User talk:Picaroon/Archive 3

36:

göstererek anlatılmasını önleyemiyorum banlanıyorum yada Şebinkarahisar maddesi kilitleriniyor. Sizler bu topraklarda yaşadınızmı da biliyorsunuz ? Ermeni Diasporası tarihi istedikleri gibi yazabilir mi ? Ellerinde yetkileri var diye bu yetkilerini kendi çıkarları için kullanabilirler mi ? Neden tüm Türk sayfalarına sadece asılsız ermeni soykırımı hakkında bilgiler ekliyorlar Vikipedia tarafsız ve özgür ansiklopedi değilmi ? Madem bu admin arkadaşalar çok bilgili neden coğrafi, ekonomik, nüfus bilgilerini insanlar için faydalı olacak bilgileri girmiyorlarda sadece asılsız ermeni soykırımı hakkında bilgiler veriyorlar. BU HAKKI NEREDEN BULUYORLAR ? --

5349:

seen from him today I believe he is editing from IP 66.190.156.221. Not sure if a new case is being drawn up or if that IP addy is up for rcu but I believe it should be. If you have time could you tell admin Wiki alf that a 156.34 IP addy actually got a warning for something. I am sure it'll give him quite a good chuckle and he will hunt me down and tease me for it :D. Again thanks for stepping in this evening. SEGA's sporadic "good" edits are always outweighed by his bad(copyvio) ones. And he must be stopped whenever possible. Have a nice day!

769: 6040: 2145: 5085:

discussions about issues which I feel strongly about (RfA voting, userspace and the like), but I will say in my defence that since becoming an admin, I have not had any confrontations or disagreements over my use of the admin tools. Also, as I just did, I tend to admit my error when someone perceives my comments as uncivil. Obviously it's all an academic question now, but I'd prefer to feel that I have the confidence of all users who interact with me, hence why I'm asking your opinion.

5952: 2772: 811: 3694: 5597:. The article is currently undergoing deletion review, so let that conclude. If the article is restored, then this whole discussion is moot. If the article is kept deleted or re-deleted then it would be inappropriate to leave it in a user sandbox anyway. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not going to restore the subpage, because it is common practice to mandate full attribution. 132:. Second, I think unprotecting the page is going to lead to you replace your box which the community agrees is very inappropriate, and I'm unwilling to let that happen. This project still has some integrity left, and I don't wish to be the one to sacrifice it. If you can find another admin willing to unprotect, then they can go right ahead. They have my 120% support. 2112:. (I got no notice of an edit conflict, a highly annoying mediawiki bug that's bitten me before.) The user who was the target of the threat has now blocked CINEGroup for a week (though not for the threat), and another admin extended it to indefinite because of threats. Chances are we haven't seen the last of this person. Sigh. (No need to reply.) -- 5409:, Second Life policy generally lets users retain copyright over virtual things, such as their character design, that they create. If this had been uploaded with an allegation of ownership of copyright by the uploader, would this image have been retained? I imagine there have been prior discussions of this. Can you point me to any? - 2155:, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without 5541:... multiple accounts are not allowed to interact, such as in voting discussions or pretend to agree with each other. I used the term doppelganger to refer to you because I was assuming good faith. I was merely speculating you were the second account of another user. Anyway, glad to see it was sorted. Cheers. - 6311:

I do appreciate your efforts to help. I do understand the importance of definitions and clear wording (per my question to define 'editor in good standing', for example) - but in this particular case, I consider the issue simply irrelevant, per my comments in the discussion. I am not objecting to your

5523:

I am quite familiar with Knowledge and wikis in general. I've been using it nearly every day for several years, I simply didn't bother to create an account before. BTW, what do you mean by "doppelganger"? I know what the word means, but I'm not sure what would it refer to in this particular context.

5190:

I simply have no clue why you're denying the truth by calling me a sockpuppet. Such lying is only going to turn this into a flame war. I've emailed the blocking admin, but do I get a reply? No. That pretty much ticks me off. If the blocking admin is seeing this: Get a god damn life other then framing

5084:

While you're online, I'd just like to ask something. As you were one of the few opposers on my second RfA (which passed, nonetheless), I've been wondering whether (based on my record since then) you still consider me to be an unsuitable admin. I admit that I do tend to get a little sharp in community

5292:

Well, thanks for telling me about the incident board. That will be helpful in the future. As far as this IP is concerned, another admin has blocked it. I guess that I assumed that when admins responded to alerts on the AIV board they would actually read the reasons why the report is being made an

4724:

Oh, didn't think of that and yes, they certainly wouldn't belong on the main page. I tried out section-only transclusion last night, but it didn't work, so until then I guess we'll stick with two lists as you recommend. (With section transclusion we could use noinclude tags to leave this list on the

4043:

Thanks for reminding me about that! I actually came back to that this year but decided not to delete it yet because of the comment on the talk page and the possibility it would be used again. However, I don't see a need for it now - it can always be undeleted or moved, if necessary, and I've deleted

3881: 2891:

The list of programs on the essay shows how Esperanza tried to help the community but ultimately failed. That's why I think that that particular paragraph is relevant to the essay. Oh, and I have enough things to do right now...I have my finals at the end of the month and I simply don't have time to

1627:

because "CSD G6, only use substed." I looked at CSD G6: "Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a

893:

article. Although she is an incredibly attractive woman and it's a very nice picture, I suggest that the image is copyrighted and does not belong on Knowledge. See the lower left edge of the picture, which clearly indicates a copyright statement. Although the user that downloaded the image claims it

5657:

