Just wondering why you deleted this page. I found the page last week and was pleasantly suprised to see that there was a single source of knowledge for all of the problems encoutered with the drive. Can't see why you think this is an advertisement as the page only lists OEM drives that have different names but the same problem.
A page with information about the drive and most importantly a source of drivers is most welcome and I am having a little trouble understanding how it differes from say the WRT54G or other hardware pages.
Image:Bulltemple.jpg
Hi Geni,
I have received permission from the author of the image through email to use it aywhere I want.
Gnanapiti 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Henley
He is a possible future congressman. Please stop deleteing the page.
Yes, he is in an election.
www.henleyforcongress.com
Sorry, I forgot. Can you please unlock the page?
Kai Ken image
Good morning.
Why did you delete kaiken.jpg image? It was available in public domain and it can be found in many web pages, becouse copyright owner allows use it in educational purposes. Can you instead delete dirtykuffar.jpg image, becouse it is unuseful becouse the main article is deleted by some moron, who does not understand importance of Jihad-style rap music video.
As you were the one that removed the speedy deletion tag from the above named article yesterday, I was wondering if you could offer some advice. Graham87 (who placed the speedy deletion tag on the page yesterday) has listed the article as considered for deletion, citing that it's just of local importance. Personally I would argue that Sublime's impact in other countries indicate otherwise but I appreciate that as the writer of the article I'm coming from a subjective perspective.
So I was wondering if you could offer a neutral standpoint as to whether the article deserves to stay or not, or if you don't think it does at present, whether you could suggest any improvements that would change this.
Many thanks,
Gazza Innit.
that means I can't use these types of images ?
why did you delet the image in university of geneva page ?
Geni. I travel professionally and am not always at sites that allow me to access the
Internet. You mentioned that the article did not "read" like an encyclopedia article.
Please give me an example of what I can do to help my article "read" correctly.
Thank-you.
Treasure Trooper
Geni,
I've been using Treasure Trooper now for two months and have actually gotten paid real cash. With over 100,000 members and millions changing hands every month, it is unfair to permanently delete a Wikipedia article. We don't delete George W. Bush's article because of vandalism.
I understand that there exist many online survey scams and because of treasure trooper's referral policy, many spammed forums. But regardless of these misgivings, they are a legitimate business and have paid millions of real dollars to real people, represent a creative new model for internet marketing, and appear to be growing very rapidly.
I would be willing to write an objective article (fully cited) on Treasure Trooper- subject to peer review of course- if you could lift the lock on recreation.
Thanks for your time and wonderful work,
Charles Hoskinson
Five_Fire_Monkeys page
Hi, I was wondering why that one was deleted while the penny arcade comic page and other web comic information pages are allowed to stay.
Why did you remove (July 28) the link (Christian Churches of God) I added (July 22) to the Non-Trinitarian groups section of the Non-Trinitarianism article? The link was relevant to the content and section of the article. I am fairly new to using Wikipedia, but as far as I know I did nothing wrong in posting the link. Please advise. Thank You. Loosestring 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links are perfectly relevant to the content. Every link on wikipedia "promotes" the organization to which they are linked whether placed for that reason or not. Does one need to ask your permission in order to place a relevant link in an article? I see no rational reason why a relevant link should be removed.Loosestring 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point noted. The link I posted was still relevant to the content. Christian Churches of God is an nontrinitarian group. If that link doesn't belong then please explain what constitutes a "relevant" link for that particular section of the article? There are several links to other nontrinitarian groups. How and/or why are they more relevant than CCG? I would understand if it were a blatant attempt at advertising or promoting the site, but in this case it isn't.Loosestring 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated changes to POV of World Trade Center (Film)
This statement below is completely false. The edits are extremely important and are not my point of view. They are a reference to the criticism it has recieved. You should take the time as an editor to find sources, but here is a start. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/news
The person who says those are "POV edits" is only syaing that because of thier own agenda. They do not want criticism of the movie to be heard. Its not MY criticism. Its the PEOPLE'S criticism. Reverting it is similar to terrorists tactics. Trying to sabotage the people. Supressing the truth. You are truly unamerican, uless you unprotect the page. —The preceding
There has been repeated changes to include POV rantings about World Trade Center (film) by "Superawesome"
I saw that your an admin, and protected the page, I've asked him to stop on his discussion page. I'm not sure if you'll repeatedly check it, but is there any way to stop a user from editing a certain page? I don't want to get in a pointless "edit war" with him."
He also "threatened" me, although I think it was more of an immature joke, but still annoying on my IP's talk page (I dont always log in for changes)
He posted "DAMOBBOSS: What do you think you are doing? Don't ya know you never go against the family? You dont know who you are messing with. Now dont you try and mess with us, because you will end up with cement shoes in the Manhattan River, capiche?" on
Why am I blocked? Please remove it so I could edit some pages. Thank You!
WHY DID YOU DELETE MY KAMISHIN RYU PAGE?
Part 2 I travel professionally and am not able to access the Internet at all sites that I work at. You mentioned that my article did not "read" like an encylopedia article. Please give me
an example of what I can change to help with its reading.
Part 1 I checked the deletion log of my article "Kamishin Ryu" and found that you are responsible for deleting it on June 11, 2006.
Why would you do this without contacting me first? Do you question something within the article?
The information is directly off of my website and is information that I GENERATED OVER 15 YEARS AGO!
I am the original author of all information that was written in my Kamishin Ryu article.
I don't mean for this to come across harshly but was surprised to see that such actions were performed
without any contact through my Talk page concerning these edits. I appreciate any information that you can share with me.
Orphaned fair use image (Image:AbdielColberg.gif)
Geni,how are you? I've never had the pleasure of writing to you before. As far as I know newspaper and magazine images are public domain and of fair use. Maybe I used the wrong tag, will you check that out for me? Take care. Tony the Marine 01:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing back, I accept your sound judgement. Tony the Marine 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Angolan War
As you are the admin that deleted the
Angolan War article as a copyvio, could you also please close the AfD discussion that was recently discussed about the same article? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Bands (neck)
I saw that the article on neck bands had been deleted as a "copyvio", apparently because it duplicated text found on Geocities on what looks like the author's own site. I have asked that this decision be reviewed and that the article be restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You may want to chime in there and make sure we know the whole story. Smerdis of Tlön 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about an unblock on User:Amorrow?
Geni: Please unblock Amorrow. The account has been in the dog house for a better part of a year now. AWM -- 71.141.39.159 04:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, you cannot blame a boy for trying. I predict that we are going to dance a little waltz yet, my darling. -- 71.141.19.71 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NB harbour
Hi, I reverted a revert you made to North Berwick, it looked like an obvious case of a new user from the town linkspamming the page with his own freesite, but it's actually a historical research site and very important source that was instrumental in getting North Berwick Harbour on the front page as a DYK? a few weeks ago. I added it to that article back then and should have added it to the main NB page myself. However, good spot, 99% of such cases are indeed spamtastic. Cheers, Deiziotalk 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Geni,
I was disambiguating "Rebirthing", and trying to move Rebirthing-Breathwork to Rebirthing (Breathwork), but was all thumbs.
