User talk:Noroton/Archive August 2007 to November 2007

Michael Moore

Please stop removing the link. The WP:ANI discussion has mostly discouraged removing of the link.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• She's right, man. No point in getting yourself blocked over a stupid little thing like that. Particularly when you'd be giving him exactly what he wants... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the message you left me: I am fully aware of policy Noroton but we need to use common sense in this situation. By removing the link we will encourage further conflict and possibly even more slander of this user and Wikipedia. This is a very unconstructive approach you are taking right now. Lets not continue to feed the flames.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I mentioned blocking because I could easily see this escalating into a 3RR situation, and I don't want that to happen. Even if you don't think it'd count, someone else with The Tools might disagree. As to the things about harassment, THF's account name used to be his real-life name, and he's made on-wiki edits about that name and his identity, so Moore's site really isn't "outing" anything. Furthermore, THF's real-life identity is something of a public figure, since he's mentioned all over the news for his involvement in the case, and the possible COI that Moore's talking about has been discussed ad-nauseam at places like Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. I can understand your position, but I can't agree with your assessment of the situation (except insofar as THF doesn't deserve to have a bunch of vandalism dumped on his page - pretty much everybody has to be on board with that). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know THF's work schedule, and I doubt that Moore does either, so it seems like a bit of a stretch to me to call that an attack. No law that says you have to listen to me, though. Enjoy your pizza; think I may get one myself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to your comments on: Talk:Michael Moore#Useful edits while the war continues, I was simply stating what was going on the talk page to inform the user. Some of them aren't aware of the current situation right now and we got to assume good faith. I understand your intentions are just but really, take some time to relax and step back. Lets not get this crazier by the minute. I decided to place the reply here rather than the talk page because we should not use it as a means of carrying on this debate since it does not relate to further improving the article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, this is a better place to discuss it, but we should have a proper place to discuss the issue I've brought up and asked you about: WP:NPA.

No, I think this is exactly the time not to sit back when I think something indecent is going on. And make no mistake, it is indecent to post a user's picture, name, links to Wikipedia editing pages and state that the editor is editing possibly on company (well, employer) time. To my mind, this is worth fighting for. I think I can do it within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. I'll try, anyway. Besides, I just got called a "grandmaster" of edit warring. I'm savoring that one. Noroton 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:ANI has been the only means so far but unfortunately all the discussions relating to this topic have run in spirals. The reason why I am calling the removal of the links inappropriate (despite the importance of WP:NPA and the usual refusal to link to attack sites) is because it is a mass content removal that would be highly controversial. I really cannot speak and sum up this situation because its beyond any of our grasps to do so. But I do know a proposal like that needs a much more overwhelming consensus before being enacted. However, on a personal note, I do not at all approve what Moore has done on his website nor I am ready to let go or forgot what Moore has done on his website. That's my two cents.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As for mass-content removal, I've done it on External links pages in a number of spots. I don't think that needs to happen with footnotes. I'm also uncomfortable with losing the links, by the way, and I want them back up as soon as the attack is called off. I think WP:ANI shouldn't be placed above Wikipedia policies except in extraordinary circumstances that would hurt Wikipedia in a very serious way, and I don't think this is that kind of circumstance.Noroton 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe David Fuchs shared your sentiment in the AN/I discussion and also thought AN/I wasn't the means for it. But the label attack on the matter means that AN/I is a likely place to discuss it. The double negatives of this whole thing are just incredible...I understand your desire to uphold WP:NPA and in no way does it constitute blocks for disruption...but I'm fearing that you are going to continue passionately and another administrator may consider to issue serious warnings/blocks. I really think its best right now if you allow a temporary truce in your stance and let this matter cool down. You really should not risk getting stuff like that on your record.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's cooling down anyway. I'm just not going to back down when I see bullying taking place. If I can make a difference, it would be wrong to back down. And I've got policy on my side, so if some admin hits me, that admin would be in a pretty exposed position. Noroton 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Michael Moore. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Krimpet 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Noroton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just now figured out that I could do this. Here is the reasoning, as I stated it in two emails to Krimpet:

First email: > You have blocked me, User:Noroton, for violating the 3RR rule, although in my edit summaries and on the talk page for the Michael Moore article, I specifically referred to Wikipedia policy -- WP:NPA which states: "The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project." > > It also states: > > "Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." > > It also states: > > "Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule." > > Since my edits were not subject to the three-revert rule, as stated at Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks", your block was inappropriate. > > You should immediately lift the block and so inform me. If you don't, you are yourself in violation of Wikipedia policy and even committing misconduct. > > If you were aware of my reasoning before you placed the block -- and indeed, I stated it on my talk page just above your block -- then you could have simply informed me that your interpretation of Wikipedia policy differed from mine and I would have certainly considered that. I have demonstrated repeatedly, on my talk page, on other talk pages and on the Moore talk page, that I am more than willing to discuss differences. > > Please correct your action immediately. If not, I will certainly be pursuing this with you.

