Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This ip wasnt blocked by request of the staff as I have just found out, It was blocked by request of chelmsford county school for girls. Jedmiller 10:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, Don P. Mitchell is a noted scientist and the entry was here before he was, he is a notable wikipedian, please revert your deletion. A mcmurray 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was a one-sentence sub-stub that made no claim about the notability of its subject, thus qualifying for deletion under CSD A1 and A7. If you or another editor (not the user himself, see Wikipedia:Autobiography) wishes to write an encyclopedic, verifiable article about him, you are free to do so. --Slowking Man 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I supppose I could be wrong (I didn't write the article btw) I was just going off the fact that whoever welcomed him mentioned the article and added him to the Category:Notable wikipedians or whatever. 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) —the preceding comment is by A mcmurray (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts!.

mcmurray, I did not create that page myself, as Mr. Slowking asserted on my talk page. I was later invited to fill in details, but I felt it was inappropriate for me to write about my own career and work on Wikipedia. Being wikipedia, the decision about one's noteability is made by a random person who did no research. DonPMitchell 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to your message at User talk:Pokemega32#Fair use rationales, I don't know what I'm suppsoed to write there... The fair sue would be the same as all other Digimon images, but I don't knwo the exact reason, what am I suppsoed to write? Pokemega32 20:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are other digimon offcial art such as this that don't have anything else written, yet are allowed, why aren't my images?Pokemega32 20:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you need to explain why the image is permissible under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines in the article(s) it is used in. For some examples, look at Image:PRMFgroupminuswhite.JPG and Image:Pokemon red box.jpg. The reason so many fair-use images are missing a rationale is twofold: one, many were uploaded before we started enforcing the requirement, and two, plenty of people think it's fine to stick whatever they find online on Wikipedia, copyrights be damned (not that I'm saying that's your attitude, of course). If you need more help with the images, just ask. --Slowking Man 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've let WIkiProject Digimon know about the images that need fair use rationales. As noted there, for many of these it might just be better to delete them and get different images (screen shots, etc), since most also don't have source info as well. It's a bit of a mess, but hopefully this will get some people's attention on the issue. The WikiProject also planning a large scale article merge that should hopefully discourage a lot of the unneeded images.

This is something that has been sort of looming over our heads for a while, so it will be good to at least get some of these images dealt with. Thanks for taking the time to go through so many of them. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fantastic. Thanks a ton. I'd be glad to help with tagging or anything else I could lend a hand in. --Slowking Man 06:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If we get rid of all my pictures, there will be a LOT more Digimon articles without pictures as a lot of the articles have only my pictures... Pokemega32 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See Michael Billington :) Glen 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you with this but I'm crazy-confused with copyrighting images correctly and what-not... I mean, I've received few warnings about uploaded images before, unless the tagging regulations have changed dramatically again. I almost always state the author, source URL and a tag or two... what else do I possibly need to do? :( Goroliath —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:35, November 6, 2006 (UTC)

See my reply to Pokemega32 above, which should explain what the problem is. If you have any further questions, ask away. --Slowking Man 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You say the images are unfree - Does this mean they're unfree and can be removed, or unfree until I provide that fair-use use (which I'm sure I've used on at least one, maybe two images)? Or, are you talking about using {{fairuse}}? I used that in the beginning when I was uploading images, but no more. Also, as with the person above me, I've never had a problem like this before, and I've even asked some admins to check my tsgging, and they said they had no problem with them. -- RattleMan 12:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't want to seem to support Sonic Hearts: The Hidden Memories. In fact, you were HAPPY that it was gone! I worked HARD on that page pally! And I don't tend to like people saying "Yay! It's gone!" from the history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.37.16.41 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2006

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fys_breaching_probation.2C_breaking_article_ban.2C_edit_warring_again --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not experimenting. What I posted was, in fact true. A Nigra, within the context of 4chan's /b/ board, is a player character on HabboHotel with an afro and dark skin that wears a suit. A Nigra is a sort of troll, called a "freedom fighter" by the /b/ community. These /b/tards (as they call themselves) launch large raids on HabboHotel with nigra player characters. These raids have become so problematic that the words "Aids" and "Mantrain", both used constantly by nigras on raids, are now part of HabboHotels prohibited words in the same category as swear words. Please add this use of the word nigra to the larger nigra article in order to make said entry more complete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.89.174 (talk) 01:33, November 12, 2006 (UTC)