I thought according to the rules, magazine covers are fair use. So what happened? MrBlondNYC 00:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I'm an idiot but I read the tag and I see how mag covers are used on Wikipedia and I see absolutely no difference. MrBlondNYC 08:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Tickle-4
The original comment on this name, which I have also heard, is from the main admin for WE-Chem- Martin Walker. But if you think that the monicker is too unprofessional or dopey, go ahead and kill it because I dont have a source (not the kind of thing one finds in books). --Smokefoot 14:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buffie The Body image
Thank you for your message regarding the Buffie The Body image. I no longer deal with that image (and similar images), and I have also abandoned the type of articles. Also, it seems the image was put back after you messaged me, so for that reason, it is probably no longer up for deletion. You said it was up for deletion, but I don't see a discussion regarding the deletion anywhere. Hmm, I could be wrong. Thank you anyway. Stiles 02:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologize. I guess we aren't allowed to use magazine cover. Please delete the images on Cindy Crawford, Kim Alexis, Christie Brinkley ... in fact pretty much every one of the hundreds of articles on [[Category:American models]] at your earliest convenience. Have fun. 23skidoo 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case I invite you to place a comment at [1] in the Village Pump (policy) section, where the topic of eliminating all images from Wikipedia is being discussed. Incidentally, I was under the impression that creating a sockpuppet account is against Wikipedia rules. 23skidoo 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on WP:SOCK - I've just seen one too many vandals using them so I thought they'd been forbidden. Regarding the magazine issue, is there a Wikipedia page where suggestions can be made on this particular issue? I truly believe that fair use image use tag for magazine covers should be expanded to allow their use to illustrate articles on the subject of the covers and the photographer's work. The current wording is way too restrictive, will have a negative impact on far too many articles in my opinion, and no one has presented me with compelling reasons as to how this might damage anyone's copyright. IMO there's no more damage than using them in articles on the publications. All or none. And I fail to see why it should differ from the current policy on comic book covers which does allow the use not only to illustrate the publication in question, but also the subject featured on the cover. BTW just for the record I don't have a particular interest in Buffie Carruth and I'm not sure why she's even on my watchlist (I think I'd made some adjustments when it was a new article and Wiki automatically added it to my watchlist), but my concern is in the broader scheme of things. 23skidoo 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whao..don't get me wrong, please. I never said magazine covers are against Wikipedia rules. They are perfectly in line with the rules, and there is no objection against them. I don't know where you got the impression there's something wrong with magazine covers. The issue with the Buffie The Bodie image was that it was no longer being used in an article. If an image is not in an article (or other places where one can be used), it should not be on Wikipedia, partly to save space. That was the only issue here, not whether magazine covers are allowed. Never mind all this though, it seems that the image is now once again being used, and there is no need to delete the Buffie image. Stiles 04:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your response wasn't entirely helpful, though I did leave a message on the project page and thanks for that link. I can't find anything to support the fair use rationale that magazine covers cannot be used to illustrate their subject matter. I am of the opinion that this is an error -- until such a time that someone actually quotes me chapter and verse where Wikipedia has either been sued for copyright infringement over such use or the US Government has banned their use. Incidentally, why does a double standard exist? Why can we not use magazine covers, yet comic book covers (and last I looked comics are magazines) are OK? 23skidoo 12:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protection of
WP:CSD
Please see y comment. Since this page was protected against protection policy and without what I would consider to be adequate reason, I'm asking you to remove protection from the policy page. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, what grounds do you have to delete the entire section just because you don't like the words 'decidely one-sided'? So just delete those few words and leave the quotes intact? I think your actions could be construed in this article as being abusive of your privileges as an admin.Fungible 17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA
Thank you, Geni, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of♥♦♣♠ 23:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You marked this page {{totallydisputed}}, but you did not update the article talk page. That's bad form on it's own, but I would also say that the facts in the article (about Rubella Abortus and so on) are referenced and factual. I think the article has a problem with NPOV and is sort of inflamatory, but the contents are true. Many people are interested in whether fetal tissue cell lines are currently in use. Heathhunnicutt 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the same ingredient are used in UK. I couldn't agree with you more about the potential for {{copyvio}} on that page. In fact, I delete the section in question -- not that I was the source of it in the first place. Please check the latest edit out. I think this article can and should be saved. Heathhunnicutt 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
issue from afd
Geni -
I'd kick this to
User: Mailer Diablo but he's on wikibreak. He didn't handle an AFD for multiple articles correctly. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pscad. Anyway just wanted to pass this on to an admin without having to make the mistake public on something like admin notice-board. jbolden1517Talk 04:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thankyou for this lead!
re: VP
everytime a new policy is proposed god kills a kitten. please think of the kittens.Geni 04:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
At least one person around here recognizes the KISS principle, and there is alomost no way to assimulate all the guidelines we have already!
Best regards // FrankB 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Peppers
Hello Geni,
I was sorry to see that you seem to have restored a page that was legitimately speedily deleted, and which is under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please delete the page, and feel free to let us know your thoughts on the matter at the review discussion, should you so wish. Very kind regards —Encephalon 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thanks for restoring the wrongly speedy-deleted Peppers talk page. My opinion of Wikipedia is that it's a bit unwieldy due to all the editors, but this sudden deletion when the conversation was hardly problematic was crushing. ==Bobak 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you, but since the page is protected --is there anyway to add a note that it's going through speedy-deletion review on the top of the page? I only found out about it by accident from reading the above comment. --Bobak 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry for canvasing a few people. I didn't realize the position until GTBacchus told me, and I was worried people wouldn't know about the deletion review. All the best, have a great weekend. --Bobak 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undeletion of Template:User Christian
Can you show us where there is consensus to do so, us on IRC are a bit concerned about wheel warring / was their consensus to do so -- Tawker 01:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Looking at DRV, it doesn't look like consensus in any way shape or form to undelete that, can you please take another look -- Tawker 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then what page are you looking at in your decision. From the DRV there is no consensus to undelete and it looks a tad like wheel warring w/o explaination. Please do provide a link to the page of which you determined this conculsion thanks -- Tawker 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion was to continue discussion. Undeleting certainly doesn't further that point; let it run its course. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing that require discussion continue in that manner and you did notice that no one bothered to list it at TfD? Because these debates get clogged with "oh no, don't delete the userboxes" or "but, wait, there's no policy" means that a bit more care is required. Absolutely nothing required that template to be undeleted, using a previous discussion to circumvent a current one isn't productive. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times must we get the same result in the same discussions over the same issues before its enough? Having to constantly re-debate the issue every time someone talks a few more "friends" into the discussion probably causes a lot of this frustration. Regardless of these things, this isn't about the userbox debate, its about the methods you use to make a point. I'm sorry you consistently choose to war over issues; I have a hard time imagining how that approach does Wikipedia any credit. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you continue to make this about the userbox debates. I think you'll find I've not been a very active participant in them, so your statements are misplaced. Perhaps you need to have a discussion with those people you feel are using their status to push around the debates? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to answer points that had anything to do with the discussion. If you believe wheel-warring is appropriate, so be it, but don't try to sideline this with a userbox debate. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User christian
Geni, what's going on with Template:User christian? Why have you undeleted and protected it? You say in your edit that consensus has been reached, but I see no evidence of this. I'm not involved in the conversation, but I'm concerned with your actions. A quick count showed 11 undeletes out of 23 comments which does not seem to indicate any degree of consensus either way. Furthermore, the issue remains under discussion, and your actions appear not to be in line with established policies regarding controversial articles. I urge you to reconsider your course of action and bring the issue back to the table. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However there has to be some rationale for doing such an undeletion. If you are not willing to provide such a reason I am strongly suggesting that we keep the article in its deleted status. -- Tawker 01:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have deleted all the external links to debating clubs/societies/etc. Whilst I understand that some of them may well be spam links, they are non-profit organizations which deal with debating. The links have been categorized so that it can easily allow for finding the relevant information.
Many of them are in fact very relevant and important, such as international unions. They symbolize how debate is conducted today.
Do you mind if I sort through them and restore some of the more relevant ones? Just because some are bad, doesn't make them all bad. -- Chris Lestertalk 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks Geni for helping with vandalism on the
Baha'i Faith page. -- Jeff3000 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:AIV
Hi, just a quick note to say I like your shorthand "list MT" or "not MT", cuts down the typing I guess :-), mind if I borrow it for use? Also we had a blocking conflict on 82.110.217.131, but I'll let your shorter block stand. I'll stick him on my watchlist as he seems to be pretty determined. Cheers. --Cactus.man✍ 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My sig
Hi,
I agree that my sig code was kinda huge & I was thinking of changing it one of these days. I have changed it now. What do you think? Srikeittalk|✉ 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually bold it so that the links don't stick together. Anyway I have removed the <b> tag from the front & added after the [[User so that only the talk & email options are bold. Better now? Srikeit(Talk|Email) 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection
Because of the recent string of vandalism from User:80.134.170.37 and his threat of coming back as another IP, can you please semi-protect the pages he is editing? The Kingof Kings 12:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"we can't use images for which we only have premission to use them on wikipedia." - Where does it say that? That seems like it would be a pretty ridiculous policy. Why must wikipedia have permission for other people to use the images in addition to permission for us to use them.. ? Fresheneesz 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so what should I do about this? I'm sure theres some way we can keep the picture. Fresheneesz 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of cats
Hi, just responding to your removal of vandalism report; just wondering if you have gone through the history of both User:ComposerCleanup and his/her previous IP, User:72.144.158.243 and seen the multiple RRs, defiance of block by use of new user account, removal of valid categories not dozens but hundreds of times? A previous admin thought it was vandalism and blocked as such. At least would you explain what MT means? Badagnani 12:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and found at least 20 instances of "delt with list MT" in your history but can't make sense of it in any of the cases. Perhaps you could spell this out in plain English in future edit summaries because I don't think I'm the only one not understanding this. Thanks; no offense meant but it's just very confusing. Badagnani 12:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brights Image (Fair use)
Thanks for drawing to my attention the incorrect copyright code on this logo. How do I change the tag from fair use so I can use it? NB I have permission to use this logo as a paid up Bright member.--Hontogaichiban 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the logo can be used in this way as the whole point of it is that it can be used instead of relgious symbols such as a cross, crescent moon or penticle. However, just to be sure I have requested confirmation from "The Brights" organisation.--Hontogaichiban 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hostile editor on Baha'i page - FYI
Hi Geni. You've been a very fair and impartial admin, particularly around several hostile editors and edit wars on the Baha'i Page. I wanted to just give you a quick FYI about 140.126.125.111, who has engaged in "pruning" as he/she puts it of verifiable information, as well as a pretty strongly negative POV edit. While I'm not sure where it's going, I wanted to give you the heads-up and ask you please to monitor the situation unofficially, before it actually becomes worse. I don't want to have another page protection thing go on, but I have a bad feeling, and it's very hard (though I'm trying) to
assume good intent with the kind of action so-far taken. --Christian Edward Gruber 13:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Being blocked from editing!
