User talk:Geni/archive 7

Meta::usurpation::GFDL

I have the same concerns you have over breaking GFDL with the proposed usurpation policy. I think I might have found a solution which could possibly make everyone happy (IANAL tho). My concern is that the identity of a user who had been subject to usurpation would be usurped as well -- obviously a flagrant breach of the license. But what if the usurper was obligated to keep a perpetual, highly visible notice on both their user page and their talk page stating that "this account has been operated by XYZ (usurped) until YYYY-MM-DD"? Do you think that would be acceptable? As much as I have fought against the proposed usurpation policy (before your radical edit), I think this could actually work -- as long as you wear a prominent notice on your forehead, I don't think anyone can accuse you of identity theft or anything similar. What say you? --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean we allow for usurpation as originally proposed, but the usurper has to perpetually identify themselves as an usurper of an account held by somebody else before the usurpation date. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Notes reads "When the rename has been completed, your account will have been renamed, and any contributions you have made (including deleted contributions) will be reattributed to your new account as a background process." What am I missing? --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot change the person, and we also cannot change the identity, that far I'm all with you. But what's in a name, really -- apart from an identity? As long as you preserve the identity, the person behind the name, I don't think there are any problems. After all, the GFDL doesn't make any provisions on usernames, it makes provisions related to authorship (and authorship is related to persons, people -- not usernames). --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, GFDL demands no such thing. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely: preserve the authors, not the "authors' usernames". --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a lawyer, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not one either (just kidding). But licenses, as all legal documents, are about people, not usernames. I'm of the opinion that as long as you make an obvious, good faith effort of preserving the identity of the person (again, person, not username) who has indeed been the author of a derivative work, you are very much in the clear -- it's more than a reasonable effort to preserve the true history of the document. Once again, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one -- I'm just running this by you. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're making me play the Devil's advocate. You seem quite rigid about preserving the History section as if set in stone. What if, in a real world scenario, Ms. John contributes to a GFDL document, gets marries, becomes Mrs. Smith, and asks for the History section to be revised? Does it or doesn't it get revised? Are there legal precedents? (I said I was playing the Devil's advocate because I'm fully aware in case of usurpation poor Ms. John not only doesn't ask for anything, but she's also completely oblivious to the name change -- but hey, what's life without a debate?) --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. But now (please indulge me), what if Ms. John happened to actually be called Ms. Hillary Clinton instead? Hear me out, this really isn't nonsensical: Ms. Hillary Clinton gets married, and she's now Mrs. Hillary Smith. She did have legitimate contributions under the (then) legitimate name Hillary Clinton, and nobody's denying them. But now there's one Hillary Clinton who happens to be a more prominent person (read "contributor"), and at the same time the former Ms. Clinton doesn't in fact use that name any more. Wouldn't it be acceptable for the current Mrs. Hillary Clinton to take over that name -- as a brand, if you wish? That is, as long as Mrs. Clinton bears a visible banner at all times reading "whatever happened before 2007-03-05 under the name Hillary Clinton is belong to Mrs. Hillary Smith"? --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using a dual account, as Mrs. Hillary Clinton wouldn't if Ms. Clinton were a known pornstar. People are intent on preserving their identities, pornstars or not, politicians or not, private people or not. My point is that we have to preserve the identity, not necessarily the username, as long as ambiguity is not a matter of concern (and I do take that quite seriously). --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we reached the end of our exploratory journey: this is, in my opinion, something which should go straight to the usurpation policy: "The GFDL is only interested in the name the person adds to the history when they release the work under the GFDL." Thank you for taking the time to do this with me, it has really helped me understand this issue a lot better than before this conversation. --Gutza ^{T T+} 11:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder Sunday Lunchtime

Just a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10 See you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Grave1 high.jpg

I used to upload highlander pictures from other sites when I was a fresh user on wikipedia but didn't knew exactly how to do it well. I guess the licensing is wrong since I can't find the picture on the website I took it from. Not really an expert on uploading images. Stopped doing it long ago. If you think it should be deleted, the do it Secretaria 04:02 29 June 2008 (UTC)

List of sustainability topics

As you previously commented on this at User talk:Granitethighs#your lists, and following some discussion on my own talk page, I thought I should let you know I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)#List of sustainability topics. Wasn't sure how far your interest in this went, but figured a quick note can't hurt either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

linking

Hi—I've responded to your message here. Cheers. Tony (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

wiki-meetup

Hey, I saw from past records that you attended london wiki-meetup no. 10; if you're interested in attending again we're planning meetup 12 at the moment. Ironholds 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian Jade

Responded to your comment on my talk page. --OneCyclone (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on Girvan

As it seems to have been very persistent, I've semi-protected. DGG (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ImamAli.jpg

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Paget-Tomlinson

Hi, do you happen to have the page numbers for the Paget-Tomlinson references you put into the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal article? I'm expanding the references to include a bibliography section and will need individual page numbers to advance the article further. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just tidying things up now and maybe one day it could be a featured candidate - I'd rather have exact page numbers, but if that isn't practical then we'll leave it as two pages and see what happens. Thanks for the tip re pp and p though, I'll look into that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OS maps

Thanks for the info, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 13:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Canals of North West England

Hi, I'm after replacing most of the Jim Shead references in the article with refs from this book - its only numbers and years, and should be easy to find. Would you be able to do it? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't scan those few pages for me could you? Then I can sort the references myself. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Have replied via email. Let me know if you don't get it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA closed

Hi Geni. I'm sorry that I have closed your RfA as one that did not reach consensus.

Thank you very much for standing for adminship and for all the work you do for the Project. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your RfA was unsuccessful :( —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 11:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My observations and comments at your RFA may not have pleased you but kindly understand that there is nothing personal in my comments aganist you. We all know that you were good at using the admin tools but people expect a right attitude in RFA. Having said that I hope you take my comments in right way and prehaps think of what actually went wrong.. Anyways Best wishes again. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

-- Tinu Cherian - has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
....Hopefully this would have a made a better day for you. Best wishes
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• You had significantly more support this time around than before. I'm sure that after another few months, and you run for RfA again, you'll pass RfA. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of banned books. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Additionally you are falsely claiming "long-standing consensus" where no such consensus exists. Loonymonkey (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Letter to community nonsense

Thank you for wiping those comments. This thing is threatening to go even more insane.--Tznkai (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Muckle_Fulga_Sunny.jpg

I took it from the top of the cliffs on Unst – see the image's page for camera information. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Muslim Massacre

An article that you have been involved in editing, Muslim Massacre, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's apparently courteous to inform other people when they're mentioned on WP:ANI, this mentions your nick but does not really involve you. Also, thanks for having that kitten picture up. --Kizor 11:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing image placeholders

I imagine, like me, you'd like to forget all the ugliness behind the debate on placeholders but I was recently made aware of a bot request to remove all instances of the image placeholders. I have sent this message to inform you of it as well since I recall you as an active participant in the discussion and should be able to shed some light on the wisdom of the bot request. Regards, DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article

In order to solve the revert war on GDS article over the inclusion of the banning from New Zealand, I have opened a request for formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. Please participate on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Geni, re: GDS

You haven't signed the Mediation Agreement. Is there a reason? Just curious. Hag2 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do not know much history. Nice talking to you. Hag2 (talk)

UK 2.0 vote

Hi, I'm taking that that was a "blanket" message? Because I already voted if it wasn't? :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 03:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I have voted too. But as far as I can see there is no way of telling this so well done for the low key reminders. --BozMo talk 07:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sending the reminders around, but you got the wrong day - "Saturday (September 25th)" is either today (Tuesday 25th), or it should be Saturday 27th... That probably doesn't matter too much, though. Mike Peel (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a board? :-) fr33kman -s- 03:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

London 14

Following your participation the other Sunday, you may be interested to know that London 14 is scheduled for Sunday October 12 incase you weren't already aware. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK v2.0

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited!