If you are intelligent, you should research the names of inventors I am adding to my posting, instead of you acting contrary to the rules of Knowledge. Stop reverting the thoroughly researched information I post. And if academicians are shown what you are doing, they will whole-heartedly agree that

5419:

Yes, it could definitely be retained if it had been under a free license. Specifically, it is the wording "and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company or person that developed the game" which is relevant. I'm not familiar with the game, but if the game does allow users the copyright

5348:

Belated follow-up on the "Sega chase". BTW, thank you for coming to my defence... it was happening so quick I didn't have time to go to AiV or even fill the other "confused :)" editor in on what was really happening. Since you're onto what SEGA is up to... Based on what "typical" edit history I've

5270:

Okay, here is the thing: like my IP report said, "Please look at this IPs contribs. I've not seen anything like this. All are reverts of a user's edits and are happening very quickly." I was hoping to enlist support from an admin (you, perhaps, but apparently not as you are now admonishing me for

4807:

here on enwiki is on my watchlist, so if the vandalism has not been fixes yet, the interwiki bots will alert me - this is how I caught the two attacks from a month or two ago. So, unfortunately for the article, I think leaving it as a dummy for this recurring vandal is necessary: otherwise he might

3844:

Conversant with? Not quite. Familiar? Yes. Nigeria's political scene revolves around two things, money and personalities; often, these are intertwined, and not much more can be said for the whole institution. While we can say that the ANPP is socially conservative and has Islamic appeal and similar

3413:

No, but you can ask me third time if the mediation starts going anywhere. With all respect to Kyoko, who seems to be doing her best to find common ground, the discussion you three have been having isn't going anywhere. In times like this, boldness has to suffice. (I should note, however, that Steve

2702:

part - will lead to a block for disruption, even if it is just one revert. If you think it essential, I will give Ed an explicit warning on his talk page, just as I have implicitly done for you. Would you like me to do that? I want you both to understand what an incredibly petty dispute is and why

1164:

changes to Knowledge pages without consulting on the talk page first. Lastly, I know that "redirects are cheap" and there's rarely any reason to mess with them (where do you get the idea that they're rarely used, anyway? Said seriously. I usually mark my edit summaries for disambiguation pages

4393:

that it be orphaned. "Deleted as unused fair use image?" That is what we do to unused fair use images. "Proper deletion procedures were not followed per WP:IFD and instructions for administrators?" Wrong, process was followed correctly. "Uploader User:Eqdoktor was not served a deletion notice to

2726:

And in saying you will block anyone for revert warring, you are basically giving Ed carte blanche to do whatever he wants to that damn page, even though it is completely against consensus as shown on the mediation, on the AN/I and the village pump, because I can't revert him and he never reverts

4349:

and it has no provisions for speedy closures of deletion review. If you could kindly point out the relevant policy page in which a DRV can be speedily closed in less than 5 days, It would be much appreciated. I was in the middle of typing the reason why the image should be undeleted when it was

225:

Forgive me if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but this is in regards to the Cowherd article. I have tried to communicate with them in their Talk pages, submitted it for mediation (no response), but there has been no resolution in the dispute. I wanted to bring it your attention for more

4377:

Your argument that the deletion was improper was as follows: "Image was improperly orphaned and deleted as unused fair use image. Proper deletion procedures were not followed per WP:IFD and instructions for administrators. Uploader User:Eqdoktor was not served a deletion notice to contest the

2827:

edit among those in my proposal. Don't worry, I'm not going to try to engage in major edits now until Dev begins to actually respond to my prospectus. It seems like Dev hasn't objected to the sics yet...but we'll see. As the month progresses and we discuss more, I will begin to reinstate more

336:

To Wooyi: Because decisions made are made on the grounds of consensus, not votes (except on large-scale polls such as elections). To Picaroon9288: You would think an editor like me would have checked the deletion log of that template, after hearing previously about debates over said template.

4697:

Hmm, so how would you suggest we go about avoiding having to update two lists, which is the main reason I removed the listing on WP:AC? Although it isn't much effort to update, keeping only one listing will eliminate the possibility of disparities between the two. If we created a subpage of

35:

da yaşıyorum bu topraklada doğdum bu topraklarda büyüdüm ve neler yaşandığını sizlerden daha iyi biliyorum ama benim şehrimin benim yaşadığım yerin tarihinin yanlış taraflı ve lobicilik faaliyetleri içerisinde insalara olmayan bir şeyi sahte, asılsız ve düzmece kaynakları sunarak olmuş gibi

3059:

Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page.

3839:

and I would like to identify key national issues (social, economic and political) in Nigeria, and use them to determine the political ideologies of the Nigerian political parties (based on the decisions they've made over the last 8 years). Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

3934:

Many people might just have walked away, thinking "bugger them", and just have not cared, but you didn't. I felt you deserved something special for this - feel free to move the star where ever you like (or remove it if you don't like it, some people seem to do that too). Best wishes,

236:

OK, I entered the links to the disputed versions and a link to the Mediation request. STS01 is more of a macro-level problem on the page, as he appears to historically delete anything that doesn't put the radio host in the best light. Hopefully I entered the information correctly.

1173:, and I got that habit from seeing other people do the same). How hard would it have been to drop a line on a talk page somewhere and ask yourself why they were made, and if there was any objection to removing them? If people agreed with you there, then I wouldn't say anything. 5204:

Pay no attention to him. Checkuser confirmed the sockpuppetry, so there is really no way to deny it and expect to be taken seriously. While checkuser is not infallible, it might as well be considered so in this case - behavior and articles edited confirm the technical evidence.