I've run a thorough CheckUser, as you requested, and found some nteresting results. Moroccan Spaniard (talk · contribs) is also Spaniard de Morocco (talk · contribs), Ragusan (talk · contribs), Celtmist (talk · contribs), AlfredG (talk · contribs), Harvatov (talk · contribs), PANONNIAN (talk · contribs) (the impostor), Votavra (talk · contribs), and JeremyQ (talk · contribs), all of which clearly fit the editing pattern, and a couple of other Coon-related username-blocked accounts. Since it's a static IP, I've blocked it for a month. Dmcdevit·t 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving me your help. I will look at the page references you gave me. As for the edit on the date thing, "1991" was the date directly from the link referenced for that sentence, so the change will at least be a very ill advisied and factless change. Afterall, the proper reference was right there. And those changes Margaret Chan and Walt were made right after each other. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers, – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 06:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked it up in my BSA handbook and it is refered to as a rank and as an award. As a rank on page 167 and as an award on page 168. So I guess we're both right. Thank you though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.226.195.104 (talk) 01:45, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the distinction between a "rank" and an "award" is kind of arbitrary in the BSA. You could definitely say that all ranks are awards, in the sense that they're "awarded" to the Scout. However, I think the Tenderfoot-to-Eagle Scout series is considered a group of "ranks" in the sense that each award is considered to supersede the previous one, and each higher one conveys additional standing upon the Scout. In the OA, everyone takes great care to call the Ordeal, Brotherhood, and Vigil levels "awards," not "ranks," because the "higher" levels aren't supposed to convey any additional privileges or standing.

Anyway, I think it would be best to use "rank" consistently throughout the Eagle Scout article (as in the Life, Tenderfoot, etc. articles, and the infobox) to avoid confusion. "Rank" is usually used in the BSA to refer solely to the Tenderfoot-to-Eagle Scout series, while "award" is more general. --Slowking Man 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[{WP:AIV]] is backlogged. Can you help. I just put Dantain there--pure vandal acct. Rlevse 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I did not leave any feedback for the article is simple: it doesn't need any. It's fine the way it is. Blacklist 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're free to take that position, but I'm afraid that's not going to be a very convincing argument for the AfD closer. --Slowking Man 00:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This site is a war of arguments. Who says what the all mighty admins should be in charge and say what is important? The page was fine the first time. Why nominate it a second time? It's pointless. Blacklist 00:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I nominated the page a second time because it still is not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The first AfD was closed with no consensus to either keep or delete, and that AfD was over a year ago. And administrators are not "all mighty"; anyone can nominate an article for AfD and express his or her views on the article. --Slowking Man 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article did not need the AfD. Plain and simple. It's fine. Blacklist 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering why the article on PhantasyRPG that I wrote was deleted, I had done all of the research on my own, had no copyright violations, and saw no rules that were in any way broken... Would you be kind enough to tell me what was wrong with the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shuck (talk • contribs) 00:40, November 15, 2006 (UTC).

The article was previously deleted via AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhantasyRPG. Recreated articles previously deleted through AfD are eligible for speedy deletion, unless the article's content is significantly different from the deleted article. --Slowking Man 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was entirely different, I had no relations nor had ever contacted the person who ad previously posted that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shuck (talk • contribs) 01:04, November 15, 2006 (UTC).

Nevertheless, the article was still fairly similar to previous deleted versions. If you feel the AfD was improper, ask for a deletion review.