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Speedy deletion of Mario Fernando Hernández

A tag has been placed on Mario Fernando Hernández requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 09:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mario Fernando Hernández

I have nominated Mario Fernando Hernández, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Fernando Hernández. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As one of the involved administrators, I regret that the above deletion nominations had ever been placed -- the article was among a large group nominated for deletion contrary to policy by a user who has now been blocked for doing so, by consensus at WP:AN/I. Deletion has been prevented, and please feel free to remove the notice. DGG (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai map

CNN's map has the location of Leopold's, which seems to be missing on yours, and it looks like they are placing the CST station slightly off from where it should be. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You can put Vile Parle back on, per [1] (check all three pages.) [2] says "Trident hotel, Taj hotel, Wadi Bunder, Cama hospital, GT hospital, VT station, Bootleggers pub, Girgaum and Metro cinema." GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai images

Do you have proof those images were copyvios? Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the whole Brandt mess. It was wrong to bring you down and I do feel awful about it. Yanksox (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 23 December, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Lansana Conté, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^{Merry Christmas!} 16:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the Dave Littlefield vandalism

I created a user page for that IP address (66.211.238.79) that keeps vandalizing the Dave Littlefield page and added a warning... that was my best guess as to what was appropriate. - gohlkus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Happy New Year!

Dear Geni,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a good faith effort to reformat what you wrote (no content was changed) in order to keep the same basic formatting of the other proposals (for clarity). If I have, in any way, misconstrued or distorted your comments or ideas, please feel free to alter them or revert. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hannah Montana upcoming episode list

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hannah Montana upcoming episode list, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana upcoming episode list. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Biber (submarine)

I have thought about it, and I think that this should fix it. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 4

I have added some questions for your perusal. Cheers Dlohcierekim 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was unclear and have rephrased. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Side Q

In your selfnom, you said that you did something that is now impossible. What is that? flaminglawyer^c 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Geni - you're an administrator again. Best of luck to you, and happy editing. — Dan | talk 01:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good luck! It took a while but we got there in the end. Haukur (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats :)! Mifter (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm glad you're back. --B (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! It is deserved. --Chasingsol^(talk) 05:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Again, I'm sorry you were tangled in the whole Brandt mess. Yanksox (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on Jimbo's talk page

Hi Geni. Respectfully, I would ask you not to suggest who I should and should not leave out of a conversation, thanks. Brion got himself involved with it by commenting, others have mentioned him and I do not see why that comment was directed solely at myself. I have a brain, a mouth and a keyboard. I decide what I want to discuss. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/London 18

The Victoria and Albert Museum Wikipedia Loves Art event is February 1 (this Sunday), -not- February 8. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikispecies

Hi, I'm leaving this message on the talkpage of several of the Wikispecies admins. User:Cheesecracker has spent an hour and a half running riot through Wikispecies. I couldn't find an admin urgently so requested help from the Stewards. A two hour block has been placed while cleanup occurs. Can an indefinite block please be used? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to including provisions that allow for a single non-free image as a last resort if no free images exist? I think this will help bring some of those who object to the support side of the house. At the same time, it also gives a little more ammunition because it indicates it is a last resort; if a free image exists, then those images can't be used. My efforts show that almost all college football teams (which seems to be the general genre of those who oppose), if not all, have a valid free image available. In the interests of not cluttering up the talk page any further, please just respond here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. season articles are not going to disscuss the logo thus it is decoration.Geni 02:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vega machine

I have nominated Vega machine, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vega machine. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Abidjan

What have you done????? You've rmeoved all the images i spent ages add to the article. You;ve rmeoved the map and stripped it of four years of edits? Can you please explain what the copy vio problem is as the article is in a dreadul state now. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Beeeatch! I understand particularly with a complaint. Maybe it would be permitted if you pasted the former article into my User:Dr. Blofeld/Ivory Coast and I can begin working on it? I had it on my list to transwiki from French wikipedia but if I can combine materials (and write our own version with the vio) could you allow me to do this Geni? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You can trust me that I won't make a mess. I have an article ready to translate from French wikipedia which the bulk of the article will be when complete. However I'd like to view the former article to see if anything vital is missing and if there is anything worth mentioning from it. You can be assured that I won't restore any copyrighted material and in the end we will have a much better article without the problems I promise. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if you at least gave me a chance to do something. It will not remotely resemble what was there before. I will be translating from French wikipedia but I want to see what was there to write the best article I can on it. What have you got to lose? If I develop a version which is a mess you can delete it again. A chance please? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide me with the url of the external page the article was a copyvio of so I can avoid any problems. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ticket

Just to let you know that Ticket:2009020810011301 has kicked off again. The notification system doesn't seem to work very well for that queue (or, at the moment, at all). Stifle (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruling in Wikiquette Alert Against You

A ruling in the wikiquette alert to which you were party has been made and can be found on the wikiquette page. This is a courtesy message as required and does not need a personal response to me. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deprecating the GFDL-1.2-only templates on the English Wikipedia

Thought you might be interested in this proposal. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plasmaball vid1

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Plasmaball vid2.ogv, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 07:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MLA articles

I see you recently deleted a goodly number of edits to the articles on MLA style due to their containing copyvio material. Is there any chance you could reach into the void and retrieve the citations used in the refs in the then-latest versions of the articles? I put a good bit of work into them and would rather not have to recreate them manually if I can avoid it. Thanks. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm much obliged! --Cybercobra (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment...

... has a reply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Map Error

Hi Geni, Just a bit of a heads up for you. You have inserted a section of a 1954 OS map, showing Halifax and Sowerby Bridge, on the Halifax, West Yorkshire article, (ie:- File:Halifaxmap1954.png) which you have uploaded to commons. However you have have not put the correct description on for the map during the Commons upload. The description states: 'Map of penistone from 1954. Scale 1 inch to the mile 600DPI Sheet 102 "Huddersfield" series 7'. Somehow I don't feel you would have Halifax on any Map of Penistone and certainly not on sheet 102 from Series 7! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit to penis

Hi, Geni. I noticed that you changed the infobox image for the penis article. While I somewhat agree that the new image is useful, I think it would be appropriate to discuss such a change before we commit to it. Thus I've started a discussion at the article's talk page, seen at Talk:Penis#Changed images again. I'd like to invite your participation, if possible. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Spy

I recall you having a book of vanity fair prints; would you be able to check for Charles Gill? Some time between 1875 and 1910, I believe. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agg, must have been thinking of somebody else then. Sorry for wasting your time, then. Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Northern Cyprus parliamentary election, 2009

On 21 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Northern Cyprus parliamentary election, 2009, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

snollygoster

Is this the only reference to the word snollygoster? This word was found in Wikipediai in 2008. There were several different definitions found. Also, I was a child when Harry Truman was running for president, he called another person a republican snollygoster. The news man interviewing him asked, "Mr. Truman, what is a snollygoster?" Truman answered "it is an old southern word meaning, a child born to an unwed mother".

We would appreciate any infromation you have on this.

