User talk:CanadianCaesar/Archive nine

Free Form

Hi Canadian Caesar, I was wondering why you deleted the article pertaining to the Donald Byrd album Free Form? Thanks, Cheekyal.

Changes

I changed some of your copyedits back on the Cannibal Holocaust page, and I'd like your review again. Normally I'd wait for you to respond on the featured article page, but time is becoming more of an essense. Helltopay27 20:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

rfa thanks

Thanks for the support on my RFA. It passed successfully with just under WP:100 supports and 1 oppose. I look forward to serving the community as an admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Top Gun again

Hi, two days ago you blocked Top Gun (talk · contribs) indefinitely and 87.116.171.227 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202#Block_evasion.2C_continuing_copyvio). 87.116.171.227’s block has expired recently. However, the new contributions look as bad the old ones, e. g. [1] from [2]. If you look at Special:Contributions/87.116.171.227, you will find that Top Gun has been using that IP for a while now (and is the only user there). I think this justifies a longer block. I’m not sure yet how the affected articles should be handled, but additional copyvios won’t make that any easier. —xyzzy_n 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Person of the Year

Good call on the gallery. Congratulations for winning it, BTW ;) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I worked my tail off all year for it. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Page-move vandalism

Thanks for getting User:Hotdog111, he's been at his tricks for a while now. I need help with one of them though, he moved Nikki Webster to Bec Hewit, and then edited the Nikki Webster page so that it couldn't be moved back. Could you please delete the current Nikki Webster so that can be fixed? Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the Sky

The article on Splitting the Sky is not a copyright infringement. I wrote the wiki article *and* the cited web page on which it is based. Please restore the article. Thank you. User_talk:Alexbatko Mon Feb 26 17:18:09 PST 2007

Zodiac

Thanks for deleting the reference tag. I spent hours today on the ref table, but wasn't sure if there were enough to delete the tag. Thought it best to let someone else not involved in the process do it. Jeffpw 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy

The Simpsons episode Homer's Enemy is now a GAC, but I am worried because I think the production section ended up being more of an analysis. Any thoughts you could provide on the article would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cape Feare

The episode Cape Feare is currently an FAC, but I think the article could still use some work as some of the language is a little... I'm not sure of the word, but "stiff" comes to mind. There are a lot of uses of the word "the" for example. I've performed about a dozen once-overs on the article, but some outside opinions would be greatly appreciated, so it would be great if you could take a look at the article. -- Scorpion 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Hey CanadianCaesar, is User:Freddy Krueger's userpage supposed to have those messages? Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

• Okay, thanks. Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

Copying from other web pages?

Hello CanadianCaesar, it is user:Glfventure. You sent me a message saying I copyed from another web page, and I think that is why my article was deleted. This is not true! I created the text of Andres Lopez in the Spanish version of Wikipedia, (Andrés López), I also translated to english and I created his biography on his web page www.andreslopez.com with different text. Andrés López is a famous Stand- Up Comedian in Colombia in Latinamerica, he released a DVD with Universal Music and we are including on his biography the references with information available in english. I will appreciate if you can help me to improve this biography. Thank you for your help

Question

I have a question, how are images from Wikimedia Commons put up here, without them being uploaded? Like with Image:Mussolini1.gif. Because I noticed at the top of the file page, the main link to the file page, is a redlink, and there is no history. Also, there is no area that shows who uploaded it. Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

Image:Spaceturtles.JPEG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Spaceturtles.JPEG, 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Deltabeignet 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign my autograph page

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy AFD

An AFD on this article was only closed yesterday.... -- Kendrick7^talk 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was renamed so there was no way for me to know... In any case a non-consensus can be challenged at any point. -- Cat ^chi? 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No way to know? Whyyyyyyyyyy don't people look at article histories before AfDing? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Because when I see something I feel is a "mistake" I act on it. On the same basis, I am more than willing to challenge any past consensus to correct what I feel is a "mistake". That's just how I am. -- Cat ^chi? 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your version of events is becoming inconsistent. Either you didn't know or didn't agree with the result. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the reason for this weird attitude of yours. Care to elaborate? -- Cat ^chi? 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrés López

This has re-appeared - and has now been deleted about 8 times! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jakester05