Also, please remember to sign your posts by placing four tildes (~~~~) after your message, which will produce a signature like the one following this sentence. Thanks! --Slowking Man 01:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to explain how to ask for a deletion review?Shuck 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The process for initiating a deletion review is explained on the deletion review page. Please read the explanatory part of the page first, in order to make sure you understand Wikipedia's deletion process. As the DRV page suggests, discussing the matter with the administrator who closed the AfD first is probably a good idea as well. --Slowking Man 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you tagged it for deletion. I am confused by that. The fair use policy says that the use of a low resolution image to illustrate an article about the book in question is fair use. This image is being used for exactly that purpose. Why do you think it does not qualify under that policy? --Thunk 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it doesn't qualify as fair use. However, the image page has no fair use rationale, which is required by Wikipedia's fair use policy. I mean no offense; it's purely a clerical matter. Look at Image:Chip.png for an example. --Slowking Man 08:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. I'll make that change and remove the tag. --Thunk 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasons, but consider this one for keeping the new fair use cover: it shows that the book has been reprinted, confirming it's continued importance.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm not sure the image is necessary to illustrate that point. That could easily be described in prose: "The work has been republished in numerous editions, and is still in print today," or something like that, perhaps with references to some of said editions. I hope I'm not coming across as a fair use Nazi or anything; I just think that we should generally avoid fair use images except when they illustrate a concept that would be difficult to illustrate in another manner, or would lose a significant amount of impact in such a transformation (Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, for example). If you want, I could list the image at Wikipedia:Fair use review to try and get some more opinions on the matter. --Slowking Man 08:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted some of 67.99.92.2's spam, and have the pages on my watchlist. I saw that you gave a last warning, which includes "Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia". The website that this IP is spamming is, in a way, already blacklisted. It points to xxell.com, as does www.complexxon.org, which is on the blacklist. If I am not mistaken, several URLs point to this website, including gasroot.com and llp3.com and a couple of others [1] Perhaps these should also be added as a preventative measure?Prometheus^-X303- 14:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Are you going to list them on the page, or should I? --Slowking Man 08:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll make an entry on the talk page. The list itself is protected, so I have to make a proposal for the additions. Prometheus^-X303- 20:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason why it is important is at the bottom dont delete it again please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillSanders (talk • contribs) 22:20, November 16, 2006 (UTC).

What do you mean by "at the bottom"? Also, I didn't delete it the previous time. Please don't recreate the article without explaining why the subject is notable. --Slowking Man 22:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know Ragusan - he's a Bosnian-Croat contributor to Wikipedia. These edits of Moroccan Spaniard seem astoundingly impossible to have been made by the vary same person. After all of Ragusan's editing, I've come to notice that he is a very constructive editor (see some of the numerous articles he writes).

Also, how can he be Moroccan's sockpuppet when he's longer and much more on Wikipedia than him? Are you 100% sure that CheckUser confirmed? Don't get me wrong, but when I saw I was very surprised and shocked at the same time. The edits of that one seem like those of an immature trollish vandal, who knows no god manner - while Ragusan could always articulate words in good manner and was very polite. Cheers and notify me, please. --PaxEquilibrium 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just following the CheckUser result. If you wish to have the result rechecked, make a request. --Slowking Man 10:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the old CheckUser results would be sufficient. Could yah show me the link? --PaxEquilibrium 12:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no formal RFCU; I asked Dmcdevit to run the CheckUser after I blocked Morrocan Spaniard for vandalism. The results are here. --Slowking Man 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Great work, I saw the reblock on IRC :) Couldnt find the RFCU though??  Glen  10:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just bugged Dmcdevit on IRC. For simple cases, it's faster than going through RFCU. --Slowking Man 10:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nice :)  Glen  10:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to have been a misunderstanding regarding IP 67.68.237.233's blocking concerning the links added to various Japanese artists' wiki entries. The links added were all of specific profiles (1 per entry) from the correct artists on Project J (www.project-j.org). In addition, I was updating the dead links which were sending users to projectj.net instead. It seems all new links I have added were deleted and the original links are pointing to the wrong address once more.

I don't believe this violates the link spamming policy in any way. I would appreciate if you could re-instate the IP address and allow me to add the links you removed once again.

Thank you for your time.