Thank you very kindly. Oldfossilfile (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Boarding Axe

No permission, so the article needs a re-write to adhere to the wikipedia standards. Feel free to tag/modify/delete etc. Kirk (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi,

Is there a way of seeing the contents of OTRS #2008063010023045 that you mentioned on ANI? I've not had much occasion to use it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, since OTRS are confidential. But if Geni could clarify the general issues concerned that would be great, since I can't find anything on-wiki about it. Thanks very much.--Slp1 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I know they can sometimes be reproduced (see Talk:Frederick Crews#Subject_notes_from_OTRS but I'm guessing that's after explicit permissions from the author. I'll be interested to find out whatever I can. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

'Kay, I think it's resolving itself anyway. Thanks for the reply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

License Migration Task Force

Hey Geni! Wanted to invite you to join the License Migration Task Force on Commons (if you're interested). Kaldari (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xeno^talk 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TV commercial replacement

The nomination is a G4 repost of an article deleted through the AfD process as discussed here; none of the issues were addressed in the recreation at all. Nate • (chatter) 10:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags. Only Admins can do that. If you disagree with a nomination, then you need to place a {{hangon}} tag below the deletion tag.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're an admin that doesn't identify themselves as one? Interesting. As for the speedy, criteria #3 for redirects is about typos. Maybe it isn't entirely "implausible" that they would capitalize "film", but the point is that we shouldn't be putting in every variation of the disambiguation of a film's title. It's one thing to have A Nightmare On Elm Street, where the "on" is incorrectly capitalized, because that's a common mistake. Most average readers don't know our disambiguation naming conventions to begin with, and to assume that they'd get it all of it right except that we don't capitalize "film" is a little hard to swallow. If they know all that, then they know we don't capitalize it. Secondly, given that our search bar now has that nifty drop down box that automatically brings up the titles as you type, that means that the second they put "(2010..." it would automatically bring up the correct title. If we keep the redirect, it means we'll have two that pop up, which makes one unnecessary to have even if it is "harmless". And if you test this, the capitalized "f" is the one that comes up first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, assuming of course that they don't have java turned on, where are they going to end up should they type in A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 Film) (if that redirect wasn't there)? Probably at one of those search pages that say "Did you mean ....". As such, they'd probably learn that you don't capitalize the "f" in the name. So, yes it may be "harmless", but it's also unnecessary to have because it's a disambiguated title that would require them to 1) know how to disambiguate and 2) take them to a place that will direct them to the correct title anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to RfC/Paid editing#Fuhghettaboutit

Your appear to have registered your approval for F's statement under my comment, which has meant there is a miscount of endorsements. You may wish to move it to the appropriate place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Titan Globe

Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester16 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki edits

I am contacting you because you are one of three administrators who have edited the MediaWiki space in the past 24 hours. I've realized that the "Cancel" link is no longer functioning, and I believe that your edits here may have been a factor. I will be contacting the other two administrators as well to see if it was their edit and not yours.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re: Pajhwok Afghan News

Hm, that edit was so long ago that I can't remember what made me say that it was unreliable. It seems at least somewhat reliable now that I look at it, so I can't give as straight an answer as I'd like. I'm presuming my figuring was if that was the only source that had the info and it was workable, it would've been picked up by other outlets. Wizardman 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

GFDL and deleted/oversighted revs

Hi, there is a discussion at User_talk:Coren#a_boob-ish_gamble about some deleted revs and GFDL compliance. Any chance you can steer us in the right path? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Mainpagesmall.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mainpagesmall.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Geo Data

As someone that nearly got blocked for removing propriatery sourced co-ordinates ( ie. Wikimapia/Google) I have to say that your approach seems somewhat confrontational.

If the co-ordinates are problematic, use a talk page to suggest better ones or better still replace them with sources you feel are 'ideologicaly' clean.

You could also lobby for reform of the policy about original research to allow self discovered GPS readings to be added to articles..

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Anglethrice

Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34#Talk pages of indef-blocked users. {{db-housekeeping}} applies to this talk page. Cunard (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Geni. You have new messages at Cunard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Play Me, I’m Yours (Toque-me, Sou teu)

Hello, Geni

You asked me about Street Pianos in Sao Paulo:

[3]

Play Me, I’m Yours (Toque-me, Sou teu)

--Eugenie Absalom (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A question of privacy

Hi Geni, I was wondering if you could help me. Following our recent discussion concerning privacy, I though it may be a good idea to remove the personal details I added, in the past, to my user pages (not one of my better decisions, in hindsight!) Would it be possible to remove this information from the edit histories?

The entries I am referring to are on English Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons.

The entries in question were all made on 23 September 2008 (i.e referring to a town in UK)

If something could be done about this, I would be very grateful.

Best Regards :-) Marek.69 ^talk 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's Great. Thank you very much Geni :-)

Cheers Marek.69 ^talk 23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

67.70.153.70

This IP belongs to the long term vandal I describe here. A longer block on the IP would be effective in making sure that the edits do not continue once the block expires.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Geni/archive 7's Day!

User:Geni/archive 7 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Geni/archive 7's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Geni/archive 7! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your vote on the Ireland articles

Hi Geni, your vote on the Ireland article names may not count because you did not sign the template properly. Your sig is supposed to go inside the template as a final parameter like this: {{stv-ballot|A=0|B=0|C=0|D=0|E=0|F=0|sign=~~~~}}

Regards, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not F

Ah Geni - This guy is attacking me all day and then says he doesn't understand what "not F" means! Surely you wouldn't deny me a tap-in to an unprotected goal??? Sarah777 (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I draw your attention to the fact that the editor you protected from my response has just now said, to me: "You are lying". What I did was presented a different set of data to his and it is very clear that he is aware of that fact but chose to call me a lier anyway. Now I can handle that; but not if my responses are being censored while he can indulge in personal attacks, invivility and, ironically in this case, lying. Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken Coord

Hi. I'm working on clearing out Category:Coord template needing repair. Would mind if I removed the instance of {{coord}} from User:Geni/test? The seconds in {{coord|50|46|788|N|1|05|360|W |region:GB_type:museum |display=title}} are way out of bounds. I don't know what it refers to; maybe those are decimal minutes — 50°46.788′N 1°05.360′W?
—WWoods (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —WWoods (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. copyright issues for images

Yesterday, I lived through one of my more bizarre Wiki encounters. An editor named Hammersoft, who is one of the self-appointed Wiki copyright enforcers, in good Monte-Python-and-the-Holy-Grail fashion, tried to convince a dozen administrators that I was trying to intimidate him through "legal threats" ("Help! I'm being oppressed!"). Not one of my happier Wiki moments. Apparently, the sane eventually prevailed and decided that one has to actually make a threat to take legal action (or at least mention legal action) before one can be construed as having made a "legal threat." All of this developed when the editor in question flagged one of WikiProject University of Florida's two-year-old photos for a possible derivative copyright violation (photo of underlying artwork; photo itself was unconditionally released already). I went to the media copyright discussion page to request help with the issue, and the editor in question followed me to the discussion page and pretty much struck a hard-line pose rather an attempting to find an exception/rationale for continued use based on facts that led me to believe that multiple "public domain" and "fair use" exceptions/rationales were probably available (63 year-old, state-owned statute on unrestricted public display on a state university campus for 63 years). You can read the whole hoary exchange, across 4 or 5 different talk, discussion and administrative pages, but it won't make you happy.

Anyway, one of the few good things that came of this was one of your UK compatriots, a young English lawyer who uses the handle Ironholds, recommended you as one of the two or three genuine copyright experts with whom one may discuss such issues. Over the next several weeks, I may be dealing with a series of interesting copyright questions over images. My whole reason for being on Wikipedia is to help with the University of Florida Project, my alma mater. I have made contact with the full-time university historian and archivist, and they have indicated their willingness to consider releasing a series of post-1923 images to illustrate revamped UF-related articles. I hope that I might be able to draw on your expertise in these matters, so that I can properly document such copyright releases correctly and without any further back-and-forth with the self-appointed copyright enforcers.

