Jump to content

User talk:east718/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please contact me on my talk page.

Archive
Archives

My idea

Well, sort of, yes... it will continue, if you know what I mean, but just like the amount I am spending at this very second. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Victoria Cougars.jpg

On April 11, 2008 User:Kryten2q4b created Victoria Cougars (VIJHL), which made use of Image:Victoria Cougars.jpg. A few hours later you deleted the image with the reason "(CSD I1: Redundant to another image)". Well, where is it? If you're going to tell us that the image is redundant, you should tell us where the better image is found.  Randall Bart   Talk  03:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the correct image and put it back in the article. east.718 at 11:58, June 3, 2008

Email

I've sent you one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. east.718 at 11:58, June 3, 2008

Check your email, please

Please check your email, in regard to a message I sent your way. Many thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm not ignoring you, just been quite busy for the past few days. I'll shoot a response your way shortly. :) east.718 at 11:58, June 3, 2008
Not a problem. I appreciate your time, consideration and input -- and I hope you were busy with good stuff, too! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random observation You know, when I signed up for Wikipedia, I never realized there would be so much drama going on around this site. This is more fun than General Hospital! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I find drama to be synonymous with "community-sanctioned harassment." But I promise you'll be getting that email soon! east.718 at 13:08, June 3, 2008

Hey, if anyone is harassing you, just let me know! I know people who know people who know people who...well, you know. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you for today's input. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Giggy's RFA

Hi East. I've reviewed your switch to oppose. I must say I find this very worrying. In the past DHMO has had his RFA fail over something similar (releasing IRC logs). I've been very close to Giggy since both our early days on WP (he nominated me for adminship twice in fact). I have a lot of time for him. But I agree very much with your assessment that we cannot have admins who may release private information. I get the impression from your oppose that this release was not malicious, but equally not accidental. Maybe "without thinking it through" would be the summary?? I ask, as I respect your opinion a great deal, would this be your interpretation as well? I am trying to minimise the OMG drama that his RFA has already created by approaching you here rather than at the RFA. I'm possibly uncomfortable continuing to support, based on the words in your oppose, as privacy is of great importance to me. Pedro :  Chat  12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pedro, and sorry for restoring this comment, but it deserves a reply. I don't think the release of info was accidental either, and to be honest, I can't even rule out malice. The nitty-gritty of it was that Giggy came up to me out of the clear blue and asked "would you like personal information about [person X whom he was pissed off with at the moment]?" I replied with surprise, at which point he emailed me X's real name, as well as a long thread of correspondence that he had with them. I spoke with him about it a couple days after the fact and am convinced that it was just a stupid action which he didn't think through, but the impression I got was that he doesn't understand why it was wrong either. east.718 at 12:33, June 3, 2008
Hi East - no problems you restoring the comment - I think it will be noted anyhow due to your oppose. I think then, the two issues that are present are 1) The "offer" or "intimation" to release personal information (for whatever reasons) coupled with actual release of private emails between person X and DHMO to you and 2) A lack of understanding, after this event, as to why it was a poor decision to even think about telling you such information. Would that be it in a nutshell? Pedro :  Chat  12:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. :) east.718 at 12:55, June 3, 2008
Okay. Thanks East. I guess the fair thing is to await for a response from DHMO on this issue. Pedro :  Chat  13:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a lot of participants are likely to be significantly influenced by the content of this email. I understand you are constrained by the rules on release of private correspondence but, were DHMO to agree to this, would you be willing to release the content of the email on wiki? WjBscribe 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to ask both Giggy and the third person involved but barring that, sure. east.718 at 16:53, June 3, 2008
I'm a little shocked by the comment too. Whether the RfA closes or not now (and it's looking like it has), I think the community will need some form of answer on this, rather than just leaving it open. It's in Giggy's interests, and others, that this get sorted now. If this is true, well I'm pretty shocked - Alison ❤ 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as a first step, please share your information with trustworthy people, I'd say WjBscribe since he's been watching the RFA carefully. Cenarium (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy has admitted it, see [1]. Cenarium (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sad and disappointed that it had the chips had to fall like this... I spent the past few days agonizing about how to handle this while avoiding an unfortunate situation like the one that just went down and kept drawing a blank... :-( I'm not going to bother Giggy with such emotional drivel now because he's quite obviously distraught and it's probably best that he takes some time alone - but if you're reading this, please get in touch with me soon. east.718 at 23:22, June 3, 2008
Don't feel bad, it's my fault entirely. (Yeah, I am reading this, though I really shouldn't be.) My email is open. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um... Help?

the coding has been completely decimated... Altenhofen (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cascading protection of Barack Obama

Is there a log or forum anywhere indicating a request, rationale and intended length of time for the cascading protection of the Barack Obama? It is impairing the editing of linked templates relating to the presidential articles. A little like an ant colony in amber. Multiple items frozen in time.
I see that the controllng pages are

Thanks, Yellowdesk (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Last night, there was an incident of sneaky vandalism where a malefactor replaced the title of Barack Obama with "NIGGER!!!" by editing a transcluded template; this vandalism wasn't repaired for around six minutes. Being that both Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain are all very high-visibility articles (sometimes receiving over 100,000 visits a day), the date was important (securing of the Democratic ticket and all that), and that we're dealing with biographies of living people (wouldn't want something like this happening again), I decided to protect all the templates used on them for safety's sake. It looks like the articles are under control now, so I've unlocked the templates. east.718 at 16:30, June 4, 2008

Thanks, and thanks for your attentions to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya

Can I get your impression as to whether this section is crufty synthesis? You would think I am offering to kill someone's firstborn by the resistance I am getting in pointing it out - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word of warning first: I'm a Doctor Who layman (I prefer drama) - and as such am probably not qualified to judge any in-universe sources. That said, the rest of the article looks decent; but I read the "continuity" paragraph four times and still can't make heads or tails of it, so I guess the "fancruft" label is an appropriate one. :). east.718 at 17:17, June 4, 2008
Okay. Care to lend a hand? You do not need to be an old salt to spot synthesis and fancruft. I have a lot of the fans in the article discussion crying that they have a consensus for keeping it in while I keep plugging away that it is synthesis by any definition of the word and fancrufty trivia. Halp! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look when I get some time. east.718 at 10:17, June 5, 2008