-Benoit Dugal (www.project-j.org) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.228.102 (talk) 16:57, November 19, 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but adding links to sites you are affiliated with violates our guidelines on conflicts of interest and spam. If you think the link is appropriate in certain articles, my suggestion would be to seek consensus for the link on the Talk pages of said articles, allowing someone else to add it if other editors feel it appropriate. I apologize for the issue, but we try very hard to keep our articles neutral and free of advertising. --Slowking Man 17:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I find it very strange that link relevance and content is not your only priority. There was no indication of my affiliation to the website before I posted this message..

In any case, I will be correcting all current references to projectj.net throughout the various Japanese artist profiles on Wiki to the correct link project-j.org so that wiki visitors are not sent to searchportal spam pages anymore. Please allow these changes as my only intentions are the sharing of acurate information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.228.102 (talk) 18:26, November 19, 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Regarding our attitude towards links, maintaining neutrality in our content is a core principle of Wikipedia. People tend to have a positive bias towards subjects they are involved in, and we wish to avoid conflicts of interest (see, for instance, our autobiography guidelines). --Slowking Man 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why you took the link to the borat soundboard that i put (boratsoundboard.net)up over a week ago, at the time i was on wiki along with one other borat soundboard (fartstream.com) i came back yesterday and my soundboard was taken down but his was allowed to remain, you then accused me of spam? i would like to know how this is spam and why another soundboard page is on the external links page of the Borat wiki page. Why are you singling my link out?

I'm wondering the same for the link I added to Ant & Dec pages - fair enough it is a personal site, but I feel that its listing is justified because, apart from an MSN group, there are no websites about them, and the link was providing an alternative place to 'official' news and information that is already offered in the external links, and place to discuss them. If there were many other similar sites out there I would not have added the link. If the fact it's on a personal domain and doesn't have relevant one is a problem, that will be resolved eventually if we get enough members. But not only that, you've left up on several of the pages a link that's simply called 'fansite' - why leave that one in and delete this? Gemmalou 11:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That`s not spam (I`m talking about User talk:SSSN, you called him spammer), but illustrative material, so why do you think that`s spam? It doesn`t consist of advertising links or advertising text and totally corresponds to the refferences and supplements them. And Wikipedia has lotta other exemples of links with illustrative material, so this site isn`t the exception. See for instance Forum Romanum: there are lotta links of different sites but the links of ancientrome.ru are deleated. That was http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/result.htm?alt=Roman+Forum&pnumber=20 --User:Friend of SSSN 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing some updated words for this entry which I will re-submit tomorrow. The band has a skilled, professional background whose origin comes from the fact that all three musicians were frustrated with the lack of heavy rock, garage, thrash, surf, punk, metal and 80s rave in the bands that they were already members of. In January their latest track will be produced by Ben Chapman. http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ben+Chapman

MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/thebitchband —The preceding unsigned comment was added by London888 (talk • contribs) 17:35, November 29, 2006 (UTC).

That's fine; just keep in mind Wikipedia's notability guidelines and verifiability policy, and remember to cite reliable sources. --Slowking Man 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the autoblock! WikiGull 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you need anything in the future, don't hesitate to ask. --Slowking Man 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok if you want the pic of my sister and the one of me as luigi deleted, but now part of my user page and a Relient K CD cover? Do you hate me or something?~NFAN3 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:11, November 29, 2006 (UTC)

Er, no, I was just reviewing your contributions. I don't feel your user subpage is really relevant to Wikipedia; you're welcome to comment at the discussion page. As for the images, they're simply missing fair use rationales, which are required by the fair use policy. All you need to do is add them, after which you can remove the tags.

Just as advice, putting up lots of images of yourself and friends/family members on Wikipedia is probably a bad idea, given the site's visibility. --Slowking Man 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My sis has an user page. I uploaded it she wanted the same style as mine. As for the one as me as Luigi, that was meant to be part of an image sub-page.

Hello, the page for Needcompany wasn't advertisement, it was basic information on what this group does. Why did you delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Needcompany (talk • contribs) 12:36, November 30, 2006 (UTC).

