Image copyright problem with Image:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpgedit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi White Cat - good to meet you in Egypt, so long after you helped me out with my user page.
I was thinking how badly we (at Appropedia) need someone with formatting skills, for Appropedia:Main Page tests. I'd really appreciate any help if you're able:
fixing up the columns to make them more level (the announcements on the left drop down for some reason) and/or
rearranging the entire page - basically we'd appreciate any ideas on what will look better.
You see, we're largely engineers, and aesthetics is not our strong point ;-). Many thanks! --Chriswaterguytalk 02:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, can you copy to your or my userspace on this site? I'd be glad to work on it from there. -- Catchi? 22:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:250px-UFP-Seal.gif)edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:250px-UFP-Seal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
[1] Where did you find this is under copyright? Please post to WT:SCOUT — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I see no evidence that BSA rank insignia is under a free license. Old uploads of mine were deleted for being unfree. -- Catchi? 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
That's Canadian, not BSA. So you're going on assumption here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Of course I am. I see no detailed description on the image description talk page. Unless proven otherwise all images are copyrighted. A link or an OTRS template would be more than sufficient. I am not doubting what you are saying but evidence supporting it shouldn't be too hard to find I think. -- Catchi? 21:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't upload that, I agree the burden is on the uploader, but your post implied you found actual evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
My post implies there is a lack of evidence that the image is free, hence "all rights reserved" unless the evidence contrary to it is provided. I can technically tag it for "deletion in 7 days" as a copyvio, but I am nicer than that. I am going to notify uploaders in bulk once I am done processing a number of freely licensed images. -- Catchi? 21:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
So, I see you're tagging media as having been inspected by the Media Inspection Team.
I'm a bit concerned that you haven't involved any outside editors or discussed your project with any existing Wikiproject relating to media copyrights, nor brought up your project on WP:CP, WP:NFCC, or the Village Pump. I'm also troubled that you're using templates like User:White Cat/Copyrightreview which seem to imply a privileged class of users ('Inspectors') who can make final calls on the copyrights status of images and other media.
Based on the comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Inspection Team, it appears that at its first (very limited) introduction to the community, this project met with some serious pushback. I would strongly, strongly, urge you to cease further templating under your project's aegis until there's been time for the community to review your proposal and make (where appropriate) suggestions.
Wikipedia has a large body of experienced editors, policies, procedures, and templates all designed to respond to copyright concerns. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with those, and make use of the existing tools before engineering new ones. If there are errors or omissions in our existing practices, feel free to make suggestions in the appropriate places. Please don't try to create a new, parallel system for managing copyright problems; it's an unnecessary effort for you, and confusing for everyone else. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia has a large body so please do not lock me out from everything I am doing. What do you want me to do leave the project? I suggest you give me a break and stop treating me like a new user. Are you monitoring my every edit? -- Catchi? 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
As for VP, last time I used it you stated "If you didn't want people to critique your proposal, then why did you put it on the Village Pump?". This time I do not see a need for any critique or discussion. I merely desire to work on my own identifying which image(s) need attention and which ones (in my view) are ready to be moved to commons. Anybody is welcome to join the effort. -- Catchi? 22:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to get you to leave. I'm not following your edits; I only have your talk page watchlisted and saw the comment above about Scouts insignia.
I'm concerned that you're presenting your evaluations in a way that implies you have some special authority and expertise. I'm also worried that you're making errors — this image isn't problematic, despite your tag.
Take it to the Pump, if you want to get a sense of how the community feels your approach is working. I'm asking you to stop using your own tags and system until there's a consensus that your approach is acceptable to the community at large.
You can post replies here; you don't need to duplicate your remarks across talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Image:01 Claire Ruth grave.JPG may very well be copyrighted. It is a sculpture. Image description isn't clear about it's status. It was probably made after 1976 as thats when the person in question died.
In general the community does not give my ideas a fair test before reaching conclusions and throwing accusations. This has been the case in the past years. If the idea gains popularity, it will be migrated to the wikipedia namespace. If not I'll probably get bored and leave it alone after a while and it will be forgotten forever.
That would be well and good if you weren't pretending to have special authority and expertise which you lack. Use the existing processes and templates and try being open with our existing copyright experts and projects. You might be surprised at how well open, non-confrontational discussion works. Your proposal may well be accepted in some form.