TFA move protection

Not a big deal, but see the log here. Too much of a good thing, I think. That's been happening with the past few TFAs I think. I'll let the three of you sort this out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It looks like pywiki doesn't prevent this. I do this shortly after Raul schedules, since I do talk page stuff at the same time. Gimmetrow 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, my first daylight savings bug! Gimmetrow - my bot thought all your protections ended a few seconds before 00:00 UTC (instead of a few before 01:00 UTC), so it went "hmmm... I'll need to cover for the last few seconds it'll be unprotected..." and pulled the trigger. A creative application of ... if time.localtime()[-1] is 1 else 0 seems to have squashed this. east.718 at 10:17, June 5, 2008

Giving it another shot

Hey, please disregard that email I sent -- I decided to give WP one last chance. Hope to see you around! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it - one more volunteer is always a benefit. I've found that taking short breaks when I'm not getting any enjoyment out of editing to improve my performance here and hope the same applies to you. :) east.718 at 05:56, June 7, 2008

can you help me fix the image you deleted?

Hello East718, I uploaded the file IbanklogoReg.gif and you deleted it the message is listed below:

"A file with this name was previously uploaded, but has been deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to upload this file. The deletion log for this file name is provided below:

* 07:31, 6 June 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:IBanklogoReg.gif" ‎ (CSD I4: Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days)"

Can you help me fix it so it won't be deleted again?

-Robert roberthamoore@gmail.com

Hi, Robert! The image was originally deleted because you didn't provide its copyright status (terms of reproduction and modification, etc.). However, I see that you've reuploaded it and another user's was kind enough to write a rationale for its usage. That image shouldn't be deleted by anybody again. east.718 at 05:56, June 7, 2008

Clayton Bennett

I saw in the edit history that you deleted Clayton Bennett and then undeleted it a minute later. I'm curious: what was the reasoning behind that? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was information in the history that wasn't appropriate for public access. It'll hopefully be oversighted by tomorrow morning, but the need for removal was urgent. east.718 at 07:36, June 7, 2008
If I may ask, is it some edits that have been made, or something like BLP violations? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was private information regarding a contributor and his family. I wouldn't normally mention this, but the offensive edits have been permanently hidden now. east.718 at 21:06, June 7, 2008

Meh

Someone is creating some traffic on the proxy bot by edting & placing {{blockedproxy}} on them when they are not. Someone playing silly ****? Etc etc - thought I'd mention it - cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems to be a one-off incident with a confused user. Thanks for the heads up. :-) east.718 at 21:06, June 7, 2008

Monterrey at night

I noticed you deleted this image due to "I9: Blatant copyright violation" (on 05 Jun 08) where you were right but the uploader decided to upload the picture again here. -AMAPO (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I wasn't the deleting admin, I can help with this - I've killed off the enwiki copy, and the commons copy should be gone in a couple seconds. east.718 at 02:04, June 12, 2008

Top-posted section

Lb wiki in danger, bureaucrat misuses power to harm wiki by deleting ALL pictures, HELP HELP!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.31.90 (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Stop lb buureaucrat cornichong, he deletes all our pictures, a vandal in nbbureaucrat costume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.31.90 (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WTSB logo.jpg

Please restore this image. It was removed from the infobox on WTSB because of a format change on that radio station. This image should have been moved to the history section.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and sorry for the really long delay (been on a well-deserved break :)). I took a look at the article and see there's already a logo there. The two images aren't exactly the same though, so I restored the first one so you can choose which one's more suitable. east.718 at 01:16, June 12, 2008

IMAGE DELETIONS

Carnildo says you deleted two images from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier that were posted by another WikipediA Administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Earl_Andrew. Is there a hierarchal structure system among Administrators so one can overrule another without discussion?

One image showed the subject of the article wearing the gag "Fear of the Truth" over his mouth as he was beat up and removed from the Visitors Gallery of the Canadian House of Commons on the first day of televised debate in history. That would make it an image associated with history, in Canada at least.

Understanding WikipediA respects copyrite restrictions, the tag applied to the deleted images reads as follows:

Because the image is historically significant, the entire image is needed to identify the subject, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image. Low resolution?

The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable for uses that would compete with any commercial purpose of the photograph. Purpose of use

Identification and critical commentary in the article, a subject of public interest. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed next to the associated material discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Replaceable?

Because the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Other information Use of the historic image in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above. The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopaedic.

It will take some time before the Article is so widely known by the public, there is a 0% probability any newspaper will want to claim copyvio considering the subject.

Will you please undo what you did until there is a free and fair discussion by users? If there is any tag that could be associated to the disputed images to stimulate discussion, do that. The Editors of the Ottawa Citizen have been aware of its images on the Article since they were posted by Earl Andrew.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You should probably address this to User:East718, as he's the one who deleted the images. My bot merely removed them from the article. --Carnildo (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't understand the difference. His name is nowhere to be seen in the History. Would you clarify, Please?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Administrator who started the article and posted the images with the tag he deemed appropriate is away and cannot undo what you did. Did you consult him before deleting? If not, will you please restore his work until his return?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I deleted both images because they were extremely high resolution scans of newspaper articles; this constitutes a copyright violation. If you want to use them as sources, you can just cite the author and title and it'll be fine. east.718 at 01:16, June 12, 2008
  • The deleted newspaper image 'Expelled_1' from the House of Commons came from an earlier report when the subject of the article was fighting this Court ordered gag: "not to attend on The Sparks Street Mall, or any other Street in the City of Ottawa, for the purpose of speaking or shouting" by peaceful means. Cormier claims on returning from Montreal where he sought advice on strategy, he returned to The Sparks Street Mall wearing a fancy sandwich board and gag. Immediately he was surrounded by crowds 10 deep all around him with cameras taking pictures. The police told him to move on, but the crowds remained like that all day as he moved along slowly. Of all the people with cameras, he didn't know which one was from the newspaper.