I am being blocked because I am apparently using my account only for vandalism, please help! Vihrea 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again!
I am being randomly blocked..and i quote:
"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Geni for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Therealslimsunny". The reason given for Therealslimsunny's block is: "account only used for vandalism".
Your IP address is 64.233.172.34"
You'd better figure out who this "Therealslimsunny" is... I have never vandalised a page.
Thank you
Being a war refugee myself, I can't see why we should tolerate people making political statement that are divisive and inflammatory, being them pro or against. This is an encyclopedia not a battleground. They'd attack me for "censoring" or "violating freedom of speech", but I know it's the right thing to do. Once all divisive userboxes are gone, people may look at each other as what we truly are, human beings. Best wishes,
TheCooler
RE: AOL
Yes, sorry, I'm a complete prat sometimes. I block for 31 hours before noticing that they're AOL, so I unblock, forgetting that I conflicted with others blocking for 15 minutes. Sorry. —Celestianpowerháblame 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Block on Matt Rutledge
Thanks for that. Moving pages back was getting annoying. Algebraist 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for sources will result in him citing imdb, however there have been debates on the validity of imdb as a source as seen on
Talk:Bob Orton, Jr. in which Daffy caused ANOTHER edit war over an inconsequential bit of trivia from imdb. Nearly every edit when asked for a source results in him either citing imdb or deleting the [citation needed] notice. It's like talking to a brick wall. --- Lid 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair use
I think the brights logo is fully available for identification of an individuals worldview, that is that purpose of the movement afterall, the entire point of the bright movement is to make the word and logo available, if you read through the site I'm sure it allows for the type of display that is on my userpage. I believe the image may in fact be mislabeled.Solidusspriggan 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you make and can sell copies, i dunno about derivitive works, it might be under some public license of sorts. You should look throught the site http://www.the-brights.net
I see that you very painstakingly scrolled to the bottom of the webpage. If you go here http://www.the-brights.net/movement/downloads/ you will see a number of graphics bearing the logo which people are encouraged to use freely. I in fact have just sent an email to a fellow bright at the-brights.net I await his official replay eagerly.
I am in fact using it properly, thank you for your concern, i learned something new.Solidusspriggan 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You can't even though you may be a paid up memeber"
There is no payment or exclusive membership involved! The brights are fully committed to the making available for all identification uses of all brights the logo.
If not do so. Then forward the following to the appropriate WikiPediaadministrator. You can point out that if s/he visits the website s/he willfind statements authorizing (in fact encouraging) the use of the materialson that page.
Co-Directors of www.The-Brights.NetA bright is a person with a naturalistic worldview
why are you so interested in selling the logo? isn't this a non-commercial project? Beyond that this seems nothing more than a prejudice action. If I must remove my bright logo then all christians, jews, bahais, etc must remove their affiliative symbols! you dont want to end up running this place like a rural highschool administrator that bans the display of pentagrams but allows jesus saves shirts with bloody crucified men on them.
the philosohpical relevence and logic of my argument aside, the simple fact is that I have permission to use this image as I see fit, any bright does. Beyond that, it is not a particular copyrighted image of jesus I was referring to, but it WAS a concept that is represented by a symbol or picture i was referring to, which is exactly what this is. I have the right to display it when and where I like to symbolize myself as a person and to display my credibility as wikipedia editor who is rational and will not integrate make-believe stories about super humans into my articles. The "fair use" tag is incorrect, I move for a different tag to be placed on the image or for a new tag to be created to account for such discrepencies in usage of such symbols.
3RR rule broken using sockpuppets on Baha'u'llah page.
Hi Geni. Could you check out
Baha'u'llah history? Alex0072, and an anonymous user has reverted the article four times with a POV edit that, while subtly different each time, is nearly identical, and removes links, or replaces them with redirected links. I'm not sure what to do now, as I'm at my 2R limit, Jeff3000 is at his 2R limit, and we are asking Alex0072 to comment on his proposed changes, and he doesn't - either by that address or any other user/ip address. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
George W. Bush
why did you remove the link to the video? It reinforces his own statementss on his drunken past. did you watch it? Qrc2006 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC) i want it back up tell me what you think Qrc2006 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't order me around Gini, I appreciate your suggestion but there is no rule on discussing additions to an article beforehand just because you personally deam it to be high profile. Where exactly does it say its high profile? Where is this rule? Even if it is true or false, it is an interesting link and can be included subjectively. i.e. This video shows a man appearing to be President Bush being interviewed at drunk, allthough this cannot be verified
evidence for high profile is based on number of edits vandalism rates and traffic stats when we last had them. You will notice a certian patturn in the links currently there. The patturn exists for a reason. The article already adresses his activities involveing ethanol. Your caption would be original research.Geni 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for high profile? I think this is your own personal definition. I can and will continue to edit any article i please, even if you believe i shouldn't simply because you PERSONALLY deam it to be "high profile" at my hearts desire. It is spelled Pattern not Patturn and Involving, not Involveing friend. I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to ethanol which is a fuel. Are you confusing it with alchohol, which i did not mention, I mentioned his drinking and partying. "My Caption would be original research" what does that mean? Is that a question or a statement? I am confused.
I never mentioned its not high profile, I just mentioned that is your opinion, there is no basis for an article being high profile or any special rules regarding them. You can say, and I can agree that it is high profile all day long but there are not established conventions stating that I have to discuss it first since you think I should because it is high profile by definition but not by wikipedia guidelines which don't mention it at all. I think your stupid, you can't spell and are immature.
please keep this discussion in one piece, I have this page watchlisted
I have redeleted this article pending the outcome of the deletion review. If you disagree with the closing admin's decision, please make your arguments there. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion was out of process. You know this.Geni 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility that you think I just lied about what I believe on DRV for reasons I can't begin to imagine makes my head hurt, so I'm just going to assume you haven't read my comments there yet. Basically: no, I do not. AfD is not a vote. Your restoration was the out-of-process action. If a user wants to challenge the outcome of an AfD, he goes to DRV. If an admin wants to challenge the outcome of an AfD, he does exactly the same. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And admins who want to delete something outside speedy take it through Xfd and follow process.Geni 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin's job is to weigh the arguments on each side as well gauge consensus. AfD process was followed. If DRV decides to overturn the decision, it will still have been followed. I have closed numerous AfDs as 'delete' or 'keep' where there weren't 70% 'votes' either way (including after discounting meatpuppets), and I can remember only three of those even being brought to DRV, of which only one was overturned and the rest endorsed. I also had one brought to RfC, where several editors endorsed the right of the closing admin to exercise discretion even though they disagreed with my own interpretation. I consider it an abdication of responsibility if an admin closes as 'no consensus' on the instructions of his calculator. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there was an actual majority in favor of keep. Neither side had come up with a knock out argument (as evidence by the existance of seniour wikipedians on both sides) thus no consensus is the only rational conclusion.16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, but disagreements over closing of AfDs are what we have DRV for - if admins didn't have discretion in closing AfDs, there would never be anything to discuss at that page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
discression in marginal cases. This wasn't.Geni 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I extended your block of this user to a week. It was the fourth block, no useful contributions and there is no reason we should have to deal with stuff like this. IMO. If you object to my extension, no big deal, just reset it. I don't get involved in block wars. :) Wikibofh(talk) 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've had requested it earlier [2] I can only endorse this extension of the block (and one week is too good for him...), as the IP has the habit to wait and repeatedly return after several days. Femto 14:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a personal policy of escalating blocks for stuff like this. So, 1 week now, 2 weeks next time, ... I however, don't like to just jump to a month. Just watch and let us know. Wikibofh(talk) 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
You may not know me, I'm more of an IRC figure, but I've noticed your edits on my RC patroling, and I must say, you are a valuable asset to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! Drop by on #wikipedia some time! --Steve-o 11:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh
So, slapping npov tags everywhere adding random templates to user pages, constantly removing warnings from talk page isn't vandalism?--Andeh 11:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.