Her response: Whether or not Michael Moore's website is considered an "attack site" has been hotly discussed on AN/I -- a conversation you yourself participated in. 3RR is intended to encourage editors to _discuss_ controversial edits rather than simply reverting over and over. Repeatedly mass-removing links despite _significant_ opposition will only make the situation worse.

Users are expected to uphold the spirit, not the letter, of Wikipedia policies (hence the long-standing policy of "Ignore all rules"). Your clear intent to continue to revert -- including your explicit statement in an edit summary that you would "revert forever" -- and your citing of controversial interpretations of controversial policies to justify disruptive edit warring -- indicate to me that a 24-hour block for 3RR is necessary.

-Krimpet

My response: This is to inform you that once the block is lifted I will be filing a complaint on your misconduct for abusing 3RR blocking. Please note that I'm giving you the courtesy of describing it to you in advance and giving you the opportunity, twice now, to avoid my action against you, a courtesy you haven't extended to me.

In general outline:

(1) By the time you blocked me, the reverting on the Moore page was over. And it had been protected, so it wasn't going to continue. And I had asked that it be protected to prevent an edit war.

(2) A lack of consensus on an administrator board does not trump Wikipedia policy, which explicitly supported my actions, and which I explicitly referred to in my comments and edit summaries.

(3) You could simply have discussed the matter with me, considering that my interpretation of how WP:NRA relates to AN/I was at issue. If you could point to any rule showing me that AN/I -- that a lack of consensus at AN/I -- trumps WP:NRA, I was more than willing to consider that, and in fact discussed that matter on my talk page. You talk about the spirit of Wikipedia but didn't display that spirit when it came to working with others.

(4) Are you required to abide by Wikipedia policies or guidelines yourself? If so, what Wikipedia policy or guideline will you use to justify your actions? You might want to prepare your answer to that.

(5) I was aware of the AN/I discussion that closed. I had no idea that it had been reopened lower down on the page. Nor was I aware of the 3RR complaint, which was discussed at length without my knowledge. Perhaps you could tell me why you gave me no opportunity to defend myself or even know it was actively under consideration despite the fact that the 3RR violation was completely unclear.

(6) And why is it that I'm under obligation to refrain from doing something in the absence of any Wikipedia policy, directive or order when I'm both authorized and encouraged to take that same action by a quite explicit Wikipedia policy, which I've already quoted to you?

What you're doing is an abuse. Have fun defending yourself.

User:Noroton

Furthermore:

I notice that an editor has amended WP:NPA, apparently as a direct result of this situation. I think that's telling.

Well, this has been Kafkaesque. My conscience is completely clear: I acted in the way I thought (and think) was right both in terms of Wikipedia policy and, more important, in terms of basic human decency. That I wasn't treated in accordance with either doesn't surprise me. If anyone else who reads this far can answer any of my questions, I'm interested in hearing from them. I really would like to see something in Wikipedia that tells me AN/I must be respected above all else.Noroton 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ANI post

I think what happened was unfortunate. I really understand your position; I hope that I would be defended by other editors if I was being attacked by partisans off-site. However, it should be clear that no single user can unilaterally control articles on this project. Cooperation and consensus are more than nice ideas, but they're necessary to get anything done. Therefore, I think you should consider toning down your comments. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You should learn a lesson both from your earlier belligerence this week on my talk page and from the alienation that happened on AN/I of people who supported you. This is a collaborative project, and a chip on your shoulder, no matter how well merited, is only going to be counterproductive to your ability to improve the encyclopedia. And this is before one considers that left-wing editors are given a lot more room to ignore all rules, while right-wing editors can and will be punished for overstepping one of two contradictory rules, and are generally treated as no better than the conspiracy nuts even as uncivil left-wing POV-pushers tramp around with relative impunity. A light touch and ability to accept the inevitable minor (and even major) unfairness is not only the best approach, but absolutely critical if you're not going to lose your mind. Wikipedia pages have so many problems that it is still possible to accomplish a lot to further stated Wikipedia goals and improve the encyclopedia within these behavior constraints. But trying to be Spartacus and bring down the whole unfair system from the inside just isn't going to happen. Resilient WP:CIVIL is essential. THF 11:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a right-wing editor. I'm an editor. I'm not trying to get a right-wing result, I'm trying to get a fair result. That's why I add information that supports both left-wing/liberal and right-wing/conservative positions. I don't want to pull over anything on anybody. What I want is for articles to get closer at getting to the truth of a subject, and doing it with solid reasoning and references. I want information to get to readers to bring them closer to the truth.