2919:

No, I do not see "how Dev's actions are becoming very silly;" I see how both your actions have been very silly from the start. You both mention having to study for finals, so why not go do it and get some A plusses? Surely that is more important than the state of some webpage.

3152:

Hello there. If I read the edit history of %s correctly, you added the RFD note to it. I was originally just going to ask you to share your thoughts on the notice being removed, but in writing have decided it's better to make it more open, and so have started a topic on it on

2715:

What? I just reverted him before I saw this message. You're going to block me for reverting Ed for disrupting consensus? That's not right. You must have read the mediation page, you must know Ed is entirely alone in his edits, why do I have to take this because he won't stop?

151:

as an admin. Could I ask you to delete my user- and talkpages there? (I've crossposted this request on your talk page there so that you can see that it's really me requesting this.) I'm not active there anymore (never was, actually) so I'd like my pages to be gone. Thanks, —

4585:" ), of cource, can't mean I want to create a new policy, guideline, or essay, therefore, I don't need propose something. I just need indicate people my version so that people can form a consensus on it. What is the problem with my edit? First, please revive my edit. -- 3895:

A wise man once said, the path is the goal. In that spirit, for keeping an open mind, accepting that it is impossible to be always right - for to err is human - and yet still continously striving to become better, I hereby award you the Resilient Barnstar. Best wishes,

1991:

I should also note, in case you have yet to notice, that I have an annoying habit of editing things the moment they pop up in my watchlist even if I haven't edited them in weeks; I figure this causes edit conflicts a fair amount of the time. So I apologize in advance.

1814:

5124:

No problem! I regret to say I never actually got around to reviewing your contributions so as to make a decision, but the high level of post-sock-puppetry-removal-support you received suggests you'll make a fine admin. If I recall correctly, besides Dmcdevit and me,

1382:

never comes to a consensus, so sometimes just trying things and seeing how they work out is our best bet for reform. Please can we just see how this one works and start a talk page discussion after it's done? It's not like the lack of numbering affects his chances.

4714:

The downside is that the parenthetical comments of use to the clerks ("active only on cases accepted since last Wednesday") would not be appropriate on the main AC page. On balance, remembering to update both lists is probably the path of least resistance, alas.

4808:

turn to lots of other pages instead of just this one. But now I have an idea: I am going to request a checkuser on Meta and see if we can get his IP address blocked. (I'll do this now.) By the way, I think you should go ahead and request adminship for igwiki.

2682:

I am seriously begging you to reconsider this. I do not have the time to wait around for Ed to start warring again, which he will. If you think it won't happen you have clearly come in very late. Please, please, reprotect. My university place is at stake.

1377:

Yes, but trying minor changes one candidate at the time is the only way they'll ever get through. I agree that Matt Britt's RfA could've been better, but at least it wasn't enforced on all the RfAs this week - it was an experiment. And, as you know,

5113:

I thought my RfA entered some bizarre parallel dimension before you and Dmcdevit came in and helped sort things out. Things went swimmingly after that. Thanks ever so much, I hope to become such an effecting Admin in the future. All the best.

4554: 6312:

proposed change of wording, I just think its a futile effort - nothing good will come from this clarification because (IMHO, of course) nothing good will come from the proposed remedy relying on it. PS. I can think of at least one example of

4626:

Actually, it would have caused severe contradiction and misunderstanding. If you really want to prevent further confusion and misrepresentation, you need to replace {{essay}} with {{policy|]}} or something like that. I will do it myself. --

2641: 2677: 1366:

Because the RFAs should be done the same so on one candidate gets a better or worse shot at it than the others. Why was it made different in the first place? Look at the damage to RFAs done by all the recent "experimenting", ie, Brill,

3658:

Hello. This user that you blocked has requested to be unblocked. I thought I would make you aware of this, as I advised for him to e-mail you but he claims he doesn't have an e-mail account. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

4320:

If you look on the web, you'll see that this club is somewhat notable for it's use of RFID implants. As well as a number of news articles, it's also been cited in a number of essays and articles relating to privacy and other issues.

4574: 4479: 2846:

With all due respect, I would like you to revert your actions and send your proposal to mediation. The edit war is highly unstable right now, and I would appreciate it if we could at least discuss all edits going on before taking

1156:

What the?! I am not a scholar of Knowledge policy! I just know that those shortcuts have been there as long as I've seriously worked on Knowledge, and a quick check of dates shows that most were made in late 2005 / early 2006

3788:

per G3. I guess you missed the edit history, as it had been vandalized by two IP's and was originally a valid dab page? I have restored all the revisions now, including the recent nonsense page. I hope you don't mind. Thanks,

5510:

Meh, when concrete evidence of wrongdoing is lacking, we should assume good faith. Dale might well be primarily a reader, not an editor, who decided to help out this once by uploading a screenshot to enhance the article.

127:

I was archiving a discussion that was already over. First, your obstinance made it clear you weren't taking me seriously. Engaging in civil, intelligent, thoughtful discussion is a requirement for doing business with me,

5180: 1294:

Good work on that paragraph. As you probably see, I moved the Education and health to its own section. Hope that is OK but its in keeping with other FAs. I also did my bit by creating a stub from one of the red links:

5500:

Very odd. I created the tag for the second life screenshots and within hours not only did the uploader clarify the license info but he posted HERE when previously he had only 3 separate edits. Must be a doppelganger.