Most casual observers wouldn't even notice this in the image, but in a fraction of a second, as the world turned, in the darkness of shadow of the Sun off his nose, started the words ""Fear of the Truth", but in the light the gag read "Ear The Truth"

The source was cited in the tag accompanying the faded 31 year old image, which isn't in the archives of the paper any longer, and also in the Reference section #5. What can be done now? Thanks for answering. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be citing this in the article properly shortly; if I can't figure out where to put it, I'll throw it on the talkpage. east.718 at 20:17, June 14, 2008
  • Thanks East718, but the deleted images are already mentioned as References 5 & 6 in the main article. There was no author, it was just a news story from the paper. I was hoping, now that you know the unusual story of the image, you might re-post it with the tag the Wiki Administrator used when he placed it in the article the first time. If it is deleted from the site, it could be re-loaded. I can just see the headline of Ottawa's competitive newspaper, 'Ottawa Citizen sues Prophet of God over copywrite'. Think about it. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, restoring those images isn't possible. The benchmark for our copyright policies isn't dependent on the price of the item in question or the probability that we'll get sued, it's whether it is completely free to use, redistribute and modify, while not maintaining the chain of copyright. Hosting such a high-resolution scan is akin to freely redistributing the article, which constitues a copyright violation. I can understand your concern about the article not being archived by the newspaper any more, but I was able to find it very fast in a pay-per-view database. As long as the article existed at one point, you should be fine with respect to sourcing. :) east.718 at 22:47, June 14, 2008

  • Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to check this out. I'll have to try to get written permission from the Ottawa Citizen to use them. Since you saw the image, did you notice how the sun's shadow divided the wording on the gag?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Notification regarding my recall criteria

Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked and amazed that anybody would think I represent a good cross-section of the community and place trust in me. east.718 at 20:47, June 12, 2008

VigilancePrime

This user has requested an unblock for his alternate account at HyperVigilancePrime. The user professes ignorance as to the reasoning behind the block, and would like more detail. As I am unfamiliar with the situation, and you were the admin who blocked the alt account of HyperVigilancePrime, I thought I'd ping you as one of the original blocking admins. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. In line with our long-standing rules wrt pedophile activists, this block may be appealed only to ArbCom; however, I have the faintest suspicion that they'd reject it. :] east.718 at 20:47, June 12, 2008

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 707th Special Mission Unit (specifically an image). When removing an image, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Perhaps your edit was justified, but you did not provide an appropriate reason. Your reason was "CSD I6: No justification given for fair use for more than seven days)" The image is not copyrighted, and with the few images on Wikipedia already because of copyright restraints, we do NOT need more images taken down for the wrong reasons. The image should be brought back. If you feel that you have been wronged, feel fry to discuss this on my talk page. Thank you. Neil the Cellist (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Neil the Cellist (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, don't you think a templated "welcome to wikipedia..." warning is a bit patronizing when directed towards anybody who's properly encultured? Anyway, the image is most definitely not copyright-free and was missing a fair use defense; additionally, it can be replaced with a free image and as such would be unsuitable even if a defense existed. I poked around for a free image but was unable to find any, perhaps you can find some success by requesting permission to reuse one? east.718 at 20:47, June 12, 2008

Hey

Very. Smart. Move. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A compliment is a far departure from what this page usually sees. :)

Deletion of Image:Bloc Party - Helicopter.ogg

Hello. You or a bot has deleted a sample file: Image:Bloc Party - Helicopter.ogg. User:LAz17 deleted the infobox from the article Helicopter (song) after some louzy edits. Could you restore the file? Thanks!--ometzit<col> (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image and placed it back in the article. east.718 at 20:17, June 14, 2008

why

the hell you keep deleting Fedors inside mma nomination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eijole (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's wrong? (Inside MMA's ranking page currently lists Anderson Silva as the #1 mixed martial artist.) Also, it's just a dime a dozen show and doesn't have the established notability of outfits such as ESPN or Sherdog. On a side note, why are you repeatedly reintroducing spelling and formatting errors back into the article? east.718 at 22:27, June 15, 2008
If I may, what Eijole is talking about is Inside MMA's list of top fighters of _all time_. They compared dominane, inpact on the sport etc to compile a list of the best fighters of all time. In it you have people like Royce Gracie etc not because he's the best today but because of what he did back in the day. Fedor was nr 1 widh Randy Couture the runner-up  :) aktsu (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha (and see below). Thanks for that formatting fix you did after one of my edits, by the way. :) east.718 at 06:05, June 16, 2008

Dont edit if you dont know what is true and what is not. They revealed 1 person per episode from that list and the list were voted by many sport reporters and MMA persons. It is as valid as it can be. -eijole

Whoa, chill out there. I went through the back episodes and you're right - he is listed as the top of their all time top ten list. I've incorporated this into the lede a little better and added a citation. east.718 at 06:05, June 16, 2008

ok, cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eijole (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Ralek Gracie

Hi, can you help me with all the copyright-technicalities when uploading an image. I'm trying to find one for Ralek Gracie and I found one on flickr [2]. It says it's under the CC-Share-Alike-license which should allow me "to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work". Anyway I cropped Ralek from it and uploaded [3] it. Does everything look alright to you? Since i cropped it, does it make it my work as I'm allowed "to Remix — to adapt the work" as long as I release it under the same license? Anything I've missed? Thanks in advance! aktsu (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while we're talking images - what should you do when someone uploads images of living people obviously found by a simple google search and uploaded? Will it be taken care of pretty much automatically or is there something one should do when spotting it? aktsu (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ralek photo looks great, nice find! Regarding Creative Commons, any license is OK as long as it doesn't have the "NC" (noncommercial) or "ND" (no derivatives permitted) clause. Commons has a pretty handy chart here. On the second question, if you find an obvious copyright violation, you can just tag the image page with {{db-copyvio}} and an administrator will shortly delete it. east.718 at 16:21, June 16, 2008