Inventing a title for yourself and applying official-looking templates without community sanction isn't acceptable. I'm glad that you've stopped for the momment, and that I don't have to raise the issue at AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to raise it on ANI or directly at arbcom. I care not. Feel free to block me for it. I still wouldn't care. I am not into discussions at all anymore. To date I achieved nothing by discussing things beforehand and all I got back was a complete waste of my time. Of course that statement is self conflicting given this is indeed a discussion.
That is an appalling attitude. And I would second the suggestion that what you do is not a good idea without community approval. Refdoc (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I merely stopped for the day and may or may not resume tomorrow depending on my mood. I am going to work as I see fit on this site now on. Please leave me alone.
As long as you're finished for the day, that's fine. I hope that you'll reconsider the value of discussion before you resume. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I certainly will not. I could replace the usergroup from "inspector" to "scumbag" if you like. -- Catchi? 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I appreciate the concern... This is my dad's company, the files are copyrighted under the Convenience Valet name and are free to be used for anything other than promotional use. I actually took these pictures in his company's studio. The file name is the item number that we use to identify the products we sell. Bmedick (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email
There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.
The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.
It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Your statement was well over 400 words, and I've removed it pending trimming.--Tznkai (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
"You stated it was +650 when it was 629 words (according to MS Word). Thats 3,620 characters including spaces spaces. -- Catchi? 04:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Also why did you even blank it? Bishzilla was kindly warned, I wasn't given that courtesy. -- Catchi? 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
My word counting software said 651, but either way its over 400, and Bishzilla's was more questionable since it was a gif, and it was initiated by another user. At any rate, just trim it and put it back, or link to something in your userspace.--Tznkai (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
You do not count the invisible words like the one in links that are not shown to the reader. :)
Giving me the courtesy of a warning before blanking wouldn't hurt you know. I created a sub page as I am not going to compromise from the meaning over a mere 129 words.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template {{ACE2008Candidate}}, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hersfold(t/a/c) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
I think you already know the ways in which I respect you, even if we may diagree about certain things at times.
That said, your candidate statement seems more than somewhat combative.
Do you intend to succeed in this candidacy? Or is this merely reaching for a soapbox with which to express your discontent?
I don't want to presume, so I guess I'm asking for clarification. - jc37 11:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
My candidacy statement was not intended to be "combative". It is more of a challenge towards the community. Us as a community is facing a crisis as the only workingWP:DR process (RFAR) is slowly but surely is becoming no more helpful than RFCs. I think it is important to admit a problem before attempting to fix it. My discontent is sadly from experience. Rather than sulking and complaining, I want to proactively seek a solution. My candidacy is intended to be just that. I may not necessarily win a seat on arbcom and I would be satisfied if I can just get people talking over this real problem.
Let me explain, I have been involved with a total of five rfars to date. All five involved the same user. Let me give a short chronology (see that link too).
My first case was against three users and Davenbelle was one of them. (2005 case). Arbcom barely gave a slap in the wrist.
My second case was against a single user:Moby Dick, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. (2006 case). Finally a real slap in the wrist but still nothing serious.
In 2007 a User:Diyarbakir was blocked indefinitely for being a Moby Dick (Davenbelle) sockpuppet after I proven that he was stalking in an identical manner.
My third rfar was against a group of people - the infamous "Episode & Character dispute" where two groups of users revert warred to redirectify or restore articles. Among the users was Jack merridew who redirectified the majority of anime articles I contributed to. Jack Merridew later turned out to be a Davenbelle sockpuppet although I did not know that during the case. (2007 case). What's most frustrating with this arbcom case was Arbcom made no ruling to really discourage mass redirectication or restoring of the articles. Barely gave a warning. Overall the entire case was a waste of everyones time. It failed to resolve the dispute or even hint a solution.
My fourth rfar was against a group of people - the infamous "Episode & Character dispute" for a second time. Among the users was Jack Merridew, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. Unlike the 2007 case, this one wasn't a complete waste of time. (2008 case). During the case I (coincidentally) realized that Jack Merridew was infact Davenbelle. I quickly collected evidence to prove this. Arbcom rejected the evidence stating this was irrelevant to the Episode & Character dispute. Evidence suggested otherwise. For example contribution of User:TTN (who was banned for 6 months) and Jack Merridew was parallel.%26.77 or 750 out of 2802 edits by Jack Merridew were to pages that TTN also edited. Ultimately I was prompted to file a new case in regards to Jack Merridew.