Would you be willing to provide advice with these copyright release and related issues? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bounce Energy

I placed an AfD on this article, for which you had previously declined a speedy--you may want to comment. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Porland island map1937.jpg

File:Porland island map1937.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Porland island map1937.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Porland island map1937.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Taunton road map1948.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Taunton road map1948.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bamburgh map 1947.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Bamburgh map 1947.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bognor regis crop.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Bognor regis crop.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Cardiffroad map 1948.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Cardiffroad map 1948.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Esthwaite Watermap.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Esthwaite Watermap.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Farne Islandscroped2.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Farne Islandscroped2.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Front cover of new popular edition.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Front cover of new popular edition.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Greattorringtonmap1937.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Great torrington map1937.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:High Wycombemap1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:High Wycombe map1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Horsea island map 1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Horsea island map 1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Langstonemap 1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Langstone map 1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Maidenheadmap1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Maidenhead map 1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Mersea islandmap.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Mersea island map.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Mineheadmap1937.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Minehead map 1937.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Mordenmap1944.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Morden map 1944.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Porlockmap1937.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Porlock map 1937.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Rydemap 1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Ryde map 1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sandwichkentmap1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Sandwich kent map1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sefton Parkmap1947.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Sefton Park map1947.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Southamptonroad map 1948.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Southampton road map 1948.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Stanley park map 1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Stanley park map 1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Swindonmap1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Swindon map 1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Whale Island, Hampshire map 1945.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Whale Island, Hampshire map 1945.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wimbledoncommon1944.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Wimbledon common 1944.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Krishna Gokani

How do I know that she's really a soap opera actress? There wasn't even a way for me to know that it was claiming that she was a soap opera actress; "serial", for all I know, could be some trivial show on a minor network. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't paying attention; you might note that I edited that article a few minutes ago. I made no mental connexion between the two. Moreover, I never deleted a redirect: Vikkz94 changed it from a redirect, making it so that it read "She plays the role of Bhakti in Hamari Devrani." and included a little table. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It did, but I miss your point; could you explain more? Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Very true; sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Use movie clip

Hi! You posted a movie clip on the page about viscosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Viscosity_video_science_museum.ogv). I was wondering if it is ok if I use it in my school project, don't want to steal stuff. Elisabeth

It's availible under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license which in this case most likely means that as long as you say the video was made by "Geni" there shouldn't be a problem.©Geni 16:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey

Hello. In a recent edit at Ordnance Survey you commented "rm Location map OS is not a place". Er, why then does the infobox include coordinates? -Arb. (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this in one place. You replied on my talk page: "Probably because that is where the offices are currently located. Not everything with geocoords needs a location map.©Geni 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)"

That may or may not be correct but in this case including a location map seemed to add value for readers unfamiliar with the OS's primary location. That would be true of any organisations where the head office is as key as it is for the OS. -Arb. (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that critical and you will note that no such maps appear in Parliament of the United Kingdom, HMS Excellent (shore establishment) and Fire Service College.©Geni 15:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday's meetup

Hi - did I promise to pass anything on to you? I've forgotten! --Redrose64 (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I remembered one thing at least - L. T. C. Rolt --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Have remembered another - I've worked out how I bumped into WikiFur! There was an IP user who was posting messages to Template talk:Cite web (which I have on my watchlist) and not signing his posts; when I put a {{subst:UnsignedIP2|16:18, 9 October 2009|134.181.233.102}} on these, he would remove the signature again. So I looked at his contributions to see what his usual activities were, and found that the only other page edited by this user was Furry fandom. One edit in particular contained the intriguing link further details; visit that at your peril. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't Move

Please don't move page without proposing them in the correct procedure.S711 (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: usernames as sources

Well, now that you explain what it means, I can see how the information might be useful, particularly if it turned out that certain users were unreliable. However, adding "_source:user:Geni" to the coordinate parameter string is not a great way to do it.

1. Colons ( : ) are used to separate parameter names from values in the parameter string, so embedding a colon in the value will confuse simple-minded parsers. (This could be got around with something like "_source:user-Geni".)
2. The documentation for the source: parameter says that it's to avoid loss of precision due to copying. When copying coordinates obtained by GPS research, there's nothing to be done about loss of precision. A username doesn't address that need.
3. A username doesn't tell me what I most want to know. All wikipedia information comes from users; what I want to know is "Where did the user get this information?" so I can verify it myself or at least judge its reliability. "_source:GPS" would be a lot more enlightening. If I wanted to contact the editor who did the research, I'd go back in the history and find the editor's username that way, just like I would with any other edit.

Still, I'm open to new ideas, and I think there's value in finding ways to document coordinates better. There's been some discussion on the template talk page about including citations -- most recently at [[Template talk:Coord#References for {{coord}}|the template talk page]]. Perhaps you'd care to chime in. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already joined that discussion. Well done.

I see you've also gone and removed the source= error check that I added to {{Coord}}. I'm unhappy about this, because it changes the syntax of the template, and I think such changes should be extensively discussed before they are implemented. The source= syntax that you seem to be promoting is not documented anywhere. Nor are the many automated tools that process coord data going to undestand it. Please revert your change. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"source:GPS-user-geni" would be much better, though I have a concern that some usernames belong to different people on different wikis. I don't know all the ins and outs of wikipedia, so I suggest discussing the issue on the template talk page. Whatever practice we adopt, it should also be documented on the Template:Coord-doc-source page for the benefit of future editors and bot-writers.--Stepheng3 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented a notes= parameter for supplying footnotes (and other text) in {{Coord}}. I hope this will meet your needs with respect to citing sources. For instance, you could code {{Coord|1|N|2|E|notes=<ref>on-site GPS measurement by {{ultce|Geni}}</ref>}} to obtain 1°N 2°E.

I'd like to switch the source= error checking back on. Since I have no idea how many source= parameters are out there, I propose silent checking at first (maintenance category only, no red text). Would this be acceptable to you? --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you want GPS information to be marked as such in an article's footnotes? --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've often cited sources for geocoordinates in the past, and I plan to do so more consistently now that title coordinates can be footnoted. This seems a natural consequence of WP:V. Users should be able to easily determine whether the coordinates in question come from a reliable source. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

For example: List of islands of California has multiple coordinates footnoted. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me that we disagree about how common the practice of footnoting coordinates is or will be in the future. What I really want to know is, would you object to me collecting articles that use "source=" instead of "source:" in a hidden maintenance category and then standardizing them? --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Calypso (1883)

Thank you for adding the photograph to this article. I was unaware of it. Can you tell me where this gun is located? Any additional detail you can give us on the gun and how it came to be where it now is, would also be appreciated. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've checked the Mariner's Mirror article cited on the page (the best technical summary I've seen of the vessels) and cannot come up with anything. I have read that work was done in 1902 prior to the transfer to Newfoundland but photographs taken there show 6" guns, at least on the port side. So when this gun was removed (or changed for another) will have to remain unknown.

Would you mind adding your additional information to the description on the Commons page? It would be helpful. Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have enquired. Kablammo (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have received no response yet. Kablammo (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now heard from the Armoury: [4] Regards, Kablammo (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Righteous Sock Barnstar
		Awarded to Geni for meritorious socking at WP:Newbie treatment at CSD :) ϢereSpielChequers 19:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 2009 El Salvador floods and mudslides

On 11 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 El Salvador floods and mudslides, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock discussion

FYI, I'm attempting to raise discussion of the rangeblock you were involved in reviewing, here. Smartiger (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Paramilitary

Please see Talk:Blown for Good. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Peshawar Conspiracy Case

Hi there,

Kindly try to understand that it is Peshawar Conspiracy case and there were five trial undertaken at different times. But it has to be written as A Case only. Kindly do not get influenced by the explanation. So please change the heading also which I am not able to do as I am not all that knowledgeable about using this wiki. sumir Sumir 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)

FPC Closing

Hi Geni,

Can you please take care to follow the full process if you are closing FPCs.