5330:. Thanks for looing into this. I will use the incident board for such concerns in the future. A few nights ago, I was on when Colbet vandalism hit hard adn I was wondering where to post what I saw coming through... 410:

Picaroon has already talked to me about that image on my talk page. I'm pretty sure, Picaroon correct me if I'm wrong, that it was because those images encourage decision making on the number of votes, not consensus.

2866:

The page is "highly unstable" because a certain two users like to keep it that way. Seriously, Ed, please relax. I have some articles that need writing if you need to occupy your time; you will find links to them at

709:

contained a portion of text describing the plot of the game which was a copyright violation (as it was taken straight from another website). As such, it was nominated for speedy deletion and was deleted by you on 30

380: 5768: 5622:, is good example of where we request full attribution, not just "from Knowledge." The fact that this is in a user subpage on Knowledge doesn't make it different, because the content is still not fully attributed. 4871: 4076: 3440: 2262: 1414: 1124:

Is there a discussion on this anywhere you can link to, or is this removal of the MoS shortcuts completely your own idea? I know that I for one much prefer the MoS links, and WP: itself is a pseudo-namespace too.

954: 504: 2959:

I will not cease my edits to Esperanza until Dev and I are able to reach a compromise. Again, I request that we be able to discuss your changes to the essay via mediation, not via controversial edits to the

2663:

Sorry, but I'm really not much of a featured article reviewer (I don't recall the article or my edit, and probably only noticed the FAC because of Brian's Cameroon FAC going on at the same time). Good luck.

3319:

How much time do the parties have to present their evidence? Does it stand to reason that the party sumbiting RfArb and being the 'accuser' should present their evidence first, before the 'defender' reply?

6005:

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

904:

Me, experienced with copyright? Not especially, I just do a lot of deleting. I'm going to have to agree with you that the photo probably wasn't taken by the uploader, so he can't release it into the GFDL.

5700:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a general dump of unmoderated knowledge, Academicigbo. Your edits with your various accounts have been reverted on so many occasions by so many editors. Our policies

3205:

Can you keep an eye on this user because he is claiming to be 98E's younger brother (on the user's second edit, he posted that notice on his talk page). This account was created less than a day after

3118: 6010: 4637: 5198: 2952:

A's. If I've never been getting straight A's then I wouldn't be here for so long, would I? Studying for finals is not that big of a deal to me than to Dev, who probably might even be doing

5709: 875:

I just now noticed your response to one of my comments. It made me smile (which is what I presume was intended : ) - And I've added it to my memorable comments. Thanks for the smile : ) -

4589: 2644:, I wondered if you could add any comments if you have the time, as it has been difficult to get reviewers to make an oppose or support on the article. It's been up for nearly a month.-- 2688: 4795:

First of all, let's keep this discussion on enwiki for now (you'll understand in a few sentences.) I've moved the page back and deleted the two redirects, but there is a reason I have

4702:

with the activity or inactivity levels, and then transcluded it on the noticeboard and WP:AC, we might be able to have the best of both worlds. Can you think of any downsides to this?

2892:

edit articles. The only thing that's keeping me here is Dev's apparent stubborness towards keeping the essay the way it is. Do you see now how Dev's actions are becoming very silly?--

4148: 1279: 1249: 1218: 2987:

Ummm...as if Dev hasn't attacked me, especially on the basis of my age. I suggest that you read my comments on the mediation page regarding Dev's intolerance towards teenagers.--

2236:

after creation (see page history) so as to make it easier to find the RfCs of involved parties. I figured there wasn't much difference anyways so I didn't bother switching back.

6265: 5152: 3524: 2182: 1276: 1246: 1215: 187:

hey i need the anticommunist userbox i couldn't find other userbox about anticommunist, that's why i created a new one if you can find one please tell me where is it...thanks

2029: 1852: 1019: 5271:

reporting "good users"). Obviously something strange is afoot. Why don't you try to AGF sometime instead of coming down against me on my talk page after I report what is

4461:" mean "the blue link"? If so, where can it be? You deleted the page and changed the blue link into the red one by yourself. None of my business. Please revive my edit. -- 3749:

to featured status. It was a large task, so I was happy to see a few other editors willing to pitch in here and there to push it over the edge to acceptance. So, thanks! —

3139: 717:, which you then deleted on 6 April. Since this second version does not constitute a copyright violation, could you undelete the article? Look forward to hearing from you. 4136: 3505: 2327: 2109: 5643:

Verbatim Copying under Section 2 of the license does not require attribution. Attribution of the sort you are implying falls under Section 4 when you modify an article.

4567:

If anybody would like to add anything to the list, please feel free to do so, and to write it first, if it doesn't exist already. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

6145: 5852: 4955: 4737:

If you're planning on any complicated section transclusions, include me out. More often than not I can't even get the dash in the template properly commented in or out.

4160: 3541: 2358: 1534: 1038: 600: 2741:

him over matters as minor as the inclusion of s and footnotes then the page is hopeless and needs to stay protected forever. I direct you to one of my favorite essays,

6157: 5864: 5828: 5369: 5090: 5071: 5051: 4960: 4165: 4141: 3548: 2363: 1539: 1043: 612: 196: 5609:

If this is common practice, then you could point to an example of that practice somewhere? We have tons of examples of deleted articles in userspace already. Thanks.

5533:

A "doppelganger" is a polite term for an alternate account. A "sockpuppet" is an abusive alternate account, and a "doppelganger" is one complying with the rules, per

6150: 5857: 5584:

Complete edit history is not required. Some people think it is, others think it's not. The Wikimedia Foundation has not stated one way or the other on this issue.