My fifth case was against User:Jack Merridew, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. Despite all the evidence I provided, arbcom rejected even hearing the case. Later on I managed to get a community sanction on him on 31 Mar. There was an unblock discussion on 5 May for Jack Merridew and he was unblocked briefly as a result. At this point he engaged in minor stalking in Wikimedia commons and on meta.
After roughly 6 months after the community ban discussion (31 March) and 5 months after the unban discussion (5 May) arbcom is discussing weather or not to unban Jack Merridew. Mind that arbcom did absolutely nothing to ban him in the first place. The only times Davenbelle was banned was due to community sanctions rather than as a result of arbcom hearings which supposed to be the last step.
All this material above is a brief summary over a single user who has dedicated most of his time on the site to merely make my life miserable. So it should be a slam dunk case. The fact that it isn't says a lot about the current state of inadequacy of the DR process. Of course my dealings with Davenbelle is a mere example. There are countless other examples where arbcom was less than helpful.
So your hope is to see the "top level" of WP:DR act with more teeth than continually doing what you see as wrist-slapping? (I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't want to mischaracterise your words.)
And based upon that, did you see the SV/FM/etc. case, and if so, what are your thoughts on it in light of the above? - jc37 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
It is less about arbcom having teeth and more about arbcom playing a more active role in resolving disputes. If I had my way I'd focus on the following...
Most of the time it feels like arbcom ignores everything you say to them, so there is a serious lack of communication. Other people stated this too. Its frustrating to us "good users" (users who are here to write an encyclopedia) to be ignored by the committee we are supposed to trust most. The feeling of desertion when you are having a tough time certainly doesn't help.
We expect the victims of disagreements to present evidence to arbcom. That is problematic in more ways than I care to count. I'd like to see more community involvement in arbcom cases. Of course arbcom would pay attention to these outside evidence from uninvolved people.
Also as I see it arbcomers are typically people who rarely takes risks or get really involved in disputes which really isn't a bad thing for an average user to do. It lets you keep a cleen reputation. But because of this all arbitrators tend to "think alike". If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. IMHO a good arbitrator should have a history where he or she has gotten his or her nose dirty from time to time. If you can't taste the problem, how do you expect to find a solution? Right?
Although a minor point, the page structure of arbcom tends to be hard to navigate. I mean if I post a case there, all I should care about is monitoring my case not all of the twelve cases. Also appeals should really have a separate page. I know there had been some failed experimentation on this but I can't shake out the feeling that it's broken.
I am not sure what are you referencing with "SV/FM/etc" remark. A link would be helpful.
Oh that thing... I'll provide my quick analysis. I am reading that document backwards (bottom to top). I can go through a greater amount of detail if you like but I really do not want to cause a ruckus (somehow). My analysis below will be based on the page you linked. Nothing here is an accusation and I may not be always "politically correct".
For starters, evidently that case had taken way too long. But that really is pointing the obvious.
"Contentiousness and demoralization" section talks about a problem rather discretely. Often people imply a kind of alliance between "wiki friends" where otherwise uninvolved people join a dispute strictly to advocate a friend. I observed this on the dispute concerning Jack Merridew (Davenbelle). The group of editors that are trying to mass redirectify/merge Episode and Character related articles came to the aid of Jack Merridew and defended what he was doing and did their best to convince others that Jack Merridew was in fact not Davenbelle... This did not work as I kept my cool (relatively) and collected indisputable evidence. I think my CSI idea would prevent such "allied assaults" or at least decrease the effectiveness of such meatpuppetry. I strongly believe people should't need to forge alliances to discuss matters. Well meaning people can always discuss and come up to a common agreement. Of course that is if one side isn't merely nagging the other or is only interested in pushing a certain point of view. In such cases WP:DR should be able to resolve the problem. Experience editors should do their best not to escalate matters.
"Viridae" section implies Viridae had stalked JzG a bit. Viridae should probably made better use of WP:AN, though I admit WP:AN is often less than helpful. One thing is certain, no one likes to be pursued. People shouldn't be made to feel like they are being pursued.
"SlimVirgin" has a lot of subsections.