The problem isn't Giovanni33's activities at Christianity related articles as you claimed. What prompted the reinstatement of his block and the extension was his rush after being unblocked by Rebecca to seek revenge at
WP:3RR . Giovanni33 is a chronically disruptive editor; none of his activities upon being unblocked by Rebecca were constructive, a point conceded by Rebecca on my talk page. I don't intend to wheel war over Giovanni33 - he's hardly worth getting worked up over, but since you didn't have all the story when you unblocked him, I'm asking you to reinstate the block. If you still choose to leave him unblocked, so be it; I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll simply engage in another disruptive stunt and get blocked for that. But also know that myself and others expect you to take responsibility for his activities while unblocked and any results from them. FeloniousMonk 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Giovanni33_reported_by_User:Timothy_Usher_.28Result:.29 FeloniousMonk 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
There isn't much else you can do. Don't be surprised if he's soon unblocked and the cycle starts all over. Thank you for being as good as your word; I'm impressed but not surprised. FeloniousMonk 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is blocking someone for a week for editing articles in a certain area sanctioned by policy in any way, shape or form? Giovanni33 has, since the 8th at least, dropped the issue and stopped making a nuisance of himself, and I'm failing to see any justification for this block. In the interests of good faith, I'm giving you the chance to explain this, but I see little good reason why it should stand. Rebecca 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite clearly not around, and as I see no explanation or discussion of this block on ANI or anywhere else, I'm very uncomfortable leaving this user blocked. As such, I'm going to unblock this user immediately. Rebecca 12:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He quite clearly earned it, going on to multiple 3RR vios, trolling and seeking revenge for being blocked after your last unblock. I remind you of your earlier comments to me: [4] With his shabby record why Giovanni33 warrants this constant unblocking and protection by you is puzzling. I've reinstated the remainder of the block. FeloniousMonk 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian nuclear weapon research program
You said at Talk:Nuclear weapon programs: Canada had a research program of sorts just post WW2.Geni 18:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide a reference? Bejnar 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I award geni the Editor's Barnstar for being my favourite Wikipedian and for proving that good spelling and good thinking don't always go together. Haukur 09:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pic
Thanks, i think i have fixed it now. --Striver 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Semiprotection of
Feng Shui
Hi Geni.
Feng Shui, which you recently un-semiprotected, was immediately attacked again by the same spammer(s) (several IPs) who originally caused it to be protected. Could you review and reinstate? Thanks. Fireplace 10:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Purge?
What's with the "purge" command at the bottom of the
Actually, you're right, I don't know whether he's trolling, and it should have been a 6-month block, my error. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alv and Dvergr Deletion
I understand that the deletion was due to copyrighted info from another site. This was done unknowingly, that info was in fact copied and pasted from another wikipedia page, as i was moving information around for a cleaner read. This is a gross annoyance mainly because i put effort into that page and i was going to alter the information that was in fact copyrighted. [5] That is a link to the page from which i copied the information (look under alv and dvergr) My request is can you restore the page and let me continue with my activities forthwith by deleting JUST the copyrighted content. --Crampy20 21:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Image Deletion
AGGGGGGGG, it isnt in any articles, because it was just deleted because i copied copyrighted info without realising (from another wikipedia page). It WOULD be being used if the other article wasn't deleted. (Image here Image:Alv and Dvergr under Chevalier D'Autriche's control.jpg)--Crampy20 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by Fair use? And fixing fair use in that article? --Crampy20 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is this. I can use that image if and only if it appears in one article. Which it does. So that is acceptable surely? --Crampy20 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my vandalism report?
I was wondering why you removed my report from the Admin Noticeboard. This user is vandalizing many articles (he's even moved on to user page) and he needs to stop. If I've not reported him in the right place, by all means, please direct me to the proper location and accept my apologies.--Fyre2387 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Thanks then.--Fyre2387 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My report on WP:AIV
The significance is in the edits. All the IPs added the exact same characters each time they vandalised the page, so either its the same person or a conspiracy. Also, most of them are definitly the same person, due to personallity traits. If you check the talk page's history you'll see. KojiDude (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for searching
You added a little light to my day, so here is a little light for yous. - LA @ 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Ribbon:
User:Azmoc
Hi, I would like to ask you to review your indefinite block of Azmoc. A long block might be appropriate but indef should only be used in the most extreme cases... and I do not believe this is one of them, especially for someone who seems to be motivated by the well-being of thee fellow wikipedians. Misguided perhaps, but not irredeemable. ---J.S (t|c) 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I notice the talk on WP:AN/I about User:Azmoc. *shrug* I guess I'll stay out of this... ---J.S (t|c) 21:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snake Liquid
Hey, Geni. First of all, thanks for your support in The Happycat Situation. Snake Liquid, the person you just responded to already has 3 warnings for civility, and I think his last outburst could be considered a 4th offense. Does this justify a block of any sort, since one of those warnings was the final warning for civility? --Targetter 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ste4k
How did her talk page get deleted? She is in a RfC and RFArb.—Who123 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another user has added the NEDM/Happycat information into the British Shorthair "Famous British Shorthairs" subsection. In an effort to prevent another revert war over this, I have moved the debate into the Article's Talk Page. Your opinion and vote would be greatly appreciated. --Targetter 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to tell me why the image in the Brian Joubert article was removed? I was not the one to upload this, but if I remember correctly, the person who took the photograph allows her images to be used if credited. Lmblackjack21 21:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sitenotice
Do not blank the sitenotice again. This is an official message from the Election Officials; we are empowered by the Board to take these actions and I will not hesitate to take any steps necessary, including desysopping, to prevent you from interfering in our work. Essjay(Talk) 01:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Tojo abuse report
I noticed on the foundation-l list that you appear to be preparing an abuse report regarding General Tojo [6]. I've been helping to deal with his "activity". I'd just like to thank you for taking on this task, and offer my assistance if necessary. If you wish, you can update others involved, and get help, at
Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo. Also, you might want to watch your User and User talk pages for any Tojo vandalism (I'll try to keep an eye out as well). Thanks again. --Slowking Man 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes thanks for taking a lead on this, GT has been a pain for some time now. --PaulWicks 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul McGann image
Hi, Geni. You recently removed
the 1996 Doctor Who television movie. Its immediate source may have been geocities, but its ultimate source was the BBC press department. I've restored the image to the article and tried to provide a more accurate fair use rationale for it. However, IANAL, and I don't claim a comprehensive understanding of fair use — can you let me know if what I've written suffices? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well idealy evidence that it is from that source would be good (since the is the involvement of Universal Studios and the Fox Broadcasting Network to consider) but I can live without that for the time being. Other than that I would argue that the fair use critia given is acceptable under wikipedia sandards.Geni 01:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the rollback. Zora 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request for arbitration
Thatcher131 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
UC Riverside protection
As an editor who's been trying to work on POV disputes surrounding the
WP:RFPP; did you just happen to see the page on RC, or did someone make a request via email? Do you think the page should be protected just for a couple of days, or do you envision a more long-term protection? You may want to leave a note on Talk:University of California, Riverside. Thanks. szyslak (t, c, e) 23:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
Geni, I've added to this discussion with a solution that will hopefully please everyone, and be useful. When you have get a chance, please comment on that talk page. — xaosfluxTalk 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O.O!!!!
Heart attack. But heh, thanks for reverting yourself. :) You made the best call you could, and you checked your work. No harm done. Luna Santin 21:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. If not for having a live IRC feed, I probably never would've noticed. Thanks again. Luna Santin 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
page move
Geni, I need admin help with moving a page history. To make it brief, someone moved the name of the Ottoman Sultan to
Geni, your edit summary says, "americanco centric and doesn't appear to be provideing vast amounts of relivant information". What does that mean? The "americanco centric" part? Certainly the news articles it provides are relevant to chiropractic. At the same time, I don't want to get in a revert war. Please comment. Thank you! Levine2112 01:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Americanocentrism really at issue here when the vast majority of chiropractors are Americans? Is that truly grounds to ding something off the external links list? If so, there is a link to the National Association of Healthcare Fraud which should be deleted on the same grounds as it is an exclusively American organization.
Is there something else at issue here? Otherwise, I think the ChiroWeb link should be reinstated or the NAHCF should be deleted as well. Levine2112 01:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick, but there is a section of the front page of ChiroWeb entiteld "international News". It contains links to several international chiropractic related news articles, including a link for "more international articles"... clicking there reveals articles broken down by country. There's got to be 30-40 countries listed there with articles. Actually, I just counted... there are over 50 countries there with relevant chiropractic news articles. Are you still sure about the "americanocentric" charge? I urge you to reconsider.