4600:

which has been already a Knowledge's official policy. This edit can't be "my" "essay". I have already experienced and explained about the similar matter. Please see

3754: 3500: 1965: 605: 2487:

similar. Both have edited warning templates to give them "better" images, both have an interest in South Park and claim to know Trey Parker, etc. Food for thought.

94:

Hey Picaroon, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. See you around!

6366: 6272: 6126: 6109: 5833: 5716: 5626: 5601: 5576: 5515: 5490: 5438: 5391: 5256: 5209: 5143: 4812: 4729: 4706: 4486: 4402: 3979: 3926: 3857: 3803: 3770: 3717: 3678: 3418: 3365:

What would you recommend I replace them with? It's a rather complicated system, and there seems to be some advocacy for placing a list within the template itself.

3189: 3011: 2979: 2924: 2875: 2749: 2707: 2668: 2615: 2584: 2533: 2464: 2322: 2240: 2074: 2046: 1993: 1983: 1954: 1869: 1816: 1806: 1777: 1715: 1706: 1668: 1643: 1384: 1352: 1144: 928: 906: 750: 445: 403: 384: 279: 133: 69: 5098: 5079: 6101: 4378:

deletion. Said image has already passed an earlier IFD test. Admin User:Nick has unilaterally refused to undo the admin error. Eqdoktor 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"

1788: 889:

I know you have more experience than I dealing with copyright questions. Would you please take a look at the Image:MELISSATHEURIAU.jpg image that appears on the

5175: 6138: 6114: 5845: 5747: 5738: 4948: 4649: 4424: 4251: 3731:

Thanks for your additions to the tourism template. If you want you could also add the template to the article you added the links in the template for. Thanks.

3536: 2351: 1976: 1522: 1486: 1479: 1031: 588: 569: 6121: 5365: 5350: 3517: 2334: 1799: 1510: 1503: 2828:

uncontroversial edits up to the point where Dev reverts one of my edits. But we'll see what happens...hopefully Dev will be willing to continue mediation.--

2601:

Thank you very much for blocking this guy. I've been involved with back and forth with him for a while now. You've restored my faith that Wiki does work.

1972:

We seem to be collaborating on this series of articles. :) Looking forward to more of the same. It's good to be back in mainspace again for a bit. Regards,

1795:

We seem to be collaborating on this series of articles. :) Looking forward to more of the same. It's good to be back in mainspace again for a bit. Regards,

6280:

After getting hammered on Knowledge fair use for a while, it gets easier to develope the rationale. I'm glad that article will be staying on Wikipeida. --

5406: 5313: 3750: 3299: 1945: 1932: 1768: 1755: 429: 355: 311: 37: 468: 174: 6363: 6269: 5713: 5669: 5623: 5598: 5573: 5512: 5487: 5435: 5388: 5383:

is going to happen at that train wreck of a page. If I speedy deleted it under CSD G1, would it get sent to deletion review? Oh, the delete button is so

5253: 5206: 5140: 5108: 4809: 4726: 4703: 4509: 4483: 4399: 3976: 3923: 3854: 3800: 3767: 3714: 3675: 3415: 3186: 3008: 2976: 2921: 2872: 2746: 2704: 2665: 2612: 2581: 2530: 2461: 2237: 2071: 2043: 1866: 1665: 1527: 593: 5659: 5259: 4307: 3274: 3251: 2611:

Whether Knowledge works now, or ever will, is debatable. Whether Knowledge becomes more pleasant when blocking abusive sockpuppeteers is unqestionable!

2575: 1948: 3835:

You seem to be very conversant with the political affairs of Nigeria. I've read quite a few articles about how Nigeria's polity is devoid of ideology.

1957: 1491: 1014: 576: 5979:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 5394: 5212: 2799:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 2587: 2536: 1996: 1771: 838:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 6189: 6133: 6014: 5896: 5840: 4990: 4943: 4931: 4195: 4153: 3773: 3580: 3529: 3292: 2627: 2618: 2393: 2346: 2005: 1986: 1780: 1615: 1569: 1515: 1498: 1474: 1073: 1026: 777: 644: 581: 81: 72: 5066: 4398:. "Admin User:Nick has unilaterally refused to undo the admin error." There was no error. In other word, you don't really have any argument at all. 3019:

What the hell does that essay have to do with anything??? Anyway, I like the music notes; I should add it to my user page sometime, but not tonight.

2058: 2049: 1819: 1718: 5118: 4936: 4741: 4732: 4719: 4709: 3512: 2339: 1828: 1809: 1160:

for example). The redirects were also made by different people implying at least some consensus. I also know that people aren't supposed to make

753: 5493: 5481: 4660: 4531: 4001: 2524: 2077: 1881: 1872: 1636: 931: 918: 909: 5049:

think are more valid, rather than what a majority of participants think. However, as per your concerns, I will tone down my comments at the RfA.

3982: 3192: 1966: 1789: 421: 347: 303: 6301: 6284: 6275: 5719: 5629: 5613: 5604: 5588: 5579: 5518: 5505: 5457: 5441: 4815: 4631: 4465: 4405: 4295: 2671: 2495: 2467: 2243: 1190: 1147: 483: 448: 282: 3975:

Oh don't worry, you did nothing wrong. :-) Assuming good faith is never a mistake; it just occasionally proves itself to be faulty assumption.

3952: 3929: 3681: 2433: 2249: 1609: 1401: 1355: 1113: 941: 327:

I have a question, the vote symbol has been used customarily in Wikimedia commons and the Chinese Knowledge, why the English one is different?

136: 5545: 5528: 5353: 4354: 3806: 3634: 3414:

block's idea, which also doesn't include this list, looks to be short enough that you would be hard pressed to find reason to argue over it.)