Hi, I saw you deleted the image and was wondering why? You wrote (CV - esther lin, proelite.com), CV as in Copyright Violation? On her flickr profile it says "FEEL FREE TO POST MY PICS TO BLOGS AND FORUMS BUT PLEASE GIVE PHOTO CREDIT or LEAVE WATERMARK ON PICTURE", that plus that it was under the CC Noncommercial-Share Alike license gave me the impression that is was okay (?) :) aktsu (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noncommercial media isn't allowed, and hasn't been for over three years now. :( I'll look around for a replacement image. east.718 at 00:56, July 2, 2008
Yeah, I was just about to post that I read what you wrote the first time again and noticed the part about as long as it doesn't have the "NC" (noncommercial) or "ND" (no derivatives permitted) clause. Too bad I didn't read it properly the first time :P Thanks for clearing it up! aktsu (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found nothing on Flickr, DVIDS, or the various military portals. I'll send an email to the Gracie Torrance academy tomorrow asking them to donate a picture to OTRS. east.718 at 01:02, July 2, 2008

WRESTLING

Your a Wrestling fan???? Altenhofen (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer real combat sports, both as a fan and competitor. east.718 at 05:36, June 17, 2008

Tiger Woods

Is User:East718/PTT a proper way to "protect" the Tiger Woods article? I haven't seen this technique before, and I see no reason for the special treatment. E.g. Template:Laureus World Sportsman of the Year is transcluded in exactly four articles, yet cannot be edited. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do it all the time when an article is extremely high-profile (receiving more than 500,000 visits a day). The number of viewers has dropped off since yesterday, so I just got rid of the protection. If you need to edit one of these protected templates, just use {{sudo}} on its talkpage and an admin will get to you shortly. east.718 at 22:42, June 17, 2008

718 Bot (talk · contribs) failure?

Your bot removed the {{non-free reduced}} tag from Image:South Park Blizzard executives.jpg, without the previous version image having been deleted. I reverted the removal, but before I could blink, the bot re-removed the tag. The previous version of the image still shows to me, so is that a problem with me, or the bot? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just running the bot while doing the deletes manually and it crashed after it hit the South Park image for the first time... so I started it up again, only to have it revert you. :| The only malfunction here was me manually doing things in the wrong order. east.718 at 22:42, June 17, 2008

Permission Granted

East718, Macleans Magazine sent an e-mail giving permission to post the copyright script in the People section of the magazine, but not the cover because they don't own that outright. I have been going in circles trying to figure out how to post the thumbnail to the article with the right tag. This is Reference 11 in the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier Would you please tell me how to do this? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please forward your correspondence with Macleans to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Another volunteer will then help you out with the subtleties. east.718 at 23:37, June 17, 2008
  • The information has been send to permissions. It is up to them to post the image with the right tag?

If not, would you please list the step by step procedure to mount the thumbnail to the article? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A volunteer from OTRS will get back to you with assistance and instructions on what to do. Please be patient, as a limited number of volunteers answer the Wikimedia Foundation's mail and there may be a delay while they process your request. east.718 at 19:52, June 20, 2008
  • Sorry. Thanks

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Janet Sanders" Article

It says her page was deleted. Why? And how can I get it back? I'm wanting to know more about her. All I can find is stuff through the Biography Channel and sites that say she's Steven Spielberg's God-daughter- and who she's dated. Stuff like that. Is there any way I can get the text or something from the article that was deleted? Calidude1289 (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted this article; please discuss anything concerning it with Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs). east.718 at 02:32, June 19, 2008

19:56, 15 February 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Janet sanders" ‎ (CSD R1: Redirect to nonexistent page) That's what the edit box for the article said. It didn't say anything about Gogo Dodo. I don't know how to talk to "Gogo Dodo". Calidude1289 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you deleted my uploads

Without notifying me you were doing so? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my mass deletion bot doesn't have a speech module yet. :) Seriously though, those are bog-standard deletions of unused nonfree images, and you were notified of the impending deletions here. If you need any of them for another week, I'll be happy to restore them. east.718 at 02:32, June 19, 2008

"Removing tag; PNG conversion would be inefficient"

Hello, East718. I've noticed that 718 Bot has been removing the {{ShouldBePNG}} tag from some images lately, such as Image:100th year logo.jpg, with the explanation "Removing tag; PNG conversion would be inefficient". I am not sure exactly what criteria are used to make this decision, but the explanation leads me to believe that the bot is converting the JPEG image directly to a PNG and discovering that the resulting PNG has a larger file size. This situation should not be surprising; JPEG compression results in the introduction of compression artifacts in the image, and these artifacts are preserved if the JPEG is converted to a PNG, which results in poor PNG compression performance. The {{ShouldBePNG}} tag is most certainly not requesting that the JPEG be converted to a PNG; it is requesting a PNG substitute for the image, one which has never gone through the process of JPEG compression. A clean, never-JPEG-compressed version of Image:100th year logo.jpg would almost certainly result in a PNG with a much smaller file size than the existing JPEG (and no compression artifacts); but there will be no improvement in either image quality or file size if the JPEG itself is simply converted to a PNG.

If 718 Bot is removing the {{ShouldBePNG}} tag from JPEG images based solely on the fact that converting the JPEG to a PNG results in a PNG which is larger than the original JPEG, then this is faulty reasoning, and I would appreciate it if you would correct this behavior. —Bkell (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct template for such images is {{artifacts}}, but I've temporarily halted this part of the bot anyway. Please keep in mind that it was approved to do just this... could you please bring up your objections at WT:BAG or another appropriate venue so that the community can decide what to do? east.718 at 08:07, June 19, 2008
The {{artifacts}} tag seems to be meant only for images which are GIFs, PNGs, or another lossless format which shouldn't have compression artifacts at all. Every JPEG image has compression artifacts; that's an inseparable part of JPEG compression. It doesn't make sense to put the {{artifacts}} tag on a JPEG. —Bkell (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the BAG discussion where 718 Bot was approved for this task? I'd like to look over what was said. —Bkell (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/718 Bot 2, wherein 718 Bot was approved to attempt to convert JPEGs to PNGs, which is fine, but I don't see any discussion about 718 Bot removing {{ShouldBePNG}} tags if direct conversion was not an improvement size-wise. —Bkell (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see your point now regarding the subtleties of {{ShouldBePNG}} and {{artifacts}}. I've now permanently delisted this behavior for that template. east.718 at 08:17, June 19, 2008

