improved on quality. I just stumbled across your page and you seem to be a nice editor. Would it be possible for you to quickly glance at Rang De Basanti and tell me if you could lend me a helping hand? I look forward to your response. Cheers, Mspraveen (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mspraveen, I had hoped to get to this soon. Unfortunately, I am currently too busy in real life to give the article the quality of attention it deserves. At the moment, I am active on WP in mostly minor ways. I'm sorry. However, just giving the article a quick read, it looks good and requires minor tweaks.. You've done a great job. I will say that the "Social Influence" section appears to require the most work. There is a lot of writing there, but very little being said in regards to specifics. (And I wasn't able to find the first reference in that section. The full "Dilip, Meghana 2008" citation seems to be missing.) Anyway, you will want to concentrate some effort to rewriting that section. Good luck and Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and your nice words about the article. Regarding the missing citation, would you be able to help me on this? The full citation is actually present in Rang_De_Basanti#Further_reading section. However, I was unable to understand how this citation should be repetitively used. Can you quickly chip in? Many thanks, Mspraveen (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I didn't find that full citation before -- I must be going blind. Anyway, I changed the first use from a Harvard ref into a cite paper reference - that way, at least, the style is consistent throughout the article. (The other way is to change all the other refs into Harvard refs, which would be a bit of an ordeal.) But that missing reference can now be checked immediately for the cited content by readers. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not coming back to thank you for your efforts. It is just that I've been on and off with my time spent on wikipedia. Having said that, I thank you for sparing a bit to clear the reference issue. Have a good week ahead! Cheers, Mspraveen (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Eftersom du har givet dit navn til Wikimedia Danmark, er du hermed inviteret til den første generalforsamling. På dette møde vil vi ratificere vores vedtægter (som findes i kladde på dansk og engelsk på meta). Startende ved dette møde og efterfølgende møder, vil vi annoncere mødested og tidspunkt én måned i forvejen. Den første generalforsamling vil blive holdt den 14. marts 2009, kl. 14.00 på Dag Hammarskjölds Allé 30, 2100 København Ø, i København Øst (kort). Det er 500 meter nordvest fra Østerport station. Kontakt venligst mig, eller da:Bruger:Palnatoke og giv besked om du har i sinde at møde op. Tak for din entusiasme, og støtte til Wikimedia Danmark. Mike H. Fierce! 09:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(til palnatoke) Hej Ole, Jeg har en aftale i Dragør på 14 Marts kl. 17 allerede. Desværre. Men jeg vil gerne at komme til generalforsamlingen -- med forståelsen at jeg skal tage afsted omkring kl 16. (Måske har du planlagt at sparke os ud før denne tid allegivel.) Jeg glæder mig til at tale med dig og de andre der. Vi ses. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy of Gerardo Vallejo (filmmaker)

Was that in response to my posting in the articles in need of translation, or had you already spotted it? If the former, then it was amazingly rapid. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was on the translation page when I saw your post and decided to check it out. And, of course, you were right. Great instinct. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good-Bye

I'm leaving wikipedia after what I heard TPH said. If I'm blocked I won't want anything to do with Wikipedia. Good-bye and I love you and you're edits. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you have been indefinitely blocked. I've added my opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rowdy the Ant in your favor. It appears to me that the most of the other editors are encouraging you to request an unblock after a short waiting period. So my suggestion is:

1. Wait a couple of weeks. (Do not edit WP from your IP address because that would be block evasion.) I know it may be frustrating to wait, but you must have patience. This has been one of your problems. You seem to want Wikipedia to function with speed, but it doesn't happen that way. Discussions on WP always take time and need to run their course.
2. After you have waited patiently, then request an unblock with a straightforward reason of why you want to edit WP and where you think you can best help. In your request, I would suggest that you also ask for the help of a mentor.
3. If the unblock is granted, stick to editing the articles that you know and like best, for example Toon Disney cartoons. Keep it simple while you are learning all the policies. I think with a little patience and the willingness to learn from other editors, you can certainly develop into a good editor. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Clare Hollingworth "peacock"

I have researched Clare's story and noticed the "peacock" tag that you recently added to the Wiki page.

What info were you referring to - I could probably help with published sources for some of the information appearing there.

Patrick77.128.28.221 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited Clare Hollingworth, added a couple of references, and removed the peacock tag. Sentences with phrases like "getting one of the greatest scoops of modern times" and "made journalistic history" were over-the-top. They needed to be written in a more straight-forward manner. The story is interesting enough without the hype. I also whittled down the lawsuit bit (almost removed it entirely) because it is such a nothing blip in her career and life. It really is given too much weight given the size of her article. Hollingworth is an interesting person and, if you have the time and the references, I would like to see her profile expanded. I'll move this to the talk page should you wish to discuss it further. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the Films 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Since your name is in both the Copyeditors guild and Wikiproject film... requests for clearing the prose in Minority Report (film) have been given to me. Can you do such copyediting, or at least leave comments on what could be done in the GA reassessment I linked? igordebraga ≠ 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I couldn't jump into this straight away. I've been traveling on business for the past ten days and just returned home this morning. I'll try to take a look at it next week. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

portals

Thanks, I have had mixed feelings about doing that. Some prefer to add the clear template and others have told me that they do not like all the open space. --Kumioko (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Angel

OK, sounds good. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Creamy3

Initially I thought it was him, and after seeing the articles listed on his talk page that he worked on that only listed contributions by the other former names, I was pretty sure it was him. I left a comment on Girolamo's page about my suspicions, and it's good to see someone has looked further into the topic. It's weird that he has returned just to try and run for some coordinator position that doesn't really give any more editing rights. I'll watchlist the page and see how it goes, thanks for the heads-up. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not being overly suspicious here, but the fact that User:Sally77 voted for Shamwow86 within minutes of creating an account smells just a wee bit fishy. One to keep an eye on? PC78 (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

First off, we have never run across each other.

Secondly, would you have any interest in being an administrator on the project?

You are an established editor, well versed in article and project space.

The idea comes down to what you can/will do with the tools. I'm not a believer in no need for the admin package; I support users that are trustworthy and through my research you are. Contact me if you are or are not interested, I'd like to nominate you. Keegan^talk 06:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration, Keegan. I appreciate your interest. I was approached about adminship about six months back. At that time, I decided that I hadn't yet explored enough of the policy and behind-the-scenes areas to be completely comfortable. And was busy with some "real life" writing projects, as well. So I deferred making any decision until springtime. Looking out the window now, I see the sun is shining, the trees are budding, and -- even though it snowed only two days ago -- it appears that Spring has finally arrived. (Sometimes hard to tell in Denmark). During the past six months, in between editing, I've checked out most of the admin hotspots, determined policies, filed reports, given opinions, etc. etc. -- you know the drill -- and I have no doubts I can do the tasks. Other than the technical nuts and bolts, it all comes down to following guidelines, creating discussion and determining consensus. Pretty much common sense stuff, really. However... during those months, I also observed the huge quantity of drama, games and overall crap that is played out back stage. A lot of it I would describe as petty bickering. And far too much of that is distracting, unnecessary and only peripherally related to the overall project. Any hesitation I have about adminship is due to my reluctance to be drawn into soap operas. Like everybody, I like the time I donate to WP to be productive - and any backroom gamesmanship certainly isn't, in my opinion. So I am still mulling this thing over. Let me ask you: How do you feel about the drama? Is my perception wrong? If not, do you find the drama necessary? Or, in your experience, how easily does one avoid it? — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Like any social setting, the drama is what you make of it. We have about 1,600+ admins, and only about 600-800 that are currently active. Of those that are currently active as a reality check I ask myself, how many of these names do I know? To be fair I have fantastic memory and can recognize a few hundred. But of these, only around 50 engage in the drama that reminds me of a cafeteria table.

So in non-analogical terms, you don't have to participate in that. Certainly if you delete or protect or block and you are questioned, you are accountable. You are not responsible for following every little thing, engaging in discussions that you don't have to, or working on policy unless you want to. This is a voluntary project, and I put the sentence "Administrators undertake additional responsibilities on a voluntary basis, they are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation" into the admin policy page _{the last revision, I put it in earlier and worked it back in with discussion}. I've nominated User:Meno25, User:TeaDrinker, User:Bencherlite, and User:Walton One (twice) successfully. User:Lady Aleena is the only blemish to my record. I think that if you know what you are supposed to do if you choose to do it, you will be successful.

RfA is stressful if you want it to be. It feels (and is) like a judgment. If you feel that you are up for it, I can see a very successful nomination; coming from someone who's read every RfA of the past 3+ years.

I have been extraordinarily busy in the past year and that won't change in the foreseeable future, but the time I have to contribute is doing admin actions here and there. I've never been a writer, I don't have time to do vandal patrol like I used to since you need to stay online to follow patterns. But I still find the tools useful now and again and I'm glad that I have them. There are many aspects of the maintenance of the project that the tools are useful. If you would like, I can bang out a nomination for you. There is no hurry, take as much time as you'd like. Keegan^talk 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice response. I knew that after 3+ years you must experienced the variety of WP (good and bad). I'm glad to hear that drama isn't compulsory. And I'm also glad to hear that you didn't feel compelled to involve yourself in every (or any particular) area of administration; were able to maintain some independence; and have kept that necessary modicum of perspective that comes from distance. That is important to me, as well. Reading a few pages of longtime users, it appears loss of independence is the single biggest reason they give for avoiding adminship -- the lack of time for writing while having to stamp out endless small fires. As you correctly implied, I tend to wander around on WP. I write, edit, work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, maintain the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies page -- and then follow a myriad links to discussions and userpages -- which can lead to PRODs, Afds, SSI, AIV, etc. -- and then back to writing again. In other words, I'm not focused on an particlar area. I'm not a gunslinger on vandal patrol. I tend to work at pace - and take action as requested or needed whereever I find myself that day. That's enjoyable and I would expect to continue that way even with the tools. I'd undoubtedly just linger longer at CSD or Afd or such to lend another hand. If, as you say, the admin package is more about trust rather than need, I would foresee no problem with accepting a nom. I'll think more about it and get back to you next week. Cheers — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't forgotten about this. I thought I would take you up on your offer when I had a week's time available. Unfortunately, I haven't really found a good stretch of free time yet. And possibly won't until summer. Simply too much on the home front. If a window of opportunity pops open, than I'll give you a shout -- and if you're available at that time, than great. And if not, than no worries. Just wanted to keep in touch. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:A little too late for hanging chads...

Oh no!!! I didn't realize it was already closed... :( but thanks for letting me know - Fastily (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced?

You re-added an unsourced tag on Ronald J. Meyer, but there is a reference section with a dozen or so sources. They're just not inline. Does it still warrant a tag? Either way I'll try to "inline" them when I get a chance. ~EdGl ★ 16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a dozen or so references listed in the reference section. But you will have great difficulty placing them inline. I had read through them previously and, unfortunately, none of them supports the information in the article. These sources are mostly brief mentions in local newspapers about Meyer and his self-published book, Freddy Fox. In fact, the creator of the Freddy Fox article has listed the exact same set of refs for that article. There is no mention of Meyer's early life, service, or career -- other than that he is a local photographer and former city councilman in the town of Berkley Michigan and he wrote a 32-page children's picture book. I'm afraid Meyer doesn't even appear to pass basic notability criteria for WP:BIO -- as an author or photographer -- let alone have reliable sources for the WP:BLP verifiability issue. If you can find some significant sources, than that would be great. But this may be a lost cause. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. To be honest I don't care about the subject enough to find sources, and like you hinted he might not even be notable enough.. ~EdGl ★ 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TOMS Shoes

You made some very cogent points at the AfD. Please review the now sandblasted article and advise wheteher I have met your concerns. It is much smaller now that I have removed fluff and addressed advert and pov. But I think it is much improved. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to let you know... I had a close look at the original returened article diff. You did more work than I did and led the way. I just tweaked. Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your good work on bringing life to an article which might otherwise have been deleted, I am honored to award you this Barnstar for your efforts at TOMS Shoes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TIME vs. TIME.com

Re your recent change to TOMS Shoes, in a citation you changed the "work" from "TIME.com" to "TIME". The former is the name of the Time Inc.'s news publication on the web and the latter is the name of Time, Inc.'s print publication. They are distinctly different works, and this is a particularly important distinction in a citation. Just as with print material, the name of a work on the web is generally taken from the work's title. In this instance, that full title (including the article title) reads "Heroes and Healers - Sponsored by Hilton Hotels - A Shoe That Fits So Many Souls - TIME.com". (Web page titles are easily extracted from the page's HTML <TITLE> tag.) Of course, if the intent is to cite the print article, "TIME" would be correct, but the page number would also need to be cited. —Danorton (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. They are different and that is why I changed it -- to show that the story appeared in the print version the magazine. As you can see, I also had included a page number. I believe the Hilton sponsorship deal is a special issue for (according to the Time website) "a collection of Time's recent coverage of individuals...". Although I can't be sure, I don't believe it was paid advertising. Perhaps if you were ever stopping by the library for some reason, you could take a look the actual copy. (Being in Denmark, I'm afraid I don't have as much opportunity) — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm sorry, but the edit summary read "repair," and it was actually a change to reference a different publication and I hadn't noticed the page number. How did you manage to find the page number? —Danorton (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused by the dates for this story that Time has posted on their website. Perhaps you can figure this out. I found the page number C2 from this scan. Yeah, I know, I know, it's from the TOMS website, but the text matched the TIME website article here and I found the article in the table of contents for this printed issue. Now the online version shows a date of January 26 2007 but the printed version came out on February 5 2007. (I find it bizarre that Time posts an article online before the hard copy is on the newsstands, but that is apparently the case.) Anyway, I think we should change the date to February 5 2007 and include the printed issue number which is Vol. 169, No 4, and leave off the page number until the actual a hard copy is checked. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's common here for online articles to appear before the print issues are generally available. (e.g. This online article was available April 9, but is dated April 10, when it goes on the stands.) And some periodicals use the "expiration" date rather than the date it goes on the stands. For TIME, they list the newsstand date, a Monday. So the online publication date was probably January 26 (a Friday) and the article didn't appear in print until the February 5 issue. This gap isn't so strange for an article that isn't time-sensitive. Absent a print copy or a neutral reference, the only valid choice is to reference a neutral web version and its date. —Danorton (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe the newsstand date was January 26 and the expiration date was February 5. Either way, if we don't have a neutral reference, the best bet is to reference a web version. —Danorton (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the "C2" page number was probably from a custom reprint, possibly a collection from the Hilton sponsorship. —Danorton (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That's sounds correct. The C2 did bother me because it wasn't typical page numbering. That the scan is from the reprint collection makes sense. Whichever way you want to reference it is fine - it's not critical. My personal preference is always to reference the hard copy info. Web links are so nebulous, constantly disappearing, but with an issue number and pub date a reader will be able to locate the source. Thanks for the explanations. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Need some help

Apparently, the same individual who was edit warring in the Sólrun Løkke Rasmussen has reported me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but with a different IP. I was wondering if you could add your POV to the incident. CardinalDan (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Dan, I logged off last night and returned this morning only to find all this hooplah that you were drawn into. I'm sorry I wasn't there to back-up your position. You were in the right - the IP:85.164.196.159 was being blatantly disruptive in in removing the article's references without discussion and persisting to do so despite repeated pleadings, messages and warnings. And when the blocked IP used a sock to vandalize as well as make the allegations against you, it only clarified the IP's intent to be disruptive and strengthened the defense of your previous actions. I'm happy to see that Acroterion was able to read through the mess and make the correct decision. His advice is good. We have to be mindful about abiding the revert policies if we are to apply them to others. (I'm reminding myself to seek out neutral opinions when these little dramas begin to escalate.) On the other hand, the 3RR policies are not so much about the number of reversions but rather the intentions of the editor. And your intentions were of the best. Thanks again for helping out and taking a bit of pummeling for the good of project. I appreciate your efforts. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox actor

Hi. I appreciate your efforts to bring this all to a more definitive conclusion. I just wanted to ask if you are aware that Shshshsh plans to open a request for comments regardless of the efforts you are making. I've tried to pin him down on why he thinks that is necessary or fruitful with your attempting to do a repolling and can't get a good reason yet. He hopes it will bring in a lot of editors to respond and I've asked him what that means if another poll still supports removal - specifically, if WP:ACTOR supports the removal and the people he gets in to comment disagree. Is the goal to keep pursuing it until it goes his way. I'm wondering why this needs to be double-polled. Honestly, I'm thinking of quitting WP:ACTOR altogether. This whole thing has disheartened me completely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of User:Shshshsh's plans. He seemed to be asking for comment, but I see now that he wants to go the RFC route. You are correct that my only intent was to bring the whole hullabaloo to a final and satisfactory conclusion. (I know, I know -- stupid idealism). Anyway, I'll sit back to see if it all finally exhausts itself. I don't think double-polling is an issue -- it's like the Afd process where people are welcome to open another Afd on a kept article. However, it usually works against the nominator because multiple recent Afds are considered pointy or even disruptive. As far as your thoughts about quitting, I understand completely. While bending over to help, it feels like you've been kicked in the ass. That whole gang aft agley bit. From my viewpoint, and it appears the majority of editors involved, your efforts were solid and well-intended to solve one area of continual bickering. I hope you remain active in the project. I also hope you've had a great Easter -- chocolate eggs can do wonders. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Socky friends

He did make some jokey edits to one of the articles he recently created, so I think he's treading on thin ice. Creating more socks, no matter what he is doing--good edits or not--is block evasion. If we don't see a sincere apology soon, it's likely we need to start another CU. Katr67 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

East/West

Sure, I'll have a look at it. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too. ch (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Supercub the lion

Dear CactusWriter,

Thanks for your help editing the wiki page I created called Supercub the lion. I like your changes although I miss some of the detail that has been deleted. I am going to take some time to study the improvements that have been made by you and another unknown editor. Right now is seems that thanks to your efforts the wiki page on "Supercub the lion" is much improved.

Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am glad I could help. It is understandable that you might miss the personalized details of the article. However, these are encyclopedic articles and need to be written in a particular style -- the guiding principles being facts, non-opinionated writing and reliable third-party sources. (The Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief page gives a good quick overview with links to fuller explanations.) Objectivity isn't always easy to maintain if one writes about a subject to which one is close. This is the reason WP reminds people about conflict of interest. If you have questions, let me know. Otherwise... best of luck on your future articles. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a one word change to the Supercub the lion wiki page. Basically I added the word "boisterous" as one of the key characteristics of supercub's personality. I also included the page reference. I believe this change is important because it helps complete and idea for why this lion cub was given the name supercub. I would be interested in finding out if you feel this change was a problem, an improvement or a neutral change. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again for the help. Best regards. Mfstelmach (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your editing improvement was spot on -- and the addition of the citation made it perfectly acceptable. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Inre this diff

No problem. Still looking for articles about Friends of Toms and their involvements in the shoe give-away. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:needing an expert opinion

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kuamo'o Burials

A couple notes about your reversion of the article on this site in Hawaii. Technically United States National Park publications generally are not covered under a copyright. Although I should have done more paraphrasing before checking it in. I was in the middle of it when I noticed the text had gone. I will try again to do more paraphrasing before checking in.

Also the NPS.Gov site is the official government site for this register. The NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.Com site is a commercial site that has dumped the same database. It looks like the government site is broken at the moment, which might explain why you changed it? Is there an official policy to not use the official government site? Most of the other articles on registered historic places do. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops. (smacking my head). Sorry about my mistake with the text -- U.S. Department of the Interior info is definitely in the public domain -- and I should have looked more carefully at what I was reading. And you are correct about the reference change -- I only did that to provide others a quick verification of the info since the .gov site had failed. (The .gov site is preferable though). By the way, nice job with this set of articles and the photo uploads. Well done. — CactusWriter | ^needles 04:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PS -- One thing I couldn't quite figure out - are Kuamo'o Burials and Lekeleke Burial Grounds interchangable names for the same site? — CactusWriter | ^needles 04:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Gang

CactusWriter - Thanks for upgrading the Our Gang article on One Terrible Day to Start Class. That means I'm actually accomplishing something. Now I'm going to try to get it raised to B Class. Perry Hotter (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem -- it met the requirements. And feel free to make those assessments on your own. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please

So not a death threat. Matthew Francis (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated to you and replied to your comment to Scientizzle, at worst your edit can be read as death threat, but even at its best it is still inappropriate trolling. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Caro's article

why did you delete my biography? It's my personal biography! I know about myself. Could you please restore that again! I'm really sick and tired of this! i tried to contribute so many times but you're always deleting it! Could you please restore again my autobiography! it's my personal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Caro (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I did not delete your page -- it was deleted (twice) by a Wikipedia administrator as can be seen here. However, I did tag it for not meeting the notability requirements of an encyclopedic biography. Note that this is not a reflection on you, your life nor the accuracy of information -- it only means that it isn't right for an encyclopedia (as is the case for most people). You can read WP:BIOGRAPHY to see the minimum criteria needed for a stand-alone bio. More importantly, autobiographies are strongly discouraged on WP. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and conflict of interest. The bottom line is: until other people are writing about you, you won't meet the criteria. If you wish to contribute to WP, there are plenty of popular subjects which need to be written. Regards. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's time

Just close your eyes and go for it. Keegan^talk 07:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Time? Already? Does the condemned get one last meal? I'm not certain whether this is a friendly push into the open or a quick shove off a cliff, but... okay, I'm in. I'll fill out the responses and add them tomorrow. Thanks for starting it up. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You RFA

I just asked a question, but for some reason it is not showing up on my computer unless I click on your RfA itself. I'm leaning towards supporting right.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've responded to your question. Please feel free to expand it if I haven't addressed your concerns. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

japanese sports figure inquiry

unfortunately, i know nothing more about this person:[[3]]. i copied this info from the article List of Japanese people. could very well be a hoax. good luck. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Without being seen...

Hey Cactus. I just wanted to apologize if my use of the word stealth was taken by you or anyone else as an accusation of indiscretion. That was not my intention. I was trying to explain my concern over editors who may not have dealt with contentious editing scenarios and the issues involved in sorting out disputes. I think my concern over candidates haven't demonstrated their ability to handle trials is legitimate, but your RfA seems to be going very well and the level of support speaks well of your contributions to Wikipedia and the impression you've left on many other editors. Malleus, among others, has also made a good case that you have in fact proven your ability to handle yourself in difficult circumstances. Take care and good luck! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, I appreciate your taking the time to explain. I admit that when I read the word "stealth", my initial reaction was a big puzzled "What?" -- because it does imply something underhanded or sneaky. However, your follow-up response clearly stated that wasn't your intent. I agree that finding a candidate "untested" or "inexperienced" in disputes is a perfectly legitimate concern. And it can certainly be used as a rationale to oppose. Of course, from my POV, I don't consider my presence around WP to be either untested or simply gnomic (gnomish? gnomian? what's the adverb?). I have no fear of jumpng in to resolve a dispute as I see fit. In fact, a group like Wikiproject Films is very active and 3O-type requests for help pop up with great frequency. These requests involve stamping out a myriad small fires -- from nationalist battles to to ending a simple argument over titles. As well, I don't believe that Afds are simply about deletion -- but rather the reasonable resolution of a disputed article. This often means listening and finding the right solution This is one quick example. But, as you say, you don't know me -- and I don't know you. However, it surprises how quickly WP shrinks over time, so I am certain we'll run into one another soon. Thanks again for the explanation and good luck to you too. Cheers — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The adverb is probably gnomically, gnomimishly, or gnominanly—your three are all possible adjectival forms. Bongomatic 08:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ack!, yes, of course... adjectives. Thanks. Personally, I was leaning toward Frodoesque, but, of course, hobbit work must certainly be different. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Argh, the Bongo train is running off the track here. "Gnomish" is of course correct. Gnomic, admittedly an odd word, refers to the wisdom of often short, proverbial remarks, such as are often found in oral poetry. CWriter, I'm sure you studied your Anglo-Saxon literature, where you will have come across plenty of examples, in such poems as "The Wanderer" and "The Seafarer." Happy reading, and good luck on your RfA. I'll look into it when I'm done memorizing Beowulf. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow -- you've got me cracking open the big Webster's. (Of course, it was right here: Gnomic.) If only I had paid more attention back in high school freshman English. Fortunately for me, it ain't never too late to learn. Memorize Beowulf? Yeah... now that would be a feat. I think I'll stick with Beowulf (2007 film) instead. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do that...we love you too much... Drmies (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations…

…your RfA demonstrates that the Wikipedia project feels that you should be entrusted with the mop and flamethrower™. You may wish to loosk at the following pages in the near future: Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools, and Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools. Now AfD is over yonder, your mop looks dry :) -- Avi (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the fold comrade! Please always try to represent administrators in a manner in which we can all be proud. My talk page is always available if you need advice or even just opinion. Congrats! Chillum 06:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And as I just told Keegan... it's sounds like when I graduated from college -- and then had to go to work for a living. Better start cracking the books. I'll keep your offer in mind. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and best of luck. ;) — Ched :  ?  09:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciated getting your comments there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats. Dlohcierekim 13:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 05:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure

So I guess that you noticed there was a reason behind my timing in a nomination :) It was my pleasure, if ever I was proud of anything I've done here it's that RfA, and I really didn't even do that much...okay, I did plan all that but the credit goes to your record and what I record as the best answers I've ever read to RfA questions. So here's to your newfound burden, by all means litter my page with questions if you have them. Happy editing _{and mopping} to you. Thanks for your contributions. Keegan^talk 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, don't do too good of a job or in six month's time I'll try to land you in OTRS. It's fun if you enjoy being punched in the face by 1's and 0's. Have fun, I meant everything I said about my perception of an admin's "obligations" and you seem to be of the same mindset so all will go fine. Keegan^talk 06:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you should check out the new admin school. It even gives you the opportunity to block User:Keegaṇ amongst other things. Keegan^talk 07:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ironic, I was leaving this message when you first messaged me. Keegan^talk 07:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Since you're enlisted in the Guild of Copyeditors as interested in films, I wondered if you could help me with Aladdin (film) - the GA reassessment is asking for copyediting, and all the people I asked for help didn't reply. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Igordebraga. Thanks for asking, and I wish I could help, but I'm afraid that I have a small conflict of interest issue there. Because of my personal involvement with Disney Feature Animation, I avoid doing any major editing on those articles. I think you're doing a great job on the article -- and, in my opinion, it only requires some tweaking. Sorry that you've gotten no response from other copy editors. I didn't notice whether you left a message on the Film Project talk page, but you mention the GA review there and ask for anyone interested to give it a quick freshening. Lots of good editors there who might help. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's another article which I'm trying to push to the GA - X-Men Origins: Wolverine - which probably needs some work before being submitted to the GAN. Can you help me out on this one? igordebraga ≠ 22:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben van Bergen

You deleted the posted page "Ben van Bergen", without evidently checking the sources such as imdb for confirmation. Also other sources were quoted in the page, such as Screen Actors Guild and Variety, which would have confirmed certain things. Finally, because of work there was no time to respond to the 'removal' notices, and, since being new to Wikipedia, it seems to me that the criteria etc. are overly laborious and allow for willy-nilly actions. Furthermore, the department of C.R.M. (former name for the Dutch Ministry of Culture), bestowed a special grant upon Ben van Bergen in 1980, whereby he wrote an instruction book for the East Harlem Music School, all of which can be confirmed. To wit: There is no real reason to have removed this page and I'm herewith requesting it be restored so additional info. can be added to it. Benito Froman Benitofroman (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if you have been having difficulty understanding the encyclopedia guidelines. I'll restore the article to allow you another week to provide some references which will establish Van Bergen's notability. However, at the moment, it doesn't make it. The references you provided in the article were absolutely checked -- by the editor who put the article up for deletion on May 28, by another editor who endorsed the deletion on June 3, and by myself on June 4. None of them indicate Van Bergen meets WP guidelines for a biography. Note that a home webpage is self-published and is not reliable. IMDb is also not considered a reliable source and it is only used for information about participation in a production. Van Bergen is one of hundreds of thousands of actors who have IMDb pages -- the page itself is meaningless -- and a review of his roles shows nothing significant. As well, the variety article merely makes one mention of his name (among many) as a losing candidate for one of the many vice-presidential seats with SAG. (A president of SAG is notable, the others positions are not). Please read WP:BIO. If you can improve the article, than great -- otherwise it will be submitted for discussion at Articles for Deletion. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Hyman

Hello,

A little while ago you deleted Richard Hyman as an expired PROD. My search reveals that he is probably notable. As such I am requesting you either restore the article or userify it for me so that I can address the lack of sourcing.

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, ThaddeusB. You can find the article in your userspace at User:ThaddeusB/Richard Hyman. There are certainly a lot of mentions of Hyman in news sources, but they all appear ancillary to his work with Verdict Research. At the moment, those sources merit his information be on the Verdict page. If you can find some independent RS which provides enough background to warrant a stand-alone bio for Hyman, than that would be great. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 04:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive quality contributions

Thank you for your positive quality contributions to the article Freedom Magazine, the article is much improved thanks to the material you have added sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! As I've seen from your own careful editing -- those contentious articles are a definite walk on the tightrope. I appreciate your note. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

LMAO

• 07:14, May 31, 2009 CactusWriter (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "ThisIsaTest (talk | contribs)" ‎ (he grew a brain)

If only it were that easy ;-O — Ched :  ?  21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes... those good ol' school days -- back when we could still say what we were actually thinking. And congrats on your successful Rfa. Welcome to the janitor's closet. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While my test account may have grown a brain, someday I hope to do so as well :) Keegan (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying "copyright violation"

Hello, thanks again for taking the effort to verify the history of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre article, Home Rule Movement, and others copied by the book. Seems it is a "copyright violation", on the book's part! Shreevatsa (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've also left a message at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics so that the ISHA book citations in other articles can be checked. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the tip - got 2 b careful! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Circular and other refs

Kindly b careful when removing circular refs - I noticed u removed a proper ref along with a circular one on Swaminarayan Sampraday. Thanks, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that accidental removal -- I mistook the "ref name=" of the adjoining ref as part of the offending ref. Thank you for correcting it back. It simply got caught in the blade as I reverted a dozen or so of these. However, I don't expect I will be deleting all of them. I had left a notice at Wikiproject India about invalid sources and hope that the editors involved with India articles will attend to the problem. I'm going to check back in a few days to see if it has been handled. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The "you rock" thread

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For helping to keep Wikipedia:Copyright problems up to date. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I "own" the board (or want to), but I care about it and not letting backlog develop again. I tremendously appreciate your work there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw, shucks... thank you! I appreciate that very much. I can't believe how diligently you rip that board every day -- it's impressive -- so I figured that you deserved at least one night off. Hope you enjoyed it -- maybe you'll get another one next year. :) — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You continue to rock. :D Maybe I will write an article today. I remember writing articles. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to rocking. :) No pressure to keep it up intended by this note, but I just wanted to let you know that I do appreciate the assist and welcome whatever time and energy you have to put into it. I have long wished other admins would join in at CP. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite back yet -- still on the road -- just checked in for a brief WP fix. Considering the problems that CP issues can cause, I'm surprised that you are the only admin weeding through that little jungle. Without you, there is no doubt it would be a completely overgrown disaster. For some oddball reason, I kind of like playing around in there. (Maybe the same oddball reason it appeals to you? Could it just be obligation? Sense of duty? Or is it some sort of internet masochism? Penance? Nah, who knows.) Anyway, I'm still leaving the more difficult problems for you to handle. I was glad you mentioned the User:Moonriddengirl/cup template, I've now bookmarked a few of your other gems User:Moonriddengirl/frequently used templates andUser:Moonriddengirl/Copyright cleanup). And will continue to follow your lead . I won't be back until the end of July, but you can count on my help. Feel free to give me a shout anytime. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

←Thanks. I've been mostly alone there for almost a year, and I am quite glad of the assist. Not to be all whiny, but I'm particularly glad since I'm currently struggling with some health problems that have me scheduled for surgery in mid-August, which will probably throw me out of CP for at least a week if not more. I mention it because though I have asked other admins to help out at CP when I've had to go on trips in the past, few of them do CP, you know, voluntarily. :) Knowing that there's another admin who may be chipping in there will help me not return too soon, before the major narcotics are out of my system. :D