2752: 2732: 2721: 2710: 1680: 1671: 1655: 1651:

Can you please restore it and perhaps move it to a subpage of mine? Thanks. I just didn't see how your deleting of it applied under CSD G6. -

1646: 1387: 694: 241: 6229: 5936: 5146: 5030: 4489: 4235: 564: 491: 387: 6383: 6369: 5470: 4846: 4782: 4616:" ) is apparently just from ordinary common sense. Therefore, this page can't be "my" "essay". And, you have jumped to a conclusion such as 4368: 3620: 365: 58: 6027: 5755: 5661:. In good spirit, I say you should think clearly before editing anything here in Knowledge. And thanks for cooperating...for the meantime. 4858: 4822: 4643: 4601: 4474: 4063: 1935: 1299:. My French is terrible so I hope that stub makes some kind of sense as I translated it from French websites. Anyway, I added my support.-- 456: 4520: 4516: 4058: 3421: 3354: 3096: 3014: 2997: 2982: 2970: 2927: 2902: 2878: 6219: 5926: 5045:

admins - "bad" is a pejorative term. What concerns me is that admins who are against voting will close XfDs according to which arguments

5020: 4691: 4330: 4225: 3610: 3427: 2423: 1758: 1599: 1103: 684: 374: 331: 3825: 3641:. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2036: 914:

Thanks for the review. Do you know what the correct process is for removing it? Does it get added to some delete list? I'm new at this.

159: 3168: 738: 721: 117:

It extremely impolite to remove my remarks without replying. I ask you to unprotect my userpage, as you were the one who protected it.

54:; this was deleted as non-notable, IIRC, but I now have additional information about her career as a television presenter. Thank you. 4683:. For example, sometimes we instruct people that they can "e-mail any active arbitrator" and it seems more sensible to direct them to 3238: 3119: 2727:

anyway, just puts more and more nonsense in it. Which is ridiculous, and I fail to see how that is either fair or solves the problem.

1859: 6193: 5900: 5246: 4994: 4361: 4199: 3821:. I just found out this was true. I just updated it with the official press realease numbers of the Nigeria Population Commission. -- 3584: 3407: 3288: 3261: 2742: 2657: 2397: 2165: 2152: 1573: 1284: 1077: 898: 648: 5339: 4557: 5453:

tags, although this one could be useful because it clarifies the fact that making a screenshot does not create a derivative work. -

4020: 3638: 3381: 3375: 3334: 3308: 5413: 4435: 2195:

You did a very nice job :) (better than I did on my first one anyway...) however, the template to use under "involved parties" is

2001:

No problem because I am exactly the same way. I've had a user worry that I was stalking his edits for this exact reason. Regards,

1824:

No problem because I am exactly the same way. I've had a user worry that I was stalking his edits for this exact reason. Regards,

6292: 5750: 5741: 5059: 4265: 3913: 3303: 3265: 4853: 2857: 1341: 6258: 5293:

do something more than a "ten second scan." Perhaps realize that not every case of vandalism is as simple as somebody writing

2130: 5373: 4389:"Image was improperly orphaned?" No, it was properly orphaned, because there is a free use image already in existence. Policy 1183: 40: 6185: 6181: 6022: 5892: 5888: 5693: 4986: 4982: 4645:

on which you should leave deletion discussion, only because you didn't leave deletion diascussion? Please revive my edit. --

4191: 4187: 4038: 3818: 3576: 3572: 3231: 2389: 2385: 1565: 1561: 1069: 1065: 640: 636: 4345:

Hello, If at all possible, I would like to know why this DRV request was closed in less than 2 hours. I have looked through

5158: 272: 45: 6356: 6240:

It's good for users, not complete for administrators. Maybe we could do a special template that covers all possibilities.

4336: 4032: 3668: 792: 321: 6362:

That's how I found it, via the link to the image in your oppose. It isn't going to pass, so I have no reason to pile on.

5323: 4670: 4325: 3760: 3125:

I replied on my talk page. The short answer is that the picture/category you click on comes from another template called

2823:

Hi, Picaroon, and thank you for the unprotection of the Esperanza page. I have proceeded to make what is, IMHO, the most

2015: 1903: 1129: 679:; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315 5041:

My apologies, I wasn't intending to appear to assume bad faith. My issue isn't so much that such users necessarily make

4260: 3389:

Regarding your recent removal of text from the essay, would you be willing to revert your actions pending discussion on

1254: 879: 121: 6244: 6083: 5811: 5677: 4914: 4821: 4119: 3860: 3483: 3360: 3161: 3005: 2635: 2305: 1982:

I don't contribute to United States stuff that much, but your comment at the clerks' noticeboard spurred me to action!

1805:

I don't contribute to United States stuff that much, but your comment at the clerks' noticeboard spurred me to action!

1457: 997: 547: 413: 339: 295: 107: 5647: 5566: 5466:

be bold and do it. As for this particular image, not much can be done with it due to the uncertain copyright status. -

3969: 3735: 6337: 5136: 3812: 3314: 3242: 3222: 2481: 2098: 1838: 1726: 1661: 1223: 865: 700: 6254:

I added a DYK nomination crediting you with the content to make sure it's suggested within the 5 day DYK window. --

5995: 5284: 4789: 3720: 2844: 2126:

Hi Picaroon :) Thanks for your help with ArbCom matters. Always welcome the involvement of more helpers. Take care,

1312: 1259: 5431: 5228: 3965:

Thanks for removing the trolling. I didn't realize it was a troll until I checked their contributions. My mistake.