Thanks for your prompt admin action in blocking this account, and for your amusing edit summary on blocking! The additions have all been reverted by various editors. Bencherlite 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. User talk:Payne2thamax

Hello. Actually, after I blocked him I thought it over and considered extending the block to indefinite due to the death threat. But then I checked the other guy Kemor's contributions and found him to be quite provocative. Since Kemor's not being blocked for the moment, I decided to leave Payne's blocked for just a week. Anyway your extension is perfectly justified. Regards, Húsönd 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Red links

If you feel they are useful to have, I'm fine to revert my changes. My feeling was that most had been dead for almost a year and where not soon to be filled in so seemed to just clutter up the list. But all the same, I don't feel strongly about it. --PullUpYourSocks 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edgerton High School

I've gone in cleaned up the article -- removing nonsense posted by students and fixing external links -- which I hope makes up for my deletion of the article. :) —тяеɢощетн (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ho ho

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For laughing in the face of crisis, and by so doing removing the same, I, Sam Blacketer award you this barnstar. Sam Blacketer 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

'North America (Americas)' ... again

Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way, and the article has been deleted, this has reared its head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Abyssinia, Henry

Hey CC. Any change you can look on the last referencing concern on this review (ref 4)? Cheers, Marskell 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

SCC News

Thanks. I read the case very briefly today. It looks like a big one. I'm a busy at the moment so I may not have much time to do it justice, but we'll see. -PullUpYourSocks 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ZeD

I read through the article and it is more helpful than before. I certainly see the difference now between ZeD and American variety shows like Saturday Night Live, though the two appear to be somewhat similar. Aside from the few redundancies, the article really looks like its coming along. Dmoon1 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Phobia

Hi. The reason why I picked "Significance" was that it was a recommended heading at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes, but I don't have any strong feelings for it. Anyway, thanks for your help with Cape Feare. --Maitch 09:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

Not that I am not extremely appreciative, can you explain to me your reasoning for full protection of the article? I am guessing that its due to consideration for GA status. Arcayne 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Black people

Please reopen the debate about whether that article should be deleted. Several people want it deleted and their points were very valid Gottoupload 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Gottoupload 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Black people

You speedy kept Black people, citing WP:SNOW. I object strongly.

• There was no claim that the article met any of the 4 criteria for speedy keep.

1. Support for the deletion extended beyond the nominator. While Afd is not a vote, we should observe there was actually significant support for deletion.
2. The nomination was neither frivolous nor vandalism.
3. The nominator is not banned.
4. This is not a policy, nor is it a guideline.

• You cited WP:SNOW, but I believe this was an uphill battle, not a place for snowball.

1. Snowball is not policy.
2. This AfD failed the SNOWBALL test: '"If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause."'
3. A recently closed ArbCom case included the following finding: 'The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy, and also recognizes that there will be some cases where the benefits of early closure outweigh the drawbacks. However, in general, early closure of discussions on WP:SNOW grounds denies some Wikipedians the opportunity to comment and can lead to escalation due to the lack of a discussion venue.' This finding was endorsed by the Arbitration Committee 10-0.

Per SNOW (which I understand is an application of IAR): 'If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause and the action should, if possible, be undone.'

I believe this applies here, and ask that you reopen the discussion and let it run its course. Jd2718 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No. General agreement among experienced users that the nomination and several delete voters were misguided. The longer it stayed open, the nastier and more divisive the debate would have gotten. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that several editors did not have a chance to vote. I also feel very strongly that wikipedia strives for stability and that articles that have required repeated protection (such as black people) are simply too polarizing for the wikipedia process and deletion is a very valid solution. My experience is that controversial topics seldom turn into quality articles because editors work against one another instead of cooperating. I don't think wikipedia needs an article on every subject and POV articles are often worse than no article at all and damage wikipedia's credibility Iseebias 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Black people|deletion review]] of [[:Black people]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jd2718 01:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've no fundamental problem with your use of WP:SNOW here - it is a good mechanism for curtailing unnecessary debates. But it looks like we are going to have a debate anyway (here and on DRV) and a debate about whether tohave a debate is really a waste of time. Could you consider re-opening the afd for 48 hours or so, just to stop the silliness and clearly demonstrate the consensus to keep. I suspect if you do, we'll get another flurry of 'speedy keep' votes and a closure 24 hours later.--Doc^g 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but personally I prefer the debate at DRV than AfD if there must be one. Any reader who comes across the article and sees the AfD tag will likely go "WTF?" CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gremlins!!