I used to work at CSD all the time, and that was extremely frustrating because it was a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. When I got to CP, there was almost a month's worth of backlog, and once I chiseled it down I found I could maintain it much more easily than I could CSD! Besides, having eliminated that backlog, I really didn't want to see it come back. :P Sometimes it feels like an obligation, but sometimes I enjoy it. The worst days are those when I discover a systemic problem. I usually check the contributor of infringement just to see if there are other issues. Maybe twice a month, I seem to find a contributor who has placed copyrighted text in a wide range of articles. Hate those days. :/

You should consider joining in at WP:COPYCLEAN when you settle in if you find you have an interest in the work. Occasionally, we need knowledgeable assistance with multiple-article infringements placed by one contributor. But even if that work doesn't interest you, just having more people around to answer questions and provide feedback is helpful, especially since sometimes copyvio work is gut-check rather than straightforward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... sorry to read about your upcoming "time-off" in August. I sincerely hope everything goes well for you. And, please... don't rush back on account of WP. Although a few narcotics could be a pleasant advantage around here, there is no need to push the envelope. I will definitely do whatever I can to help. I will be back home and on my regular schedule on August 1, and will be happy to keep an eye on your balliwick. Don't worry -- although the CP area will be incredibly deficient without your expertise -- we won't let it crash and burn during your absence. I promise. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect I will be thrilled to be able to get back to WP. :) I will probably be very bored. But I thank you very much. I do sometimes fret about backlog at CP, and it means quite a lot to have you there. (Again, not that I want to create a sense of obligation. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Susan Hutchison

I made the Susan Hutchison page and am trying to get rid of the copyright violation, I got the two organizations to email wikipedia granting permission to use the text, yet it is still there, How can I get rid of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamd (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Spamd. Reading Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online will give you a brief overview for getting permission to use the copyrighted text. If the organization sent permission to use their text, it doesn't appear to have been received by Wikipedia WP:OTRS. An administrator would have posted the OTRS permission on the article talk page showing that permission had been mailed. Because it wasn't there, I went ahead and removed the problematic portions and briefly rewrote the introduction. In truth, the easiest method for you to deal with copyrighted text is to rewrite the information from scratch (Simply use your own words without the benefit of looking at the original text. Then add citations for the source). If you have further problems, feel free to ask. Your efforts in dealing with this are appreciated. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

input requested

I an considering going live with User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. I'm feeling pretty good about 10 hours of work. Please take a look and advise of any concerns. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good eyes. Found a better ref in the St. Petersberg Times that more fully supports the section. Very much appreciate your assist!MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Babettesfeastphoto.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting this old screen shot as unnecessary for film article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Patrick's School, Liberia

Thank you for your help. As I explained to the bot father, I copied the material from another (unflagged) Wikipedia article, not from outside material. I never looked at the outside material; particularly afterward when I was afraid I would unconsciously mimic it, there being so few facts in the article anyway. I have 20,000 edits and 30 articles and am well aware of Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations. Thanks for your assistance in cleaning up this article. Student7 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I am currently talkstalking CactusWriter, I have left a note clarifying licensing issues in copying from one article to another at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, why hasn't the text at the temporary subpage been used or the subpage been deleted? (Talk:St. Patrick's High School (Liberia)/Temp) MLauba (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops -- I had read through the talk pages, but didn't even notice that a temporary page had been created. Thanks for pointing that out to me. MLauba and Student7, you both did a much better rewrite than I did, so I'm going to delete the old version and replace it with your temp version. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Those temporary pages used to be easier to see before Stifle created the "don't delete this" header (which is useful enough to be worth the hassle, since before that header those pages were sometimes speedily deleted by admins who didn't understand why they were there). I've missed a few myself, so I usually try to remember to click on it even if I don't think the blue link is blue enough to suggest it's been filled out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Good advice. I'll try to get in the habit of clicking that link as a part of the process. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, on the copyvio template, it appears blue even when empty as soon as I place the template, at least in my two browsers of choice, so it is indeed darn easy to miss. Oh, and thanks for the kind words, CW :) MLauba (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It gets bluer when filled out. Or bolder. Compare Branch Line Press and Lubna Olayan. It can be easy to miss, though, so I check anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ow, my eyes. You are right - there is a difference between the Really Blue and Really-Really-I'm-Not-Kidding-It-Got-Bolder Blue. But I think it's better for me just to click the link without trying to figure out which blue it is. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I've just noticed another difference, too! :O There's an arrow when there isn't a page; there's no arrow when there is. That's probably the easiest to detect difference! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any difference :( and I know I'm not supposed to be colour blind... Perhaps drinking will help? MLauba (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now the arrow I can see. What is this -- one of those "find five differences" puzzles? And in these puzzle games, drinking probably couldn't hurt. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahn

Cactus Writer..you seem to be taking a real interest in certain issues

For the record, Hahn has never worked for Freedom Magazine..she is a freelance writer. Shall we conclude based on your logic that you work for Wikipedia? Secondly, the story she wrote exposed the connection between mind control experiments and the Orphans. The story never claimed to expose the case of the Orphans..try reading for a change What it exposed was the connection--previously unknown--between the Orphans and mind control experiments done in the 1950s and 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Because of the rules concerning verifiability -- especially on biographies of living people -- adding information to an article requires citing them with a reliable source. The article's only source states that Hahn is a "journalist with Brabant Newspapers." If you have a reference which expands on her being a freelance journalist, please add it, otherwise the information cannot be used. Additionally, as I wrote on the talk page, the text that was removed said:

It was Christine who broke the story of Duplessis Orphans scandal[1] by publishing it in Freedom magazine, a Church of Scientology publication. Later on, stories about the huge abuse and fraud case appeared in Canada TV News[2]and other major news outlets, such as the New York Times.

This was a clear misstatement since the major news stories (like this [4]) and the NY Times article appeared years previous to Hahn's. Again, it was requested that the statement be sourced or removed. It remained unsourced and was finally removed. If you have references for the above statement, please add them. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that it be continued on the article talk page, so that other interested editors might weigh in. (By the way, you may not have realized it, but it is improper to blank or delete other editors comments from the article talk pages -- that is why I reverted your edits there.) — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www. freedom mag. org/english/canada/vol004i1/page12.htm

Grant received for research from the Fund for Investigative Journalism in Washington DC which gives grants to FREELANCE WRITERS.

Now, please remove that statement as it is NOT accurate or true. Hahn has never been employed by Freedom Magazine and has submitted stories as a freelancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is your evidence.

http://www. freedom mag. org/english/vol37I1/page04.htm

Only after the truth about the Duplessis Orphans began to emerge in the 1990s did Clarina share her story with her husband and, ultimately, with Freedom.

If the story was claiming that Freedom unearthed the Orphans story, why would it make reference to the truth emerging about the Duplessis Orphans in the 1990s?

Thus, what you have stated here is incorrect and requires correction. You are referencing an inaccurate description of the work posted by a radio host.

If you want to post information about this story, reference the story please and not a radio host's inaccurate description of it.

The story provides plenty of documentation/evidence on what was uncovered, when and by whom.

Why the sudden interest in a story published in 2005? Seems odd. Visit the Freedom Magazine website, search for The Dark Mystery of the Duplessis Orphans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a reference to The Fund for Investigative Journalism would be a great addition to Hahn's bio. (freedom mag .org/english/canada/reports/page03.htm This link is actually a clearer mention). Although, unfortunately, Hahn is not mentioned as a recipient at the fund's website and she seems to say that the fund withdrew her grant in 2001 while she worked at W-FIVE. The real problem here is that this is supposed to be a biographical article about Hahn and yet there are almost no independent references for her. A few bi-lines and a brief interview by a fringe (and, as you say, inaccurate) radio journalist do not provide much substance for a WP:BLP article. If you can provide some good references which describe Hahn's career and background, than that would be helpful. At the moment, there doesn't appear to be enough reliable sources for an article about her. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

BEE

Can you please userfy Buereau of Energy Efficiency for me? I created that article, and I would like to re-create it and this I would like to add some details and make sure it does NOT violate any policies. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The article can now be found at User:Rsrikanth05/Bureau of Energy Efficiency. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :D Cheers... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

HH Holmes

Thanks! You saved me a rental. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on now... I figured you were looking forward to learning all about America's first serial killer. That video was a wonderful accompaniment to my morning yogurt and muesli. (Meh, okay... who am I kidding? You didn't miss anything.) — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I've actually read a book about the guy some time back. But, no, I'd rather not see it. :) It was next on my queue to be mailed, and I removed it posthaste! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave Fry

Could you please give me some examples of what seems to be biased please? I would like to get the banner removed as soon as possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhobomd (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The copyright violation banner cannot be removed until permission to use the text has been received at WP:OTRS. This can take a few days to process -- that is why we allow 7+1 days for processing -- so please be patient. On the other hand, as is mentioned on your talk page, the text can also be released by simply changing the copyright information on the website with a note that states that re-use is permitted ''under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later and Creative Commons Share Alike (CC-BY-SA), versions 3.0 or later, under CC-BY-SA, versions 3.0 or later, or that the material is released into the public domain. If we don't have permission in time, the article will be deleted. However, don't worry because the article can and will be restored if or when the permsission arrives.

Concerning sentences in the article with are not encyclopedic: here are just a few examples.

Dave’s warm and engaging stage patter, audience participation and obvious joy of performing that makes for an enjoyable evening, a veritable folk festival unto itself

Dave has excited and energized whole schools with his songwriting residencies

Dave is a wonderful entertainer of the preschool set

Dave's friendly introduction to the joys of acoustic guitar... continues to encourage beginning guitarists all over.

These all contain Peacock wording and come across as advertising copy. Equally important is that the article contains no inline citations which substantiate the text. This is a typical problem of articles which are created by the individuals themselves or family members -- and it is why WP strongly discourages editors from creating articles about themselves, family or friends. The guidelines for Neutral point of view can provide you some help on how to improve the article. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Locking Susan Hutchison

There have been several defamation attempts and counterfactual statements made on her page such as "She is also known locally by the nickname: "Princess Skunk Cabbage"." and "Upon the unsealing of her settled lawsuit, it was revealed that her demotion stemmed from fraudulently using sick days for a canoeing trip over the 4th of July" which were based on unchallenged and unsubstantiated rumors and were represented as fact on her wikipedia page. Though they were quickly changed by vigilant wikipedia users, we would like to request that this page is locked. Spamd (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the edit history for Susan Hutchison. There have been very few edits in the past month and only two recent instances of blatant vandalism [5] [6] -- and both were reverted within one minute. The edits by the other IP are not vandalism but rather constitute a disagreement about content. For example, this edit was a correct attempt to neutralize the language (following WP:NPOV policy) as well as a poor attempt to add information about a dispute (biased and poorly sourced). But these are content disputes and should be discussed on the talk page. I notice there has been no attempt to engage in discussion and would encourage the editors to do so. At the moment, there is no reason for protecting the page -- but I'll keep it watch listed in case there are future problems.. (The Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection helps explain when semi-protection might be considered.)

Now, as far as the content dispute goes: a quick google news search shows Hutchison's dismissal from KIRO, her subsequent lawsuit and the recent court order about sealed information are significant events. These are not rumors, but are reported in the large metropolitan newspapers [7], [8]. Yet, her WP bio doesn't mention these events at all. Biographies of living persons should include both criticism and praise when it is significant. I think a couple of sentences about these events, written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, should be added to this article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

William Coaker

Thank you very much for reverting the article to pre-copyvio status. I should become more familiar with the type of tools you use such that I can apply some corrective measures to the 4,700+ articles I monitor. Again thanks for your help, --HJKeats (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for keeping such a watchful eye. Or eyes. 4700+? You must be a busy bee. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so bad, all the articles I keep a keen eye on (whenever I can now mind ya) are of a common theme "Everything Newfoundland" :-) --HJKeats (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. 4700 Newfoundland articles! I didn't realize that. Cool. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New!

Re: Aerides multiflorum at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 August 5, that was a new one! Kind of interesting, sometimes, figuring out how to handle these. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You answered it already. I was just in the middle of researching a response to that one. Glad to see it was a lot easier than I thought. (I actually found a PD text that the contributor could use to fix it). Oh, well. Learn somethin' new... — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with proposing that, too. I see that the contributor has recently usurped an account at the Spanish Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi CactusWriter! I just wanted to let you know that I reused your "close paraphrasing" message here. I hope you don't mind. By the way, I noticed that you live in Denmark. Kan du prata svenska? :) Theleftorium 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Feel free to use it. ...Og, nej, det kan jeg ikke. Desværre. Jeg kan kun snakke Dansk -- med en utrolig voldsom Amerikansk udtale. — CactusWriter | ^needles 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey CactusWriter. Sorry to bother you again, but should 87th Pennsylvania Infantry, 126th Ohio Infantry, and 138th Pennsylvania Infantry be listed at WP:CP? The author says it is a "bot error", but it seems to me like the text is copied from petersburgbreakthrough.org. Thanks, --Theleftorium 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No bother at all. I appreciate you asking. In this case, the bot wasn't wrong because the text was copied -- however, it appears to be in the public domain. The website shows the source as Source - A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion by Frederick H. Dyer. It's a book published in 1908 which places it in the PD. Here's the online version at the US Park Service. It appears most every Civil War website uses the same source. So its use is okay. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks for taking a look! :) Theleftorium 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:User

User Hemant17 keeps removing stuff from my talk page and user page and despite warnings, he says he has full right to do whatever he feels with his contributions. Please Comment.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll take a look. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am sorry that you have had problems with this editor -- especially after you tried to help him. I see that he hasn't reverted any edits or touched your user page since your last message to him. I have had a discussion with him today. It is probable that it all stems from his rough introduction to article writing, which has been a series of problems and deletions - and appears to have left him frustrated. I'll keep a watch and take action if there is any return to uncivil behavior. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much..

CactusWriter, Rsrikanth05 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rsrikanth05. I appreciate the nice thought. I'm glad you're having a better day, too. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NO problems at all. Have a happy Day... :D --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Atrash clan

This is ridiculous. Nothing in those sources say that there is a branch of the Atrash clan in Egypt, he have made it up himself. The only thing it says is about Alia fleeing Syria with her children to Egypt, this is not a branch nor has it ever been a branch. These people are dead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I read, each of the sources appear to support the claims as written in the text of the article -- that some members of a Druze family named Atrash emigrated to Egypt. You will need to refute those sources. As I said in the edit summary, take the discussion to the talk page. I have no interest in the matter other that to see an end to the edit war. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No they do not support the claims he have written, there is no branch, nothing in the sources say its a branch, one mother and her 3 children (all of them dead) is not a branch of a clan consisting of thousands of people. Listen, me and this guy have been arguing over the Asmahan article for almost half a year (thats right) we have been through 3 mediators (him not listening to the first two and going against what the third mediator/administrator has said on several issues) and rfcs, I'm not gonna take it to the talkpage cause he doesn't listen to common sense or other peoples opinions, only engaging in edit warring. I was the one that told him several times that he couldn't plagiarize in the Asmahan article and he didn't listen. So I would really appreciate it if you yourself do not want to get involved in this at the talkpage and mediate, that you do not interfere when I remove this false information from the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to end the edit war you should lock the article at its original state at 2 August.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What I see is an article which has been entirely unreferenced since its creation. Now that one editor is adding some sourced information for the article, your only contributions have been blanket deletions. If you actually want to improve the article -- than get some references. If you have problems with the language (like the word "branch") -- than reword it. Your blanket reversions are outside of process and your persistence in doing so is edit warring (After your previous block, I would expect you to be familiar with this.) I am peripherally familiar with the long-running disputes and litany of complaints between you and the other editor. It appears to me that this continued petty bickering and POV-pushing from both sides is becoming disruptive and may require a topic ban for each of you. My advice is: learn to cooperate or find some other articles to edit. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Therese a difference between adding information to an article and adding text that is of absolutely no relevance to the article. You have a message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtrash&diff=308857746&oldid=308843646 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

you have reply: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtrash&diff=308869340&oldid=308860945 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

More plagarism in Asmahan article

Original line in article mediator had written was: "Later in life when Asmahan spoke about her childhood in Suwayda, she remembered it as a happy and carefree period, although she did not spend much time in the Jabal, it was what she saw as her "home" rather then Lebanon or Turkey"

Although this is close to what the source is, user Arab Cowboy changed it so it resembled the source even more : "Later in life, Asmahan told Muhammad al-Tabaʿi about her childhood in the Jabal. She remembered it as a happy and carefree period. Although she did not spend much time in the Jabal and she might have recalled visits in the early 1920s, it was what she saw as her "home" rather than her residences in Lebanon and Turkey."