NAHCF is a "national" organization. I am not aware of any international dealings. Levine2112 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On this page you request that the committee be immediately notified of blocks, but you are not clear about the best way to contact the committee to get immediate attention (committee talk page?, contact a member?, or only by the mailing list?). Not everyone will be able to use the mailing list contact method. Could you clarify the contact options on the page? Thanks. NoSeptember 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll ask Kelly Martin. NoSeptember 13:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Why was the entry "Treeball" deleted?
Why was the entry "Treeball" deleted?
It wasn't insulting, stupid, offensive, mickey-taking etc? It was a serious post about a serious sport my friend and I invented last year and which lots of kids we know now play.
Any feedback you can give me on how I should enter treeball next time would be ace.
thanks
Stephanie Colosse
Why did you delete the article about the Miss world Cobtestant Stephanie Colosse???
RE: ==Categories==
I agree, but I think, for example, taking out the Wikipedia:gay Wikipedians category wasn't a very good idea. So maybe reform &,,, reinstate? Here's how I see it: a category for of who eats pizza is just arbitrary. You could also say that its culturally arbitrary, & culturally imperialistic.100110100 07:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia:userboxes.100110100 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still drawing a blank? Or no comment?100110100 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Baileys (band)
Just wondering why you deleted the article "The_Baileys_(band)" that I generated.
I didnt realise that Wikipedia was about notability, rather, correct information on EVERYTHING.
I'm sure I noted their achievements in the edit, I was about to add more information about their successes only to discover someone had removed the whole article. Did you actually read the content prior to deleting it? They are hardly 'un-noteworthy'...
The ones that I tagged for deletion were on user pages where the user never made an edit. I do not know if that means the user ever existed, but I did not feel that it belonged if the user never edited anything.--Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way that you can get those edits off my edit history, so that they are not counted against me in the future? --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Luke Woods
Why did you delete my luke woods article? and what right do you have?
Removing the autoblock
Thanks for removing my autoblock. I was wondering why it was there in the first place. I understand now why PoccilScript was blocked (because of the speedy deletion overflow) and now have a proposal for resolving this issue. Respond at my talk page. Peter O. (Talk) 16:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But at least the important parts of importing an image to the Commons is handled, namely, among others, replacing references to the old image with those of the new. Note also that I also recorded the full history and text of the image on the talk page, in order to remain license-complient. The new category will show images that have attained this level of record-keeping and orphan-free status and therefore are (at least) more ready for deletion than the others. Respond at my talk page. Peter O. (Talk) 16:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[untitled]
The page was deleted even after i added a contention and a {hold on} tag.. not giving any time at all to write the reasons why i contest the deletion.
A little time to respond to the speedy deletion tag would always be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newspics (talk • contribs)
License tagging for Image:Cvutan.png
Thanks for uploading
image description page
indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's both take a time out here
Look, we're both pretty intelligent posters, and it's getting pretty obvious that our divergent views on the
CVU have been driving a wedge between us. At this point it's almost in danger of becoming personal, and I think we should cut off our mutual hostilities at the pass. You have accused me, for instance, of "insulting your intelligence." To the contrary, I respect your intelligence and argumentative style. However, my arguing against your point on any given page does not constitute a personal attack on you. I apologize if you've construed anything I've said that way. By the same token, I would ask that you show a similar level of restraint and respect when addressing my opinions. I can't help but feel that some of your comments to me lately have been ad hominem or personal in nature, and I think we should avoid doing so. Let's put aside our differences, and understand that in the end, we are both on the same side. We both detest vandalism; we just happen to have differing viewpoints on how to best go about stopping vandalism. So anyway...truce? Dr Chatterjee 16:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
RE: "CVU and stuff"
Geni wrote:
>>I don't do sides. They tend to get in the way of takeing the position supported by logic. Wikipedia:Vandalism is not a game is an attack on the CVU. There is no other credible position. If there was a bigger gap in time there would at least be plausable deniabilty (which is generaly enough for wikipedia politics) but with the timeing, focus and your current attempts to get rid of the CVU that is a bit hard to establish. BTW I suggest you read:
isn't to attack the CVU; it's to criticize a negative effect that pages such as, but not limited to the CVU have in common: they make a game of "cops and robbers" out of counter-vandalism. My critique of that effect is perfectly reasonable, logical, and well-argued. If you fail to see it that way, I regret that you aren't able to read it in an unbiased fashion. Yes, I'm in favor of deleting the CVU. But I'm in favor of deleting the CVU for reasons I've recently articulated in that essay. I don't see what's wrong with that. I see Organization A that exhibits Bad Practice B, and I write an essay condemning Bad Practice B (which happens to be endemic to Organization A, but also exists in other organizations). There's nothing wrong or underhanded about that.
Let's use an example. Let's say that I noticed that Tobacco Company A was marketing tobacco to kids (let's call this "Bad Practice B").
If I were to try to pass a law condemning Bad Practice B, there wouldn't be anything wrong about doing so. REGARDLESS of the fact that Tobacco Company A's exhibiting Bad Practice B gave me the idea to oppose Bad Practice B, that doesn't change the fact that I see Bad Practice B as a bad practice. And it doesn't change the fact that Tobacco Companies C or D are probably also exhibiting Bad Practice B. I realize all these As and Bs and Cs are getting annoying or confusing at this point, so I'll stop. But hopefully this illustrates the point I'm trying to make in defense of
WP:GAME
here.
Plausible deniability isn't an issue here, because I'm not trying to deny anything about the connection between
CVU
. I dislike the CVU because it exhibits behaviors I consider to be counterproductive to counter-vandalism efforts, and its exhibiting these behaviors inspired me to write the essay.
"Trivialize" was completely the wrong word, and while I'm assuming you didn't mean to say that to me in the spirit of friendship, I'm going to compliment you for pointing it out. I've hence replaced "trivialize" with "glamorize" in my essay, as that gets to the spirit of what I'm trying to say more effectively and less ambiguously. Dr Chatterjee 18:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chrome Division
I'm just curious as to why the page on the Norwegian band Chrome Division was deleted? Their debut album entered at number 31 on the Norwegian national charts, they're signed to the German label Nuclear Blast Records and also was founded as a side project by Shagrath, singer of Dimmu Borgir, and most of the other members have notable stints with other metal bands. I wouldn't class this page as not justifying why it should be kept, and I don't see why it was deleted either. LuciferMorgan 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm thanks, sorry for being hasty. I just didn't understand why the article on the band had been deleted that's all, so sorry about that. I'm glad you can appreciate differences of opinion though, so kudos to yourself. LuciferMorgan 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CAREFUL
Geni, please, please do not talk about the information that was deleted. There was presumably a very valid reason for it to have been so. DS 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion
Since you seem someone who seems to have acquired a fair knowledge of Wikipedia's deletion policy, I'm curious as to the following;
If a song article says "Song A is by Band A, and the seventh track on Band A's debut album" with just a songbox, would this qualify for deletion. Two users seem to be creating separate articles for nearly all Ozzy Osbourne songs, but only giving just such information - I feel this information is covered in the album articles. Check the songs linked to No More Tears for examples. LuciferMorgan 00:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeun Zhey
You are listed as the deleting administrator for Yeun Zhey which was speedied as a copyvio. A user has notified me that I may have left the copyvio notification on the wrong user page. I was wondering if it was possible to temporarily restore the page (at least the history -- be it to a user space or whatever) to ascertain as to what user did what. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (TC) 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morris Dance link deletion
I'm curious as to why you deleted the link to the Morris Dancing Wiki from the morris dance article. I won't restore it, because I have a conflict of interest -- I administer the Morris Dancing Wiki. (I wasn't the one who added the link, though I think I know who did -- and he has no interest in the Morris Dancing Wiki, other than as an infrequent user.) But I will say I'm surprised it was deleted without explanation. -- Rsholmes 03:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the same link from the List of morris dance sides, too. I was thinking of adding that link, and a few others, to indicate my sources for the additions I've recently made to that page, but if there's a good reason why I shouldn't... then I won't. Charivari 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The user had few contributions and was adding external links to multiple articles. it is a behaviour pattern that tends to worry me." I find that an odd criterion for judging the merits of a particular contribution. Anyway, if Madtom is who I'm 98% certain it is, I can vouch for him: he's an honest, respectable person, very knowledgeable about morris dancing among many other things, who's just starting to edit Wikipedia, and evidently adding external links is what he's most comfortable with. Again, I'm not going to restore the link myself due to conflicted interests, but I believe in this case the deletion is not justified. (And if you've been going around deleting his contributions on other pages, I suspect the same is the case there.) -- Rsholmes 11:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod|concern on article: dappad
Hi Geni, I'm the author of article dappad. I wonder what is the exact reason of your consideration to the deletion of that entry.
