User talk:Daniel/Archive/74
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.
|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page. |
Wikinews Australia Day edit
I notice you haven't been at Wikinews for a couple of weeks. However there is an article stuck at the starting blocks for a couple of days that might benefit from another Australian taking a look, so I hope you don't mind my posting here at Wikipedia:
(It reports on the cricket in Adelaide, if that interests you.)
--InfantGorilla (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is now published. Good luck for the ODI in Perth! --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Archived clarification edit
[1] Perhaps I am missing something and you have been requested to archive this; however, as we are still in the middle of voting on motions here, could you please reinstate this? Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Once a motion reaches the majority (or in this case, the majority plus a couple), and has been that way for 24 hours, it is considered passed. Is there any special circumstance which allows you to request the passing of this motion to be delayed? Daniel (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The motions passed at 01:51 on today's date, which is less than 24 hours. As well, additional clarifications were made in the last 24 hours. I wouldn't call them "special" circumstances, I expect them to remain on the page for at least the 24 hours after the motion passes so that the involved parties can read them. Risker (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, so you'd like me to restore them for three hours then, despite the fact that they are going to read them when I deliver the talk page notifications anyways?
Go right ahead.Done. Please also note that in future, given this little piece of silliness by the Committee, everything is going to be archived right on time, and if any member of the Committee objects they need to show me a majority of the Committee supporting their viewpoint before they can do anything about it. It's this kind of ridiculousness—I'm going out in two hours and hence, given the votes over and beyond the majority, it has never been a problem to archive something 3 hours early with such strong support for the motions—that pisses me off about the Committee. We follow the Arbitration Committee procedures, and hence your observation that we need to be "requested to archive this" in your initial comment is a patently incorrect line of thinking. - Ridiculous... Daniel (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- To be more precise, the first motion passed with Newyorkbrad's abstention at 02:22 UTC, and there were two clarifying comments made to that motion following his vote, in part to address his concerns. You're certainly encouraged to have a life outside of Wikipedia; it's one of the reasons why we have a group of clerks instead of just one. If it's not convenient for you to take an action, I am sure that another member of the team will be happy to do so. Risker (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, so you'd like me to restore them for three hours then, despite the fact that they are going to read them when I deliver the talk page notifications anyways?
- The motions passed at 01:51 on today's date, which is less than 24 hours. As well, additional clarifications were made in the last 24 hours. I wouldn't call them "special" circumstances, I expect them to remain on the page for at least the 24 hours after the motion passes so that the involved parties can read them. Risker (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Daniel, sorry to toss another piece of bureaucracy at you, but since technically this was a clarification of the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case, shouldn't it be posted on that case's talkpage? --Elonka 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, because it served to amend the SlimVirgin case. I will post a link at the talk page of the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case to where the motions are archived, but given the Martinphi-SA case wasn't the one being clarified or altered, it's correct residence is the SlimVirgin talk page. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. :) I wanted to link to the archive, so I wanted to doublecheck that I was linking to the permanent home. Carry on, --Elonka 02:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- No probs. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and I have a longer version of my statement at User:Elonka/Pseudoscience statement. Should that be moved to be a subpage of the SV case? Or how are these things usually handled? --Elonka 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- As a followup, I went ahead and moved my statement from my userspace, to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin/Elonka's expanded Pseudoscience statement. I also updated the link on the case page. If you'd like the subpage somewhere else, please feel free to move it as you see fit. Thanks, --Elonka 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and I have a longer version of my statement at User:Elonka/Pseudoscience statement. Should that be moved to be a subpage of the SV case? Or how are these things usually handled? --Elonka 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- No probs. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. :) I wanted to link to the archive, so I wanted to doublecheck that I was linking to the permanent home. Carry on, --Elonka 02:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
So, Daniel, I went back and read over the closing procedures for RFAR clarifications[2], thinking that I may have missed something, and it says "Good-faith requests for clarification should be left in place in this section until the discussion is concluded, preferably including input from one or more arbitrators where applicable. When the discussion is concluded, the thread should be removed from the RfAr page." Interestingly, there's nothing on the entire page about closing 24 hours after a motion is approved, so I assume that is a convention that the clerks have adapted from closing of cases. I seem to recall there being some discussion of the procedures being updated; given that more than half the committee is new, and the only "rules" we have to go by seem to be out of synch with what the clerks seem to be doing, perhaps this would be a good time to clean things up. Risker (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oversighted edit
Well spotted, sir! - Alison ❤ 06:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Turtur edit
I need a full set of votes on my poll for cycling service .....LOL .... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we can find out their errors and sledge them on my blog. BTW, aren't they a pseudoporn mag? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a cricket poll up soon. I uploaded a few of them already, but only one of each pose. Finally a mug for Ponting, Botha, White, Morkel brothers, Kallis etc. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- And the famous beard....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Sent you the Turtur book page scans. Also, === Invincibles ===
- Invincibles
Our future Featured topic:
- RO - Refs in # order?
- J - Jargon run?
- Ta. Will do. Daniel (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I wish I had one of those picture text -> word text scanner things lol. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009 edit
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
A-league cleanup edit
Hi Daniel, long time no chat! Just thought I would mention to you a couple of things:
- There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#Article_structure on "cleaning up" the club articles after the GF this year. Since you were heavily involved in getting Central Coast Mariners FC to featured status I thought you would want to be involved!
- On checking your contribs to make sure you were still active on enwiki I noticed [3] - I thought we used bold for names which were redirected to the article as well?
Regards -- Chuq (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, replied at the WP talk. Thanks for the heads-up.
- Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Boldface is the MOS in question. I was working under the impression that historically failed bid names, and the bid name itself, wasn't a "synonym" for the club name. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Ref ordering tool edit
IIRC you said a while ago that you had a tool for ordering multiple footnotes in numerical order in the text [5][1] -> [1][5] etc. Do you still have it. If so, can you run it on all the Invincibles articles listed at WP:AUSCRICBIO please? Thanks, YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009 edit
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Question about page protection edit
Howdy. I'm curious why you semi protected an article with this edit? I see the OTRS mention in your edit summary. Did someone email you requesting it be semi protected? Or was it the previous edit that caused it? I know the edit was awhile ago.--Rockfang (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I protected it due to a history of inappropriate editing, with a complaint by someone associated with the subject forming a supporting factor in my decision. Daniel (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Bill Harrigan edit
Hi Daniel,
I noticed you started sandboxing an article about Bill Harrigan about a fortnight after I re-started the three-times deleted article. Three questions:
- Why Bill Harrigan?
- Why the wait?
- Your sandboxed article looks better to me than the current article. I must admit I am sorely tempted to copy+paste your work into the existing article and so add it on my edit count. Hmm. This doesn't seem to be a question at all. Or is it?
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Heh :)
- Cos I <3 Harrigan. All-time favourite NRL personality, above and beyond any player. Met him once, got his book also.
- Cos I'm lazy and easily distracted :) See the history of 1999 Sydney hailstorm (which I did eventually finish and move to mainspace) for another fine exhibit of my laziness.
- Normally I like finishing my articles before moving them across, but quite frankly, go for it :) Provided you say something like "Written by [[User:Daniel]], copying to this article" or something, I don't mind!
- Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Article deletion edit
Hi daniel,
I'm just wondering why the article I created about my favorite radio show was deleted. The only reason you gave for the deletion was "expired prod". Can you tell me why the prod was given in the first place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Arkansas+Traveler+(radio+show)
Raumohir (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Raumohir
- The process is described at WP:PROD; I have undeleted it. Daniel (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009 edit
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy notice regarding User:ChristianMan16 at WP:ANI edit
I've noticed that, in the past, you've taken part in discussions relating to ChristianMan16. I've proposed that his community ban be lifted. Cheers! --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, thank goodness sanity is prevailing at that discussion to beat it down. Daniel (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
List of television stations in North America by media market edit
There was a dispute at List of television stations in North America by media market, and I was wondering if you could look at OTRS 2008091610055854 and determine what, if anything, is wrong with using the new data provided on the talk page (the PDF document)? For some discussion see Current List of DMAs on FCC website (public domain). I've also added {{OTRS-talk}} to the talk page there, but if you could provide some additional detail for the OTRS ticket in that template it might be useful in avoiding future conflicts. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 17:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't have time to look in to this, I could ask someone else, but you were suggested to me specifically because the ticket was locked/inaccessible to another OTRS handler. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dan dealt with this initially, plus he is probably more qualified to reply in the sense that he understands US copyright law better than I do. I do indeed have access to that ticket, but I deliberately stayed out of its' resolution initially because Dan would be better. He and Mike dealt with it, judging by the history of the ticket. Daniel (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Removal of my friendly notification edit
I believe my friendly notification falls under [[4]]. It was sent to three people(limited number) and neutrally worded. Please explain how this is a violation of WP:CANVASS. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because it was sent to specific people who had been involved in that whole shemozzle on your "side", and was directly under comments like "bullies need to be faced upfront". Also, because it's a link to another project, the friendly notices clause does not apply. Daniel (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Clerk edit