Gremlins really deserve their own cat for 80's awesomeness in my opinion. But they are definitly something. :DAndrzejbanas 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

==what ever.==--Matrix17 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting page move vandalism to my userpage! Page move vandalism' - the thought didn't even occur to me! Natalie 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy

I have put Homer's Enemy up for Peer Review, with the goal of getting the article to FA status. Any suggestions you have would be most appreciated. -- Scorpion 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

R. v. Labaye

Hi, you reverted some of my changes to this article b/c they were "unexplained"...I can justify them all but that would take a long time.

For example it's inaccurate to speak of members of L'Orage as having paid membership fees. Not all members paid the fee. In fact less than half paid. See trial decision at para. 25:

25 Of 345 couples and 135 single people who were members on 1 March 1998, only 146 couples and 50 singles had paid the $200. The evidence is that 229 couples and around 85 singles, already members by that date, had not paid this fee. At the time of the search, more than 800 people thus had access to l’Orage and the third floor.

As well, it's misleading to say that the definition of a common bawdy house is a place where "indecent acts occur or are planned to occur". Subsection 197(1) requires a place be "kept or occupied" or "resorted to by one or more persons" for "the purpose of prostitution" or the "practice of acts of indecency".

I made my changes because I sincerely felt that they made the article clearer and more useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honest Broker (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC).</smallHonest Broker 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing AfD tags

please do not remove AfD notices from Wikipedia. It may result in a block. Thank you.

PS - THIS IS SUPER DUPER SERIOUS, IM NOT KIDDING :<> - that's me about to bite your finger - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Songs about Sex

Can you please tell me why this article was deleted? I was in the middle of editing it when it disappeared, can see you say it is a recreation but what makes it deletable please Maelbrigda 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[3]

:) — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameBlocked}}

He, it appears that you added "account creation block" to this username you blocked. Unless if there is a history of past malicious account creation from this user, the user has made inappropriete edits, or if this user is a sockpuppet, I think it should be lifted to "noautoblcok", still blocking the user, but allowing the IP from which the user originated from to create a new account.(All of these circumstances could be possible, but since it appears to only be the username, I'm just checking to be sure.)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I just went with default. I might have allowed account creation, but this one seemed more vandalistic to me- ie. the KKK are an example of "redneck" "killers." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yeah, any downright-malicious account creation shouldn't be excused.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Grampa

I don't read Macleans anymore (Too much like People these days for my liking) but I'll try and hunt it down. Thanks! -- Scorpion 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You Blocked Me

Canadian Caeser you blocked me on March 9 due to an edit conflict with User:Kemor. It's been almost a month and I'm still blocked, what I want to know is 1. Why I've been blocked for so long and 2. Why Kemor was not blocked. Kemor had been vandalizing the N.W.A. page by deleting facts over and over again from the page and I was just restoring what he erases. I was blocked for the edit summaries rather than the actual edits. Go to N.W.A. history, than go to December 2006 and read Kemor's edit summaries. I don't understand why I've been blocked for so long just because of my edit summaries, while Kemor has yet to be blocked for his disruptive edits and summaries. Please explain to me why. Payne2thamax April 4, 2007.

Death threats are prohibited and it doesn't matter where they are or why. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:IP Block

You blocked User:Ismyusernameoffensive, on Apollo Group/University of Phoenix IP 204.17.31.126. That IP is a shared IP, used by employees and students. Luckily I have some aquaintances on here that noticed my request on my talk page and forwarded my unblock request to WP:AN. By the time they reached there the block was lifted. I'm not sure why an IP block was appropriate for the username (a bit POINTed, and I found the employee that did this and spoke with them), but please remember to try to do your best to limit collateral damage when blocking users. Thanks. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block the IP, I blocked the username. The IP was an autoblock, and I lifted that myself. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the block notice stated you enacted it. Thanks though. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Season 8

Hi, not sure if you were aware of this or not, but there is a drive to get Season 8 to featured topic status. You can find out more here. Your help with the season 8 articles has been MUCH appreciated and you have saved myself and Gran a lot of work. -- Scorpion 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on RFC

Hello there, sorry for the form-letter post.... I am writing you because your interest in the past around the collection of articles around HRM and Halifax.

I have recently lodged a Request for Comments on the Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia page. I and several other editors have had a running dispute with user Lonewolf BC. The RFC is This is a dispute about whether it is accurate to continue to refer to the area of or approximately coinciding with the boundaries of the City of Halifax, which became a part of the rural/urban Halifax Regional Municipality in 1996, as a city.

Basically, as I say on the RFC, we all agree that this is no longer a City, but to use former City's boundaries when describing the current urban area as a "city" (note the lower case) is at best arbitrary and at worst a fabrication. The city is now a continuous area that wraps the harbour, from Portuguese Cove (outside of the city of Halifax to the west and south) to Cole Harbour (outside of the former City of Dartmouth to the east). People now refer to the entire urban area of Halifax Regional Municipality as 'the city' and 'Halifax'.

Anyway, the bottom line is at least five people have tried to change the wording of the intro since January, and every time this one user changes it back. I have tried to come up with compromise wording, and he won't dialog. Right now wikipedia says HRM and Halifax are the capital of Nova Scotia. This article is now factually incorrect, in my opinion, and I need your help, please chime in. WayeMason 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks....

..... for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated. CIreland 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Yes, I am being sincere, and I do apologize for trouble caused. Thanks for the unblock. What tripped me up was attempting to revert a page move (with consensus, of course). However, it complained that the page I was trying to move to already existed and wouldn't allow it. Is there a prefered course of action in this situation? Ronnotel 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I wrote the article on "Beautiful Ohio" because it had been mostly deleted due to some really terrible work done by users before me. It was really the first article that I did anything other than minor edits on so I was hoping someone with more experience would be willing to take a look at it. If you get a chance could you make sure I'm using citations properly and just let me know how I could improve the article? Thanks a lot Gbms86 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the one section that was still very similar to this website [4], so everything is in my own words. What else ought to be changed? Thanks for helping me out with my first time editing anything other than spelling or grammar. Gbms86 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Enuff iz Enuff

It's been almost 2 months since you blocked me and I'm sick of it. I think I get the message that death threats are not allowed on this site. Jesus Christ, I've learned my lesson and will stay clear from edit conflicts with Kemor. I've been blocked for so long that my page has been deleted, so can you you unblock me anytime soon Double C? Payne2thamax

Opportunity

I noticed that on your User page as on of your rules to live by you have "information available should be generous, not restrictive." Because of this I thought you might be interested in participating in a Wikipedia:Deletion review discussion on this article (cached) about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. I believe that it was deleted without any proper process or consensus. Just thought you might find it interesting. This is not your typical DRV. Helpfuluser 13:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Link

Hello CanadianCaesar, I need some help, in the image file Image:URAnIdiot.png, an image that gives an example of an internet prank picture (from a site similar to a shock site), there is a summary that lists the site it's from, and the user warns other users not to go there because it will put a deadly virus in your computer, now I like that the user warns the other users on the file page, but I think giving a link isn't a good idea, since a user could accidentaly follow the link and be infected with the virus. I think a good alternative (though I think the image should be deleted altogether) would be to just list the site instead of linking it. What do you think? Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

Canadian Newsmaker of the Year

Just curious if you'd like to renominate Canadian Newsmaker of the Year (Time) to FL status? It's a great list, which had failed solely due to lack of votes — I must admit, some of my own concerns were heavily based on personal preference. I'll be willing to do myself unless you insist the article still requires substantial editing. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Charter-revolution.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Charter-revolution.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Can you please keep an eye on Queen's Privy Council for Canada - one user is removing relevant and sourced information without saying he's doing so in his editing comments.

It was a mistake on my part. No need to heed the paranoia of this anon user. --G2bambino 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Aline Chrétien

The Aline Chrétien article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Magillicutty.jpg

I have tagged Image:Magillicutty.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Coredesat 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Charter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charter.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Finnell.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Finnell.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Donaldson (journalist)

Do you have any sources for Gordon Donaldson (journalist) that state his rank? Was he an officer? Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)