I'm also the creator of that website, and the source of "dappad" entry can be found at following webpage:
Geni, I see your name attached to the deletion log of the chemist/thermodynamicist Théophile de Donder (from about 1923); do you know what happened to the article? For example, here is the Answers.com Wiki-mirror article. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 22:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio from here.Geni 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I'll restart the article Théophile de Donder based on a few books I have. Adios:--Sadi Carnot 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Web 3.0 on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Web 3.0. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.
Why are you taking this off? If you watch the show, they are using our products. In fact, we have a relationship with them to provide tattoo equipment. The show producers say they have had many people ask about our chairs. I thought it would be right to put it on their Wiki. Check our website and look at the first page with the captured TV images.
Right To Vanish
Read this article and DO NOT REVERT MY TALK PAGE![7]
I have followed Wikipedia Guidline
Thanks,
69.167.100.155 09:22, 17
September 2006 (UTC)
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING? YOU SPAM PROTECTED MY 'OWN TALK PAPGE? ARE YOU AN IDIOT? I WAS FOLLOWING THE IN THE INSTRUCTIONS OF 2 ADMINS Captainktainer & Crimsone!
I'LL EVEN QUOTE THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION ON [8] FOR YOU SINCE YOU SEEM TO BE A BT SLOW:
Is a user ever able to clear thier discussion page and past edit history, I honestly want nothing more to do with Wikipedia, I am rather disgusted with my whole experience.
I have this page on my watchlist, so I'll answer, quickly: Your talk page can be blanked (unless you've had official notices posted on it), but your contribution history stays forever. It has to, by the requirements of the
GFDL, which you licensed your contributions under. If we deleted your contribution history we would be breaking the license and possibly the law. Captainktainer * Talk 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks Captainktainer. Much appreciated :)
My advice to you (further to Captainktainers summaryof the policy), 69.167.100.155, can only be to see the m:Right to vanish policy. --Crimsone 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOW UNPROTECT MY PAGE YOU FOOL!
69.167.100.155 10:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO? UNPROTECT MY PAGE? THERE WAS NO 'SPAM INVOLVED ON MY TALK PAGE, ONLY YOUR IGNORANCE. WHAT YOU DID IS CLEARLY VANDALISM!
)
I FOLLOWED THE GUDLINES - NOW UNPROTECT MY PAGE!
69.167.100.155 10:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STILL FEEL LIKE VANDALIZING MY TALK PAGE
How do I delete my user and user talk pages?
Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page be deleted. Most frequently, this occurs when a longterm contributor decides to leave.
Just add to the page: ({tl|db-owner}}. A sysop will then delete it after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page. If a user page were deleted because a contributor left, it may be restored by a sysop if the contributor returns, particularly if the history contains evidence of policy violations.
As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally (see also m:Right to vanish).
User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them.
NOW UNPROTECT MY PAGE!!!!!
69.167.100.155 11:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YOU ARE UNREAL - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND ANY OTHER VANDAL ON
WIKIPEDIA
!
I FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS AND YOU HAD TO GET INTO SOME JUVENILE POWER STRUGGLE WITH MY OVER MY OWN TALK PAGE BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE SOME TYPE OF MIGHTY AUTHORITY ON WIKIPEDIA WHEN I EXPLAINED MY SITUATION 4 TIMES ABOVE? I JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOU! NOW IF YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT YOU ARE A VICTIM OF MY PERSONAL ATTCKS, THEN READ THE ABOVE, UNPROTECT MY TALK PAGE, AND LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!
69.167.100.155 12:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read m:Right to vanish, what else can I say. You're foolish and I am angry and you still have not responded!
69.167.100.155 12:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I delete my user and user talk pages.
READ
How do I delete my user and user talk pages.
AND TELL ME WHAT I DID WRONG! 69.167.100.155 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I HAVE REREAD BOTH ARTICLE ABOUT 8 TIMES NOW AND I STILL DO NOT SEE WHERE I AM WRONG! YOU HAVE MADE A LARGE MISTAKE AND YOU ARE NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT! NOW UNPROTECT MY PAGE!
You just posted the following message on my talk page:
Please don't place spam5 (or test 5 or whatever) on people's talk pages unless you can block them.Geni 08:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize. I did not know this was the rule. I wasn't certain exactly how it worked. The page that talks about
warning spammers is very unclear about what to do. Since you seem to know more, perhaps you could fix it? It says post these templates on their talk page and then the 5th template signifies that they have been blocked. I didn't know if the act of putting the template on their page blocked them or if I needed to talk to someone else. There should be clearer instructs on that page about what to do. I don't know what it means when it talks about substituting either. Could you explain? Criptofcorbin 09:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, could you please block the ip, it is clearly being used to spam that website off of the lonelygirl15 page Criptofcorbin 09:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Photo removal from Royal Carillon School
Greetings. Why did you delete my photo of one of the facilities of the Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" from the article in a section that discusses it? (Carillonista 16:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Eric D. Snider Photo Removal
Why did you remove all of the photos related to the Eric D. Snider entry? They were all allowed to be on here yet you seem to have removed all of them.
--Jasonlesliewright 23:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the policies and I read the deletion policies and I still don't see why they were deleted. I am friends with the musician. He has full rights to the album art as it was designed by family members and the CD's weren't released by official record companies. He gave full permission for the images to be used.
Unblock request filtering
Hey Geni, it's Shadow42 from IRC. I was recently looking through the list of unblock requests and I found this little gem: [9]. Should I have removed the request entirely, used the reviewed template, or simply not messed with it at all? I figured that the admins didn't need to bother with people like this vandal, so that's why I removed it. Shadow1 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Elkhorn.jpg
Why was this image deleted? I had permission from the user, and labeled it thus. Chris 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:VanessaVanArendonk.jpg
Why was this image deleted? It is a picture of the person in question, given to me by the person in question herself.--
Thomas.macmillan 00:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
How can we fix it, as it is a legitimate image, I was mistaken in the uploading process.--
Thomas.macmillan 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
I'd appreciate it if you took a look at this. I've just retagged for a speedy, but am not sure a) if this is permissible and b) if this is more appropriate for an afd instead. Thanks. --Dweller 11:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the logo in AEK Athens BC page ?
It's the logo of the basketball club !
I think that it's quite bizarre not to be able to have the club's logo, in the club's page ...
Why did you delete image Ronald_J_MacDonald.jpg
I have permission to use the image and it is being displayed in an article. DON'T DELETE!!!!!!!
Tuboat Canal
Just curious really: What is a Tuboat canal as seen in Ketley Canal. I cannot find the word in a dictionary, or is it a misspelling? MortimerCat 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A question for your RfB
Hi Geni, I've added an optional question to your RfB. Thanks, Gwernol 00:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I still don't understand why my image of a book cover keeps getting deleted, what kind of copyright notice do I have to have? grendelsmother 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message but I still don't get it - there are lots of book covers on Wikipedia, so what is the procedure for getting them there? grendelsmother 10:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
K. Thor Jensen picture
Just out of curiosity, why was the picture removed?
--Jasonmcmaster 17:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I must have hit the wrong thing. I have full permission to use the image by it's owner. I'll try again. Thanks.--Jasonmcmaster 17:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the help!
--Jasonmcmaster 17:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
....long overdue...
The Editor's Barnstar
Geni is awarded this barnstar for his devotion to helping clearing the image backlogs which are ignored by so many administrators. Your commitment to staying true to your words and honouring your "election promises" is very much appreciated in this political age. Thankyou, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You Deleted My Article, Why?
Why did you erase my contribution to Wikipedia? The message:
13:55, 29 September 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs) deleted "Mythic: Role Playing" (A8 copyvio) was found. I have no backup and no way to add all that info again.
Doc Halloween 18:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not right
Without any warning members can come along and delete the hard work of others? I can see an edit but not a whole deletion. I had the copyright statment from Mythic's image. The author and owner of Mythic Role Playing even stopped by and enjoyed what I had done. He said he was going to add some stuff. This is just crap. Thank you very much >:^/
Doc Halloween 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am no lawyer
"copyvio? It also appeared to lack a claim to notibilty.Geni 19:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can provide evidence that the text can be used under the GFDL it can be undeleted (although it may get re delted due to lack of noteabilty and stuff. The image was lisenced under a no comercial use lisence which means it cannot be used on wikipedia.Geni 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)"
SAY WHAT? I am no lawyer and I do not know what all that mobo-jumbo crap is. I have wasted enough time with Wikipedia. If the owner and author wants to create another article then by all means. He was happy enough that I had took the time and used my objective view to explain.