Heads up

Hi there--wanted to call your attention to this edit by your image bot. I glanced at some of its other edits, and this seems to be an isolated incident, but you'll obviously know better what might have happened. I didn't shut off the bot. Dppowell (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the logs reveal no problems encountered internally or with my Internet connection, and I just ran the bot in sandbox mode with the exact same input 1,000 times and got the correct output every time. Since I can't find an error in the code and the problem isn't reproducible with the same data, I guess we'll just have to chalk this up as a one-time freak occurence. east.718 at 18:53, June 19, 2008

Tag removal

Seeing some cases where the {{ShouldBePNG}} tag is not being removed from images that have been converted to PNG. An example is Image:CelaneseLogo.png, there are others. Just a heads-up - Kelly hi! 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the original (Image:CelaneseLogo.gif) got double-tagged with {{PNG version available}} for some reason. Kelly hi! 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. That one can be explained by human stupidity: the malfunction occured because while that image was being processed, I committed a change to the bot. (:o) If you find anything else like that, it would indeed be a Bad Thing, and I'd appreciate a heads-up. east.718 at 21:54, June 19, 2008

Sorry to do this but

Image deletion warning Image:718smiley.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

ViperSnake151 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Is 718 Bot making its PNGs with transparent backgrounds? Kelly hi! 05:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best believe it is. :) east.718 at 05:29, June 20, 2008
Cool, thanks. Seems to be working like gangbusters so far. Kelly hi! 05:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Air China star logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Air China star logo.png. 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) 06:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Amps evolv.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amps evolv.png. 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) 06:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AmtrakLogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:AmtrakLogo.png. 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) 06:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Attyahoologo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Attyahoologo.png. 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) 06:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gwaii Haanas Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gwaii Haanas Logo.png. 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) 06:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iberialogo2.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Iberialogo2.png. 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) 06:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iphony Launcher.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Iphony Launcher.png. 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) 06:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pactelephone.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pactelephone.png. 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) 06:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:10-5a logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:10-5a logo.png. 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) 06:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CPSU logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:CPSU logo.png. 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) 06:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cwik.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cwik.png. 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) 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

only curious

What happened? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was tabbing through the history looking for the little → link to a specific thread, and hit Enter a bit too late. It's only a venial sin though compared to my more serious offense of reading the godforsaken board in the first place. :) east.718 at 06:44, June 21, 2008
Haha! Speaking of which, have a look at this. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a two out of ten. Check back for a progress report when you acquire some accusations of admin abuse, ageism, bullying, at least four notices about threads on AN/I dedicated to you, and a discussion involving twelve or more editors of which only two are making useful comments. east.718 at 07:01, June 21, 2008
:) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agnistus Note

Please see this. Yours sincerely, Agnistus (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey East718, thanks for the "Rach-block". Since I switched to an account my old IP-self forget he has more admin friends other than Scarian, Wiki alf and Bubba :D As I have said many many times in the past... Have a nice day! Libsy Libs (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to all that stuff about the "purity of anonymous editing"... I think it's time for Santa to take Libs off his good list. ;) east.718 at 00:17, June 24, 2008
I know I know. But the evil Tiger Shark sh*t on my IP purity when he blocked my pristine static IP address for 24 hours for breaking 3RR. That would have been fine except he 3RR blocked the IP for editing an article ONCE three days previous to the block and that one and only edit was a vandal rv????? He said he would apologise and make amends for his f*ck up but he never did. No apologies nor did he wipe the history of the block log of my formerly perfect static IP. Tarnished it forever and never had the balls to admit any error even though several people pointed his screw up out to him many times. 50000 IP edits without nary a warning shot down the toilet by one admin f*ckup. I actually quit Wikipedia on the spot over the sh*tty handling of the situation. At least an apology would've been semi-decent of him. Long ago I had created this persona strictly for email purposes and had no intention of using it. But after being bombed with emails begging me to return to the project I decided to klan up with the accounts and use this login on a part-time basis only. If Tiger Shark had fessed to his stupid mistake and apologised and erased my IP block log history I would still be using that IP every day. I am still pissed about the whole situation. (if you couldn't tell already :D ) But I did appreciate all the emails that rolled in from different people pleading me to return. I used to average several hundred edits per day. Now I might do 2 or 3. I just don't have the interest anymore after one the mishandlings of one careless admin. Thanks again for looking into my ANI post. I usually don't bother with ANI because too many things slip through the cracks over there. You redeemed by faith in the process a little. :D Have a nice day! Libs (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS If you want to redeem my faith in Wikipedia a little more.... The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs) was blocked last evening for 3RR violation on the Amon Amarth article. His block is over and he has returned. GUESS WHAT (surprise surprise) he reverted the article again even though it got him blocked in the first place. That puts him at 6RR by my count. Can you do me a favour and help him to understand what 3RR means. He is a veteran editor. He just needs a 'sledgehammer' remonder of what the 3RR policy is. Thanks and have a nice day. Libs (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first thing, admins can't remove logs of any kind. Oversights can't even do that (yet); only a developer with shell access can, and they're generally unwilling to except on orders from the Foundation. That said, if you want I can throw in an empty block saying that the community has found the previous sanction to be unfounded (provided I can dig up such a discussion). For that other thing, I'll take a look; edit warriors have a special place in my heart. east.718 at 20:55, June 24, 2008

Bot

Your bot missed the first letter on some of Burrburr's usernames (User:Omonim instead of User:Homonim, Oondigger rather than Boondigger, etc.). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, that was embarrassing. :| east.718 at 20:55, June 24, 2008

Article under attack

East 718

Being new to Wikipedia, I have no friends or allies yet. By the tags attached to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier is under attack. Hopefully you will weigh in with an opinion on these images an Administrator deleted within minutes of seeing the article. They were originally posted by another Administrator with the tag he deemed appropriate, and who created the article. He has not been available for some time. When two Administrators have a diametrically opposed POV, then consensus is built by other users offering an opinion. Unfortunately no one reading the article can see the images to offer an opinion. The Administrator who placed the tags and deleted them wrote they made Cormier look too good and were not neutral. A dispute tag is attached to both images so every opinion in the Discussion counts. Should they be restored or deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg

You might be interested to see this image I would like to see posted to the Article having permission from Maclean's Magazine to do so. Permissions has not replied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg

I don't know how to restore the images to the article so a reader might offer an opinion, and any help you or another can provide will be appreciated. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Cormier - I'll take a look at this issue in a couple minutes. east.718 at 20:55, June 24, 2008
Image:MacLean's.jpg was originally tagged for impending deletion, which I've rescued. I think that the usage of Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.jpg is defensible in a section about your arrest, however, Image:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg isn't appropriate as the image in the lede, and should probably be deleted. For a lede image, do you have any personal photographs of yourself which you hold the copyright to that you'd be willing to donate? east.718 at 21:08, June 24, 2008
  • Thank you so much re Maclean's. Now if I only knew how to post it to the article. The Administrator who originally posted the two disputed images with the tag he thought appropriate has been away for some time now and I have been relying on him. The image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg did have the proper tag reading in part, "It is disputed whether or not this image violates our non-free content criteria..." but someone else edited the image and removed it. As a novice to the site I am somewhat confused when one Administrator can undo another Administrator's work. I was believing then, it was up to other users to post an opinion on the matter to develop a consensus. How can they do that if they don't know the images exist? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to defend the use of the images, you can do so either on the image's talk page or on the article's talk page. (Also, the image of you standing alone with a police officer needs to be included in an article, or it will be deleted; you can post it by typing [[Image:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A suitable caption can go here...]] in a relevant location.) Regarding administrators, I think you have a few misconceptions regarding our role: we're not "super users" or "site operators", just regular editors who have been trusted with a few extra tools to help out when necessary. An oft-repeated and particularly apt analogy is that we're just the "janitors" around here, cleaning up the various messes that tend to get created over time. east.718 at 23:53, June 25, 2008
  • Thank you for this information. It may be moot right now. I'm very disappointed to see the article totally destroyed, on the edge of vandalism, but I'm no stranger to disappointment. I had hoped to be able to complete it and then find someone to help me to perfect it so it would read encyclopedic. The interaction with Prime Minister Trudeau concurrent to the 3 Popes in 1878 was factual and prophetic, not fantasy as one editor wrote. I have copies obtained under the Access to Information Act of RCMP reports confirming the substance of those facts. How could they be posted as references or citations? Those incidents could have been re-worded rather than deleted. The Declaration on Remembrance Day 1985, in the presence of the Governor-General of Canada, Government Leaders, the Military, Ambassadors of the Nations and 25,000 people was Publicly declared and prophetic: "Hear O people and Nations, even to the ends of the Earth, the Word of the Lord God who is, and was, and is to come, The Almighty. The Lord has a controversy with the people. Do you do well to honour the dead, and yet, deny the God of the Living? Why do you follow the vain traditions of men, and make of no effect, the principles of God? You come here for one hour one day a year in a great show of public patriotism, and then forgetting, go back to work and make the same careless mistakes made by the generations prior to the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Hitler was killed, but it's his legacy that remains. A Soviet-American military-industrial complex consuming $trillions of dollars every year, holding the entire World hostage............"

"Hostage" was the last word he said perched on a bus shelter roof, as police got up and grabbed his megaphone. He was arrested for shouting, causing a disturbance, convicted and fined $250. He appealed without a lawyer to the Supreme Court of Canada.[16][17][18] is exactly factual, prophetic and important, referenced and in Court documents. The world is in fact being held hostage to the War on terrorism subsequent to the prophecy. What further verification is required? Since I discovered the article April 19, approximately 2500 views were registered to the page from an average of 60 views a month for the two years previous. According to Wikipedia because they did not object is considered consent to the way it read. This paragraph from the article is significantly important and prophetic. "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. There was an off site link so a user could read directly 19:11 and 9/11 from Revelation themselves. Even the references were deleted. This is certainly controversial, and some people can not and will not accept the facts. This could have been edited to be more encyclopedic in style rather than deleted. I am a newbie, and the editors are respected members and Administrators of the Wikipedia community. Do I have any options left? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article was that it was written utilizing "peacock terms"; although a radical cut in the content seems to be a bit extreme, it's for the better: other volunteers will eventually build the article back up, paying closer attention to content policies such as the neutral point of view. Unfortunately, I've been quite busy as of late and can't really make the time to participate in this process; I am however entirely willing to continue helping you out here. With regards to the RCMP reports, you can just email them to me and I'll see what I can do (my address is my username@gmail.com). If the facts that you've stated above are supported by references, it's no big deal to put them back in. east.718 at 04:13, June 27, 2008
  • Thank you so very much for restoring a little hope for help. It's not that I disagree with the several editor/administrators who spent so much time these past days decimating the article. The adm. who created the article has been quite busy as well with other priorities. When he started it, he did not know of the prophet aspect. It is unlikely anyone has the time and devotion, other than myself, to work and edit the article to conform to Wiki standards so the information can be viewed. Although an advanced user might go to history to see what was changed, in all probability most viewers won't even go to Discussion now that the article itself may be enclyopedic, but it's dull with no information enabling a reader to grasp the history and total context. This is precisely why I think placing the removed information in the article Discussion will expose the information to other editors and viewers who may clear up peacock terms and possibly convert the information to Wiki language without changing the basic facts. I believe the language is explicit in WP: TALK: Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article. The Adm. who started the intense scrutiny of the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_J._Leivick, does not agree and has undone the posting several times, just falling short of an edit war. My POV is it conforms completely with the spirit of the matter. Do you have an opinion on this? Not having a scanner myself, I will have the RCMP records scanned, uploaded and sent to you. There is no doubt the information is controversial and many would consider it to be extreme and definitely on the fringe of mainstream society. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • East, you have no idea how happy you made me with your last entry. You have restored my hope. I was ready to give up the fight again. If you noticed in the article for the last 32 years I have gone public and succeeded getting a public record of my activities every time and then withdrawing from public view. Knowing people really don't care, are not interested, and oblivious to what's going on in the world, I would enter a period like Jonah in the whale, withdrawing from even trying. I was in that period for quite a while when I discovered the article April 19 that existed for over two years. It was a clear signal calling me back to active duty. The opposition I encountered here is training for what I will have to face in the future. I cannot divorce myself from my history knowing it has been an unusual experience when compared to the mainstream.