The article's style and content resembled an advertisment, not an encyclopedia article. As such, it qualified for deletion under CSD G11. Cholmes75 deleted the article previously for the same reason. I suggest reading our policies on what Wikipedia is not and NPOV, and our notability guidelines. --Slowking Man 12:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --BostonMA ^talk 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Feel welcome to bug me if you need anything else "taken care of." --Slowking Man 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just part of the daily RC patrolling. Crystallina 04:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Heh. I actually brought that up just a few days ago in my editor review - I've been nominated before, it didn't go very well, partly because it was very hasty and I wasn't prepared at all. I don't really have any plans to try again for awhile. At least not yet. I'd like, at the very least, a Good Article for my record. Crystallina 04:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I missed your earlier RfA. Most of the concerns there are silly, I think, but then again, I treat adminship as "no big deal," rather than the politicized, bureaucratic mess it's grown into. I highly doubt you'd suddenly fly off the rails and go on a deletion rampage. With RfA as it is now, I could get a bot through if it just ran around "discussing" things on Talk pages all day. Anyway, I'm veering into a rant. Hopefully, you'll pass RfA in the future. In the meantime, consider yourself welcome to ask me for any administrator tasks you might need. --Slowking Man 04:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks anyway. I don't really see it as a big deal either, so I really don't mind. I'll be sure to keep you in mind if I need help/intervention with administrative work. Crystallina 04:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Regarding your edit to the Aram (film) article, in removing the link to opensubtitles.org, what do you mean by copyright violations? (The translations are not copyrighted, but produced by individuals.) Thanks. Serouj 20:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If the translations are of a copyrighted work (as they are, in this case), they are derivative works under U.S. copyright law (which is the relevant law for Wikipedia, especially the English edition), and therefore illegal unless they were created with the permission of the copyright holder. --Slowking Man 08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What do I have to say to get some action? This guy is an IP-hopping vandal who has been blocked dozens of times over the last couple of months. As soon as one DSL DHCP IP from Batelco in Bahrain gets blocked, he jumps onto another and starts "punishing" me and AnonMoos. It's not a content dispute; the only REASON for his edits is to harass us for opposing what seems to be vandalism at Rafida. I'm not sure if there's any reason for his nonsensical-seeming edits there, since he doesn't talk to anyone. FuturePerfectAtSunrise just blocked him and rolled back at 89.148.40.128. Now he's back at 84.255.151.48.

If I complain at WP:ANI they fix it and tell me to complain at WP:AIV; when I post at WP:AIV it gets deleted. Aaargh! Zora 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the nature of the edits. Reverted and blocked. If you report the editor in the future, you might want to link to an AN/I diff or something so other admins can tell what's going on. Also, if he's a recurring problem, I can range-block the ISP; you also might want to consider requesting an abuse report. --Slowking Man 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to ban me from the IRC channel(s)? Although I am a member of the GNAA, that doesn't make me any less of a contributer to wikipedia. For you to ban me as such would be hateful, and unbecoming of an admin of a community which claims to keep a "Neutral" POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmax- (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Woops, forgot to sign. Thanks, HagermanBot! Jmax- 09:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as the GNAA has a preoccupation with regularly attacking our IRC channels, and your little group likes to place sleepers in the channels to coordinate attacks, I don't see much of a problem. You've been autoremoved from #wikipedia for a long time; I didn't even set the autoremove. Nevertheless, if you really feel you're being oppressed or whatever, take the issue up with a level 30 or higher op.

Also, the NPOV policy only applies to the content of articles. --Slowking Man 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I spoke with AfterDeath regarding this issue, and although I'm not sure with whom he spoke, he spoke with someone who removed my ban, autoremove, and other various protections put into place to remove me from the channel (All of which are unnecessary, I might add -- I've never "trolled" or otherwise antagonized anyone in #wikipedia) --Jmax- 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your autoremoves are still there, and haven't been touched:

23:10 [freenode] -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- 13  *jmax*!*@*
          This_trolling_association_(GNAA)_is_not_welcome_in_#wikipedia._This_user_is_hard_banned.
23:10 [freenode] -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- 44  *!*jmax*@*
          This_trolling_association_(GNAA)_is_not_welcome_in_#wikipedia._Added_to_autoremove_list_4_Nov_2006_by_Slowking_Man.