If I'm not mistaken, with your promotion of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yiddish World War I poster you didn't add it to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures mainpage or update the count (I've fixed), didn't add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 22 (I've fixed), didn't add it to Template:Announcements/New featured content or Wikipedia:Goings-on (not going to bother with now), and didn't notify the nominator. Also the caption at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I was not in the correct format (also fixed). It's a long process...

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Chancellor

I am intending to replace the indefinite semi-protection on this article. The BLP violation (false notice of death) occurred when this article was NOT in the news - and our current checks and balances abjectly failed to spot and revert. Having subjected the subject to this once, we have no right to say "sorry that happened, but we will take absolutely no further steps to make sure it will not happen again". The risk is not in the next few days, where the article is high profile and thus fairly watched, it is beyond that when this low-notability bio returns to the underwatched state in which the original violation was able to happen without challenge.

I'm always happy for you to challenge my administrative actions, and my talkpage is open.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

You know me from elsewhere! --BenBurch (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geni. You have new messages at User talk:Geni's talk page.
Message added 03:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

... Misty Willows ^talk 03:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Warrior (1860)

Hi, I see you labeled the 7-inch Armstrong gun on Warrior as a replica. I uploaded to Commons various photographs of guns on Warrior from Flickr, and would like to correct their captions where necessary. Can you tell me which of the guns on Warrior are original and which are replicas ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Best I can tell none. They were able to locate a grand total of one of the 7-inch Armstrong in the channel islands (quite a trick since it was generaly assumed that there were none left and the gun in question was probably on Warrior at some point) which they then coppied in glass fiber but I think that one was then returned. Situation whas much the same with the 68 pounders. Not so sure about the 40 pounders.©Geni

Thanks for responding : I've updated the captions on Commons for all the photographs of 7 inch Armstrong guns on Warrior to indicate they are fibreglass replicas. There is a photograph of a 40-pounder and one of a 20-pounder there also.. dunno if they're original or not, but the 20-pounder is the longer field gun model which as far as I kknow wasn't a naval gun.. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your block of Kevin

Was inappropriate, without consensus at ANI,and does no good since admins can still delete articles through blocks. It comes across as very punitive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

+1 to all of the above. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Err admins can't delete through blocks and since the user in question was actualy carrying out the problematical action when blocked (briefly) it firmly falls under preventive.©Geni 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, was totally about to come over here to say the same thing. We don't just block admins because we don't agree with what they're doing. You made much more drama out of this than was necessary, and you made yourself look bad. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got a thumping great WP:AN/I thread and a classic rouge admin on your hands. A little late to prevent drama.©Geni 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

When an admin has gone rogue and is using the tools the community has entrusted them with in a fashion the community has never shown any support for, of course they should be blocked. We have a deletion process, and community discussions about that process, exactly because we don't want admins taking the matter into their own hands. Algebraist 23:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate block. Certainly without consensus. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

@Geni, admins can indeed delete through blocks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, apparently they can't. The point remains though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

consensus on WP:AN/I doesn't appear to be a driving factor in the current situation. We need people to start talking and historicaly we've found that that worked better when the situation was not ongoing.©Geni 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your reblock is extremely unacceptable. You need to talk to ArbCom to make sure that blocking an editor for deleting things that are entirely within policy to delete, twice, is an acceptable approach. I suspect it is not, and I further suspect that you are verging on rogue, especially if you continue with further blocks absent a clear sanction to do so. Mere assertion of policy is insufficient. ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee has unblocked. I belive that rather takes things out of my hands and any further damage is no longer my problem. Night all.©Geni 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. This barnstar is awarded to Geni, for his valiant efforts against editors who abuse their administrative powers and hold consensus in "utter contempt". You are an incredibly valuable asset to this project. Ikip 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#BLP_RfC Ikip 02:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're doing the right thing

Geni, you're doing the obvious right thing. Mass deleting articles in spite of deletion policy is extremly serious and must be dealt with swiftly, a block is the bare minimum that can be done. The point is of course not being punitive, it is avoiding more disruption and loss of content. The thread above is pretty disgusting. Don't let them take yourself down. Thank you for your work. --Cyclopia^talk 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Some users are belwethers, good predictors of how things are going to go... and some are contrary indicators, if they say you're doing the right thing, you're actually doing the wrong thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannot agree more, Lar. I always think that when you talk about "the right thing to do", in fact. --Cyclopia^talk 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One of us is actually right, too. Cheers, old friend. ++Lar: t/c 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello, Geni. You have new messages at IngerAlHaosului's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For protecting content. A NobodyMy talk 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No barnstar from me, only a swift trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Unsourced BLP's are against policy and their deletion is much deserved. Try not to get to over excited with the block tools next time when someone acts outside the square.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Watchlist-details

Hi there Geni. Per the talk page comments, I've removed the watchlist notice. I'm not sure if you know, but we normally discuss on the talk page before we add to the notices to the watchlist - if you could do this in the future then that would be great. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Panamamap.png

Thank you for uploading File:Panamamap.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Enforcements

If WMC abuses MN's restriction from filing a complaint with further harassment ... should MN bring the issue to you for action? MN should be able to appeal to you on this, yes? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@ZP5 - harassment is out of bounds anywhere on the project, doubly so in a topic area under probation, and trebly when the target is restricted from acting.

@Geni - Thank you very much for getting involved at the climate change probation. Your two recent closes are absolutely on target and your actions are much appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto 2over0 comments. I pray they help the project as intended. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As a related query, is a characterization of editors in good standing as "disruptive propagandists"[5] substantially different from characterizing edits as "malicious"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention "grotesquely biased and damaging", "abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity" and so on. I have just blocked CoM for a week with curtailment possible if there is an apology. ZP5 as I said elsewhere please don't seek out particular admins when you see abuses, use the noticeboard. Geni's actions were spot on but he found the offences. If an admin comes because you choose to select them their impartiality gets undermined. --BozMo talk 18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, as light relief Geni might wish to visit Dalmuir. Covered in snow, last time I saw it. . dave souza, talk 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

link the images

link me the images so I can add the template Kreyg ^Talk 23:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Geni,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Plasmaball vid2.ogv is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 16, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-16. howcheng {chat} 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this actionable?

WP:DISRUPT/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Notice that at no point were diffs provided for any of these allegations despite requests.

Allegations of canvassing [6][7][8][9][10][11] [12][13][14][15][16][17]

Answers [18][19][20] [21][22][23]--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place to ask. My talk page is not a proxy for Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.©Geni 18:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mm sorry. I've seen a lot of users filing complaints blocked for doing so. I guess I get nervous posting there blind.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Peoples Program

A tag has been placed on Peoples Program, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:Your new articles

Thanks for giving me the heads up on the formatting, saved me alot of time in the future that did :) Thanks, TTGL, Talk to me! 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

With regards to this [24] in your summary you say If you do feel the need to bring more complaints in future try and make them more focused Does this mean that if i feel there is a need for a RFE then i may do so? Currently WMC is reverting changes which remove unreliable sources such as blogs and self published websites. As soon as i remove them he reverts me. His continued use of these unreliable sites is disruptive and against policy. If it continues then i will have no option other than to file an RFE. Thanks Mark mark nutley (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking to be desysopped?