Source: Asmahans Secrets p 36: "In her late twenties, Asmahan told her friend and admirer al-Tab`i about her childhood in the mountains of the Druze. She remembered a happy and carfree period. She did not actually spend much time in the Jabal itself and probably remembered visits in early 1920s. Still, it was the Jabal Druze that had imprinted itself as "home" on her consciousness, rather than her family's residences in Turkey and in Beirut.

http://books.google.se/books?id=Eca2pXOX-F8C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Adham+Khanjar+Incident&source=bl&ots=A8mYmpk5VC&sig=0AUqXfiPIaM7VndOFkIsJIcYnD8&hl=sv&ei=4spRStfPOKWKmwPQy6ioBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Adham%20Khanjar%20Incident&f=false

Also in the Egypt influence section in a quote it says "(although she was in reality a third cousin, twice removed)" in the source it says "although she was actually a third cousin twice removed" http://books.google.se/books?id=Eca2pXOX-F8C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Adham+Khanjar+Incident&source=bl&ots=A8mYmpk5VC&sig=0AUqXfiPIaM7VndOFkIsJIcYnD8&hl=sv&ei=4spRStfPOKWKmwPQy6ioBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Adham%20Khanjar%20Incident&f=false

and also the sentence "The other side of her patriotism belonged to Egypt." in the source it says "The other side of her patriotism was to her adopted country, Egypt" Third section under "Syrian or Egyptian?" part http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exzuhasp.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these further examples to attention. I created a section on the article talk page Talk:Asmahan#Plagiarism issues where these can be listed. This will allow any other administrator from WP:CV to visit the page and see that there are other violations. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So you will not do anything about this? like you did with the WW2 section? You want me to ad this text to the talkpage?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and add it to the talk page. I will deal with it as soon as I get a chance. At the moment, I am a bit swamped. (Note that we allow 7+1 days after notification for involved editors to rectify copyright violations before taking administrative action). — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed some things as you said, replaced the consciousness sentence, I don't think the early life section (excluding emigration to Egypt) have any more plagiarism issues, please say if they do. I removed the "awkward POV statement" about her patriotism and removed the parenthetical insertion in the quote, and some other fixes, but I still believe there are a lot of plagiarism in that section and also elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=309225253&oldid=308686775 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Susan

Cactus, I understand that the page does not belong to Susan Hutchison but the labeling of her as a conservative in a non-partisan election is not only dirty politics but common among her opponents to do so. Please do not block me from wikipedia for correcting an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toljin (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your blanket deletions were not simply correcting a minor error, but resulted in the removal of portions of text and references. If you have a disagreement with single items of text, please use the article talk page to discuss them with other editors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hemant 17

Yesterday, you wrote on User:Hemant 17's talk page: "There are many experienced editors here who have been trying to help. I must now insist that you heed the warnings, listen to other editors' advice, and discuss any changes in the article." I have to ask you, seriously—do you think he's listened to your advice? In particular, this page appears to have the same issues as this page, which you deleted just last week.

Given that he still isn't using preview or edit summaries or talk pages, I'm having enough trouble assuming good faith that I've given up trying to help him. And when I see that it appears he has multiple accounts (see below), has been on Wikipedia over five years (based on on this talk page) and appears to have been using at least two accounts simultaneously less than three weeks ago, well, I gotta say this is a job for an admin.

Here's a list of possible accounts:

• Hemant 17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hemant (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EMT (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• HemantEMT (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Exergetic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 125.99.191.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 60.254.104.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

What's your take on this? — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dori, Yikes, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I should have looked into this deeper. I was completely unaware that this user had a previous history with copyright violations on Wikipedia. Let me look into this. — CactusWriter | ^needles 05:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Hemant 17 for the copyright violations. The sockpuppetry case seems pretty open and shut. If you can, please list the sockpuppetry case at WP:SPI. I'll add my commeents there. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 05:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've written it up at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Hemant and notified all the accounts listed above. I'd appreciate your input over there, and thanks! — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. I added my comments there. I wasn't certain about two of the users -- but including them as you did is fine. The clerks and admins at SPI can make the call. Thanks for following though on this. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a blatant copyvio

Hi. Could you please take a look at File:Vega vena kava.jpg and File:Whipkraft2.jpg? I think that they can be speedy deleted as blatant copyvio. Thank you in advance--Trixt (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Trixt. Off-hand, I am hesitant to call either photo a blatant copyright violation. Although this photo appears on their website, there is an assertion that the contributor owns the original rights to the photo. He asserts the same thing on the other photo, which I can't find outside of WP. However, I must say that I am not very familiar with copyright issues for images. I would recommend that you list your concerns at WP:PUI where the editors are much more knowledgeable about photos. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help to you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done--Trixt (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

NorduGrid

Thanks a bunch for removing copyvio! Spent last week in a schizophrenic state being accused of violating my own copyright ;-) But it made me improving the article, too. Everything's good that ends good. oxana (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And other European projects

Hello, I think it is great that the NorduGrid page is now readable again, as is the SOA4All page. But you did not yet release AssessGrid and several others. I think these pages should not have been put on the speedy delition list in the first place because:

These articles' copyright are perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:DCM. The orginal contributers are part of the project, as can be easily verified. The webpages mentioned is owned by the project described. Hence one should assume the content was put on Wikipedia under Wikipedia style of copyright license as stated in Wikipedia:DCM. If there are doubts, this could be discussed with the contributors or on the article's discussion page. But I do not see evidence of either. So putting these articles on a list for speedy deletion is not correct.

These articles should not have been put on the list for speedy deletion because of possible copyright violation. See Wikipedia:CSD non-criterium 10

Could you please comment in this. It would really save time to everyone if we know what to do on beforehand. Because now dozens of pages get unnecessary blocked which takes a lot of time of the contributors and the admins. Ademmen (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ademmen. I rechecked the article histories and can find no sign that any of these articles was ever marked for Speedy deletion. I believe you may have a misunderstanding here. The process for Non-blatant copyright violation is not a speedy deletion, but rather provides 7+1 days for the article to be revised or cleared for use before being checked by an administrator.

For the articles you mention: the sources for NorduGrid were determined to be in the public domain and the source for SOA4All indicated a proper release by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 -- so they were cleared for use. The source website for AssessGrid shows no copyright release. However, this talk page comment shows the contributor was following through on instructions for dealing with the problem, which were left on the user talk page at the time the article was tagged. Given that the contributor stated that an e-mail was sent to WP:OTRS, I relisted the page rather than delete it, giving them an additional 7 days for OTRS to process the request. (Note that even if the article is deleted and then OTRS permission is received, there is no problem with undeleting the original article - and a message noting that is also left on the user page).

As I am sure you can appreciate, WP takes the problem of copyright violation very seriously. The thorough checking of all articles submitted to the encyclopedia is deemed necessary. This protects not only Wikipedia, but also all the hard work of people who are creating the publications and websites which are sourced here. With thousands of new pages submitted to WP every day, it takes time for the volunteer staff to process it all. I know that it's certainly frustrating at times. But it is important that it be done. And it often requires a little extra patience on all our parts. I hope this answers your questions. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear CactusWriter,

Thanks for your answer. It clarifies a lot, but I still have one question. When I understand the procedure correctly the copyright violation banner blocking text should only be placed when there are doubts whether the material put on the Wikipedia page was - on the Wikipedia page - not released under the Open Source license. However if you are sure that it is, the fact alone that there are other places were the texts are published under different licenses is not enough reason to block the page. Because it is OK to have material published under different licenses as long as the Wikipedia text is released under the correct Open Source License. If you see that the contributors are the same as the people that contributed to the website, you can assume they know what they are doing and did release the material on Wikipedia under the right license. If you think they may not know what they are doing, for what ever reason, ask them. And if they do not answer, satisfactorily or within in a reasonable amount of time then put out the copyright violation banner. But do not put on a banner if you are absolutely sure the contributors to Wikipedia did know what they are doing. Is that interpretation correct?

A suggestion: If these projects when they write texts on Wikipedia that they also publish elswere, as most of them do, tell this on the Article's Talk page? Something like: "Some texts I did contribute to this article are also published elswere under different copyright schemes. However, I did put these texts on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia Open Source License scheme, and I am entitled to do so." would that be enough so that they do no risk of getting a copyright violation banner on their website? Probably that whould save a lot of people a lot of time.

Of course I agree with you it is important to respect all the copyrights. I am looking for a way to prevent a lot of, I think needless, work by many people. Just trying to help to make the process a bit more efficient. Ademmen (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ademen, making the process more efficient is always a great goal. And any suggestions or improvements would be appreciated. However, the very openness of the Wikipedia editing process (its founding principle) is the very thing which will always cause some slowdown of the procedures, including checking for copyright violations. First, anyone can register on WP and claim to be anyone else. Someone can claim to be the owner of a website or a book or anything, and claim to release those materials for use, without actually being that person. (It happens a lot). So it is not possible to know the identity of any editor on WP simply from their own or any other editor's claims. Only by going through the OTRS office can someone's identity be verified. This is the basis for WP:DCM procedures. It is not simply to obtain permission, but also to verify that the individual is who they say they are and has the authority to release the copyrighted material.

Second, legal statutes require that WP makes a good faith effort to avoid any copyright infringement. This means that we must attempt to examine every article. With thousands of new articles daily, this requires hundreds of volunteers checking these articles. And not just the new articles, many additions to existing articles are quick copy-pastes from online sites. So now there are tens of thousands of articles which require checking daily. There is no way that each of these volunteers should be expected to examine every detail about a article and the article's creator -- most checks are cursory: a simple search for copied text, etc. Many of the copyright violations are found by bot programs which scan Wikipedia for language matches. Blatant and obvious violations are marked, then quickly checked by an admin and deleted if correct. Uncertain copyright status pages are tagged and listed at WP:CV. Editors who create an article with uncertain copyright status, receive a message outlining the procedure for addressing the issues. And an attempt is made to process every non-speedy tagged article within 7 days. The law requires that we make diligent efforts.

Like other people here, I personally check hundreds of copyright violation complaints everyday -- this involves examining text, checking sources, reading article histories, investigating contributors, discussing procedures, rewriting articles to make them compliant and pursuing follow-ups. I think the temporary templates on a few articles is only a small inconvenience for allowing a free encyclopedia of more than 3 million articles to remain open to anyone to edit. After all, that's why we all make the effort.

— CactusWriter | ^needles 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Short and to the point, there are two ways to speed up the process: either release the source material under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and never worry about it again, or send the permission mail to OTRS proactively right when you post the article, and immediately note that you have done so on the new article's talk page. MLauba (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nice suggestion -- but then they wouldn't get to read all my whine and blather. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

True. A net loss, undoubtedly. Or worse, my dry and patronizing prose if it was CSB who picked the violation. MLauba (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear MLauba I see your point. I did assume that if you publish something on WP you are bound to the rules and regulations of WP. Who you are can always be traced back later. So if you do something illegal that can be corrected the moment you do something illegal and action can be undertaken. But also volunteers that check also can do something illegal. So that is why this permission mail to OTRS has been designed. (Probably there are more reasons.) I can see some potential problems with that too, but I first look at that page again. If my idea does not work, then I think the best advise to the projects that now write these pages that are marked with possible copyright violation banners would be to be not so lazy as to copy from their existing material but write something new for WP. A little more work for the projects, but less work for the admins, better articles in WP, which again is better for the projects. Thanks again to you and CactusWriter for taking the time to answer my questions. This is really appreciated.

Ademmen (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:J. John Mann

Hello CactusWriter. Is the OTRS template on Talk:J. John Mann correct? It was added by the author of the article. Theleftorium 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, can this be used on Wikipedia? "Limited copyright is granted for you to use and/or republish any story on this site for any legitimate media purpose as long as you reference 7thSpace and any source mentioned in the story above." Theleftorium 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked the same question to User:Stifle, I suddenly completely forgot that CactusWriter is OTRS too :). To answer the second question, no, it allows reuse, but not derivatives, that's incompatible with copyleft in general. MLauba (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, I am not a member of OTRS. You should definitely ask someone there first -- Stifle is a good choice. It appears the contributor is adding the same ticket to a dozen pages he has created about doctors. I am assuming it will show permission to use info from [New York State Psychiatric Institute] website. We will need to know how specific the ticket is. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just got word on the OTRS ticket from Keegan -- it all checks out correctly for that editor. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll remove it from WP:SCV. Theleftorium 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Scriptural geologists

The creator of this article needs help -- I deleted his first version as it was almost all copyvio, then, after he insulted me a couple of times, felt pity on him and reinstated the article with a couple of sentences. He was pretty clear that he had copied the stuff and said he was 'rewriting' it, but it was still going to be copyvio no matter what he did given how much he'd copied straight from one particular writer. He's now gone back to copy and paste from the web (his own writing is pretty bad by the way, any time you see good English from him....). I've been discussing it as has one other editor, but as we are both editors who would have been watching an article like this carefully anyway due to its content, a 3rd party comment to him might help him if in fact he can grasp the problem (and I'm not sure he can, he seems to think just re-arranging some words is enough). Thanks Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my. That is a rough one. Seems to be a lot of misplaced "passion" on that editor's part. I'll try to lend another neutral voice. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, that was a very good reply you made. I'm not optimistic, but we should try to keep an editor who is at least keen. Hopefully other editors will add to the article anyway. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A good thought. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement on Asmahan?

Hello CactusWriter:

Could you please explain to me why you tagged Asmahan with "copyright infringement"? what specific statements do you see as being a copyright violation? And, why did you tag the "Role in WWII" section in particular and not the rest of the article? If you think that sentences in this section are CV, then the whole article is CV. User: Supreme Deliciousness has only raised CV concerns about sentences that do not suit his agenda. I have, as such, tagged the whole article until further review.

Regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Arab Cowboy. You can find my reasons posted on August 18 on the article's talk page under "Plagiarism issues". A lengthy discussion with explanations followed. Please read Talk:Asmahanand feel free to respond there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cactus: Thank you for your reply. I had already read the discussion. The issue is that the whole article is written in the same way. SD had alerted you only to sentences that do not suit his agenda, but if you apply the same standards to the whole article, then it should all be tagged or deleted. Tagging just the one section and removing statements that SD does not like is selective. So, what do you suggest. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to article talk page and responded there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

Maybe I shouldn't get involved in dealing with copyright violations, esp. image ones. A while back I blocked Bottracker (talk · contribs), who I blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks but mainly to get him to enter into a dialogue which he was refusing to do, just deleting all the notices. 2 other Admins declined an unblock request, a 3rd blocked his user page and mentioned that his username was problematic, and now he's been unblocked and given a 'sincere apology' and advised that his block wasn't justified. The discussion (which I think should be on ANI) is here. This came to the unblocking Admin's attention because the 3rd Admin, who locked his talk page, had blocked several people for username problems, although this was not a factor in my original block. Sure, I could have tried to get him to stop deleting warnings and discuss, but that seemed very unlikely unless it was made clear to him that he couldn't just continue to delete warnings. My own take on indef blocks is that they can be lifted and should be lifted at any time, even within minutes, once the user shows a desire to understand the reasons and change their behavior. I don't know if you feel you have the time or inclination to comment, but I feel the blocked editor has now been told his behavior was acceptable. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Doug, sorry, I was reading through the diffs on this when I got waylayed by a big edit war. "Sigh" is right. There are good days, and there are bad ones. The block was absolutely understandable -- a runaway editor uploading dozens of pictures without regard for warnings. Only taking time to rant against another editor as well as telling an editor who left a personal message about the CV problem to essentially go away. Yeah, the block was needed. The unblock doesn't bother me, but the message is absurd. It should certainly have come with a small caveat about Copyright and Civility. I am inclined to comment. Let me think about it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cactus

User Arab Cowboy have blanked the whole Asmahan article although I have told him repeatedly that the first part of the early life section is not plagiarism, there was one sentence there that you commented on and I changed it to your suggestion, and thats it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the Talk page of the article, I demand a review of the whole article. Do not blank one section in deference of the others. Until that happens, the whole article should be blanked, not just one section of it. Plagiarism standards should apply equivocally to all sentences in the article. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me have a minute to take a look. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Arab Cowboy for persistent edit warring. Supreme Deliciousness, I came close to blocking you as well, but I took into account you fell one edit short of 3RR, used the discussion page and finally sought advice. I have written another review of the article on the talk page with my suggestions to remove the copyright violations. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cactus, thank you. And I'm sorry. My edits was based on you at that time only had identified that specific section as plagiarism. And the warning sign was specific for that section, it was disruptive edits from him. You have reply here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=309611557&oldid=309609842 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

you have reply, don't know if you saw it but for the second part, the source was in the page under:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=309619499&oldid=309615515 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

some issues

Hey cactus, I have added some texts, but there are problems with sources nr 7, there is some kind of error.