I having have been attempting to get permission to post supporting information to the article. This is a moot point now since the two editors primarily responsible for removing everything congratulated themselves for their great work. I got permission from MacLean's to print what they wrote on me in 1981 and that's an orphaned image now because the reference is removed. The trip made national attention. I am particularly surprised to see they left this in, "In 1986, to complete his Canada-wide mission, he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[7][8][9][10] By itself it makes no sense without this: In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. That year he was shocked to learn of the development and deployment of the neutron bomb by the good guys in world evolution. He considers the concept of the device to be demonic and anti-human, exposing the power that brought it into existence for what it is. The nuclear device does not explode a fiery blast to destroy the loot, but unleashes enhanced dirty radiation so that the people die a slow, tortuous death. That has come home to roost with the fears these days of terrorists building a crude dirty bomb.[7][8][9][ and removed the references so I can't post the Maclean's piece. I haven't come to any definitive conclusion yet, but from my POV, every attempt was made to suppress any information that the prophet is ordained, not self proclaimed. They could have removed the more controversial part of the sentence but kept mention of the trip and references. Notice how I have been advocating change long before McCain and Obama, but at least it's now at the top of the agenda. They even removed that statement that used to be in the politics section, They also removed the commonly know fact and statement Government corruption became the issue in the following elections and Canada has had minority government under both Liberals and Conservatives since then. The need for Change is now at the top of the agenda. He received 91 votes. Discussion: ' 97 Election Campaign literature It's taken 11 years, and I'm happy to see it at the top of the agenda, more so than the mainstream population. Seeing it gives me hope.

Please read this discussion carefully on the page of the other Administrator who took part in the decimation rightly or wrongly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ground_Zero#19:11_.26_9.2F11 These are facts even if I can't verify them for now. One man against the system these days can certainly be compared to the contest between David and Goliath. The Star of David is very interesting if you really look at it. I was surprised to discover the plaque of the architect who designed the Canadian House of Commons near the Library is that Star. It is so simple in symbolism. It depicts two pyramids with one inverted. If humanity adhered to God's principles and build accordingly, we would have a stable system like the upright pyramid. Doing it by the global Babylonian system these 3600 years, our infrastructure is the inverse pyramid, and when it topples, will the masses be prepared? I have always believed, like in the Bible story of Jonah, the people will change if they really understood what was at stake. When I discovered the article, I thought God finally opened a way for the information to be made public and stimulate discussion. This door has effectively been closed. From my POV it's the continuation of the spirit of the letter in my probation of 1977. It is not God who will destroy the system. We don't need his help doing a good job of it ourselves. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy to report the removal of images that started this dispute has reached consensus and the images are restored to the article. They were posted without captions and I added the description 'Police threaten Cormier with arrest for speaking' which is the actual reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg. One of the Administrators involved in the ongoing dispute changed that to 'Cormier and a police officer'. Any dummie can see that. Shouldn't an encyclopedia, being higher brow, be more in line with the reality?

On this image the caption read, 'People unhappy with police' I think the image verifies the reality. It was changed to, 'Cormier being arrested' which isn't even the reality. A week earlier I spent 5 days in maximum security and I didn't want to spend another weekend there, so I agreed to stop speaking. I was telling the people what happened in the police car, saying, "I'll be back!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg The image was even reduced in size from the original posting so a viewer cannot examine each face in detail, posting this misleading statement No higher resolution available. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about content are better suited to the article's talkpage, rather than mine. I'll show up there soon, time and busyness permitting. east.718 at 05:06, June 30, 2008
  • I have recused myself from editing the article. Where else can I reach out for help or at least other opinions? The last entry on the article talk by one of the group that decimated it wrote: "These images seem posed. I'd like their captions to be as generic as possible." Kingturtle (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC) This is my response on his talk: "That's some POV you have. Do you really think the Ottawa Police co-operated and posed for them with the crowd of people? Are the images that good? It there a possibility all the information you and your allies edited from the article was not seen from a completely NPOV?"

From my POV the mainstream is the mainstream because they do not challenge authority, wanting to live in their only little secure part of this world undisturbed, not taking a stand or having an opinion on anything controversial . Paraphrasing the words of Christ in Matthew 13 he says, These people having eyes, will not see; and having ears, will not hear, so they will understand in their heart, and be converted and healed. He goes even further in Revelation 3 saying, I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would prefer you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue you out of my mouth. Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and don't know that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked... He's talking to those Christians who say they believe in him. These are the words that came before Billy Graham's edited speech at his San Diego crusade referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ground_Zero#19:11_.26_9.2F11. I don't know how it could be cited or referenced, but I think Billy Graham was acknowledged as the undisputed leader of America's version of Christianity. With leadership that misread the scriptures like that, it's possible the US could find itself in very deep doodoo which it is these days. I shudder to imagine what it will be like when the inverse pyramid does topple with so many loose guns around. I see it coming in the near time. Previously the article reported the time I worked for the Foundation Company of Canada on the Distant Early Warning Line. This was removed along with favorite Bible verses selected to give a broad overview. One verse read: A man devises his ways, but the Lord directs his steps. I've wondered if I was directed to work that job only to be able to say in the article, " The foundation is laid, but the warning line is no longer distant and it's getting late." I'm trying for a soft landing not a hard crash. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AkonIWannaLoveYou.jpg

Hi East, do you have any objections if I undelete this? It looks like it was orphaned because someone messed with the filename on the I Wanna Love You article here. That edit has been corrected, and the image appears to be legitimate otherwise. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed up, thanks for the heads-up. east.718 at 23:53, June 25, 2008