It sounds very idealistic right now and pretty unreaslistic, perhaps. It is evident that this is not the goal of editors hanging around at the Sicko article. It may be the case that it's not the goal of editors hanging around at the various governance forums.

If you want to work together, do me one favor and stop lecturing me. And I'll do you a favor and try not to be belligerant, at least with you. But don't provoke me either, as you're doing in your post above and the one below. Here's my first and last lecture on your own behavior: You'd get along better with me if you simply stated your points of disagreement, what you think might work and might not, rather than characterize me on the one hand or be evasive on where we disagree the other. As I said, that's my last lecture and I only give it in response to yours. Noroton 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD

As I predicted, your AFD was closed by admins without getting you the result you wanted. If you would like, and can wait until tomorrow morning, I will properly use procedure to attempt to reopen the AFD; let me know on my talk page. But if you are uncivil to admins who disagree with you between now and then, I can't keep spending time to try to save you from yourself, as much as I appreciate your defense of me. I still think your best option is to try to edit Sicko, and seek an RFC if your edits are improperly reverted, strictly adhering to WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL. I have listed several usable reliable sources on the Talk:Sicko page. THF 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Two cents

Ahh, consensus. Really, there was no consensus on that. Really, the entire situation was rapidly spinning out of control, and me as well as two others closed the discussions because they didn't belong on WP:ANI- that is, it was a content dispute, not something that required administrative action, beyond protecting pages from vandalism. Crock and such kept pointing to WP:EXT, but I need to talk to them about that since there is nothing in the page that talks about personal attacks and removing links. In any case, editors should not have taken reactionary measures of removing perfectly valid external links. Michael Moore's page should have a link to his site. Removing it doesn't work, because we as editors are not suppose to be judge and jury over actions off Wikipedia. Either way, the discussion was closed on ANI. You can feel free to discuss it at a better venue, say the personal attack page. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote

I've quoted you here. Just delete the text at (2) there if you think that's wrong and I'll formulate it in my own words without crediting you (if that's what you'd prefer). Cordially, Frank84.13.10.123 11:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

I don't think you understand the circumstances regarding your recent block and then unblock. The whole point of the unblock was that it wasn't preventative because you weren't going to keep edit-warring over this Michael Moore links. Well, you kept on edit warring. So I've been forced to block you again. There is no consensus to treat Michael Moore's site as an attack site (nor does the attack site policy itself even have consensus), so you do not have carte blanche to continue link removals. --Cyde Weys 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Another administrator about to be brought before arbitration

Complete text of my email to User:Cyde:

I won't even argue this with you. Review the history of the block on my talk page. Review the relevant section at the 3RR page and prepare for my complaint to authorities. Feel free, if you can, to point out where your version of what you think were the orders to me were given. Figure out, if you can, how that compares with the actual statements of (a) the previous abusive administrator who blocked me and (b) the statement of the editor who unblocked me. No matter what you do, you are now in trouble. Noroton 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement of the editor who unblocked you is pretty clear: consensus is against you, stop editing the links. Once Moore removed links to the edit pages for the THF, it was agreed that was sufficient. 1. Why don't you understand this; and 2. why are you taking this up as a personal crusade when even the editor who unblocked you said stop editing the links because consensus is against you? --David Shankbone 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey ShankBone, I don't think you have a reading disability. Actually run your eyes up to Cool Hand Luke's statement further up on this talk page. Do it. Read it. Actually look at the words, decipher them and make sure that you understand their meaning. Actually take the care to understand what he actually said. I did. If you had done that, you wouldn't have said his statement is "clear" and then completely misunderstood it. Then read my mesage to Cyde. Read it. Do you feel it necessary to actually check out a fact before you inform me what you think that fact is? Cite me information to back up your own statements. Cite me the spot where I was told I couldn't edit that out again. Cite it. Do it. And don't bother me again until you do, because otherwise you're wasting my time. Do you often make these kinds of 180-degree factual errors? Noroton 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Noroton, please recognize that WP:CIVIL is a prerequisite to having your arguments taken seriously on Wikipedia. David Fuchs's "two cents" comment says that one shouldn't remove the links. THF 17:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Noroton, you are correct substantively that the NPA policy is not being enforced even-handedly. For whatever reason, however, there is a consensus that a lack of consensus forbids the removal of the links. You are therefore incorrect procedurally to continue edit-warring. Cyde's block is appropriate, and will be viewed as such by other admins, and I recommend apology and contrition so that you can continue making good substantive contributions to Wikipedia without getting tied up in a futile argument. WP:3RR does not give carte blanche to edit-war, especially when you were specifically warned by CHL not to take it up again. What you did was especially shameful, because CHL and others went out on a limb to defend you against the original unfair block. THF 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He can apologize, but he should not be unblocked because it is a repeat offense. I'm sure Noroton can continue criticizing Moore another day on the SiCKO page. But he shows no signs of contrition. --David Shankbone 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