Also there are two things I would like to ad, they both resemble the source very much and I cant figure out how to rewrite them any better so I wanted to check with you first and maybe you can come with your own suggestion. My example: "The dependence on the Egyptian elite forced Asmahan and other singers to sing praising songs for the king and of national themes."

Source: Asmahans Secrets p 13: quote "she and other singers were dependent upon the Egyptian elites, as were the recording studios. They were required to sing songs of praise for the king and his line and other songs with republican themes."

my example "She always mentioned her father and Sultan al-Atrash to clarify her ancestry—once saying to a friend: "Don't you know who I am? Why I am the daughter of Fahd al Atrash and cousin to the Amir al Atrash and the Druze revolutionary hero Sultan al-Atrash."

Source: Asmahans Secrets p 37: "Later in her life, Asmahan always refereed to her relative, Sultan al-Atrash, along with her father, to assert her lineage and status, and to substantiate her ability to act for the British. She told a friend, "Dont you know who I am? Why I am the daughter of Fahd al-Atrash and cousin (although she was actually a third cousin twice removed) to the Amir al-Atrash (Hassan) and the Druze revolutionary hero Sultan al-Atrash""

Is this ok? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you work on rebuilding the early life section first. After that is complete, then move forward to the next section, proceeding in a linear fashion. The reference error is caused by a broken link. I changed them to Harv style. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm done with the early life section. Can you answer at my suggestions? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The first passage is plagiarism. It is a close construct of the original sentence and idea. More problematic, the word "forced" alters the meaning and creates a negative connotation that is not in the original source. Most importantly, you should stop picking random sentences from a source, altering their structure and adding them to the text. Why do you want to include that single sentence? It was part of an entire chapter explaining the author's idea. You should to read the entire chapter, understand what the source is saying, and then summarize it in one or two sentences using your own words. It s best to ask yourself, "what was the author's conclusion?", and that write that.

I am surprised that the early life is done already. I recall there was a lot about the immigration to Egypt and the family's early life there. Isn't the early life incomplete without that? — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw you deleted the page Diaa had created, here is something else. I don't know if this is the same page or something else and you maybe missed it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan/temp

That sentence about her "being required" to sing fits in the "Asmahan and her debut" section about her singing. You said that the author's idea in that chapter was awkward pov and did not belong in an encyclopedia so why should I summarize it? But she "being required" to sing is a fact, and fits in anywhere about her signing, so that's why I would like to ad it. Do you have any rewritten suggestions for it?

I have already added that they emigrated to Palestine and then to Egypt. Something should indeed be added about they're early life there but I did not ad that text from the beginning and I am not able to rewrite texts in a good way. (I am not a native speaker of english) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with emphasizing only a single sentence is that it misses the overall point the author was making in the chapter. The way I understand it the point of the entire chapter entitled "Syrian or Egyptian?" is that Asmahan was proud of her Syrian heritage, but it was the freedom of being Egyptian which allowed her to flourish as a singer and actress. Of course, I have only read a few chapters and am not an well-versed on her life. I am moving this entire conversation to Talk:Asmahan so that more knowledgeable editors can help you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS check and some clue...

Hi Stifle, Can you please check if this ticket would be appropriate on the File:Susan hutchison.jpg. I am clueless as to whether OTRS permissions apply only to a specific user or only to a specific website or both. In this case, the file (uploaded by a different user) was deleted after I tagged it for improper fair use. User:Spamd has re-uploaded it, and after tagging again, I realized this contributor filed the above OTRS. I cannot find the photo on the campaign website, however the file source says Friends of Susan Hutchison which would be her campaign fund. I guess my question is: how specific are OTRS permissions to what can be uploaded? Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That ticket applies only to text, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. One other quick question... For a file has been deleted once already for improper fair use, and then is uploaded again, is the tagging process repeated (meaning another RFU template)? Or is there a different CSD deletion tag to be used? — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you have to use the RFU template again. The only way to perform a "stickier" deletion would be to list the image for FFD and get it deleted there. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to your message to Arab Cowby

I am writing it here because my posts has previously been deleted at his talkpage. "My suggestion is to avoid one another and do not alter each other's edits, but rather have a neutral third editor make changes for you."

I asked for an official 3O on Asmahan, HelloAnnyong, AC did not listen to him, I asked for help from an administrator and Diaa showed up to mediate, AC did not follow the mediation process, Diaa left. I asked for help from administrator Ameer, AC did listen on some points but he did not listen to him on several other issues. Ameer then left. I do not feel that "both of you both have been equally culpable" is true. I do no not want to be topic banned in any article. Now I would be happy if you edit the "trigger" issues as you did with the Atrash article, although I do not agree with that being in the article because it has nothing to do with the clan which the article is about, but I accept it. But as you can see he doesn't listen to help from outside in any way, talking with him leads to nothing, outside help he doesn't listen to. So what am I supposed to do? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I find you equally culpable because of antagonizing POV-pushing edits. Edits like this, this, this, this, this, to just name a few, suggest you may have an an agenda. Persisting in constant reversions suggests intractability and antagonizing behavior. I haven't determined whether you are actually anti-Egyptian or just determined to add the word Syrian into every article whether its appropriate, but I do note that you seem to be in edit wars on most every article in which you are involved. So it doesn't surprise me that you don't agree. I can understand other administrators and mediators growing tired of this and walking away. Because of the enormous amount of time everyone spends resolving petty disputes between you and Arab Cowboy, the best solution for the Wikipedia may be a flat-out topic ban.

I am glad you did not post at Arab Cowboy's page. Don't. I'm certain you know that would antagonize him. Avoid the places he edits. And stop trying to insert Syrian into biographies simply because somebody's grandfather was Syrian -- it's trivial. If you notice one of his edits which needs to (and I mean actually "needs to" be changed or Wikipedia is going to explode), then ask someone neutral to look into it. I think both of you need to try more patience, take some breaths and leave each other alone. There are far too many other articles in Wikipedia that need attention. I notice you created three stub articles about Syrian topics. There are lots more of those which need to be created. I think it would be most beneficial for you and the Wikipedia if you concentrated on that for awhile. That's my advice. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I take great offense at these words. I do not have any kind of agenda but to bring the truth through documented evidence. What am I supposed to do when sourced info gets reverted and no one does anything? When I ask for help many times including moderators and nothing happens? The best solution is you going to these pages, seeing for yourself what the sources say. I really hope there will be no topic ban.

this edit the only source I had said he was of Syrian descent, after this, I found several others saying he was of lebanese and partly Syrian descent. The most reliable one was from New York Times and it said he was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian family. So why shouldn't I ad this into the article? Its a biography article and this is his background, this is the same case for Soad Hosny and Anwar Wagdy. In the case of this and several other Egyptian sources now added to the article says she had a Syrian family background. Arab cowboy has removed this several times together with other sourced info and removed the category Egyptians of Syrian descent. [9]

The same thing with this and this , the only source at that time said he was Syrian, now I have added one saying he is of Syrian decent, Arab Cowboy has removed the source and changed the text without any kind of source and removed the category Egyptians of Syrian descent link So who has the agenda here? Am I not allowed to ad sourced info about people? And when this is removed I am the one that suddenly have an agenda? I invite you to go to these articles and look at the sources, what are they saying? Do they say that Wagdy was of Syrian descent or his father? Why was the sentence saying Hosny had a Syrian family background removed and replaced with her father when the source does not say this? Why are these category's being removed from the articles?

In the case of this, I don't know how much you know about the middle east but the Golan is not Israel, and it has never been Israel. Its an occupation of Syrian land according to the united international community, so indeed he or she who added this was wrong claiming this village was in Israel, and I corrected it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read your reply. My advice from above remains unchanged. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, did you mean in your previous reply, that nothing should be written in the Hosny and Wagdy articles about them being of Syrian descent?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Its trivial - has undue weight and not worth a war. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivial? almost every single biography article on wikipedia has a section where family, background and descent is written. From Barack Obama, Zlatan Ibrahimović, Zinedine Zidane, Shakira, Paul Anka or anyone else that descend from somewhere else it is written in the article so I cant really understand how an administrator can say its trivial. Its not against UW. To have one line in each article that is sourced explaining the background is appropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

When articles are expanded to the size of those, where large portions of life and career are developed, than minor details gain weight. But unless it is known that the one grandfather's nationality played a significant factor in shaping the person's life and career, in stub articles its trivial. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Soad Hosny article is not a stub and is pretty expanded including a family members section. You have not given any valid reason for it not being in the article. And Anwar Wagdy being of Syrian origin is not a minor detail, it is not his grandfather, it is him being of Syrian origin. It is something directly related to him and its a biography article. So what is wrong with this? There is no harm in its inclusion. You said the info AC added about certain Atrash members were trivial to the Atrash clan article yet you said it should stay because it is sourced. And that had nothing to do with the clan yet this is about Wagdy. You have not given any valid reason for Syrian background also not being in this article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that verified facts can be added. That is not the issue. Please remember that WP:V and WP:NPOV are never independent of each other -- that is, a fact's relevance and weight are determined by the size of its impact on a topic in proportion to the coverage of the topic. I think this has now been discussed enough. I'm glad you took my advice here. Please continue to ask for consensus advice before making possibly contentious edits. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Shortyo

Hello CactusWriter, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Shortyo has been removed. It was removed by 204.186.110.97 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 204.186.110.97 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Re: Check this out

Ah, thank you. I should just use G12 on Dagoth Ur, then? Theleftorium 12:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As it is now, yes, it's a G12. On the other hand, this page is available for copy. It's up to you, but there are a lot of other issues there it seems.. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll just redirect it to The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. Theleftorium 12:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good choice. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Just wanted to let you know that the FAQ was badly misleading. :/ I've corrected it to accord with the Foundation's Terms of Use. 2.5 should be compatible with 3.0 (I've explained why in more details at my talk page). I'm glad you pointed that out! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you clarifying that. Maybe one of these days I'll get it all straight. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you do. :) I'm always finding things I have to track down somebody to clarify. I haven't had to write Mike Godwin in a while, but I bet he still cringes when he sees an e-mail from me. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not up to speed

Today, I didn't catch the clean versions of George Stephen Morrison. Yesterday, I missed the "noncommercial" part of a license. I'm so not myself yet. :) Anyway, I accidentally deleted your cleanup of that, but I've restored it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There was some earlier copyvio on that one back in 2005, but it was cleaned up back then. And then it appeared that there was good edits. So I reverted to the version before all the newspaper copy-pasted additions and was trying to tidy it up a bit. You got pretty sharp elbows when you get them flying -- but I prefer them flying around than not. I can usually duck pretty good. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I'll try to pad them. :D Even though I'm fresh off the narcotics, I'm just not thinking as well as I usually (think I) do. With that one, I actually looked at the history, looked at the first one on my page, and completely forgot that there might be earlier. How nuts is that? Scares me that I'll do something else boneheaded. :/ I'm looking at Spyros Vassiliou right now to see if any of the new text is copyvio. By all means, don't duck out of my way. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of that article, it looks clean to me now. Maybe he profited from your last note? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's strange one. Looks like weird paraphrasing. "Older wise men"? That's the thesaurus version of elders. But it's all probably okay now. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to work on an article. If you don't mind keeping up the CP, I could probably better use my efforts right now in more routine work. :) I'll be able to pull my weight again soon, I'm sure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You've been pulling more than your weight. I'll get to today's listing a little later. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

can you take a look at a couple things:

ACs edits at the asmahan article. Amongst them: this was removed "'Alia and the three children moved to Beirut, then to Haifa, Palestine and eventually immigrated to Egypt." and also in the marriage section he removed that she had "returned" to Syria to "relocated". Because he doesn't think she lived there. We have been over this before, the author uses the word "returned" at one point and "relocated" at another. He also removed that she had been "required" to sing. Dont know if you actually supported the removal of it. And also he added something to the first part of the early life section that I do not believe have anything to to with early life. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why he removed Beirut and Palestine, they were both referenced. Relocated or returned - either way -- because the reader will already understand that she lived there as a child. The "required to sing" was still being discussed, but as you know, I found it fairly meaningless anyway. And if you are talking about the "princely family" paragraph, not only is that meaningless to the biography, it appears to be an extreme fringe viewpoint. The Al-Taba'i book (which was written in 1965, only republished in 2009) was mostly discredited by Zuhur. Any other source lists Al-Atrash as Amir, Prince, Druze leader, etc. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What discussion? shouldn't the discussion begin if someone wants to delete something from the article as he did in two places? And is it really necessary to discuss a clarification of where al-Qrayya is?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No. You have been warned too often for just this kind of thing -- quick reversions. You need to slow down. Grabbing my opinion off this talk page, pasting it onto the article talk page and then using that as an excuse to make your own reversions is poor form. Especially, when you deleted AC's paragraph because I said it was out of context or "meaningless", but replaced your own sentence even though I had also told you I considered it out of context. You need to use the talk page and allow for discussion or response. It might take days for a response. This isn't life or death surgery. Have some patience. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you accept him deleting the sentence that I had added then? Why didn't you revert it when he deleted it? Discussion with him hasnt worked for half a year, so why would it now? Until now it has been his way or edit war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like an answer to my post here above why you let him delete the sentence I had added. And what am I supposed to do now at the talkpage? Your post has been added there.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to WP:3O or WP:DRR. If you are interested in actual mediation, than you must be willing to accept third-party advice -- even when that opinion goes against your own wishes. You have previously had mediation from good editors who walked away after growing weary of constant arguing over minor issues - especially after giving an opinion. I fully relate to their experience. I also recommend that you find a mediator who understands Arabic since some of the references require it. I think you should refamiliarize yourself with the entire editing policy page starting with WP:IMPERFECT and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How can you even suggest something like that when i have told you before that I asked for 3O and AC did not listen to him and we got another mediator that AC did not listen to? You have not answered me above and I want an answer. I'm serious. Why did you accept him deleting the sentences that I had added, yet you reverted my edits? Including an explanation for where Al-Qrayya is which is of no controversy at all? You said to me: "use the talk page and allow for discussion and response." Then why didnt you revert my edits AC had deleted and tell him to do the same? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

After only two weeks, you have made an incredible 43 edits to my talk page. And I responded -- even though I told you that I did not have the time to mediate your editing. It's is a shame that you have found my advice to be of no use. My apologies, but enough is enough. It is time for me to drop this stick. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok dont mediate but don't tell me to go to the talkpage for adding two sentences while AC ads tons of texts and deleted and changed the things I added without going to the talkpage, without you doing anything. Just so you know AC added some stuff that you said was copyright violation before and put them in quotation marks: "Egypt was a planetary distance from the small villages of the Druze" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Number 44. Your welcome. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

copyright violation?