B: Attempts to invade peoples privacy, no mater the rationale behind it, should not be AT ALL tolerated even slightly. If people want to reveal their own personal info, they can do so on their on userpage. I can understand why anyone could easily become paranoid over such continuous attempts.
E: I don't think arbcom should have bothered with this. Really... A talk page reminder on when "this is a minor link" should be used would have sufficed. People aren't required or expected to follow Help:Minor edit. It's advisable to follow it but nothing worth loosing sleep over. This probably adds to SlimVirgin's stress level.
"JzG" The user is your typical overly stressed wikipedian it seems. Now thats of course not an excuse to violate NPA on a "frequent" basis. I think there is way too much text and sections addressing the users conduct there. B through E ramble about the same thing. It could have been presented in a less cryptic simple way. That way it wouldn't add to JzG's stress level.
"FeloniousMonk" This user seems to be using admin tools on articles he has a conflict of interest. A very bad practice. Again there are way too many sections talking about the same thing.
"Cla68" This users story seems to be a complicated case. Behaviour described in the E.2 subsection is out of the question. No one should even think of publishing personal information of editors. Respecting other peoples privacy is the absolute minimum respect I expect and require people to show each other. As for other points. It would be better for a group of people to expose deception rather than individual users. I do not know if applies to this case but some people tend to be annoying just enough to bother people but not enough to warrant a ban. Such conduct in my view should not be tolerated. Thats just gaming the system.
I hope my response was satisfactory. I merely spoke what I thought. I haven't analyzed the evidence in great detail as you merely asked me for my thoughts. You are welcome to move this thread to the arbcom election "Questions to the candidate" section. I'd be more than happy to answer any more questions.
As for me, I suppose that I had (naively) thought that these would be more simple questions, but in hindsight, under the circumstances, I can see how they were a bit more complex than I intended. So my apologies for that.
I consider your responses to be "clarifications", so there really is no "wrong" answer. Thank you for spending a fair amount of time answering. I appreciate it.
If I might be as so bold as to offer a suggestion...
And just as you noted above, this may not be "PC" advice or comments, but I sincerely hope it helps.
While I understand your concerns over past actions, and feel that that probably does give you some added insight to the process, using those examples to the exclusion of all others may give others the impression that this could merely be someone looking for redress of past injuries. And while I do think that it is a little of that, I think it's likely quite a bit less than how you're currently comporting yourself.
And while I don't know how that "plays" for other "vote"rs, for me, I cringe whenever I see candidate statements talking about "redress", or suggesting that a body of volunteers who're likely attempting to do the best, that they should be considered in any way "screwups" or "worthless". (I'm not suggesting you have, I'm just making a broader declaration.) Though I'll admit that seeing such comments usually makes my choice easier through selective elimination. (Well that, and the fact that the seemingly successful strategy seems to be to vote for those you prefer, and vote against everyone else.)
One last thing, and it's kinda blunt, so my apologies in advance, but not sure how else to say it succinctly. There are currently 7 seats open. Because of that, I think you may stand a fair chance. But if it was fewer, I'm not so certain. It may honestly depend on if there are further candidates.
Of course, this is merely one editor's opinion (mine), so of course, feel free to accept it (or dismiss it) with the grain of salt it deserves.
Anyway, you've got more people to "impress", and more questions to answer, so I'll try to avoid taking up more of your time. I sincerely hope this helps. - jc37 09:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
With your permission, I am now moving a copy of this thread to the "questions to the candidate" section. Feel free to ask any question you like. -- Catchi? 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ah! My Goddess The Movie (Poster).png)edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Ah! My Goddess The Movie (Poster).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You do realize Jack Merridew had butchered off most of the pages right? And you do know who Jack Merridew is right? Just checking. -- Catchi? 06:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, he didn't butcher most of those articles, he did some seriously needed clean up, and I personally applaud his tackling the hideous creation of individual articles for every episode of the series (which, FYI, the anime and manga project also frowns on and would have done as well). I don't see a single article he actually "butchered" or a bad edit there. Now, the project will continue the appropriate and much needed clean up of those articles, to get them into much better shape and in-line with both the project guidelines and Wikipedia's overall guidelines and policies. Please do not start reverting these efforts, as you did with trying to undo the image replacement on the main article. Per our guidelines, we use the image of the primary work, not one people personally prefer. The film poster might be appropriate on the film article, but not the main. However, considering it is cropped, overly large, and has an invalid source, I don't think it should be used there either. The manga is the primary work, and as such a cover of a volume of it is the most appropriate image. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Jack Merridew was banned indefinitely for harassment for like four times. I was referring to that. His edits were merely there to annoy me.