I'm interested in becoming an arbitration clerk. Could you..."mentor" me? α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- At the moment I don't think we're looking for new clerks, sorry. I suggest you email mail:clerks-l with a short piece about yourself so the entire clerks corps (and the Arbitrators) can discuss it. Daniel (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- What if I don't have an e-mail? Use the {{tb}} template, please. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 13:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- You'll need an email address to handle sensitive information as an arb clerk... I suggest you get one. —Dark talk 05:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I will not use the super-lame talkback template (I have no intention of posting on your talk page, if you want a reply, it's your responsibility to come back here and look for one), and the comment above suggests you are not suited to be a clerk. So, the answer is no, I do not wish to mentor you. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikipedians against useless templates —Dark talk 21:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I will not use the super-lame talkback template (I have no intention of posting on your talk page, if you want a reply, it's your responsibility to come back here and look for one), and the comment above suggests you are not suited to be a clerk. So, the answer is no, I do not wish to mentor you. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- You'll need an email address to handle sensitive information as an arb clerk... I suggest you get one. —Dark talk 05:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- What if I don't have an e-mail? Use the {{tb}} template, please. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 13:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009 edit
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Image tag edit
Please take a look at this dif. [5] I changed the {{GFDL-self}} to {{GFDL}} as the uploader (you) is not the creator. I deleted the {{GFDL 1.2}} tag as it is not compatible with either of the other two tags. Specifically, the first two are under GFDL 1.2 and any future versions, whereas the latter is only under 1.2 and no other versions. Ideally, no images should be tagged as GFDL 1.2 only if we can avoid that. Would you mind checking the ticket to see if this image needs to be tagged as {{GFDL}} or as {{GFDL 1.2}}, just to make sure? Thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMinar-e-Pakistan.jpg&diff=272885924&oldid=242206870){kind=link}
- I would think it might be wiser to request that Daniel (or any other people with access to OTRS) checks the OTRS ticket before you change the licensing. That way, a lot more trouble might be avoided. —Dark talk 06:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't change the licensing, I changed the tags. The tags were wrong. Daniel didn't create the image, but he uploaded it, so any "self" tag is inaccurate, and should be more generalized. Also, something cannot be "GFDL 1.2 and any future versions" and "GFDL 1.2 only", it is a direct contradiction. In cases like this the lest restrictive licenses are used. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. Common sense dictates that in cases like this, the more restrictive licensing should be used. Why? Because the photographer will be more likely to cause a fuss if you used the less restrictive licensing. The image is still the photographer's property, and we should act on the side of caution. —Dark talk 07:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not their property anymore, and once it was released under a free license it can't be revoked, unless that exact license wasn't approved by the original copyright holder. Although I do agree now that I should have waited, at least to avoid any confusion... I was in a hurry to clean out Category:GFDL_1.2_images, and I had noticed that a very large number of files had been tagged as "1.2 only" by accident, by people who meant just {{GFDL}}. Oh well, it's done. If I made a mess, sorry Daniel. Hopefully I didn't. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- unless that exact license wasn't approved by the original copyright holder. Precisely my point. I am well aware that free licenses cannot be revoked; however, we can not be certain that the photographer released it under "GFDL 1.2 and any future versions". —Dark talk 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. My point was that I didn't think about the fact that ticket might have said something different than the tags until afterward. I assumed that the licensing was correct and the tags were off, but then it occurred to me that the licensing could be wrong, so that's why I posted here to see if Daniel could check. But really, if it is wrong, then it is no more wrond now than it was before.... I don't know that I have a point anymore... ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- unless that exact license wasn't approved by the original copyright holder. Precisely my point. I am well aware that free licenses cannot be revoked; however, we can not be certain that the photographer released it under "GFDL 1.2 and any future versions". —Dark talk 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not their property anymore, and once it was released under a free license it can't be revoked, unless that exact license wasn't approved by the original copyright holder. Although I do agree now that I should have waited, at least to avoid any confusion... I was in a hurry to clean out Category:GFDL_1.2_images, and I had noticed that a very large number of files had been tagged as "1.2 only" by accident, by people who meant just {{GFDL}}. Oh well, it's done. If I made a mess, sorry Daniel. Hopefully I didn't. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. Common sense dictates that in cases like this, the more restrictive licensing should be used. Why? Because the photographer will be more likely to cause a fuss if you used the less restrictive licensing. The image is still the photographer's property, and we should act on the side of caution. —Dark talk 07:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't change the licensing, I changed the tags. The tags were wrong. Daniel didn't create the image, but he uploaded it, so any "self" tag is inaccurate, and should be more generalized. Also, something cannot be "GFDL 1.2 and any future versions" and "GFDL 1.2 only", it is a direct contradiction. In cases like this the lest restrictive licenses are used. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll check this when I can access OTRS, which I can't do on my current network because OTRS is on the secure server. Daniel (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Deja vu? edit
Leave him be. He ain't causing any harm yet. I'm putting my money on it being an adminship he'll request next. -- Longhair\talk 06:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. I'll revert the bit about taking it over. I've relised that might be too much. Sorry. -- Punk Boi 8 talk 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Un-Australian like behavior edit
Where the bloody hell are you? :p —Dark talk 08:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wiki ban help edit
Hello, My name is John and last night I tried to create an account from my house and it said I was banned Jan 27th until April 27th. I was just hoping you could help me since I have never used wiki before.
It said I (IP 98.231.22.5) was banned by Nishkid64 who gave the reason {{checkuserblock}}: .
I was just hoping you could help me figure this out. Maybe someone was using my internet? I'm not sure, but I was hoping to see the incident that happened. I am sending this from my account I created at school (nflmockdraftaces), but it is in reference to my home IP which is 98.231.22.5
I'm new and not sure what to do. Help! :)
Thanks for your help, John Nflmockdraftaces (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Happy Birthday! edit
|
Happy Birthday, Daniel/Archive/74, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009 edit
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Answered your own? edit
I assume you answered your own question? It would have been impressive if she played that pre-teen girl in The Wonder Years if she were 22 years old! :) I'm curious why you didn't ask the other editor why she keeps reverting the article. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ireland arbitration case edit
SO what was the outcome? Mooretwin (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The final decision is posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. Daniel (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
account edit
Hi sir,could you unblocked my Makansutra account for editing?I would also like to know why I was blocked for almost 5 months. Thank You Makansutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.3 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you contact Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the person who blocked that IP. Daniel (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There's siruption afoot. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
We'll need a few votes on teh talk page to keep them down. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
re: Blanking userpages edit
- Daniel, I got your message about Mike Goodwin's page. I actually didn't blank it. His photograph and text below stayed in place. I removed the resume as it's a violation of WP:NOT, as I mentioned in the edit summary. I realize he's the lawyer for wikipedia, however, WP:NOT applies to everyone, so I didn't see a problem removing the offending section. If you've reverted me, I will not revert your change, but I would be interested in hearing if you believ his resume doesn't violate WP:NOT
- THanks — Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 14:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Daniel, I saw your answer. Thing is, you're the only person that actually disagreed with the edit on his page. No one else has contacted me, in fact, that edit was on his page for about four days. (I haven't reverted you either. :) ). Also, it's not considered improper to remove content not consistent with policy off of pages, in fact it's the norm, (that's soley from my observation thus far :) ) As I said earlier, I won't revert your change, however, I think I'm correct in my application of WP:NOTWEBHOST. It really looks like you're saying because he's part of the foundation, he needs to be treated differently. (I'm not saying "You said he's above the rules" , as I know that's not what you're saying. Feel free to correct me if you belive I'm wrong, of course. In the meantime, I will leave your reversion as it is. Thank you ! — Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Kosh. While your enthusiasm to fairly apply the rules is admirable, I don't think you applied this rule correctly. You cited Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site, but note that it links to Wikipedia:User page for more information. That page explicitly states that it's fine for an editor to add information about themselves to the page, which is what Mike Godwin has done on his page. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:11:26, 04 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with Daniel, though for me it doesn't matter whether he's a Foundation employee or not. As Pathoschild mentioned, it's a user page, not an article; as long as the content isn't blatantly illegal, then it shouldn't really make a difference what he has on there. - Jredmond (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)