You might want to take a look at this text that AC has recently added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Sharif&diff=311065654&oldid=311027382 "Life outside of Egypt gave him glory, but a lot of loneliness and a lot of missing his own people and his own country" This is almost exact as the source: 06.10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYD0LTKaFc4&feature=related --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have a moment. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Great interview. Sharif is remarkable. As far as the entry, this was easily remedied with a slight edit and quotation marks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rat Pak Records

Hi, I was asked by my boss, the founder/owner of Rat Pak Records to create a Rat Pak Records Wikipedia, however, the page has been deleted because of copywrite issues. I'm not sure what to do or how to go about asking for it to be "un-deleted". All the information I added to that page, came directly from the owner of Rat Pak Records and I simply copied and pasted it (rather than re-write it all) and added the information to the page. I tried to leave a message when this initially happened, but was confused on exactly what to do or what was required of me. Would you be able to help/assist me please? My boss would very much like to solve this issue.

Thank you, ~~Cheekypeek~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekypeek (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Replying in CactusWriter's absence: Since we do not verify user identities upon account creation, any claim of permission needs to be verified externally. This is done by following the procedures highlighted at WP:PERMISSION. Please note that Wikipedia cannot leave disputed content up for display until permission is obtained per the above means.

Further, to save you some additional hassle beyond the copyright issues, please note that it is in general a very bad idea to write about topics you are directly connected with, such as the company you work for. This constitutes a clear conflict of interest, and I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with WP:COI before attempting to create the article on your employer. Last but not least, please be aware that Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and will not let itself be used as a vehicle for promotion. Any topic deemed worthy of an article should be covered by multiple, non trivial independent third-party reliable sources and written in a neutral tone.

The exact requirements are explained in this essay about writing your first Wikipedia article, which I recommend you also familiarize yourself.

Best, MLauba (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MLauba, for the assist here. Cheekypeek, all the links and advice offered by MLauba should help you solve any issues. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi CactusWriter,

Yes, I know it sounds crazy but I got unblocked. I asked an Admin on the IRC if can please edit again. I was just wondering if you could adopt me. Also, Congrats on the adminship. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rowdy the Ant. Thanks and welcome back!. I don't think it's crazy. I'm afraid I have my hands full these days and don't have the time to devote to an adoptee. But it is great that you are seeking one out.

Here are a couple of suggestions that I hope will help. I think it is good idea for an adoptee to find an adopter who lives close to their own time zone (in your case, in the United States or Canada). That way, they are more likely to be online at the same time as you when you need to ask a question. You can look through the list of editors willing to adopt at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and see if anyone strikes you as a good match. You might want to find an editor with a similar area of interest as you. As I recall, you were interested in Toon Disney, Veggietales and other cartoons. I took a quick look through the Adopters list and thought one of these editors might be a good choice: User:Figureskatingfan, User:Tiggerjay, User:McDoobAU93, User:Jayron32, User:Ktr101. Take a look at their user pages and see if they might.

Then drop a note onto their talk page and ask them just like you asked me. (Remember to ask only one at a time). Also tell them a little bit about the topics or Wikipedia area that you are interested in. If they have any questions about your block, you can always refer them to me. Good luck with the editing. Let me know when you have found an adopter. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the adoption people you suggested. Sorry about the image problem, I really didn't know. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. There is a lot to learn -- I'm still learning all the time. Just remember to ask if you are uncertain. Good luck with with the adoption. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New Edit Warring by User Supreme Deliciousness

Cactus, as expected, SD is edit warring again. He's adding "of Syrian descent" categories to prominent Egyptians' biographies, e.g., Tamer Hosny, Soad Hosny, Anwar Wagdi, etc., as you said, just because they have a relative who was Syrian. Admin Sancho had stated on Omar Sharif's Talk page that going from both his parents were Syrian or Lebanese to "he was of Syrian descent" would be an unacceptable leap in WP. Please take action as necessary. I suggest you ban him from editing articles of Egyptians; he's insitigating edit wars where he does not belong. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

None of this is so life-or-death critical that either of you should be instantaneously reverting one another. Post a separate request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt asking for input and wait for a consensus from the editors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What is "life-or-death critical" on WP? So strange you blocked me in a second without even a warning and you always have your kid gloves on with SD! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. What SD is doing is unreasonable. If he still doesn't understand what was being discussed before (Admin Sancho had stated on Omar Sharif's Talk page that going from both his parents were Syrian or Lebanese to "he was of Syrian descent" would be an unacceptable leap in WP) and abide by it, then he should be banned from editing articles as his inputs are rather confusing and sometimes misleading. Nefer Tweety (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey!!! I am Egytian and he is Syrian. I do not mind being banned from "Syrian" articles, while Supreme Deliciousness gets banned from "Egyptian" articles. SD's agenda, slapping "Syrian" into Egyptian (and many other) articles, is very antagonizing to Egyptian (and other) sensibilities and is the instigator of all edit wars. I do not mess with Syrian articles and he should not come anywhere near Egyptian articles. Simple. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to allow this war to go on. SD should be banned from editing Egyptian articles. Nefer Tweety (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have serious concerns, you should file a report at WP:RFC or WP:ANEW. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Camille Marino uploading defamatory images of Dave Warwak

I've deleted two but probably for the wrong reasons (what should I do about them? [10]. I see I used the same F11 that MBisbanz did, but it looks wrong. Still left is File:Warwakstoned.JPG - I think it's pretty obvious these should be deleted but can't find the guidelines that make this clear. The editor is offline at the moment but if she doesn't stop... Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually asked Stifle about something like a couple of weeks ago. From what I read, the rules for images don't work the same way as text. In that there is not a lot of actual speedy deletion -- meaning automatic. They are tagged and then allowed to wait for 7 days. If uploaded again, the same procedure ensues. So as far as the picture goes, I would think that retagging is the only solution at the moment. But the text "about being stoned" is a different matter. That's a BLP violation if not sourced to independent RS. I think that needs to be removed now and the uploader warned about BLP vios. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That only applies to certain deletion reasons, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - eg clear copyright violations can be deleted immediately. I think there's a problem here -- eg a hoax image defaming a real person, I wouldn't hesitate to delete it. I also think somewhere there's something about images of people. Of course, there is always WP:IAR. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Doug asked my feedback. I think the policy here would be WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.... This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." I see two options for the remaining image, which makes unsourced allegations about a living individual (certainly intentional, as supported by [11]): we can move it to a neutral name or we can pull the plug. Since I'm just offering feedback, I'll leave it to Doug to figure out which is more appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You're right that there are some "instant" criteria for deletions files -- but the majority fall in a gray zone, even more so than text articles. But that file is a BLP problem (I think the line you are looking for is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Images). I think it should be deleted as an unsourced attack. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mrg. Sorry about the ec. I agree with you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is a beautiful thing. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and deleted this as a CSD G10 Wikipedia:Attack page -- especially in light of the uploader's previous warnings for adding defamatory material to that article. (I recalled you were in that big much-ado-about-nothing with the deleting images and blocking recently. So if there is any flak about this, I'll take it.) — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I am having real problems with your talk page, by the way. At times there are no 'edit' links, and just now there are edit links but the page is too wide with no scroll bar. It may just be Chrome, which is what I'm using. Thanks also to you, Mrg. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a scroll bar. It's too wide in IE as well but fine in Firefox. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. Of course, I use Firefox, so I have never noticed. But you're right. I just checked in IE and it appears the rounded cornering must be a strange markup. I wonder if this has been going on since I created the page -- I'm surprised no one has mentioned it before. Hmm, I'll have to fix this. Thanks for letting me know. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm on Firefox, too. Hence, it looks fine to me. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course! All the cool people use Firefox. But yours is fine IE, too. Eh, I'll just delete the mark-up for now and steal yours tomorrow. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I use Firefox for everything else, but as I often have 100-150 tabs open in Firefox, it won't cope with Wikipedia too, so I use Chrome for Wikipedia editing. Maybe I should be using Opera 10. :-) Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

#45

When AC wanted to remove the category's from the articles you told him to go to WP Egypt and seek consensus for its removal, not only did he ask the "wrong" question, if there is support for its stay (instead of support for its removal) but he got no consensus for its removal and went right ahead and deleted the category's. Do something.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt has settled the issue for the Atrash articles. It appears there is no consensus yet about the category and content on the other articles -- either for or against inclusion. One editor suggested seeking outside input. (By the way, I don't think either of you has asked the correct question yet, since the real dispute is about at what point can a person be considered "of national descent" or "of national origin" and at what point it is irrelevant.) If you have serious concerns about content, use WP:RFC to find input. If you have a problem with reversions, than WP:ANEW is the place to file a report. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

When I wanted to remove the category's he had added at the Atrah article I had to get consensus for its removal. He didn't need anything for the adding of them. If I hadn't gotten consensus they wouldn't have been removed. WP Egypt themselves removed them. Now when its the other way around, I have to get consensus for the adding of category's, and he deletes them from the article although the only two people that have answered support the adding of the category for at least two of the articles.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By your own analysis, than you are guilty for this and this reversion since opinion was against it (and, oddly enough, you invoked my name when I previously told you I didn't think it belonged). You can't have it both ways -- hearing only opinions with which you agree and arguing against all others. I won't support one side when both act in like manner. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by invoked your name? The two that have answered support the adding of the category in two of the articles, yet you are letting AC remove it, imagine if it was the other way around and there was support for the category at the Atrash article and I removed it, what would you have done?

There is no consensus against adding of it at the soad article, one is against it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your arguing just proves my point. Take it to WP:RFC. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin Sancho has set the rule on this matter. He stated: "SD, avoid original research. Even the leap from "Sharif's parents were Lebanese", to "Sharif is of Lebanese descent" is going too far in an article about a living person." --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

If you want to say something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Asmahan --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll take a look, but I believe an arb case it is bit over the top for a content dispute between two editors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not a content dispute, he has changed sections that has previously been agreed during mediation so they go against what was agreed upon and what the sources say.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cactus, your count is wrong. I've been blocked 4 times only, not 5 as you claim, one of which is older than 3 months, another was reverted by Xeno for its triviality, another was a clear abuse of admin authority by Tan for contradicting him in a discussion in which he was involved (two more senior admins called his action "wrong" and "foolish", respectively, and another, which I did not dispute was a biased block by yourself. I recall at least 2 occasions when SD has been blocked, not just once, maybe one was before he registered a username. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy, seriously, your comment here only does a disservice to yourself. Please read WP:GAME. None of your actions which resulted in 5 blocks (yes, I can count) in 3 months (May 26 - Aug 23) was trivial. At this point, I urge you to stop arguing. Instead, take time to reflect on the reasons for the warnings and blocks and to understand the consequences of your own actions, so that you might convince the members of ArbCom that you are willing to act responsibly within the community. There is no need to respond here. It appears the ArbCom will accept SD's case, so you will have opportunity to discuss your history there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems that it is I who cannot count. But I was correct about the dates. I already reflect on my actions. I know that I am hot headed, and I know when I deserved the blocks and I did not dispute those blocks when I deserved them, such as yours, Graeme's and CIreland's. But Tan's was clearly a case of self-service by an admin. Yours was deserved on my part, but it was biased. I am still of the opinion that SD deserved an equal block at the time - he was "equally culpable" and "has been" (present perfect tense) the instigator of all edit wars. I have offered a topic ban for both of us and you have not accepted this offer. He should not come anywhere near Egyptian articles and the same goes to me for Syrian articles. What more reflection on my action do you expect from me? Because of your block and Tan's (together with all the bickering that goes on at AN/I), and your inaction to implement a topic ban to save us all this mess, I have come to conclude that WP is not a fair place. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Both you and SD clearly overestimate the position of administrator. We are not authorities. Administrators are just like any other editor except, because of some added experience, we are entrusted by the community with a couple of extra tools for cleaning up messes and enforcing policy. That is all. You also misunderstand the topic ban. It is not a neat separation between Egyptian and Syrian articles because that still leaves all the Egyptian/Syrian articles under dispute - and would entail more bickering about whether an article is Egyptian or Syrian. A topic ban from me would also be article specific - meaning neither of you could ever edit any of the articles on which your are currently in dispute. Period. In my opinion, in consideration of the history on both your parts, I very much doubted either of you would have accepted that from a lone administrator. Which would have resulted in more arguing, more blocks, more ANI cases and probably indefinite blocks. I doubt that is what you wanted. I know I didn't want subject the community to an even bigger mess like that. So stop blaming me, stop blaming Tan, stop blaming everyone else -- you and SD have created this entire mess on your own. You both were given ample advice, opportunity and resources to resolve it. You failed. Now the Arbitration Committee on behalf of the entire WP community will need to decide how best to clean it up. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I've spent the past six weeks overhauling the hip hop dance article and now that I've finished I posted it for peer review here. I decide to invite you because you're member of the guild of copy editors. I know hip-hop dance (the history of) has nothing to do with Danish films/people but you're a copy editor with a good command of the English language. I figured that was a good enough reason to invite you. I would appreciate your feedback. Be forewarned that this is a long article. Not including refs/external links, templates, and categories it's 7 pages printed. If you accept my invitation to review you may want to print it first and make your edits that way. I found it easier to read and to correct when I did this. Although long, it makes for a good read during a lunch break, a bus ride, or pure boredom. I learned a lot myself while rewriting this article. Consider this one of those articles you can "wander into relating to [your] experiences as a..." wikipedia administrator. If you like to learn, this could be an incentive for you. Gbern3 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gbern3. Thanks for the invitation. I do enjoy learning knew subjects. It certainly does appear to be an impressive bit of work that you have done. I haven't had much time to spare lately -- but if I do get a chance in the next few days, I will take a look. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

East-West dichotomy

Due to ongoing issues here, I have G6ed the article with a wholly new version written and researched by me. If this deletion of text you wrote isn't uncontroversial, please, by all means restore the history. The new writing, I think, is necessary to put an end to this dispute. I moved the article because the term seems more widely used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a fine solution. Your rewrite is beautiful. The original title always worked for me. It was Dbachman who made the title change because he was worried about synth issues, if I recall -- although I can't quite remember his reasoning. Thanks for dealing with the whole hullabaloo. These kinds of conflicts with people fighting for some personal fame or acknowledgment of their existence through WP always leave me somewhat sad. One of the reasons I don't do as much Afd notability work anymore. Anyway, well done -- until, of course, the sequel: The Return Of.... Yikes!. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. Whatever happens from here, there are absolutely zero concerns about plagiarism. :) Continued efforts to include this link can only be perceived as promotion, and I will trot it off to COIN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar and Thanks!

I'm honoured, CactusWriter! Thank you very much for your kind words and Barnstar. I might be able rewrite the article as I have 2,3 good books on Sri Dalada Maligawa. I have seen your many tireless copyright violation cleanups. So keep up the good work and kind regards! --Chanaka L (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you find the time to rewrite the article, than that would be great. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwith☮ 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Postponed

Due to User:Arab Cowboy's vacation, he requested that the case be postponed until October 9. Does that work for you? hmwith☮ 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, hmwith. That's no problem. Thanks for the note. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, ignore that last request. I've discussed this with other active users in the case, and postponing it will not work for everyone. The arbs will not make a decision until the user returns, but the case can resume normally otherwise. Thanks for your cooperation, hmwith☮ 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 05:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One left for 9/10

Hi. There's one left outstanding at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 September 10]: Bowcliffe Hall. I've left my perspective at the copyvio page but would appreciate a second set of eyes. I am already dealing with matters of close paraphrasing with an ongoing large-scale investigation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bowcliffe Hall

Yeah, no problem. Your rewrite was much better than mine though. :-) Theleftorium 12:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think your version was probably fine as it stood. I only reduced it a bit. I mean, after all, there are only a few ways that we can write the exact same few facts. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Vlaamperd article

You popped a copyvio tag on this article, I redid it at the subpage (I was hoping someone else at WPEQ had the time to fix it, but no one did, so I did up a quick version) See if it works and let me know if it doesn't. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 06:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and taking on the rewrite of this article. The issues appear to be addressed. I've replaced the original copyvio page with your version. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Any time, glad to help. Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Randy Weiner

My name is Davone Tines and I work for the American Repertory Theater. I am trying to get an article on Wikipedia for one of the ART's collaborators Randy Weiner. My first attempt at an article included an accidental copyright infringement. I did not intend for the infringement to occor and would like to submit an article on Mr. Weiner that does not pose any problems. I am new to editing Wikipedia and would greatly appreciate your help. Below is the text I would like to include in a new article about Randy Weiner that was provided to me by him. Any feedback or help you could provide in making the article a stable part of Wikipedia would be greatly appreciated. 173.13.91.94 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Davone Tines

Hello-

I realize that the copy I recently sent you contains a copy and paste from the site you pointed out on the talk page. I am working to edit the text so that it does not include that copy. Would it be alright if I submitted the new copy to you before I try to post it? I don't know if this is outside of Wikipedia protocol, but it would be extremely helpful to email with you directly as I am not so versed in how these talk pages work. My email is dtines@gmail.com - Again, thank you for any help you can provide.