Doc Halloween 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You Deleted otl-members.jpg???
I have been given permission to use this image, and I included the source otlcentral.ca - Outside The Lines Official site. I don't see any reason for it to be deleted!
46610 Besixdouze
I don't know where is sense link from 46610 Besixdouze to The Litte Prince. My bot found this link, because is an asteroid pl:46610 Besixdouze and Polish page linked there. It's very stupid idea to link a book and an asteroid and I don't know it is needed. Please, revert your own change. Bocianski 15:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This made some strange things on interwiki. I'll make some stub 46610 Besixdouze and I'll link to another language version. Bocianski 15:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46610 Besixdouze - Not excellent, but sure better than nothing. I haven't all data. Bocianski 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Friedrich Kellner
Please let me know why you deleted the Market Square photo on the Friedrich Kellner page, so that if I made some kind of mistake, I won't repeat it. Thank you for your interest in helping me create a good page. The diary of Friedrich Kellner is an important historical document, and I do want to create a good site about it. (Rskellner 06:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Banned Books
I've posed a question to you and to the rest of the banned books page about your removing the multiple titles you have removed. Thanks. --
u delted all kykkos images saying in the logs that they have not been used with any articale but i already inserted them in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kykkos_monastery this please advise .
Reply: User:Tmalmjursson/Crisis
Thanks for your response Geni. I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to get back to me and give me your views on how admins are treated within WP. I still find it very unfair that the users of WP and others involved have managed now to force one admin to quit totally, and another to rescind his SysOp status. I don't know about my leaving WP, but I have to say that I am definitely not happy with the situation, and if push comes to shove, I may consider having a chat with Jimbo about it. Regards, and thanks again. Thor Malmjursson 11:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see now Geni
I thought you were a user deleting, not a moderator. I saw mention of vandals and people messing with member's work. It would have been better if you had explained, in layman's terms, who you were; what you did; and how to correct my problems. I would have liked that you had warned me before deletion as I am new to the whole Wiki experience. I hope I did not make you upset or offend you.
An arbiter by the user name TheronJ is helping me with getting my article back up and running. It looks like a hard complicated process that may or may not get the article back up. So I have to decide if I want to continue. I am asking the members of the Mythic Role Playing yahoo group to help me in the task.
Peace be with you,
Doc Halloween
Cberlet user page image
Hi, What was the point of deleting the fair use image on my user page? I went to great lengths to follow the image use guidelines. Have they changed? --Cberlet 13:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a picture of me, I have permission to use it, as the image info explains, and it is on my user page as part of instructions on permissions for using material from Political Research Associates on Wikipedia, including that picture. See: this discussion. --Cberlet 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Evangelical Christian Churches
please restore
Could you please restore the article
Canadian Evangelical Christian Churches? It appeared to be a harmless stub about a national denomination, although someone had tagged it (incorrectly, in my view) as an advertisement. Thanks. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the revert
Thanks for reverting my user page. —Silly Dan(talk) 01:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judy Leavitt Image
Geni,
why did you remove the photography of Judith Leavitt? It is a shareable image from histsci.wisc.edu. Please inform...
Basia Trzetrzelewska is just one single vocalist.... Szczur Zosia 17:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Tony Hatch Picture
Why did you remove the photo I added to the entry for Tony Hatch? Hatch himself gave me permission to use it via E-mail. TOM 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Canals
Thanks for your (mothers) image of the Caen hill locks on the K&A canal before restoration. I've been doing some work on the
Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal up to featured list status (but any more help apreciated). I've now started on the Somerset Coal Canal & am having real problems describing the Caisson lock which was unique to this canal. Any help or advice would be appreciated. — Rodtalk 14:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thats exactly what I mean see History of SCC for examples but I don't have the skill/software to do a diagram.— Rodtalk 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick. I feel an article about Caisson Locks coming on which would reuse your diagram. Can I use a small version for the entry I've put on DYK? — Rodtalk 16:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've spotted it but there has been some discussion about your diagram of the
Caisson Lock at Talk:Caisson lock, perhaps you'd be able to contribute/and or adapt the diagram?— Rodtalk 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
Uploaded the modified Caisson lock image. I hope you think it's ok, as the original is your work. Moonraker88 12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use in portals
As you might know, I've created an
amendment for fair use in portals after the discussion located at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It would be great if you could express your opinion, in support or against. ddcc 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
American Chopper
Hello Geni,
I know that this is actually incorrect what I put as the infomation for these images, however, what other way can I possibly find an image and place it here? Every photo of a album cover, dvd cover, poster etc. is by-rights copyright. I love seeing these episode guide in wikipedia like the
family guy
guide, except however, how do these dvd cover images get accepted and not mine. The sources of these images have to surely be the same (to the like) of mine...
Thankyou Geni, and sorry about what I had done its just I did not mean to lie I just simply did not know what to do, wikipedia isn't eaxctally the most user friendly, easy to follow thing on the planet.
No page in particular just simply there is soo much infomation to be read before even the most minor of adjustments can be made.
I have also just read the fair use of coverart I did not know of this, thankyou very much for pointing me at this I will do as it says from now on.
I fixed up the images they should now be good under fair-use.
However, what two law systems to you yourself have to rely on, I often find it a bit more difficult being in Australia and often having to go by US laws on the internet.
Nakamura Kanzaburo picture
Hi.. I woke up this morning to find that an image I posted not even eight hours ago has already been deleted, with no discussion and no notification to myself. What can I do to get this image restored? Did I use the wrong fair use template?
The image was Image:NakamuraKanzaburo18Furoshiki.jpg. I explained in the text fully where it came from and why I thought it was alright to use. Please let me know. LordAmeth 07:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a constant vandal
I bring this to your attention because you are the only mod I have ever coresponded with. His IP is 24.73.218.186 and he is a very frequent vandal. You can see this is Nuclear weapon, Pokémon, and Ku Klux Klan, or just by look at his contribution log. I don't know what the proper way to handle vandals is, so I thought I would show you.
Can you cite the URL for the copyvio and warn the editor who keeps reposting this material with a {{nothanks}} tag, please? (aeropagitica) 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did u delete my Quest3D article?
I just posted an article this afternoon and now it's gone. Apparently you have deleted it? Can I ask what's ur reason? --—The preceding
It didn't make sense what you were talking about my user name. I may of course choose any kind of user name that I want. While about the article, I just wrote something that I knew since I'm using it. There are a lot of Quest3D users out there. Another user had written something about Quest3D in French Wiki and I wanted to add something in English Wiki. Another explanation about this? —The preceding
I don't consider images uploaded under fraudulent licenses to be normal speedies, but nontheless removing them as promptly as possible is an obvious thing to do so I'm doing it. If you like,
WP:IAR. If you need support on expanding CSD, drop me a line and if I agree, I'll chime in in your favour. Take care. --Improv 01:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
deletion of Return to Neveryon article
I posted this article; it is an original contribution and all copyright claims have been forgone, as per site policy. Please reinstate it. Thanks. E. A. Green 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Manpower argument
Regarding this revert, the "manpower argument" simply doesn't work. If there is not enough manpower, the correct response is to get more manpower, not to dilute the work being done to the point where it becomes rushed and careless. Checking the page history can reveal important information (eg. the initial edit summary can reveal the origin of the material); checking the talk page can reveal previous AfD discussions; checking the article log can reveal that the article had been deleted before and that this is a recreation (this in itself can be an indication that people expect to see an article on the subject). I recognise that speedy deletions are meant to be quick decisions, but that doesn't mean they should be based on incomplete information. Gather the information, then make the decision. If you don't have time to do something properly, leave it to someone who does. If there are not enough people, find more people. Carcharoth 12:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are not extra requirements. I would bet that they were explicit or implicit at some point in the past, and someone, citing "instruction creep", removed them. I would say that those removing such material should demonstrate why such checks are not needed. They clearly are needed. Please see here for a detailed analysis of cases where checking this sort of thing would have avoided a costly (in terms of manpower) CSD, DRV, AFD cycle.
For some of my arguments on instruction creep, please see
here. It is important to distinguish between genuine instruction creep, and improvement and clarification of existing guidelines. Reverting any additions with the terse edit summary "instruction creep" is not productive. You should explain why the particular example is instruction creep. Carcharoth 12:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Improv's deletion spree: probably not. Edit summary: sorry, confused you with Steel. My comment at Steel's page about new admins: this was not intended to apply to Improv. I know he has been here a long time (I saw him run in the Foundation Board election). I've also seen some of your posts to the foundation (or some other) mailing list, one of which was just a reply with a link to "instruction creep", so that is probably why I thought this was one of your concerns.