3282: 2605: 2220: 2025: 1898: 1848: 1709: 1620: 884: 711: 6264:

Thank you, and also thank you for your help with the article. That is a very sophisticated fair use rationale for

3268:

starts to comment on his talk page. Either they are brothers sharing a computer or they are both the same person.

1942: 1765: 215: 5705: 5524:

If you mean you suspect that this is an alt account, then it isn't, I simply made my previous edits anonymously.

5400: 4699: 4680: 3871: 3645: 3182: 2813: 6347:

The creator of this clearly divisive Userbox is up for adminship: Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Wikihermit.

3793: 2446:

Was 98E pretending to be Trey Parker to upload South Park images? Is that what the impersonation reference was?

2116: 1371: 675:

Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in

230: 5701: 4840: 4776: 4395: 3846: 3086:

Therefore, I feel that your edit to the essay should be retracted until there's actually a discussion for it.--

2975:

Ed, personal attacks are not acceptable. I strongly suggest you retract your comment about Dev's intelligence.

2838: 2738: 1332: 462: 266: 142: 2454: 4423: 4350:

closed - I was quite surprised. I believe not enough time was given and consensus was not reached. Thanks. --

2517: 439: 1186:, so that regardless of what people may or may not have said a year ago, we can see what people think now. 182: 6249: 6176: 5883: 5737:

is non-notable(check her talk page), although I chose the wrong tag. Please, where should I list her? TIA.

4977: 4182: 3567: 2380: 2121: 1642:"Your userbox?" No, it's the Wikimedia Foundation's userbox. Please create them in user space from now on. 1556: 1060: 631: 51: 5710:

Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

727:

I seem to have re-deleted it under CSD A7 because it did not assert notability. The text was as follows: "

6342: 5619: 3027: 1923:

differently and leaving nasty messages on my talk page. It's escalating, and I'm not sure he understands

1746:

differently and leaving nasty messages on my talk page. It's escalating, and I'm not sure he understands

1135:

I'm well aware of that, but it is a widely used one. This MOS/MoS stuff is not. So instead of me finding

65: 6000: 5252:

Really, it's almost reflexive. Someone tailgates you, you swear at them; troll pops up, you block them.

3291:

case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at

3209:

was blocked indefinitely. The user also seems to share some of the same interests as 98E, which include

2560: 927:}} and removed it from the article. It can be deleted as soon as the 26th, but backlogs may delay this. 383:

is the TfD from almost two years ago, which definitively established that we don't use these on enwiki.

6039: 5980: 5767: 5652: 5243: 5234: 4870: 4394:

contest the deletion?" That is not a requirement. "Said image has already passed an earlier IFD test?"

4075: 3439: 2800: 2261: 1413: 953: 839: 706: 503: 4596:

Thank you very much. However, I have to say, "No, no". I'm going to just indicate the new version of

870: 171: 156: 1953:

He seems to have stopped. If he ever acts nastily towards you again tell me and I'll deal with him.

1776:

He seems to have stopped. If he ever acts nastily towards you again tell me and I'll deal with him.

4621:

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors.

3799:

I made a careless mistake and you caught it - so no, I don't mind at all. Thank you for restoring.

3650: 2868: 247: 4725:

noticeboard, transclude the section onto the main page, and then hide the comments on that page.)

4274: 1632:

the userbox which I made and matters to me falls under the "houskeeping" title. Please explain. -

89: 5728: 5317: 4760:

Hey can you move-protect the Imo State article (frequent page move vandalism) and block the user

4675:

Thanks for following up on my thoughts about the formatting of the activity level information on

4313: 288: 4028:

Sure, yours is the better approach. Will use the Protected Titles approach myself in future. --

5992: 5673: 5139:) was involved in having them checkusered and removed, so you might want to thank him as well. 3939: 3900: 2956:

since she needs to take a month-and-a-half long wikibreak for a test that probably lasts a day.

1273: 1243: 1212: 1119: 112: 26: 5951: 2771: 1398:

Thanks for being objective on the Onyema Ugochukwu article (i.e. Edits made by 69.159.61.19).

810: 5967: 5562:

Attribution is fulfilled until the terms by stating "from Knowledge the 💕" as it did state.

5359: 5265: 5240: 5130: 3217: 2787: 826: 789: 3960: 6017: 5712:

are what I am following. Could you please point me to the rules I am "acting contrary to?"

5665: 5425: 4764:

who is responsible for the it? Perhaps a move-protect also on its talk page. Thank you. --

4050: 4009: 3674:

He's a sockpuppet; Dmcdevit confirmed it via checkuser. Remind me why I need to email him?

3198: 2156: 746: 168: 153: 8: 6306: 6298: 6225:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 5932:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 5557: 5193: 5036: 5026:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 4302: 4290: 4241: 4231:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 3616:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 3269: 3246: 3226: 3176: 3147: 2572: 2521: 2477: 2429:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1605:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1109:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 690:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 211: 5449:

from Commons? The only objection I could see with this is Knowledge generally frowns on

3845:

broad, widely reported things about other parties, it is important to remember that the

3022:

Despite tensions that Dev and I have between each other, making major edits to an essay

2529:

Good catch. No, there is no need for a checkuser; the connection was blatantly obvious.

890: 6321: 6199: 6115:

Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies

5906: 5000: 4834: 4770: 4205: 3590: 3129: 2818: 2654: 2624: 2602: 2493: 2452: 2403: 2230: 2209: 2199: 1714:

Oh, you asked me "why" you're a sock, not how I knew. You're a sock because I said so.