Questionable edit of yours I cannot revert

This edit could be seen as defamatory, and if the user is successful in reversing this indef block, the longer this message remains on the page, the more tainted the username becomes. I urge you to reword this message. Best, Jeffpw (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block log is permanent, though... giggy (:O) 11:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, though I think they can revised to reflect a change of circumstances (the unblock explanation, off the top of my head, though there may be other options). In any event, not many people check a block log as happen upon a talk page. Why not just use the same language on the talk page as was used on the user page? that was neutral,and gave the same necessary information. This is just pouring salt on a wound. Jeffpw (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that all discussion about this has already been swept under the rug and referred to ArbCom. Regarding the talkpage notice, I feel that it's an impartial representation of the block log, which is by contrast indelible. east.718 at 05:06, June 30, 2008

Image:Kastoria1.jpg

Hello, can you please copy and paste here the history log of Image:Kastoria1.jpg deleted by you on 04:31, 26 March 2008. I am concerned, because you deleted it for reason of Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days while this same image several months before this on 18:08, 28 October 2007 was transferred from EN WP to BG WP under GFDL with attribution to User:Makedonas, and the transfer was made by one very respected user of my community who is well aware of licenses and such stuff. I am worried, what has happened in the meanwhile between October 2007 and March 2008. Please, answer to me here, I watch your talk. Thank you in advance. →Spiritia 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded on February 8, 2006 by Makedonas (talk · contribs), who placed nothing but {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} on the description page (now {{PD-release}}). The image itself is quite obviously a postcard and a rather transparent copyright violation. Hope this helps! east.718 at 05:06, June 30, 2008

718 Bot adding {{artifacts}} tag

Hi, I've been removing compression artifacts from Category:Images_in_lossless_format_with_lossy_compression_artifacts. I've noticed that some of the images that have been tagged with {{artifacts}} don't actually have any artifacts. For example, this image:

Image:Loehmanns logo.png

had no artifacts as a GIF image, and so has no artifacts as a PNG.

Does your Bot automatically add the {{artifacts}} tag? If so, is there anyway to validate the presence of artifacts before it adds the tag?

Iain (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot will only add an {{artifacts}} tag if a human originally marked the image with {{badJPEG}} or {{ShouldBePNG}}. In this specific case, the image should have been tagged with {{badGIF}} because of the lack of artifacting, and the human error fell through. east.718 at 05:06, June 30, 2008

MediaWiki:Sysop.js

Someone ordered fish? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the go with this? The new regexps seem to be throwing false positives (see WP:AN/I#Curious message on block page, specifically try testing with 100.100.100.100). bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll get on fixing this right away. east.718 at 10:15, June 30, 2008
/me trouts you. :D I've always wanted to do that :P weburiedoursecretsinthepark 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
As requested on ANI :D Have fun mate. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please undelete Image:Gorontalo symbol.jpg?

It is fair use legalized by Template:PD-IDGov and I thought it was better than Image:Gorontalo logo.gif. :)--Thecurran (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image and tagged it properly, use it as you feel! east.718 at 11:46, June 30, 2008
Thank you so much! That was incredibly fast. I have also come to ask the same thing of Image:Riau symbol.gif for the same reason. :)--Thecurran (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and done. east.718 at 12:03, June 30, 2008

thank you

Thank you so much for your words of comfort at this dreadful time. Isaac is here with me at home, and will stay here for the condolence viewing calls until the funeral on Thursday. It gives me comfort to have him so close until we are definitely and finally parted.

Your words and thoughts mean the world to me, and give me the courage to face the coming time alone. Thank G*d for my job. I will be back at work next Monday, which will help to distract me from everything which has happened. Jeffpw (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said you had a findness for edit warriors

Hey East718. You mentioned your fondness for edit warriors. I have just found one. Check out Stra2caster (talk · contribs). He has been edit warring a poor quality image (his own personal upload, go figure) into several articles where it is not wanted and goes against previous discussion. I informed him of the errors of his ways and linked him to wp:3rr and all but... the result was this anti-civil personal attack on my talk page. Note that the user also edits as IP 76.64.121.7 and has used many different IPs from the same range over the past several weeks. Rotten IP editors! :D . Can you intervene and help him to see the light. Better yet... can you have an admin over at Commons delete the fuzzy pic completely so that we won't have to worry about it anymore? Thanks and have a nice day! Libs (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, be nice to the newbies, Libs. I've made a not-so-subtle attempt to influence their behavior, now let's see if they change their stripes. east.718 at 02:33, July 1, 2008
I thought I was very cordial :). Anyhoo... my message about edit warring and consensus and then your message about civilty and edit warring and even Enigmaman's actual warning about edit warring all resulted in this Check out the "f.o.a.d." styled edit summary. WP:CON be damned this young'n want his fuzzy picture used regardless of what anyone else thinks. Which is a declaration of edit war if you ask me. :D . Can we just get the picture deleted from Commons? Free pics are all fine and good but when they are used against Wikipedia as a negative tool, I think they should 'begonerated'. :D . Libs (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More edit warring. Please block, east. On another note, why don't you attend the NYC Meetups? Enigma message 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, it's a shame they didn't attempt to discuss the image, but c'est la vie. I don't attend the meetups because I value my anonymity. :-) east.718 at 21:18, July 1, 2008

Thanks, as always for all your help. BTW... an editor you laid a 1 week block on for being an rv warrior... Mr. Johan Rachmaninov has returned from his 1 week block and is already reverting some of the pages that got him blocked in the first place. No 3RR breaks yet. But, when (notice I said when and not if) he does... should I sound the alarm straight to you on him. He was a pretty prolific rv specialist that was getting away with a lot before he got nabbed. My bets are that he goes back to the same ol' habits. My actual bet it that Johan is really an new account created from the fingers of permanently blocked User:Scipo... but I haven't nailed that one shut yet. Give me time though and I will find "the Rach's" true identity (I always do y'know :D) Thanks again and have a nice day! Libs (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't acceptable - I'll keep an eye peeled on those articles (lamest edit war if I've ever seen one, by the way). Have a nice day, Libs! east.718 at 04:39, July 2, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:East718/Archive_14&oldid=1144624962"