Dtines (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Davone Tines

Hi, Dtines. I understand how the various policies and inner workings of Wikipedia can be daunting -- there is a steep learning curve. It takes some time to learn your way around -- I'm still learning everyday. So don't worry about the early missteps. It happens to us all.

And, yes, the text that you placed here again contained copy pasting. Wikipedia doesn't allow copyright infringing text on any of its pages, including these talk pages and user pages. So I have deleted it from my page.

I will be happy to take a look at a new draft. Here's a link for you to create a draft article: User:Dtines/Randy Weiner. That page is in your personal user space, which allows you to work on a draft before it comes under the scrutiny of other editors. Go ahead and write a new article there and I'll review it for you. Here's a few tips: Write it from scratch without any copying from sources. Just use your own words. (It doesn't matter if the language isn't perfect. We all need collaboration on that -- that's the principle of WP). Keep it tight, simple and factual -- meaning encyclopedic. For example, the Diane Paulus article. Since it seems to me that Weiner and Paulus are on the same level of notability, you may wish to use her article as a guide. Reference the information to national newspapers or magazines (the NY Times, Observer, Boston Globe, Playbill, etc. should do fine. If there are scholarly journals, than even better). Of course, it is always a fine idea to follow the style of a good WP article, like Harold Pinter, which is a peer-reviewed WP:GA article.

By the way, the Wikipedia:Article_wizard_2.0 can be a great help when creating a first article. When you have a draft, let me know. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello- I've put a new draft up at User:Dtines/Randy Weiner with references. Please let me know if this will work as an article. Thanks for your help! Dtines (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello- I can't thank you enough for putting together an article for me! I have filled in one of the references needed, but is it alright to post an article with "citation needed" tags in it? If so I'd like to post the article soon, but continue to look for the needed references. Thank you so much for your incredible help! Dtines (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went back and rewrote the text to eliminate the citation needed tags. It is okay to have some text with citation needed tags, as long as you understand that any editor will be permitted to delete the text in question at any time -- especially in the case of biographies of living people. The copyright violations have been eliminated, so I've now moved the article into the mainspace. (By the way, I needed to delete the version you just created from a copy-paste of the Temp page -- copy-pasting from a temp page can also violate WP copyright policy if the page history doesn't give credit to everyone who contributed text to the article.) I'm glad that I could help. Good luck with the article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Kieffer

Many thanks for your rewrite. I had in fact translated the French website info and not Wiki France which I commonly utilise.I stuck the translation into a file of wiki articles without the correct source and assumed this was Wiki France.Many thanks for fixing the article

Many thanks. My mistake I forgot the source. There is indeed no French Wiki page but since I kept the file in my translations folder I assumed there was. Many thanks again. Robert aka Notafly (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, Robert. I am glad that I could help. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, Sir. I know that that may be infringement. I have rewritten everything. Sir, could you please check Talk:Michael Lobo/Temp. Thankyou Sir, Slumdog102 (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be happy to check it over. I'll take a look at it later today. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting the text to eliminate the copyright infringement. I made some additional changes to remove the redundant sentences as well as the promotional tone and attribute text to the subject's claims. I've moved the article into the mainspace. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Copyright

Thanks for the instruction. Please check out the note on Talk:Empress Vampire (film). --Garbolia (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Garbolia --Garbolia (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying that link. I've removed the copyvio template from the plot summary. Please note that although text in a press release may be permitted for use, it still must to conform with WP neutral point-of-view and non-promotional guidelines. In the case of writing about film, the guidelines at WP:MOSFILM will help. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding and suggestion. I think I've removed and re-edited some of the text from the release to become wiki article format and rules. The edit on wikipedia was not exact the same as the release, but I will work on it later to be better to follow wikipedia rules. I may consult with you on more details later if possible. Thanks again. ---Garbolia (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Lanius CMS

Hi CactusWriter, A member of Lanius CMS team has updated the page in order to be released under the CC-BY-SA license. The static page is also updated: http://laniuscms.sourceforge.net/docs/introduction.htm as well as the source wiki page: http://wiki.laniuscms.org/index.php/Introduction comment added by RafaelMinuesa (talk • contribs)

Great. With the source pages in compliance, I've removed the copyright violation template. Just a reminder: the text from the source may be used now - but only if it meets the Wikipedia policies on neutral point-of-view and non-promotional text. Thanks for handling the CV problem. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Message concerning status of ArbCom case

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Case workflow management. Let me know if you need assistance, hmwith☮ 17:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• There has been an update in the status of the case. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Questions.

I've been casually following the Asmahan ARBCOM case and noticed your recent entry. I don't know if you were aware of this [12], (the userbox list etc) in regards to your arguments about POV/Neutrality. --Nsaum75 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my. No, I was not aware of that. That is troubling and I'm glad to see that it was promptly removed. I didn't want to overwhelm the ArbCom with a 1000 diffs, but I do believe that the anti-Israel bias is by far the most significant part of the case -- more so than the Egypt-Syria edit warringon which it was created. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Danmark

Hej CactusWriter

Da du i sin tid markerede din interesse i Wikimedia Danmark vil jeg opfordre dig til at melde dig ind i foreningen og hjælpe til styrke Wikimedia Foundations projekter i Danmark.

mvh. kasserer Thomas B. aka Broadbeer (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Private Eye

Hello CactusWriter!

I don't feel particularly strongly about Clare Hollingworth and don't particularly mind you reverting my edit, but I'd like to call into question the reason you've given, that Private Eye is not a reliable source. Private Eye carry out some of the best investigative journalism in the country, and have had a number of very important scoops over the years. I don't see why they're any less reliable than any national broadsheet. In fact, with all the writs and injunctions preventing disclosures in the press these days (I think 12 so far this year), it's publications like Private Eye where you're much more likely to hear the truth. For an illustration of this, see for example Andrew_Marr#Legal_issues.

So my issue is not about Clare Hollingworth per se, but about Private Eye and why you don't consider it reliable. Wikipedia currently says Thomas has paid back half, The Eye says that two years on he still hasn't stumped up and, furthermore, Hollingworth is applying to get Thomas to be declared bankrupt. Thomas himself spoke to the Eye itself, and there's quite a lot of quotation of his words. Apparently, he replied, "I won't be blackmailed. (...) I can't get a million dollars out of thin air. If they bankrupt me they stil won't get it." Seems pretty conclusive.

Can we discuss why you feel the Eye is not reliable and, if we can reach consensus, maybe you'll allow me to revert back the Hollingsworth edit as I feel that right now the information on Wikipedia is misleading. :-)

Best regards, --Tris2000 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Me again. Ironically, I looked up WP:Reliable and, guess what, Private Eye has been used as a source for that page!! LOL! (I promise, it wasn't me!) I think that if Private Eye can be used by Wikipedia to give weight to a statement on a page on Reliable Sources, then Private Eye must surely then be considered reliable enough to be used as a source on another article? Just a thought. By the way, had a look at your profile, I love Danish cinema and I am hoping to have a filmscript I wrote based in Denmark come out next year - it's currently in pre-production. --Tris2000 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tris2000. Thanks for this pointing out that cite on the reliable sources page -- I hadn't noticed that before -- and, yes, I laughed. How ironic! My initial reaction about Private Eye was that, being a a satire magazine, it shouldn't be used as a reliable source for an encyclopedic BLP. As you are probably aware, we've made a strong push lately to tighten the reins on biographies of living people. Especially in regard to our policies like Be very firm about the use of high quality references, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, avoid sensationalism and decide whether BLP material "is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." In other words, take a very conservative approach.

Considering that it can be a controversial source, I made a snap judgement. But I am willing to reconsider. I realize there are a group of satirical pubs like Private Eye . The Onion, the old Punch which also have some quality investigative journalism -- and can be separated from standard supermarket tabloids like the Star or National Inquirer. But because of their controversial nature, I am just not always 100 percent comfortable using them as encyclopedic sources for BLPs.

As far as the Clare Hollingworth article goes, I remember when I cleaned that up and thinking that bit about the lawsuit wasn't even that relevant. I think it took up a third of the original article -- which was really WP:UNDUE -- so I sliced it down to a minimal statement. If you wish to tidy it up to make it more accurate, please do so. I won't revert it again. Although I would much prefer to see an expansion of her career section rather than this minor news event. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Having written for National Enquirer, I must tell you that the articles are very heavily fact-checked. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: your message on my page

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NWR articles

Thanks for the suggestion - I'll take it into account when I pick it up again today. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. Good luck with the articles. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n images

Since you are somewhat involved with this, I wanted to let you know that this is now at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Wow. I was just this moment starting to delete the first three since they are admittedly and unambiguously Coyright vios. Should I wait while the ANI case ensues? — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the first three are safe to delete. The ones I would keep are the ones that may constitute copyright fraud. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, do you mean "do" or "do not"?  Frank  |  talk  14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching that, Frank. It was most definitely a "do not". — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Treg habalt sempterno yïjk

Thankyou deleting all my subpages, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy housecleaning. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(that header was gibberish, in case you were wondering, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

Ah, good to know. I can stop trying to find the Venusian translator on Google. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Burton

Hullo, are you quite sure this was a hoax article? It seems to be at least partially borne out by the retailer's website. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that Burton Company webpage makes it possible. A search turned up nothing for me. But given the validity of the last bit about Burton Clothes store. It could very well be an advertising ploy like the Lord Sommersby ads. I'll restore it and wait to see if some references turn up. Thanks for notifying me. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for restoring it. I find AfD the safest route when there's room for doubt with these sorts of things. Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

After more checking, I still have found nothing to indicate this moustache style is anything more than a "made-up" history. I'm convinced it is an advertising stunt, so I've listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Burton. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a good edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=River_Islands_at_Lathrop&action=historysubmit&diff=321176826&oldid=321176675 GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For a coherent addition to River Islands at Lathrop, complete with sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I very much appreciate the kind notice. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD Redirect Revert

I had thought that DBZROCKS redirecting an article still under AfD was rather sudden. I see you reverted it; thanks for clarifying in the AfD comments that this should not be done. In the future, I guess I should revert redirects of functioning articles rather than merely commenting. -moritheil^Talk 19:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Moritheil. You would be absolutely correct in reverting the redirect in a case like this where the Afd was still open. Please feel free to take action in the future. It is improper for an editor to act on the discussion before it is closed -- especially when they are involved and there are obvious dissenting opinions. I did not comment about the redirect at the Afd, but I did leave a message on DBZROCKS' user page explaining that he was out of order. If you believe that the 1-day period when the redirect was there has affected the outcome of the Afd, then it would be fine to seek a deletion review. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now left a note at the Afd for the sake of transparency. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I clicked through and read the stream - edit history, talk pages, and AfD - and must have just assumed it was at the AfD. Thanks for making that clear. -moritheil^Talk 04:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help!

Hi, as you have mentioned in my talk page that the image I uploaded will be deleted, could you please help me out? Actually, I haven't really understood what exactly I have to speciy about on the file description page.Please reply. Alisha208 (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Alisha208. I'm sorry but I don't see any way that we can keep a photo like File:Kya mast hai life cropped.jpg. For one thing, the use of non-free content on Wikipedia is severely restricted. Copyrighted photos which are considered replaceable by a free picture -- which is almost always the case with living people -- cannot be considered "fair use". This is because we consider it possible for someone to simply take a new picture with their own camera and upload it to Wikipedia. Please read #12 of examples of unacceptable uses which states: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.

Secondly, the article Kya Mast Hai Life already contains a non-free picture which serves the same purpose as the one that you wish to add. Therefore, there is no good rationale for keeping the second photo and it will need to be deleted. Regards. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for helping me out. But does that mean that the image will be deleted from the article List of Kya Mast Hai Life characters too? I think that that image is needed there, because it does describe the subject of the article. Please do take a look at that page too. Thanks!Alisha208 (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the photo will be eliminated from the list article too. The reasoning is: if a single non-free photo serves the function of identifying the characters in the main article (like File:Kyamasthailife.jpg does), it can also serve that purpose in the list article. A new non-free photo should not be used without a very strong rationale. You can read the guidelines for this at WP:NFLISTS. If you wish to get more input about this from other editors, you can always leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. There are knowledgeable editors there who may be able to give you additional help. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok...I understand...thanks!Alisha (MyTalk) 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Old sock, new socks

Hi. I noticed you were involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Montreux69/Archive, and the same socks there seem to have cropped up again. Rightly or wrongly, the place with the most information now seems to be an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strutt_Family_Trust. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if anything seems familiar to you. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me a little while to recall the case. I had to review it. But you are absolutely correct -- a lovely little sock farm pushing the new hoax articles. I have opened an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, I was a bit rusty on remembering how to go about that. Accounting4Taste and I figured that since neither of us remembered how to do it properly, we'd wait until some more came out of the woodwork, or someone else came along. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a flurry of activity. We'll need to do some salting after this. Good job to you and Accounting4Taste for spotting all of it. Thank you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming along and helping. The whole process has been somewhat educational for the Accounting4Taste and I. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(exdent for convenience) I'll add my thanks to those of Bfigura; my own admin work rarely brings me into contact with sockpuppet investigations and I am hoping to learn how to be more usefully responsive on the rare occasions that I spot them. Thanks for taking a firm and rapid hand. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. The SPI template is kind of confusing -- I have to hit the preview button a lot and then hope the clerks will sort out any mistakes. By the way, as far as the possible reasoning for all this hoaxing effort: the Helen Ann Petrie article was originally created as a history of a great sought-after South African artist and her name was then inserted in various WP articles. It then seemed that someone was trying to sell her paintings on art auction websites. It seems the motive here was to inflate the value of paintings. Your noticing the reference to Helen Ann Petrie was the key here, I believe. Good eyes! — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The good eyes definitely belong to Bfigura, I merely knew something was fishy and followed his lead. But thanks for giving me a sensible reason for all this to have happened; I like things to be logical, and now this is. A financial motivation makes it all much more clear. Will you be tracing back the IP numbers, or is the evidence sufficiently clear that that effort won't be required? Accounting4Taste:talk 21:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the IP traces back to Switzerland which is where the seller of the Helen Anne Petrie paintings (see Sebastian L.S Schwagele) was located. IMO, there is enough evidence to simply block them all, but I would let a SPI regular check through it and decide. Afterwards, I would expect that the Afd will proceed to normally and any mopping up can proceed. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

Happy Halloween from a Moonriddengirl to a very valued colleague.

I am very glad that I stumbled onto your RfA in time to support it, since it lets me feel at least a tiny fraction of responsible for your subsequent work (along with your many other supporters). Your contributions to copyright matters have been tremendously helpful, and I was especially grateful during my surgical downtime to know that it was all in good hands. Thanks. (It will not hurt my feelings if you want to get rid of the shiny Halloween image, though I loved it when I stumbled across it. :D I hope the "card" renders well on your page, because I don't usually make these things for myself.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay!!! Thank you! I didn't even have to pull on my dumb clown costume to get a treat. This is really sweet. And you should feel responsible for my edits -- at least, the good ones. I'm proud to be a Moonriddengirl grad and groupie. Now go get on your broom and have a Happy Halloween! — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet alert

SylvioGreene (talk · contribs) Katr67 (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Katr. I wondered where he would pop up again. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When convenient

And no rush whatsoever, would you mind looking over Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins? I've done a major overhaul to that today (used to look like this), and feedback would be welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mrg. It's looking good. I made a few tweaks to the language in spots where I got a bit confused. The one section I didn't follow was the last part of "handling copyright violations" where it reads:

:Move the salvageable content to the temporary subpage /Temp linked on the copyvio notice or another subpage, being careful to provide proper attribution to the authors of that content in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and follow one of the processes below.