Given that you were desysopped for wheel-warring last time, why on earth are you undoing admin actions without discussion on a BLP protection issue, and on the same article for a second time? [[25]]

Your unprotection last time created much discussion and eventually reinstatement. Now, granted, three months on, a case could be made for unprotection, but why on earth are you doing it and without even the common courtesy to discuss with the protecting admins? There's WP:RFPP, the article talk page, or the talk pages of Lar, Alison and myself - but you've used none. Pretty piss-poor judgement here. Please back up and discuss.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While I think Scott may be stating things a bit stridently, I cannot help but agree with his overall concerns. See also User_talk:Lar#Alexander_Chancellor_protection... While I think that protection removal may well be warranted, some discussion first might have been nice. This sort of unilateral action is not a good approach, Geni. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

KV17

Your addition of "walls in the tomb have collapsed or cracked due to excavations in the late 50s and early 60s" can serve as a poster child for the WP guideline against using two-digit dates. I really can't be sure if you meant 1850s or 1950s. Please clarify, if you can. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I see a handful of these every day, but this is the first one where I really couldn't just wing it and prefix with "19". Happy tomb robbing! Chris the speller (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"68-pounder" cannot be a Dab page

The reduction of the supposed Dab 68-pounder you created to a Rdr logically follows from Dab, MoSDab, and taking at face value what you put in it. If you think it has become a harmful Rdr, you may nom it on RfD, or replace it by an article on one sense of "68-pounder" (perhaps by expanding your text -- assuming there is more uniting your three senses than just the element of "weighing 68 pounds or handling something that does", into an article than can survive AfD). IMO whether you read the Dab'n documentation is your own business, but i consider you responsible for doing so, and addressing the objections that have already been implicitly raised, if you're not satisfied with backing off from your stated objection to the Rdr.
--Jerzy•t 21:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The following contrib is copied here from User talk:Jerzy#"68-pounder" cannot be a Dab page:

• Let's keep this in one place (here on your talk page).
  --Jerzy•t 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  

• Sorry, i was distracted by an edit war that caused an ed conf.
  --Jerzy•t 22:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  

The following contrib is copied here from User talk:Jerzy#"68-pounder" cannot be a Dab page:

• The page is entirely consistent with wikipedia's guidelines on redlinks. They are all valid articles. The three guns are very diffent in both design and background. Your edits are introducing false information into wikipedia (HMS Warrior (1860) was never equiped with carronades) and is thus automaticaly unacceptable.
  ©Geni 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let's keep this in one place (here on your talk page).
  --Jerzy•t 23:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  
• Altho it's important to remember that the only problems relevant to continuation of admin status are the ones that involve misuse of admin status, i'm shocked by the idea of an en:WP admin

who fails, in a dispute, to distinguish between "valid articles" and "valid potential articles", or

who shows such thorough ignorance of Dab guidelines, while involved in a dispute about a Dab and just after having been directed to them.

I hope you'll consider discussing with more care, and according more AGF to colleagues' ideas of what's relevant to a dispute you're involved in.
Thanks, tho, for the valuable 68-Pounder Lancaster gun article. I'll comment on its talk page when i get to it.
--Jerzy•t 23:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The following contrib is copied here from User talk:Jerzy#"68-pounder" cannot be a Dab page:

• There is no long term difference between "valid articles" and "valid potential articles". The MOS conflicts with wikipedia's guidlines on redlinks and in such cases I tend to ignore the manual of style (and editors would generaly be expected to do so).
  ©Geni 00:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:Research

After removing the policy template from WP:Research you explained on the discussion page that the RFC had not been advertised properly. I offer the following as my attempts to advertise the discussion:

• an RFC listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines for 30 days
• WP:VPP posting requesting participation in drafting of policy (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_73#Research_of_Wikipedia.2FWikipedians)
• a talk page posting for anyone who edited the pages associated with the policy
• a talk page posting for the current membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Research
  • This discussion was also brought back from the archive to link to the RFC and request participation.
• A posting to wiki-research-l mailing list requesting participation.

To my knowledge, everything to do with this RFC meets the recommendations at Wikipedia:Policy#Proposals, but I can understand why a broader consensus might be needed for the approval of new policies. If we re-opened the RFC and advertised through WP:CENT would you stand behind the consensus? --EpochFail^(talk|work) 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Geni. You have new messages at EpochFail's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--EpochFail^(talk|work) 23:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

--EpochFail^(talk|work) 02:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:David Tredinnick.jpg

Parliamentary photographer innit. Java13690 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Talk page

"Could you explain where do you see that the results of flagged revision do not look good on German Wikipedia? It is live on German Wikipedia since August 2008! It is true, a second opinion tends to be conservative for good faith edits, but obvious, clear cases of vandalism get less, I assume. If it does not get the main page, there is no point to vandalise". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more the impact it appears to have had on edit rates. En's got some issues in that area but de looks worse.©Geni 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Where can I see some data? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Raw data is here and here. I'm afraid I don't have any handy graphs to hand right now.©Geni 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say the data is bad? We have unemployment, we are successful (we are not growing fast from zero anymore), we had some mess because of some pics of the beginning of the XX century. As I see it, it is ok; things could go wrong though in a global recession... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: your edits to Otherkin

Sure enough, I did it wrong. XD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dragonwriter7#your_edits_to_Otherkin --Dragonwriter7 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's tagline

Hi. I noticed that you participated in a 2005/2006 discussion and straw poll on whether or not the tagline at the top of all Wikipedia articles should be changed from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know if you're still interested in this issue or not, but this exact change has been proposed once again, this time at the Village pump, and there is currently an RFC (Request for Comment) on the subject where it is being discussed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geni. You have new messages at Tadija's talk page.
Message added 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tadija^speaks 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Geni. You have new messages at Shem1805's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gun from HMS Calypso

Hello RcB:

I received this e-mail in response to my enquiry:

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your enquiry and apologies for the delay. This gun carries the serial number 295 and if the surviving Gun Logs belonging to Explosion! The Museum of Naval Firepower at Priddy's Hard, Gosport but currently on deposit at the Hampshire County Record Office, Winchester, are consulted it can be seen that it was removed from Calypso and returned to store in Plymouth on the 10th August 1901and appears to have ended up in Devonport on 23rd January 1902. Sadly there are no other entries regarding its earlier (or later) life. If, as you say, she had four such guns on board later, these would obviously carry other numbers and probably recorded in those Gun Logs. At the time this information did not form part of my brief.
I am not entirely certain of the exact way this gun came to be on loan to us since it was before my time. Knowing John Pounds and his organisation as I do he would have phoned us up to let us know that he had acquired it and would we like it as a loan item.
I hope this helps.
Yours faithfully,

[name]
Curator of Artillery
Royal Armouries

I do not understand the shape of the gunhouse, but perhaps the armament changed. I have a 1963 article from Mariners Mirror which has a silhouette of other ships of the Comus class which at least suggest this shape of gunhouse.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In case you are still interested we now have a photo of the rear of the gun File:6 inch gun from HMS Calypso rear.JPG.15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That photo appears to confirm the gun as QF 6-inch Mk III. The photograph shows a gun with trunnions on Vavasseur mount which fits Mk III, also the breech lacks the lug underneath which Mk I and II had for connection to recoil buffer. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What a pleasure

Geni, just a quick note to say "what a pleasure working with you". Yours, especially if you ever need anything, Shem (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific permission required

Hi, Geni. :) With respect to this, I'm not sure it's consistent with [26]. It doesn't seem to express the license in terms that are "crystal clear", and I wonder if you would consider requesting a more specific statement of permission? Theoretically, all he is explicitly licensing is a link, I'm afraid. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuelman?

Hi, i'm on vacation (July 2010) and saw a Fuelman brand gas station. i've never heard of this chain but i liked their mascot, i was curious about them, and checked Wikipedia--page deleted by you (Geni) 02:08, 17 September 2006, and i was wondering why? (The "Why was my page deleted?" link only seems like it might be useful for people who have visited or edited the Fuelman page before, which i haven't, since i only just heard of the place.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.5.26 (talk)

The page in question was deleted because it violated copyright.©Geni 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good reason. Thanks for answering my question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.200.29 (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

TVduck

not notable enough i guess that's why you deleted it? Could you help me remake into a better stub? thank you. --Peaceturkeys100 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tvduck.com will this link help? --Peaceturkeys100 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oakum

An age ago, you asked about how much oakum people had to pick - it's now referenced in the article, 2lbs/day was pretty standard for a man, 1lb/day for a girl under 16, up to 6lbs/day for a man on hard labour. If you're interested in that kind of stuff you'll probably enjoy the Mayhew & Binny book, it's a fascinating read. Le Deluge (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistresses

While I am delighted you are suddenly interested in lovers, please don't try and bully me [27] that template is stupid in that context. If you required publicity then please seek it elsewhere. I am currently trying to avoid it, but I won't shirk from it when I see something as daft as that!  Giacomo  17:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:1x1pixel.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1x1pixel.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, yes, holding off for your further feedback (and I hope that of the others). We need to get this thing on the road soon. Please note proposed shorter durations and earlier start than last year. Tony (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Image reviews at FAC

Thanks for pitching in at FAC; these two pages may help with your image reviews:

• Reviewing free images
• Reviewing non-free images

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help

Can you chime in here: User_talk:Rlevse#Picture_isn.27t_free, I'd really appreciate it. I don't understand this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mail call. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

The 100 Objects pics are almost there ... well done Victuallers (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

CORRECTION PLEASE

The file listed as MTB102.JPG is incorrect as it shows HSL102, a high speed launch and NOT MTB102, a torpedo boat. If you wish to see pictures of MTB102 please go to www.mtb102.com. There you will see the difference. Please delete your file so that the world is not misled any more. Thank you, Richard Basey, Chairman, MTB102 Trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.104.17 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

fair point. File moved.©Geni 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

This[28] was very poor judgment. Admins blocking admins with no warning? How is that setting a good example? Or is there some history of warnings for language on Pedro's talkpage that I am unaware of? --Elonka 01:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I commented over at User talk:Pedro. Fences&Windows 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Replace this image1.PNG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Replace this image1.PNG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

list of kings of Persia or Iran

Dear friend, thank you for your guidelines. But some important revisions had been missed by your redirection that I restored them. Maziargh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Lindow Man

Thanks for uploading your photo of Lindow Man's head, it's a great addition to the article. Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Waterways in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject UK Waterways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Replace this imageb.svg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Replace this imageb.svg. 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.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 21:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Objection to your edit

Why did you remove the text on the list of countries by number of active troops page? That text came out of a consensus constructed on the discussion page. I am going to put it back if you don't give me an explanation. Sopher99 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

Forgive me for mentioning this, but after reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive664#Tbhotch.27s sig, I was surprised to see that your signature starts with a copyright symbol. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP

Geni, please don't remove important material from a content policy without discussion, and in particular don't revert when someone restores it. There's a presumption in favour of stability at these policies, particularly BLP. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a thread at WP:ANI concerning you. Nev1 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Per my comments in the ANI thread, do you understand all the points of policy that you violated with this block and will you refrain from doing so in the future?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Malleus

its absolutely ridiculous to block Malleus for that comment - he was also completely correct. Can you please unblock him. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Ridiculous. Unblock him now. The guy was busy working. He snapped at an annoying pettycrat. So what. Try to exercise some discernment. Malleus doesn't bight newbies (unless they're obvious arce holes), he's one of the most helpful editors on the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent block

This comment and the following one are quite mild; though an immediate block may be within your discretion, a block 10 full hours after the fact is excessive. Will you consider unblocking? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Foolish?

Is it not foolish to block the main editor of the TFL, when it is under pretty considerable attack. He must be allowed to defend it.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN applies even to FAs.©Geni 13:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Geni, there was nothing that suggested he was acting like he owned the article, and in fact no-one has subsequently agreed with Kingturtle. WRT the article, all Malleus did was point out one reason why surnames were not used. And he affirmed that he objected to the proposal, but did not direct Kingturtle not to do it. I'd suggest an unblock is in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to read the section at WP:OWN devoted to FAs, which (at least partially) supports Malleus' actions. On another note, I've unblocked him. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't actualy mention vandalism fighting one way or the other. In any case I'm hardly going to start objecting to my blocks being pulled. I missed that boat what 6? years ago.©Geni 17:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Resign

Your block of Malleus 10 hours after the fact was such an obvious violation of the principle that "blocks should not be punitive" as to call into question your ability or willingness to abide by core policies. Voluntarily resigning your adminship would prevent further damage the credibility of the administrative corps. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't resign. Learn from this. You made a very wrong call. All commentators have tried to explain it to you. You can't see it. You can't self-correct. You can't be trusted with the right to block other editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(to Boris): Come on, that's totally over the line. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm offering this person the best advice I can. I want him or her to stay. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified; I meant Boris' asking for resignation was over the line. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The principle is devided into 4 parts. Which one do you think applies?©Geni 16:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The last two:

• as punishment against users, or,
• where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern

but I think you know that. My advice is to accept what many editors are telling you: it was an ill-conceived block. No need to resign, don't take the criticism personally, learn from it and try not to repeat the mistake. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those are actualy true though.©Geni 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that the community overwhelming viewed this as the type of block that is unacceptable and should not be repeated.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1)the AN/I crowd are not the community. 2)[29] further developments have shown that the block was indeed preventative (or would have been if it hadn't been pulled. So yes I understand it was the judgment of the AN/I crowd at the time that the block was unacceptable. I reserve the right to dissagree.©Geni 19:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a right to you're opinions, but if you're saying that you don't intend to change your actions, then add my name to the list of those that think you need to resign. tools are to be used as the community directs.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they are. And the mechanism for that is policy. Since I'm in the unusal position of being lucky enough to have the block pulled I can show without a shadow of a doubt that the block was preventative. Are there any other issues with the block you wish me to address?©Geni 19:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you've had it adequately explained why the block was far outside the communities approval. The fact that you apparently unwilling to accept this only saddens me. I dislike abuse of the communities trust.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What "further developments" are you referring to Geni? Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Check the bottom of the hatted ani section where there was an attempt to get you reblocked. Guess you werent notified.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get it. The diff Geni is complaining about there was posted at 3:26 this morning, almost 10 hours before I was blocked, and which Geni had already used as the excuse to block me.[30] This is has the hallmarks of a witch hunt. It's very clear to me that Geni is not a fit person to be an administrator and ought to resign while she can still do so with some dignity. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The people trying to defend you were trying to ague that the block wasn't preventative. When unblocked you repeated the edit that caused the issue. That rather blows a hole in their argument.©Geni 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You caused the issue, nobody else. That you continue to refuse to acknowledge that simply demonstrates that you are not a fit person to be an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

you are not prepared to accept responsibility for your own edits? Yet at the same time exibiting significant ownership issues. Oh well so it goes.©Geni 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Geni, your continuation is compounding the original mistake, your inability to accept and apologize for your actions is now the ongoing issue, I was wrong to block you - there is no community support for my action and I won't be using my admin tools to apply that sort of editing restriction again. You still appear to support your actions and appear unable to see the community position and in fact the policy position also - well that is two recent uses and rejections of your administrative actions - if it becomes three imo you can expect the community to request your authority removed as no longer supported. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Don't think that because you haven't wound up blocked for this that your comments at that talk page were in any way acceptable Malleus. While they may not have been so bad as to warrant a block, you were certainly pushing things too far there. I don't really understand what leads you to press "save page" on a comment which has the sole purpose of belittling another editor. And Geni is of course correct that the block was preventive (the seriousness of what it was preventing can be debated, but it clearly was stopping you from restoring those comments). As to witch hunting, I don't understand what leads you to link what's happening to you in this case with that at all. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments were deliberately provocative. I suggest that you might usefully consider spending a little time thinking about your own contributions here, which are not altogether positive. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're muddling me (Kingpin) with Kingturtle. However, either way I don't really see what was provocative about Kingturtle's comments, unless there is some history here I'm not aware of? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was confusing you, my apologies. What was provocative? Well, for starters "Here's what I'm going to do unless you can persuade me that I shouldn't", followed by ignoring all the reasons why he shouldn't. I could go on, but what would be the point? There are none so blind as those who will not see. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem :). We seem to be reading into this differently, personally I would commend him for seeking other's opinions on the talk page before making the changes (something all too few editors do these days), and it seems like it was an especially good thing in this case, where there were good reasons against the changes. I don't think he had an attitude of simply ignoring you (in fact he said your initial answer was "sufficient" enough, presumably to convince him the changes shouldn't be made), although he did largely ignore your personal comments on him, which again I think is a good thing. Still, that said, I don't much see the point of continuing debate on this, as I personally am happy with the way things stand at the moment (you not blocked for this, Geni still an admin, and Kingturtle apparently unperturbed) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite the way it is, which is why I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the outcome. The final score is that Geni gets away scot free again after making yet another bad block and I end up with another daft block. That doesn't seem anything like satisfactory to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh is that all you are worried about? Well you can take comfort in the fact that my de-admin log is probably the most crowded going (if admitedly spread across three different logs). I suppose if I had been de-admined you would have joined some rather illustious company. I belive old User:172 would be the only user I've been de-admined for blocking. Someone so committed to article writing they were prepared to wheel war over it. Eh they don't make editors like that any more.©Geni 02:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No. that's that not "all I'm worried about", or indeed what I'm worried about at all. How many times do you need it to be spelled out to you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• - related here, from my talk - Off2riorob

Whats to accept? That the argument's made on AN/I were right? No that would be irrational as later facts have proven otherwise. That based on the facts they had availible to the time that they had a point? Well yes they did but one I had already considered and found wanting (correctly as it turned out) in my original decission. The few remaining arguments are guesses as to my motives which of course I know to be false (heh I only saw the page becaue I wanted to know if anyone was argueing that the photos were genuine). Which leaves me with what to appologise for? That I failed to correctly anticipate how certian admins would react? Well I suppose so but I can't see people finding that very helpful. Is there anything you think I've missed.©Geni 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• - You added an out of process block to a contributor for a rejected personal position unsupported in policy and guidelines and rejected quickly out of hand by the community consensus. This action was a almost duplicate action of your using the tools out of process in Dec and was also rejected and overturned - as I advised to you - you do not want you hat trick of such actions. As I said - it is imo your inability to see your mistake and your continuation of the disruption you have and are continuing to create and the fact that it is a repeat pattern that is now the issue. The fact that Malleus is able to replace the edits you removed without any user reverting is reflective of your error, not reflective that you were right and that Malleus should have been blocked Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • • ah process. Spent a lot of time fighting for it back in the day. I know it fairly well (I give up on AFD and FP close). Thing is I followed it (user is experienced enough that a warning would just be insulting they know the policies in question). Asserting otherwise won't change that. My position is supported by policy. The edit was both uncivil and disruptive. The edit was uncivil and in the context conduct was inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia (if that kind of exchange had taken place on say WP:AN well it isn't going to impact the workings of that one way or another). As for the rejection well I covered failing to anticipate how certain admins would react.©Geni 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Your just not getting it - you have made 17 contributory edits to the wikipedia in this session - the first thing you did was to block Malleus and the other 16 have been simply fallout from that disruption. If you are happy with that I disagree. Clearly you don't think you did anything worthy of apologizing and you continue to assert you were correct and that you will continue to use your tools in the same way if you like, but I don't think you will like the obvious outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The perturbing case of Geni blocking and unblocking Old TI-89 (talk · contribs) in the space of 15 minutes in January makes things interesting. Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Now look at their deleted edits. The user has an otherwise fairly legitimate edit history. They turned up on IRC behaved well and appealed their block. They then behaved badly onwiki and were reblocked. Net result is that the only change is that we now have titanium hardened evidence that they should not be unblocked in future.©Geni 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I did, and noticed that Sandstein (talk · contribs) declined to unblock with the reasoning "I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons ... since you were blocked as a sock, you must tell us which other accounts you have ever used, and convince us why you will not sock again. You should also tell us what kind of edits you want to make". It's hardly surprising that someone blocked indefinitly for sockpuppetry and vandalism would start vandalising again. No lasting harm was done, but it seemed like a somewhat credulous or naive action to take. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that that decline and my unblock were practicaly simultainious so I didn't actualy see it until after I unblocked. And yes I had a hard time beliving that after 5 years someone would still behave like that. What can I say. I'm not the toughest admin around when it comes to such issues.©Geni 22:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Block of Malleus

I don't want to add heat to the thread above which seems to have gotten side-tracked, but I do believe your block was wrong and unhelpful. I accept that you did what you did in good faith, and I do not think you should resign for it, but I do think you should learn from it. In a situation like this, often just acknowledging your error can defuse a lot of the annoyance. Your call of course. --John (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing references

Like it or not the Daily Mail is a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG; and removing a dozen or so of these references in just a few minutes are not the actions of an experienced editor. Your edits have been reverted. memphisto 17:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The post above was not a reply to your post on my talk page, they were simultaneous edits. With regard to the Daily Mail I see no policy against using it as a source; however the quality of any source should always be considered when using it in an article, while similar consideration should be given before removing said sources. memphisto 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In making your edits you are asseting that the daily mail is a unreliable source. Please justify this. memphisto 23:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers lawsuits! How about this one - Cristiano Ronaldo accepts substantial undisclosed libel damages from the Daily Telegraph at London's High Court and the [Daily Telegraph - Cristiano Ronaldo – apology]. Again, I think due consideration should be given before adding or removing references. memphisto 00:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the position the Daily Mail occupies within the UK newspaper marketplace, however as much as I dislike it, I still think it qualifies as reliable per WP:NEWSORG. memphisto 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I just thought I would give my $0.02 (or £0.02) on this. It's impossible to say whether a whole news organisation is reliable or not - it completely depends on what is being sourced to it. The removal that bought me here was at John Clark (actor) where the DM was used as a reference, but only as to what the subject had told the newspaper reporter. In this case, why should we suspect that they are incorrect? While we shouldn't use the DM for gossip or science (even then there are exceptions) it is completely ok to use in other situations. The opposite applies in other cases were supposedly reliable sources publish shoddy articles that we can establish are unreliable as they contradict other sources. SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your first case hits the problem that we know the DM fabricates quotes. The second cause we should use the original journal article rather than science via press release filtered through the daily mail.©Geni 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)