AfterDeath put a ban exemption on your nick (which is a really bad idea in general, but I digress). Excuse my bluntness, but I'm rather disinclined to trust that you're not assisting your fellow, er, gay niggers in launching attacks against us. --Slowking Man 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way; However, if you'd simply look at my record here, you'd see that I've never "attacked" anyone here on wikipedia, or on the IRC channel. Would you be so kind as to Assume Good Faith? --Jmax- 10:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I probably am biased as far as this goes. My best suggestion would be to let some of the other ops decide. I've lifted your bans on #wikimedia-ops. --Slowking Man 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slowking Man. I was processing unblock requests and saw Celtmist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s request, and you have blocked him indef per a checkuser here (tho that looks to have cut and paste results from a request on Dmcdevit's talk page). I'm not entirely convinced that Celtmist is Moroccan Spaniard, even if the ip evidence is compelling...mostly because the editing style is different. Any chance you'd be willing to lift your block on them? Syrthiss 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you'd like to comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Protection of user pages. I started this thread when I noticed you had resemiprotected a user page I had just unprotected. Your protection comment was Per user request, and my question on the VP policy page was concerning my understanding that we don't protect pages unless there is a reason to—not just because someone wants it protected just in case.

Anyway, it's not about the particular page, but a question of policy and I'd appreciate your input. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you nominated Star Trek: Of Gods and Men. I have cut some of the speculative material, and have added a variety of sources independent of the production itself, to the article, such that I feel it now easily meets WP:WEB. If you could have another look at it I would be grateful. Morwen - Talk 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your comments on this user's page. I am not sure it's fair to say that Pallibhagam youth Movement is vandalism. I think that it does not meet NPOV and needs citations, and have put tags on the page to this affect, but I think the page was probably created in good faith. Perhaps you could give the user a chance to improve the page; you could put a notability tag there as that seems to be your major concern. Aleta 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at an unrelated issue and noticed that you have tagged a large number of images as having no rationale. Most of these images seem to be logos, screenshots, and movie posters where the rationale is (1) obvious and (2) built into the copyright tag. For example, {{Movie poster}} includes the text, "to illustrate the movie in question" and {{logo}} includes the text, "to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question". Is there a reason that these built-in rationales are insufficient? Even if the built-in rationale is insufficient but the rationale is blatantly obvious, wouldn't it be better to add the rationale rather than to have the image deleted and make work for someone else? I had mentioned this a few weeks ago at Wikipedia talk:Fair use and the reaction was unanimous that if the tag was correctly used, it was inappropriate to tag it with {{nrd}}. Please consider fixing the problem where possible, rather than tagging the image for deletion. BigDT 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The tags themselves state, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Additionally, the fair use policy says, "For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a 'fair use rationale' as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question." The burden is upon the uploader to explain why selectively violating the copyright holder's copyright is permissible in this specific case, and why the image is permissible under our policy. --Slowking Man 05:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD I6 refers to "image or media tagged only with a generic fair use template". Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use gives the "Generic tags" as {{Fair use in}}, {{Fairusein2}}, etc. So I'm not sure that these images can be speedied under the tag you are adding. I have posted a message on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion suggesting that we clarify it once and for all. At any rate, I don't question that there needs to be a rationale - I'm only saying that the rationale is built into the tag already. Does it make a huge difference wheather the tag says, "this logo is to illustrate the team in question" or the description page itself says, "this official logo of Virginia Tech is used to illustrate Virginia Tech's teams"? My main contention is that mass tagging of images where the rationale is obvious is counterproductive and only serves to create work for someone else. I'm assuming that you would agree, as an example, that it is legitimate to use Image:Logosteeldogs-old.gif to illustrate Alabama Steeldogs. Instead of tagging the image for deletion, why not use the same time and effort to write one sentence giving a rationale?BigDT 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I happen to have a fairly conservative view on fair use in Wikipedia; I feel we use way too much fair use content for our own good. If I came across an image missing a rationale which I felt we have a compelling case for using under fair use (say, WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg), I would add a rationale to it, but things like logos don't really add anything to articles, in my view, unless they're commented on or otherwise relevant to the article's prose ("Foo changed its logo from X to Y in 2001, which caused controversy among fans because of the new logo's depiction of Z," for example). The onus is upon the uploader to justify the image's use. Additionally, a lot of images without rationales are in conflict with our policies in other ways as well, such as being high-resolution. --Slowking Man 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we ought to be using the "I found it on the internet and I want to use it therefore it's fair use" type of images ... and I'm glad we're finally cracking down on promo photos (personally, I almost wish we would #redirect {{promophoto}} to a speedy delete template ... but we're really going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we don't have company/team logos on the article or don't have screenshots from movies. But all that aside, what you or I think doesn't really matter - Wikipedia policy right now, today, is that we can use company logos, movie screenshots, and album covers, and tagging them just to create work for someone else is counter-productive. Also, if the image is in use (which, hopefully it is), the image description page really needs to be tagged with {{speedy-image-c}}. I know that I'm guilty about not doing that as well, particularly on images where the 5-day waiting period is just a formality and the image is obviously going to be deleted it's just a question of when ... but any time the problem stands a good chance of being a correctable one, leaving the notice off is a bad idea, particularly if it was uploaded by an absentee uploader and the deletion warning may not even get noticed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 06:03, December 16, 2006 (UTC).