I wanted to add something there, but I'm still not quite sure what you were getting at. Seems to be missing something or "the processes below" is the wrong direction. Other than that, I think the entire piece works great. Thanks for all your work. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, one other thing. I don't know if you want to add a sentence about briefly checking the editor's other contributions for other possible violations (with a link to WP:CCI perhaps). I know it is something that you and I and others always do, so it is part of the process -- on the other hand, I would hate to open up another big can of worms on the page. Keeping it relatively simple would be ideal. Thoughts? — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You made some great changes! Thanks. :)

Thanks for pointing out the unclear directions. Some of that was an artifact of earlier versions of the page, and some of it was my moving stuff around and forgetting to update. :) Does it make more sense now?

Yes, I think that should definitely be added. Great idea. I've done so. Seem okay? Too wormy? :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay... now I understand what that part meant. And the CCI addition is just right. Well done. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

page restore

Hey CactusWriter, how you doing these days? A page you correctly deleted Mitchell Wiggs is the reason I'm here. Unless you have any objections, I'd like to restore the article, and userfy it for the article creator. He claims that he is not "the" Mitchell Wiggs, so indeed the user name is something that will have to be addressed as well. Rather than just "doing" it, I thought I'd prefer to get your input on it first. The article creator is discussing this at: User talk:MitchellWiggs. Do you have any insight on anything here that might be of value to me? Thanks for any feedback. — Ched :  ?  08:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ched. A reread of that article shows the A7 speedy was correct. The bio has no "actual" assertion of notability for this person. Being at the same parties as celebrities or meeting celebrities at an event does not make a person notable. And suggesting he is a notable musician and music producer but has never been on any record label and has no notable music is a clear contradiction. However, I have no problem if you wish to userfy the page to allow the editor to make another attempt at providing any significant references. Thanks for asking for my input. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to let you know that I've taken the situation at Susan Hutchison back to ANI. :) It's at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing.2C_Chimes_in_SF. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi right back at ya. And, sigh -- but some things will never change. I've recommended a lengthy semi-protection at ANI. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WHO updates and Fair Use.

CactusWriter,

I ask that you work with me if at all possible. The baseline of people dying from influenza is 500,000 persons a year. In pandemic years like '57 and '68 that can double to the a million, and these are merely 'average' pandemic years. Now, that doesn't settle the copyright question, but it does lend some weight to the education side! In addition, I don't think WHO has a profit motive in holding press conferences, so we're not interfering with their ability to make a profit.

So, if we can make the case, say the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, 51%, I ask you to be open to the experiment, in fact welcome the experiment precisely because we are trying something new.

You mention substantial portion. The last time I looked at fair use, I was surprised at how much lattitude it gave, it was either 250 or 500 words. But it's not absolute, which makes the whole thing slippery, yeah, it does. I think there's a famous case in which one of news magazines like Atlantic or New Yorker had interviewed President Ford. Someone else republished the excerpt where he was explaining why he pardoned Nixon, and even though the excerpt was under the normal size threshold, a court ruled that it substantially enough interfered with the profit of the magazine. Again, WHO doesn't have a profit motive. It may even be public domain. I'm not going to base it on that. I'm going to look at fair use. And I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to take excerpts from newspapers (probably shorter excerpts). It is dicey, the newspapers, I'll acknowledge that, but I still want to take a look at it.

Cool Nerd (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (also to be posted on my talk page)

PS We can't help everyone likely to be affected by this year's H1N1, but if we do our best intellectual work, we might be able to save several dozen lives. And that possibility should be taken very seriously.

Although I can appreciate your desire to provide accurate timely information, you must understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it is not a news service. Additionally, we must adhere to strict legal guidelines for copyrighted material. The text that you are copying from the WHO website is definitely not Public Domain. Please notice the copyright notice found on the bottom of their website and as explicitly stated here. Our WP:FAIRUSE criteria permits only brief excerpts, properly attributed. Editors cannot create entire articles by copying other people's copyrighted words. It is illegal -- and allowing it can jeopardize the entire Wikipedia project. Therefore, we take copyright violations very seriously -- deleting copyright violations when found and blocking any editor who persists in infringing on copyrights.

Several editors have already explained all of this to you on your talk page. If you wish to add updated text to Wikipedia articles, please write the information in your own words and cite the sources. It is as simple as that. In the time you have taken to write large comments to several editors, you could have written the information into the articles. If you are concerned about adding timely information, I would suggest that you consider contributing to Wikinews, which functions as our online news source. If you have further questions about whether text will pass copyright criteria, please feel free to ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS check

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

• Apologies I was unaware of the public domain status, thanks for putting me right. Regards. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with the editing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Interestingly it has now been SD'd by User:Jimfbleak as a copyvio? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll find out the story right now. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheer stupidity, I'm afraid, I overlooked the fact that the text is USPD, restored now, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Partly my fault. I should have added the PD-GOV on it rather than just the reference. Thanks for the quick restore. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

copyright infringement issue

Hi,a copyright infringement issues has been flagged on the Aberdeen Asset Management page. The entry was added by an employee of Aberdeen Asset management and was taken directly from the Aberdeen Asset management site. Can you please advise this article can be restored. I have removed the entry in question from the article.. Thanks -- 20.56 6 December 2009 (UTC) AberdeenManagement ([[User talk:AberdeenManagement|talk]

Okay. Thank you for deleting the copyright violation text. I have once again removed the CV template. During the past year, that article has had problems with the persistent addition of copyright infringements from numerous new accounts. Because the new accounts have user names associated with the company, these appear to have a conflict-of-interest, which runs counter to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point-of-view. Your own username is problematic as well. Please read WP:ORGNAME for the relevant policy. I see that a note has already been left on your user page advising you how to deal with this. If you have any questions about this, please ask. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Two for closure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 30

Global University Ranking and Global University Ranking, 2009 are both ripe for closure today, and it isn't so clear cut that I want to bang the gavel alone. I have failed to attract more attention to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Global_University_Ranking in spite of publicizing it at WT:C and WT:COPYCLEAN. (The conversation primarily consists of a contributor who says the list is creative and unusable and another who's claiming WP:OTHERSTUFF.) I'm not quite sure what to do with it. We haven't had a good debate about lists in quite some time, and the admin who added the most to the last one has gone inactive. :) Are you able to help out? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm off to have dinner now -- but will take a look right afterward. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Should you look at it and decide that on second thought you want nothing to do with it, I'll understand. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I wanted to walk away from that one. I can understand the confusion. I would have to go with deletion of the large list and reproduce only a Top Ten list under fair use claim. I left some comments at the discussion. Hope I didn't add to the confusion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I saw that you had weighed in, but did not notice you had written me back here. :) Thanks. You didn't add to the confusion at all; as you can see, I did pretty much that. I really prefer straightforward cases, with an occasional backwardscopyvio to make me feel like Sherlock Holmes. It's a good day when I find no listings that leave me going, "Well, um, well...." :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issue for eGovernment in Europe

Hi,

First, thank you for the provided information. Please note that the copyright infringement issue was nowhere near my intentions, and I apologize for it.

Concerning the way forward, and since I definitely want to see the article back online as soon as possible, I intend to move in two directions:

• First, I will ask the ePractice owners to send an email to wikipedia according to the instructions (send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL) so that the copyright issue can be settled properly.
• In parallel, I will remove direct "copy-paste" content from the page and leave only the content that has been generated by me summarising the ePractice factsheets.

Please indicate whether the second option is considered acceptable (as it will result in information missing about many countries), so that the page can come online again. This will also allow the continuation of my work in order to create summaries for the rest of the countries.

Best regards, Rentzepopoulos (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rentzepopoulos. Thanks for replying. I appreciate your willingness to resolve the issues. I will make a note on the CV report that you are seeking permission for use of the copyrighted text. In the meantime, if you wish to reconstruct the page without any of the copyrighted text, that would be fine. Please use this temporary page, Talk:EGovernment in Europe/Temp, which is created specifically for that purpose. You can certainly add in any original text you wrote from the original article (Be careful not to add any copyrighted text -- we can't allow those additions anywhere on Wikipedia. That is one reason that I needed to delete the text at User:rentzepopoulos/eGovernment in Europe) Also, you may wish to read WP:Close paraphrasing which talks about the need to avoid copyright infringement even in summarized text. Your new Temporary article will be checked by an administrator in 7 days -- and, if compliant, will be moved back into the mainspace. Or you can notify me if it is ready earlier. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

Here is a tough call, use your own opinion. Stacia Napierkowska has a few pictures in commons to draw from. Should we use the erotic sepia toned image, even though it is so compressed you can see pixellation in it. The compression is so high that the text cannot be read. Or should we use one of the less erotic but more detailed images from the Library of Congress. I guess the best compromise would be to find a newer version of the erotic one. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the group of photos available at commons, my personal choice would be File:Stacia Napierkowska 001.jpg. It is the finest and clearest reproduction of the group. The File:Stacia Napierkowska.jpg would make a better encyclopedic photo -- I think it is a superior pose and presentation -- if only it is was higher quality. If we could find the original, rescan and restore it, that would be wonderful. User:Durova is a WP expert on old photo restoration. She could provide you with better advice on this. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alma White College

Thanks for your observations. It seems like a total waste of space to keep an article of an insignificant defunct college that faded away after the campus was flooded. Its enrollment was always less than 100--at times when a friend of mine attended it was only 25. Can you give me directions to properly redirect it to Somerset Christian College? Thanks for your kind assistance. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You will find the information you need at Help:Merging. To start the process, you should add the template "Mergeto" to the top of Alma White College, directing the article to a discussion at Talk:Somerset Christian College. Open the discussion at the talk page with your reasons and allow plenty of time for comments by interested editors. You can also place a WP:RFC tag on the page requesting neutral to contribute to the conversation. If you need further help with the process, feel free to ask. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see you have started it up correctly. I have fixed the mark-up on the merge template. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jamil Ghanim

Hi. :) Could use a second set of admin eyes at Jamil Ghanim and at Talk:Jamil Ghanim. I believe the article constitutes an unusable derivative work and, not unusually, its creator does not. He is also quoting the entirety of the source on the talk page in spite of my informing him this is problematic under WP:NFC. Sometimes a second opinion is very helpful in such cases. Have you got time? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As you may note, I've just removed the quotes again. I counted. The article is 382 words. The quotes? 382 words. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was twiddling away with writing something and by the time I pushed save, you were back. The exact word count? Even after the rewording -- that is funny. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, his side-by-side examples. :) He copied the entire article to the talk page--twice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Yeah, that ain't allowed. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VeggietalesPirates.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• DVD cover is now replaced with the theatrical poster, preferred by WP:MOSFILM. I have deleted the upload. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Arab Cowboy is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
• User:Supreme Deliciousness is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
• Asmahan is placed under article probation for six months.
• Any article within the scope of this case, where an extended dispute related to the national or ethnic identity of an individual is occuring may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months.

Uninvolved administrators may perform escalating blocks on editors who do not abide by these remedies.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The results seem fair. I appreciate the Arbcom's work on this. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

Thank you for your kind threat " I want to make it clear that another reversion at List of evangelical Christians will be considered a violation of WP:Edit warring. And will result in you being blocked from editing." It was the other party who reverted my edit, and who instigated the deletion of an article about the person whose name I included. There was diversity of opinion toas the the notability, but the one who reverted my edit has reverted other names as well, and seems to regard himself as the final authority. Again, thank you very much. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I hoped the entirety of my message to you would be taken as a reminder to avoid more edit warring. I left a similar reminder for the other editor -- as I know you are aware since you left a note stating an intention to continue reverting under mine. I do not want to see either of you blocked from editing. Please discuss edits and seek outside opinion before making more reversions. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you took my note as meaning that I would engage in an edit war. "I intend to keep expressing my judgments, which seem to differ from yours. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)" I simply meant that this editor seemed to be trying to intimidate me, and that I would continue to make meaningful contributions. I certainly would never lower myself to get in such a war nor would I intentionally violate Wiki standards. Regards, R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan#Nefer_Tweety_re_adding_copyrighted_material --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that Nefer Tweety has self-reverted their accidental re-introduction of the copyright infringing text. I have left notices about the continuing dispute on Asmahan at the talk page and a cautionary warning to User:Nefer Tweety on their talk page. Supreme Deliciousness, considering that it just took a dozen arbitrators and several weeks to resolve your arbitration case, it would be in Wikipedia's and everyone's best interest if you refrained from editing Asmahan or the related articles. Jumping back in there, making accusations and restarting the old disputes isn't wise. I would strongly suggest you step back from there during your probationary period. Allow other non-involved editors to develop that article during the next months. Thanks and good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cactus.... Supreme Deliciousness is acting up at Asmahan again, bringing back potentially copyrighted text that had been removed. For the sake of peace on WP, please stop this. -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I have filed a ANI case (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Supreme Deliciousness ban violation) concerning Supreme Deliciousness requesting that SD be blocked for ban evasion. Although I am probably still "uninvolved", I do not want any possible question of it to cloud the issue. Therefore I am asking for a review by an uninvolved administrator — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. HAPPY NEW YEAR :) -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A happy new year to you, too. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A second opinion, if you can?

Hi. :) Might I trouble you to take a look at the situation at User talk:Dirk P Broer#Copyright concerns, No. 107 Squadron RAF? The article was originally tagged by CorenSearchBot. I am concerned that revisions may not clear copyright problems and have set out the problematic passages I picked up in the latest version there. I would greatly appreciate a second opinion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No trouble. Let me take a look. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assessment was correct -- the article matched the source so clearly as to be certain derivative. I've left my comments there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Anytime, as always. As you wish. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Asmahan

I replied on my talk page, but the gist of it is that I dont think that my looking at sources provided by SD and deciding on my own what changes are needed (and making those changes) is editing on SDs behalf. I also do not think that the edit to the talk page by SD was a violation of his topic ban, he is only prohibited from making changes to articles, not providing sources on talk pages. nableezy - 16:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A review at ANI affirmed the conclusion that SD is attempting to stretch the boundaries of the ban -- in essence, violating the spirit -- and has violated the sanctions. A brief 12hr block has been given as well as a second admonishment (after mine from last week) for SD to stay away from Asmahan. It is hoped that the brief block will get SD's attention so that edit wars and further sanctions will not occur. I am not questioning any edits which you undertake of your own volition -- the article certainly needs some care and attention from neutral editors after the several months of POV warring. Good luck with it. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cactus, my topic ban and restriction is this: [13] I still have the right to edit the article and post things at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of your ban. In addition, Asmahan is also under special restrictions for you and all editors. You invited me to review the new edit war there and I warned both of you of the restrictions on that particular article. You then asked another editor to proxy for you to make edits about ethnicity -- a violation of your ban. (I know that you are now aware that proxying is improper since you asked Nuclear Warfare about the same problem with Nefer Tweety.) I took no administrative action but asked for an independent review. The administrator who took action reviewed your recent edits and confirmed you violated the sanctions. The arbcom case allows administrators to place further blocks and restrictions on banned editors who violate the spirit of the sanctions.

The results of this latest skirmish between you and others was: you were blocked for 12 hours and again warned not to make any edits which could possibly be construed as violations; Arab Cowboy has now been banned from Asmahan for ban evasion; Nefer Tweety is being questioned about canvassing, and Nableezy has been warned about acting as a proxy. Please take heed of the warnings because I expect any further battles at Asmahan will be dealt with more harshly. Good luck with your editing in the new year. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, do not accuse me of inviting anyone to proxy for me, this is not what I did, I asked another editor (an Egyptian) to take a look at certain issues that I pointed out and then that person could do the edits that he himself feel are appropriate. This is not a violation against anything but only asking for a second opinion. The evidence that you gave to the second admin was false, you told him that I carried out the edit that I asked wizard about, which is false, next time you want to accuse me of anything I have done at Asmahan, take it to A:E so I will have enough time to respond.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about WP:AE -- I certainly hope a "next time" will not be necessary. If you have any problems with my actions, you are welcome to open a case at WP:RFCC. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)