I kindly ask you to use the movie poster instead of the manga cover. The manga cover is from 1988 while the movie is from 2000. Movies typically have better quality.
Aside from that I do not hope to edit the articles in question at all. Judging your reaction to my most basic edit, I will assume that you would not want me to edit them but please reconsider the movie poster thing. Also please copy the thread to my talk page so that I do not have to hunt your response.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, Per our discussion earlier today, I stated a review of the sanction and made a motion to lift the sanction and supported it. Well see how it goes. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 17:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
The motion has 4 supports so far and no opposes, so it looks like your request has a good chance to go through. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Now 6 supports and passes. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Notice of Arbitration Committee ban review and motionedit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I've posted the remaining General Questions to your Questions for the Candidate page. Please answer them at your convenience. Best of luck with your Candidacy, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Note that it was tagged (aggressively) for speed deletion. I removed that and tagged the article as in construction until you can make the table look, well, like an actual table! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ah nevermind, I see that you're already on it. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh thanks. This will take some time as the information does not seem to be organized anywhere. I welcome any help. :) -- Catchi? 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've just noticed that there's already a table in the article Piracy in Somalia. It may or may not be complete but it seems to be thoroughly referenced. So it's not clear that List of ships captured by Somali pirates is really needed, unless you decide to spin-off the existing table in Piracy in Somalia. I would also suggest that the title be changed to something along the lines of "ships captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia" (as it's often unclear who the pirates are, especially if one goes up the hierarchy). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I renamed the page as you requested. I also moved some of the contents of the list on Piracy in Somalia. Feel free to take a look. -- Catchi? 03:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Agressive CSD noms can be considered disruptive. Chill a little okay. Thanks. -- Catchi? 22:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've only tagged a few articles. Most of them got deleted. The ones that were not deleted, all good and well. The Sysops has the final say. So whats the problem. I will never take part in any CSD Nom again now OK. I obviously am a fool. Ponty Pirate (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
All I was asking for you to weight the articles potential before tagging it. There is no reason to explode like that... -- Catchi? 23:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I will not sleep tonight now so tomorrow will be ruined as well. Ponty Pirate (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Actually. If you are an Admin. Just remove me completely from here ASAP. I no longer want to be tempted to log on to this crap. Delete my accountPonty Pirate (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Admins do not have the ability to delete accounts, not that I am one. Since you say you wont be able to sleep, would you mind helping me out with the article List of ships captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia and then decide if you are going to leave the project or not afterwards? -- Catchi? 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This clarification motion passed. Remedy one of the case is lifted. Full clarification is archived on the case talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, you modified the ship names earlier on... I was wondering if you could do it again. A lot of entries were added since your last edit. -- Catchi? 09:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, I'll have another go through the article. -MBK004 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Image source problem with Image:TR ARMY Insignia 1.gifedit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Image Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading Image:TR ARMY Insignia 1.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have been involved with four arbitration cases plus an ongoing case. In all cases I was an "involved party". -- Catchi? 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I feel arbcom is broken and needs some fresh blood. Among the things that are broken is...
...an overal lack of communication & slow response rate,
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
I can't think of a single case where arbcom had done an exceptionally well job within the past three years. Arbcom performance had been mediocre at best.
I strongly feel arbcom had done an exceptionally poor job in handling various cases.
Among the ones I observed closely was the three year old ongoing case concerning a stalker. I feel remedies discussed today should have been passed three years ago at the first case.
I also feel the two "episode and character" case had been exeptionaly inadequate in resolving the actual dispute. Arbcom has went out of their way to ignore some of the objections raised.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
If Privacy Policy allows it nothing should be kept confidential. It may be better to keep some evidence confidential during an ongoing investigation but once the case is over the evidence should be made public. Otherwise the community will slowly loose their confidence in arbcom. -- Catchi? 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think users should vote for you?
This is a question everyone will have a different answer. I sincerely believe the reader should be deciding this alone. -- Catchi? 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Image tagging for Image:TR ARMY Insignia 1.gifedit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:TR ARMY Insignia 1.gif. 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:
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[1]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