Now I've dealt with what you said, can I ask for constructive criticism of what I said? In particular, you have not addressed the problem of how admins learn the ropes if the policy pages are so terse they don't really explain things. It is annoying when I take the time to explain myself, and I get terse, short replies. It seems part of wider malaise, where people reply/edit quickly and move on, rather than carefully and productively explaining themselves (and incidentially teaching others about their reasoning). This produces pages and editors/admins that are more likely to remain stable (pages) and be productive (people). Carcharoth 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks. I am reassured to hear that the confirm delete page reminds people about the incoming links issue, though surely that is "instruction creep"? :-) Is it possible there is a page that shows or describes what these pages look like (the page that admins see during the process)? That would help avoid this sort of thing. I am guessing it would be on meta somewhere? Carcharoth 13:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Maybe there is a case for "brief" (for rushed or experienced admins) and "detailed" (for new or careful admins) instructions? I know some instruction pages have subpages with detailed explanations. See
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations. That would allow instruction creep to be moved to those detailed pages. I guess it is a case of finding someone with the time to do this. Carcharoth 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
More on instruction creep
I would welcome input on whether this edit is instruction creep. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea why that image was deleted? I know you didn't do it and were just removing the link to it, but can you tell why it was deleted? I made the image at the same time as the one next to it. No copyright issues, it was properly tagged. I don't get it. Can you help?Michael DoroshTalk 03:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, that's the dumbest think I've heard on here yet. The image that was a duplicate of the image you showed me is still on the site, but the heavily modified one was deleted? Dumb, dumb, dumb....Michael DoroshTalk 14:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, which, how different can a map really be? I converted the images from gif to png, redid the colours, cleaned up the lines and in essence produced an original image solely for wikipedia. Whoever deleted the image might have done the uploader (me) the courtesy of discussing it first. I'll be glad when the Citizendium is up and running, and admins who are actually qualified to use good judgement are allowed to practice their craft. :-) Thanks for the reply.Michael DoroshTalk 14:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha, Geni. I went and changed the template from {{sprotect}} to {{Sprotect-banneduser}}, as that is the true reason why the page is protected. Let me know if there are any problems. Cheers, Kilo•T 11:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Geni, I think you can remove this tag now. The editor has not been active on the talk page and may have just lost interest.
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, with the reason given.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrapping up Doc Halloween's advocacy re Mythic: Role Playing
Hi Geni,
I'm acting as an advocate for Doc Halloween, and wrapping up his request for advocacy regarding your deletion of his Mythic: Role Playing page. I think we achieved a pretty good result -- Doc has reviewed
notability criteria and is going to take his text off-Wiki at least until he/she can establish notability. (See generally User talk:Doc Halloween
).
Doc wanted me to pass along his/her feeling that your responses, while accurate, left Doc a little confused about what had happened to his page or why. I can see how Doc ended up confused about the distinction between the copyright status of his image and the copyright status of his text, and what to do about either one.
I've sat on this for a few days because I'm not sure exactly what the remedy is -- you're doing a phenomenal amount of work for the encyclopedia, and you take the time to respond to everyone who has a complaint, so there's nothing specific I can recommend, but as an advocate, I wanted to put the issue out there for you to think about.
Maybe it might be a good idea to keep a couple canned links for new editors with questions, directing them to the help and advocacy pages -- in this case, once Doc understood the notability and copyright issues involved, he/she was able to work through them and come up with a good plan, but it (understandably) took some guidance to lead a first time user through WP's various policies and guidelines.
Thanks for your attention, and for the good work, TheronJ 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Public Domain astronaut for the very fast work with the copyvio's on this list and copyvio's in general. Garion96(talk) 04:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thomas Coke (Methodist)
Heya. Just a heads up that
Thomas Coke (Methodist)
with the edit summary "Reinstating page. cannot see why it was deleted."
I've marked it as db-repost and referred the user to
WP:DRV
on the talk page, but I thought you should probably know about it as the admin that originally removed the page.
I recreated the page because I couldn't see why it would possibly have been deleted. I'm obviously not that good at the technical stuff or I might have been able to work out why it had been deleted and also work out how to use the page for considerations for undeletions. Why did you delete it first time round? It looked like a quite worthwhile page to include.--AlexanderLondon 13:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undeletion of Vilhelm Hammershøi
I have undeleted
WP:COPYVIO if you stand by that claim. --Jerzy•t 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
_ _ I'm not sure your failure to name the source whose cpyrt you believe was violated would be an independent failure to adhere to process, but it is at least a lack of courtesy to your fellow admins.
_ _ I recommend to you the discipline that i impose on myself (when i find A7 speedy candidates):
leave it to another admin to decide whether to do the deletion, and
(in order to contribute to both the initiation and resolution of speedy cases) go to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, judge a few of other editors' cases listed there, and do either the deletion or the removal of the Db tag, according to which your judgment finds called for. --Jerzy•t 17:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your redeletion is still out of process. Stop it. --Jerzy•t 17:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G12 does not apply. Tag it copyvio, for proper consideration of whether to delete to offending revisions. --Jerzy•t 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IU Marching Hundred pictures...
Might I ask why the IUMH pics were removed? I had specific permission from Johnny Gilbert to post them. I credited him and denoted them as such in the picture description. What can I do to fix this problem (as in what do I have to include or click, and please don't link me to a page, I've read them and thought I did exactly what I needed to do)?
The PR (public relations) photographer for the Marching Hundred, Johnny Gilbert, told me that I was permitted to use any of the images that were already on the Marching Hundred main site as they are already optimized for internet use (under 20k in size) and that, as such, they would be difficult to copy. I spoke with him and another PR representative at the same time and both gave me their permission.
He said that I may use them for this very Wikipedia article that I wrote for the Indiana University Marching Hundred.
I've emailed the photographer with a request to have the pictures that I had used be placed in the public domain. Would that be sufficient?
He granted my request to release them to the public domain. Thanks for helping me out.
G12
"G12" is not a good deletion comment. Please at least include link to allegedly plagiarized source, so it can be verified.
And one of your deletions - Melvin Jones doesn't seem that obvious copyvio to me, I undeleted it and moved to {{copyvio}}. Taw 18:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore these histories
We need the histories for further research. I don't know what they call it in England, but in the U.S. we call it "destruction of evidence."
Unfortunately there's no nifty way for us to restore the history information without essentially republishing the plagiarized text, which we wouldn't want to do. But we should work on documenting through what user ID the plagiarism was inserted in each case, I've already started adding such information to W.marsh's list. Haukur 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Please restore these histories" I'm thinking no. I'm not going to put copyvio material into wikipedia.Geni 23:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest next time anyone does this sort of research, they finish it before publishing it. Once we know about it, we have to correct it. Carcharoth 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Terence Knapp Image
Hi Geni! Thank you for looking at the Terence Knapp image and making a judgement on whether to keep it or not. I know you have to make dozens of these decisions every day and I'm sure it is tedious work. I know Mr. Knapp and he gave me verbal permission to put the picture online, as I noted in the picture file. I realize now that that might not be enough. What can I do to get this picture online as part of the article? Thanks for you advice. R. Kevin Doyle 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Wow, the standards for getting an image posted are (understandably) complicated. I'll see how much he wants an image online because I'd rather not add one than jump through the hoops. Thanks again! R. Kevin Doyle 19:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image deletion
Hello, can you help me please? You deleted the image at Alice Roberts presumably because of licensing? The author and owner have given permission for it to be used - how do I deal with this please? Seems very difficult to load a with-permission image on WP! Thanks in advance. MarkThomas 09:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer on my page Geni - does that entail going through the procedures in Wikimedia Commons? Once it's up there, how do you load it back into Wikipedia? MarkThomas 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ammons Middle School
I attempt to place a photo courtesy of Miami-Dade County Public Schools of Herbert Ammons middle school on a Wikipedia page, and you delete it. Why? It has all the necessary information.
There was no copyright on the two family slides I put up on the Colonial Hills page, so I reloaded them. You seem to be splitting hairs here - perhaps you could contact the person who uploaded the photo for some discussion before swooping in and peremptorily deleting everything. george 02:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HIC headshot
I read the rules about submitting images.
I thought I had followed the rules, but the image was deleted by Geni.
What kind of proof can I give that I am HIC's webmaster, and that he ok'd the use of the headshot for the Wikipedia entry?
Could you clarify which image you are talking about? Remeber permission is needed for more than use on wikipedia it also needs to be ok for reusers to use it.Geni 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