1579: 1379: 1309: 1083: 859: 801: 654: 262: 78: 55: 17: 5687: 1182:

Anyway. Since it seems that you want me to take the lead, I've added a discussion at

6374:

Okay...I thought maybe you found it after I slapped the csd tag on there. thanks.

6330: 6235: 5989: 5168: 4753: 3947: 3908: 3822: 3740: 3663: 3347: 3327: 2323:

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Knowledge frustrating, rewarding

1916: 1739: 1289: 1270: 1240: 1228: 1209: 1158: 749:." I should note that I'm also taking a break from admin actions for the time being. 102: 5326:). I think the IP may have been onto something. The sock puppt claimed the IP was 5069:

before changing to oppose, and that I have nothing personal against this candidate.

2678:

Unprotected Knowledge:Esperanza: I don't suppose there will be any more edit warring

32: 6313: 6241: 5593:

When we lack clarification, and can not reach a conclusion, playing it safe is the

5126: 5095: 5076: 5056: 4738: 4716: 4688: 4029: 3830: 3732: 3726: 3390: 2810: 2190: 2103: 2089: 2002: 1973: 1825: 1796: 1264:

That's why I prefer NOT to use template substitution. Do you have to on Knowledge?

718: 467:

This is how it happened: I tried to edit a talk page. Please try to edit this link

248: 4679:. However, I do think it would be worthwhile to also keep this listing current at 6297:

Thatcher131 has taken care of it; admittedly, that point didn't occur to me. :-)

5734: 5525: 5478: 5421: 5384: 5218: 4676: 4657: 4646: 4628: 4586: 4528: 4462: 4432: 4314: 4256: 4045: 3989: 3922:

Thank you very much CharonX. I appreciate your message and will keep it in mind.

3779: 2095: 2064: 2055: 2033: 2021: 1928: 1924: 1895: 1878: 1856: 1844: 1751: 1747: 1361: 1203:

I'll probably do that tonight. Thnx 4 reminding me to use 4 tildes. Can I use 3?

915: 895: 759: 4415: 1393: 768: 293:

Okay, I'll stop. I didn't even know that there had been a TfD on this subject.

6203: 5910: 5463: 5364:...it wasn't when I opened it, and it probably will be closed again shortly. -- 5309: 5225: 5188:

Super48 is angry at you for not responding to his e-mail. Here is his message:

5161:

I move part of my evidence to workshop. What would be your thoughts on that? --

5004: 4431:

Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Please explain more kindly. --

4209: 3966: 3626: 3594: 3394: 3206: 3172: 3158: 2513: 2407: 1889: 1583: 1198: 1087: 658: 480: 469:

User_talk:Southofwatford#Please_trim_your_statement_on_Requests_for_arbitration

379:

The decison was merely to stop using them on en; zh can do whatever they want.

238: 227: 205: 190: 2144: 6281: 6255: 5942: 5690: 5644: 5610: 5585: 5563: 5542: 5538: 5502: 5467: 5454: 5410: 4830: 4766: 4761: 4605: 4604:

First and second sentences of my edit are from Knowledge's official policies(

4597: 4524: 4365: 4351: 4346: 4331: 3687: 3642: 3627: 3383: 3296: 3136: 2645: 2488: 2447: 2216: 2127: 1300: 1187: 1126: 851: 734: 255: 6326: 5974: 5181: 5164: 4754: 4684: 4609: 4322: 4016: 3936: 3897: 3836: 3660: 3652: 3369: 3343: 3323: 3199: 2564: 2556: 1692: 1338: 1296: 1143:

the original discussion where consensus to use these shortcuts was formed.

924: 783:

I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me,

742: 220: 118: 96: 4137:

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping

3026:

approved by community consensus should be reverted. I would like to quote

6317: 6226: 5933: 5534: 5327: 5027: 4286: 4282: 4232: 3790: 3701: 3617: 2794: 2762: 2728: 2717: 2684: 2439: 2430: 1677: 1652: 1633: 1606: 1368: 1337:

Thanks, and yeah I forgot about AIV. Luckily, AN/I moves faster though..

1110: 691: 570:

Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election

5829:

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked

3817:

On my discussion page you noted that my link (Guardian) did not provide

1705:

find arbitration pages so early. You should know that, whoever you are.

5115: 4471: 3211: 2113: 2110:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of User:CINEGroup

833: 397: 371: 328: 5846:

News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones

5447: 4142:

User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking

1912:

copyvioi. I agree it's important to remove blatant copyvios quickly.

1735:

copyvioi. I agree it's important to remove blatant copyvios quickly.

785:

and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have.

577:

Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus

254:

Not very long, you should have tried a less conspicuous edit summary.

6377: 6350: 5658:

you are being strange. If you have questions, feel free to email me:

5434:) agrees to release it under a free license, then the image is fine. 5333: 5300: 5278: 4804: 3880: 3693: 3167:

I have no opinion on the redirect itself - I was just responing to a

876: 676: 202:

Hi, my RfA has been successful. Thanks a lot for your support. :) --

4289:. Can you intervene in some way? Maybe fully protect his talk page? 4254:, where should I do that? (Sorry for my ignorance on the process) -- 3853:. Their ideological leanings need to be cited to a reliable source. 3340:

Thanks - so in what section / page am I to rebutt others evidence?--

1139:

a page giving me permission to remove them, I think you should find

4266: 3746: 3154: 2568: 2509: 2440: 2295: 1447: 1032:

News and notes: Knowledge television mention makes news, milestones

987: 817: 6218: