User talk:TheQuandry/Archive/2006 December

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

On 02-June, you blanked Mauser Broomhandle. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I welcome you to wikipedia. I am sure that you understand the policies here. We all are here to build the Project, you as well as me. In case, you require any assistance, you are most welcome. --Bhadani 15:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Barrett talk page

Why are you reverting last edits? Some administrators could regard it as vandalism, Im not an expert, but i realized you put again in the wrong place a couple of IP numbers. bye. --Doktor Who 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglasr007 and I were referring to this edit --> x, please watch it carefully and realize that you removed some paragraphs, likely unwillingly; it is not a big trouble do not worry. cheers. --Doktor Who 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's really weird, I don't know how it happened... sorry. User:TheQuandry 05:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely it was due to some browser tool, I guess. Cheers again and please see my next message.--Doktor Who 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HYGIY? collection

The HYGIY? Collection is known about by EMI and is widely regarded as the greatest collection on unreleased Syd Barrett material available. You shouldnt have damaged the Syd Barrett article by removing the link. Now THAT is valdalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.49.44 (talk • contribs)

Well, since you didn't sign your comment and you posted under an IP address rather than logging in, I can't really respond to this except for here. 1) Just because EMI knows about it doesn't mean they think it's okay. They probably just don't think it's worthwhile to prosecute bootleggers anymore. 2) The statement "widely regarded as the greatest collection..." is absurd and only makes me believe my original belief, that the whole thing is a bunch of self-promotion and is not notable. 3) I didn't damage a thing, you're just biased and have an overly exaggerated sense of self-worth 4) READ what Wikipedia has to say about vandalism before you accuse others of it. User:TheQuandry 00:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Lazar Kaganovich

You edited the Lazar Kaganovich article. Would you consider participation in the RfC Lazar_Kaganovich abakharev 01:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User:TheQuandry 01:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation for Kevin Long

Why did you make Kevin Long a disambiguation page? The other Kevin Long is a red link. Are you planning to make an article for it? If not, I'm reverting the changes. --Liface 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did I ever say I was going to automatically revert someone's work? I made a point to ask you on your talk page. As long as you're actually planning on creating a page, that's fine. Seeing disambiguation pages with red links and only one good article is a pet peeve of mine. --Liface 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood you, my mistake. User:TheQuandry 04:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

craigslist

I was a bit unclear in my craigslist edit summary: "Wikipedia is not a link repository" was referring to my pruning of the External links section, not the city list. —tregoweth (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying! User:TheQuandry 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd

Hi! I've seen you around on Pink Floyd articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Pink Floyd on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.

- Doktor Who 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Paolucci

This article was a non-notable biography according to the criteria set out in WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of WP:BIO reads "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)."

I dispute the "non-notability" of her. While she may not be notable to some, she may be notable to others, and simply killing the article without any discussion on the talk page makes me think something else is afoot.

Namely: I've added this article three times and three times it's been totally wiped in a matter of seconds. Why are people watching it so closely? There are thousands, if not millions of other articles of people whose "notability" could also be questioned, but these are allowed to stay. If they are deleted, it takes months before someone notices and either deletes it or nominates it for deletion.

I consider her notable enough for inclusion. The topic should be discussed on the talk page, or the article should go to a vote before deletion, rather than simply erasing the hard work of others. User:TheQuandry 22:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that an article should be restored from deletion, please take your business case to Wikipedia:deletion review, stating your policy-related reasons. Simply recreating an article that has been speedily-deleted four times (three on June 19th and once today) is considered vandalism. It is best to achieve consensus before recreating this article. (aeropagitica) 22:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to accuse someone of vandalism, but much more difficult to explain why an article is being deleted. I've never engaged in vandalism in my life. In fact, I consider repeatedly deleting an article despite external links proving some form of notability (despite the fact that the WP:BIO article clearly says that it's not official policy) to be a form of vandalism. I will take my case elsewhere though. User:TheQuandry 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should have only been speedied once. After it was re-created it should have been PROD or AfD. When you take it to Wikipedia:deletion review please mention that the article asserted notability (if it did) and that it had links for verifiabiltiy (if it did) (I never saw the article). In that situation it should be restored - but might be submitted to AfD. Re-creation after deletion by AfD is considered vandalism, but re-creation after a speedy delete (with an exception for defamatory or libelous material) is not considered vandalism. Good luck. If deletion review restores the article and it is subsequently taken to AfD, let me know, I'll be happy to review it and offer my opinion (but no guarantee as to what that opinion might be until I've read the article). Brian 01:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Re: Rastishka's personal attacks

I have innitially given the user a final warning. He responded to that by making 2 personal attacks almost straight after. I have blocked him for 1 week. Feel free to re-report him to WP:PAIN if he makes perosnal attacks again after the block expires.--Konstable 12:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I definitely appreciate your help! User:TheQuandry 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett

Please see Barrett discussion 'here we go again'. thanks --RichardJ Christie 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Poll

Got your note, thanks for pointing that out to me. I haven't given that article a thorough read in a while and I'm not familiar with the current discussion or what the disputed content history is. I will review it and throw my thoughts in once I get a proper refresher. Cheers! Anger22 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Nugget

No worries, mate. If I had my way, I'd keep every Chicago article. :) Zagalejo 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RUSkirov.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:RUSkirov.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Poll at Syd Barrett

Thank you for your invitation, but, as you can realize, I haven't been here at Wikipedia for many weeks. Some Wikipedians annoyed me up to the point that I understood that it is not a good place for me. I am not sure whether I'll never be back or not. I am sure that I'll no longer contribute about music topics. F... o... music.Dr. Who 23:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Sub image bob.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sub image bob.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Sovietchampagne.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sovietchampagne.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

No offense, but is it any of your business? —Chowbok ☠ 22:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't ask you. —Chowbok ☠ 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only one here making accusations of bad faith is you. I never claimed that people who uploaded fair use images were not acting in good faith. We just have an honest dispute about whether they're appropriate for Wikipedia. Please try to accept that I am doing what I believe is in the best interest of Wikipedia, even if you disagree with my actions. I may be right and I may be wrong, but the fact that some people are angry with me doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong. —Chowbok ☠ 23:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. I just said I wouldn't be a crybaby. I didn't say anything about anyone else. If people take that to be referring to them, then I guess that says more about their views of their behavior than mine, wouldn't it? —Chowbok ☠ 15:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Magikist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Magikist.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 06:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unspecified source for Image:RUSkirov.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:RUSkirov.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 06:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have done this one. I apologize. —Chowbok ☠ 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Goldennugget.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Goldennugget.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Ilyushinlogo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ilyushinlogo.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unspecified source for Image:METRCD049.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:METRCD049.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 06:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Profile12.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Profile12.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 06:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Goldennugget.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Goldennugget.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Chowbok ☠ 06:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How are my edits any more bad-faith than yours? —Chowbok ☠ 06:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Why are my edits "obvious" bad faith but yours not? —Chowbok ☠ 06:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZMiler.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZMiler.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Bilandic.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Bilandic.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bilandic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Chowbok ☠ 01:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one

You forgot Image:Mad11.png. —Chowbok ☠ 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is an RfC?

Regarding your message, I realize RfC means Requests for Comment, but what is the goal of an RfC, supposing that the majority agreed Chowbok should give people a little more time to work on the photo situation? I don't know what an RfC is supposed to do. Does this harm Chowbok's reputation or not allow Chowbok to edit at wikipedia? I don't support banning Chowbok if that is the goal. I do wish an admin would clarify a few things on how to handle the promophoto replacement procedure a little more with him/her so that we can all work together as a team instead of having this disruption. It seems that someone must have given Chowbok the impression this mass deletion was a good thing to do, and I doubt Chowbok is the only person doing it but I don't know. Also, I didn't really like having my comment about rudeness made a big deal of. It was not that Chowbok's comments are rude, so much as the way Chowbok doesn't give a person a chance to do anything and just tries to tag things without coming into give the person notification of the new way of doing things and give the person a chance to see what they can come up with that's free licensed. I think that's not something Chowbok wants to spend the time to do because he or she would rather tag scores of photos and not have to go one at a time to each person a month after giving them info on the policy to see whether they were able to find a freer licensed photo after a good faith effort. I think before anyone comments on the RfC everyone should read the complete details of the policy discussions that Chowbok has linked on his page so that current policies are understood by everyone participating in this RfC. – Bebop 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captioning for deletable images

I don't know what little image war you are in with Chowbok but, when you put a delete tag on an image, please follow the step that says to add a {{speedy-image-c}} tag wherever the image is shown. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, you added a {{no source}} tag. The last line of the {{no source}} template mentions {{speedy-image-c}}. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good, esp. under the contentious circumstances, especially since they are album covers for which there was a fair use tag specifically made. Someone interested in the album article - but not interested in your battle with Chowbok - might want a chance to find a good source for the image. But, if they didn't happen to have the image on their watchlist, all the goings on there would be missed.

Also, an admin has already removed the tags on one of the images only to have you reinstate them. What's up with that? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed

Indeed I have a quarell with Chowbok, well I have fits with anyone on wikipedia that acts like a dictator, not gives a democratic chance, well, democratic, at least some time to discuss from a third party and just force-rapes his way to get his way. I haven't fully read what an RFC is(I'm off to bed in a min), but if it has anything to do with slowing down this insane rate of overreacting with rule obediance and reducing wikipedia to a collection of facts, rather than an interactive fun knowladge database, count me in! I'll admit to being rude a few times in the past and just changing wikistuff without warning, but I was excersising my right to be bold and in my opinion was helping wikipedia, unlike Chowbok, who is making this place and our past work a pain because he seems to have too much spare time, the shit. I have this thing on the list of pop-punk bands, we keep fighting for ex. weather NOFX is pop-punk or not, it just keep getting biger since no-one is changing their mind, but at least there's this record that someone has a diferent opinion, it is noticed, and someone might agree. This has nothing to do with image tagging, just an example that there should be a more free 'pro et contra' spirit, not 'Wrong tag, informed, deleted' :/ It's like he cares more about the rules of this place, rather than the wonderfull info pile that it is. Sorry to have gone a bit offtopic, but it sucks when you found a great picture, for an article you like, and you think you got it propper tagged, and you kinda did in fact, and then soem wikifreak comes and just says NOT CORRECT ENOUGH. Hope we make good, expecting to hear from you --Mudel 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok RfC

Hi. I'm not that good in Wikipedia images policy and that was the first my dsipute about uploading images. I can't add anything useful. Cheers. Blacklake 05:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notifications

Hi, I saw that both you and Chowbok have been notifying a bunch of people about the current RfC, and I'm asking you both to stop, as it can create an impression that the RfC is about who can muster the most supporters, and not about discussion. I'm going to post a notice on several centralized fair use discussion locations, but please don't do any more talk page notifications of this sort. --Robth^Talk 05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I won't do it any more. User:TheQuandry 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok Talk Page

Please review heading of his talk page, as I am a little distrought at manner in which this user is presenting himself after RfC. Hackajar 04:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that link to a discussion on Robth's talk page, right? He's had that up for a long time. It doesn't represent an offical policy as far as I'm concerned but he did have it up there. User:TheQuandry 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean the bold statement on his talk page at top.Hackajar 05:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay cool

TheQuandry, stay cool and don't let yourself be provoked by trolls. That's the first advise. Now, to the question you earlier asked on the course of action. Chowbok illustrates the divide the Wikipedia has between the editors who create content and buddies who attend policy talk pages, admin boards, and IRC channels.

You see, editors find spending time on the policy discussions uninteresting because editors come here to write something interesting. Others come here to socialize and/or fulfill their ambitions unfulfilled elsewhere to be in a position of telling others what to do. There is no universal cure to this problem but one thing that needs done is that editors do need to spend at least some time at Policy discussions to not allow sociolizers hijack the Wikipedia. Chowboks need to be dealt with at policy pages, not by retaliation and curse.

Please take a look at image policies and talk pages that discuss them. Even though image policies do not justify Chowbok's spree, which is a pure trolling by my book, the policy sometimes seem written with anything but a good encyclopedia in mind as they are more restrictive than the US copyright law.

If you want to take Chowbok to RfC, I will support you or I might even start one on my own. Most importantly, you and everyone should spend time reading and insisting on the sane policies being implemented and insane policies being rewritten. Perhaps, making Chowbok a scapegoat for an entire breed of wikilawyers sounds unfair but in reality he took it upon himself to piss everyone off on their behalf and he may get what he deserves. Anyway, do not allow him to provoke you into actions that will enable him to present you to the community as a trouble maker. I am tired of this fellow and prefer to stay away as "not feeding trolls" is my most basic rule. If you have time and interest to compile an RfC, I wll add my comments there. I might write an RfC myself, though, because the fellow is really a PITA. Stay well... --Irpen 07:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempthing to start the process. Not sure if I'm going about it correctly though. The only page I can find on RfC is here [1] and it seems all I have to do is post a short summary of the problem? User:TheQuandry 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble figuring this out. Maybe you should do it. :-) I'll help out any way I can and certainly provide comment in our favor. User:TheQuandry 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will start an RfC myself since this is something I was thinking to start for a very long time. I will send you a link when the page is there. --Irpen 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good! User:TheQuandry 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will do it one of these days, but perhaps not today. I will check more of this fellow's activity. Also, since stalking is one of his habits and he will see this exchange of ours, he will be displeased and anxious enough already. You know, slowness is inherent to any legal and quasilegal process :) and it is rather nervewrecking.

In the meanwhile, I advise you to read up on image policy pages and discussions because the fellow will claim that all he is doing is acting in accordance with the policies. The problem, actually, is two-fold. First, the policies are out of touch with encyclopedia as they are mostly written by users who contribute little of the encyclopedic content (like Chowbok himself)) and his extremist approach is not justified by the policies even in their current form but, most likely, are motivated by the unfulfilled in real life ambitions to be "in command" of things and people. In any case, do read up on the policy discussion.