This is Celtmist. YOU have done me an injustice. You had no right to block me and you did not repeat not establish that I am Moroccan Spaniard. You did not confirm me as a sockpuppet. Whilst my workplace includes 234 computers operating from a single IP (this one), there was still no connection between me and any of the others. I am not Ragusan either, I keep telling people. He is a friend of mine who I know from Croatia and I am not Croatian either but my work takes me there often, and Russia, and Poland. If you had contacted me privately then perhaps I could have helped get to the bottom of the Moroccan Spaniard AND Aravatov cases because I feel I know who they were, sure as hell not me, one was even loggod on the same time as I was and editing at the same minute, not something you can do if you're on the same terminal. You need to establish your facts before you go ahead and play God. Rugusan is real and should be lifted, so too should I from my real address. PS, even if I am some kind of sockpuppet, have I ever said or done something bad? or told bullshit? DW Celt 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was only following the CheckUser result. I've opened up a new CheckUser request to hopefully get to the bottom of this. --Slowking Man 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I just noticed it, and i thought you deserved some recognition.

Bearingbreaker92 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. If you need help with anything else, just ask. --Slowking Man 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that it was fine to be deleted. I didn't think the content itself was good enough to warrant an article anyway, but I'm not too much into wikipedia and I don't know how that process works. All I did, after all, was revert an edit where it seemed like littlekuriboh himself had something to say, which wasn't appropriate in the first place.

Thanks for the message. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarriorofZarona (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