On a side issue, IMO the slowness in the justice system is as important as its inevitability of its outcomes. Cheer up, --Irpen 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being able yet to finish the view I promissed to post at RfC. But it seems to have been addressing all the important issues anyway, the flawed policy hijacked away from the content editors, and, primarily, the unacceptable behavioral issues of one specific user. --Irpen 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

Hello I was wondering about the RfC, where can I add my comemnt?

Also this Image:Wayne-x.jpg seems to illustrate the persons product (his music), the image in unrepeatable, a free image could not be replace to repeat it (I mean it's a really good photo), it's a promotional photo for the public, as a comertial, used by the public, on numerous internet websites, why is this being deleted if IT IS A PROMOHOTO liek the image tag states? I could find no record of it being copyrighted, or who the author is. Do I really have to go around making my own portraits o people like I did [here]?

And your self-personalisation tags, did you make them yourself or can you get them? Because I'd liek to get some (or make some), I copied your copyright paranoia tag, I hope you don't mind, and I'd like to put one up for internet dyslexia, since I tend to mispel word liek the, people, some, yeah to teh, peopel, yeha, soem haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudel (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your pointers for the Abu badali RFC... greatly appreciated! Some things like this can be really daunting at first so it was good to have a simple list to follow :) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks from me. I've replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Holodomor

It's not my intention to imply that all Russians are genocide deniers, I was simply pointing out how the people trying to play semantical games to obscure facts in that article are of Russian nationality, much like for example you'll find Turks vandalizing the article about the Armenian Genocide. I'm sure there are a lot of other Russians who recognize the crimes committed by their governments during Soviet rule.

I'm not a native speaker of English so it's possible something I wrote didn't come out to mean what I meant. If that is the case and you feel offended I sincerely apologize. --193.219.28.146 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this needs a comment. User who come to Wikipedia to fulfill their agendas rather than create content do so in various ways. --Irpen 19:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photos of bands

Hello again. I've put some thoughts together at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands about whether (and when) non-free photos of bands are replaceable. If you have an opinion and want to weigh in, I'd value your input. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image tagging for Image:Williamdever.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Harold's

Responded on article talk page. I'm swamped with schoolwork at the moment, but I'll keep it on my to-do list. Zagalejo 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk --Trödel 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I meant to do that a few days ago. --Trödel 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read my explanation?

I explained in Warrior's discussion page why I deleted that section. It doesn't cite its sources, and it violates NPOV.209.247.23.131 15:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Trolling in the Holodomor article

I sadly fear You don't know anything about the subject and are simply being played.

I'd also like to point You to take a look at the page User:Kuban kazak before accusing me of "personal attacks". It makes me wonder if people would show the same degree of leniency if some troll was to post a portrait of Hitler on his page, of course with a proper disclaimer? --Vernyhora 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anything about the subject? I've read more than most on Soviet History in general and I'm pretty confident in my level of knowledge. Once again, I ask that you not refer to the other editors as "trolls" and to refrain from calling people "stalinist" or anything else in your edit summaries. Namecalling doesn't help your cause and the Holodomor article, as it exists, is NPOV and became that way through a great deal of work and argument from all sides. It's not acceptable for someone to just pop in and push their own POV. User:TheQuandry 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Francis Cornwall Sherman; Kenny Bolin; Walter S. Gurnee; Eiji Ezaki; Notable Fitzroy players; Bridgeport, Chicago; John Nord; Julian Sidney Rumsey; Jason Riggs; Shvernik Commission; Mikhail Kalinin; Adrian Street; Mike Droese; John P. Daley; Alson Sherman; DeWitt Clinton Cregier; Andrey Vyshinsky; Mikhail Bonch-Bruevich; WCWM

Cleanup: Politics of Chicago; Gangster Disciples; Diaclone
Merge: Hot Rod (Transformers); Studs Terkel; Hercules
Add Sources: List of the most common Russian names; Sovnarkom; Nikolay Zhilyayev
Wikify: Message in a Bottle (film); Doug Furnas; Jeff Mills
Expand: Prince (musician); See Spot Run; Positive punk

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Jacob Peters

Hey there, while you're totally right to list that IP on WP:PAIN, I did want to point out that Jacob Peters's block actually expired earlier today, so he isn't actually evading his block. He still belongs on the noticeboard for his attacks, though. Heimstern Läufer 22:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Argo Tea

Thanks for your support. Do you think this image should be in the article? TonyTheTiger 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promontory Point

As a Hyde Parker, I was wondering if you had any editorial opinions on Promontory Point (Chicago) article. It has been the recent topic of debate on my RfA page. TonyTheTiger 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see any easily correctible grammar errors fix them at your convenience. TonyTheTiger 23:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your assistance. I have a section of Chicago articles with a subsection of Hyde Park articles on my user page that would welcome any assistance. Also have you visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois? TonyTheTiger 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandals

Yes, sorry about that. I'll check into it further and probably block the account for 3RR violations. Academic Challenger 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]