WHeimbigner 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've notice you've kinda been cyber-stalking me via my articles of interest lately. Even going to far as requesting an article for deletion. Everything ok? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamassippi (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Um, yes, I'm fine. As Wikipedia:Harassment says, harassment "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy." I was just doing some cleanup of your contributions. If you have any specific issues with my edits, please feel welcome to bring them up. Also, sorry for the delayed response; I was busy with holiday business. --Slowking Man 13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been having an ongoing encounter with User:Yrgh that doesn't seem to be going anywhere; he's also been in major conflict tonight with other editors. I note that you blocked him for disruption about a month ago; is there something that can be done on the basis of the most recent occurrences?—Chidom ^talk  11:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I nearly posted a request earlier this evening that you perhaps keep an eye on the user in question, based on your past experience with him. After seeing the above comment by Chidom, I decided to go ahead and post this. A cooling off period might be in order, to prevent an imminent meltdown, perhaps? --SandChigger 15:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Mike H dealt with him. If either of you have troubles with him in the future, bring it up at AN/I, or consider opening an RfC regarding his behavior. Of course, the optimal solution would be to discuss the matter with the user first−see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Also, sorry for the delayed response; I was busy with holiday business. --Slowking Man 13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this block, so I have referred it to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Doob10163_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. I have unblocked the user pending the RFC, hope you don't mind. I have posted my reasoning at the RFC. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated on the RfC, I have no problem with this. I've apologized on his Talk page. --Slowking Man 13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Moreno_Valley_City_Seal.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if they were editing off a shared IP. Another round of anon-only account creation disabled blocks eh?? Keep the good work up as admin! --SunStar Net^talk 12:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen blocked the ISP's range for 48 hours, which will hopefully have some effect. It also looks like ProtectionBot is going to begin running on a trial basis. Oh, and thanks for the compliment. Being able to get in a few blocks on the template vandal is a fine birthday present as far as I'm concerned. --Slowking Man 15:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a bot should really do the protection, it's best for things like reverting shock-image vandalism etc. Protection is really a case-by-case basis thing. Thanks for the message on my talk page! --SunStar Net^talk 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't really need a bot to revert shock image vandalism, which, despite its disruption, is relatively easy to deal with, and is fairly hard for a program to detect just by screening additions/removals to pages (although maybe AntiVandalBot will get better at it over time. However, making sure everything transcluded on the Main Page is protected is a task which a bot could do very well. It's already well-established that the Main Page should be fully protected. I certainly agree that we shouldn't have bots going around protecting pages willy-nilly, but the particular case of pages transcluded on the Main Page is an edge case in which I think ProtectionBot will be very useful (both in saving headaches, and in freeing up admins from having to babysit the Main Page). --Slowking Man 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How can a bot protect things if it hasn't got sysop status?? BTW, did you notice the Denmark article had been attacked by a penis vandal, who made a nasty personal attack on Essjay?? AntiVandalBot reverted it quickly! --SunStar Net^talk 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! As for ProtectionBot, my understanding is that the bot is to be given admin access. There's apparently some debate over whether or not the bot should be put through RfA (the last time that was tried didn't go so well). --Slowking Man 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the bot should be given admin access, but any admin can request the password via email?? A suggestion, worth considering?? --SunStar Net^talk 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're free to raise it at RfBA, of course. As to my own personal opinion, I'm not so sure that would be the best idea, as the password could be easily changed by someone, leaked, intercepted (e-mail isn't a secure protocol), or what else have you. Bots can easily be blocked if they go totally haywire (which, I'm told, now stops all admin actions except self-unblocking as well), and this bot, like many others, has a "stop" page that any admin can edit. --Slowking Man 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank, support, RfA, 117/0/1, you know the rest. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need help or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments the the village pump proposals section, I just thought it would be a good idea becuase as a non admin you don't know how many times a page has been recreated, or its previous reasons for being deleted. I just thought it would help me tag items better and give appropriate warnings to the creators. I see Zoe's point about oversighting problems with the page histories, but surely most vandilism should be oversighted? I see that its obviously been discussed before and probably won't happen. Guess I'm just going to have to work harder and try and become an admin!! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You can see the administrator actions taken on a page by viewing the page's log. Special:Log is the master log page, and from there you can specify a page, user, and/or action type to query. For example: your action log, my action log, the Main Page log, and so on. The history pages also have quick links to the logs for their respective pages; in the default skin, the link appears as "View logs for this page," under the page title.

As far as oversight goes, it's usually only used to remove potentially libelous or defamatory information, personal information revealed without consent, or to take care of some copyright problems. The Oversight page gives more details. Typical "JOSH IS GAY" vandalism isn't oversighted unless someone makes a request to the Foundation, because it would be a giant hassle, and people would throw cabal accusations left and right. --Slowking Man 07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Are you an admin? Morris Munroe 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am! Need help with something? --Slowking Man 09:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I just wanted to know that. Well, there are little problems because I want to become an admin too but my English is not well because I'm from a different country. Morris Munroe 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'd also like to create all characters on Def Jam Vendetta because there are characters like Sketch, Razor and so on, I'd like to create these fighters. Morris Munroe 13:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, articles can't be protected forever anyway. :-) Thanks for telling me, I've just watchlisted Kyoto Protocol and will keep an eye on it to see if the vandalism spree returns. Regards,--Húsönd 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who this might be but you might want to keep your eye on them for the time being. Hopefully it is just a friend of yours.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see our old friend Acp 1987 is back again. I've, er, welcomed him in the manner customary for our foot-covering acquaintances. --Slowking Man 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)