David, please WP:COOL. I just said that the block was appropriate, and I am not asking for a 24-hour block to be removed. I'm asking Noroton to focus on editing the encyclopedia, rather than righting unfairness, because the latter is futile. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia does not administer its (often contradictory) conduct rules consistently, and editors simply need to realize that instead of trying to walk right up to the line of blockable/unblockable conduct and complaining when the amorphous line ends up behind them. THF 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For all you people out there who can't read Cool Hand Luke's unblocking statement higher up on this page: I was told not to edit the page for 24 hours. I did not edit the page for 24 hours. I was never told not to ever edit it. I would like to see the spot where it was determined that there is a consensus, because I haven't seen it, although I've seen people assert that there is a consensus. I have written extensively on the bottom of the talk page for the Michael Moore article. It's not as if I'm not discussing it or listening to others. Just cite me the evidence of a consensus, please. Oh, and please check the "Two Cents" section of my talk page where David Fuchs, who closed the AN/I, said there was no consensus. It's not like I didn't ask about it, you know.Noroton 16:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Noroton, you asked David Fuchs about the issue, and David Fuchs told you to raise the issue on the NPA page (which you did not do before restarting link removal). He didn't tell you you had permission to start removing the links again, and you didn't ask him if you did. THF 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it your contention that explicit permission to edit pages is required from administrators? Please point that out to me in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. First Shankbone and now you find it difficult to actually read the English language? Please consider how "You can feel free to discuss it at a better venue, say the personal attack page" is a directive to get permission there? Don't answer that. You know, you're incredibly difficult to deal with. Please stop commenting on my talk page. I notice that yours is the only response to my questions. I find it ludicrous that I can be blocked and editors can pronounce with certitude what I did wrong, but I'm the only one pointing out exact citations about exactly what I'm able to do. Again, don't comment on my talk page. Noroton 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh jeez; I didn't think my comments would be scrutinized like this. I should clarify.

The unblock was due to a combination of several factors. First and foremost, there was significant doubt about whether you even broke the existing 3RR policies. This concern was articulated by other users in the ANI section I cited. The policy had been subsequently changed, which I believe offered no ex post facto support for the block. Second, blocking is preventative, not punitive. Some of the principle articles you were fighting about had been protected, which was also noted on ANI. To serve the original preventative purpose of the block, I explicitly instructed you not to alter the links for 24 hours. The consensus I referred to was not a consensus that your actions were wrong, but rather a de facto consensus to leave the links in because there was no consensus about michaelmoore.com being an attack site. This was evidenced by the many parties reverting you and the fact that other editors sympathetic to your cause had also stopped. Finally, I concluded that you were acting in good faith, and that you had reasonably read existing policy to allow your edits although subsequent ANI remarks cast doubt on it. Because you were acting in good faith and the policy did not seem to clearly demand a block, I concluded that unblock was appropriate.

I also concluded that the blocking admin acted in good faith. I made my warning so harsh ("I will reblock you myself") because I did not want to undermine this admin's preventative purpose. Cool Hand Luke 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all incredibly childish:

1. You specifically said not to edit for 24 hours. I followed that.

2. When I speak of "consensus" I mean just what you mean: "a de facto consensus to leave the links in because there was no consensus about michaelmoore.com being an attack site. I didn't see that consensus existing, and if it did exist, the solution is not to childishly issue a block, the solution is to put a note on my talk page, from the admin threatening to block and stating the exact reasoning for the potential block. ((edited to clarify by adding the word "potential" Noroton 18:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC))) That would have been the adult thing to do. It ain't rocket science. Since I've demonstrated time and again that I'm not interested in disobeying the actual rules here, that would have been all that was necessary.

3. I not only did not see a consensus, de facto or otherwise, I went and asked the admin who closed the AN/I discussion. He explicitly told me there was no consensus.

4. If there was a consensus, does that trump WP:NPA? Can a consensus do that? I don't know. Please: tell me. And tell me how I'm supposed to confirm that there was a consensus. I can't make head or tail out of the various AN/I discussions and I've been specifically told that there was not a consensus.

I get the impression here that what I'm actually supposed to do is not so much follow the rules as be intimidated into doing what certain admins want me to do. I don't respond to bullying all that well.

I appreciate you're comment. Thank you. I have asked questions above, asking anyone interested to point out the Wikipedia pages where consensus existed and where I would have clearly been shown that there was a consensus and that I could not violate it or get blocked. No one has. You would think that if I had done something bad enough to get blocked that it would be obvious.

I didn't ask you to intervene and unblock me, and I won't ask anyone to do that. I have to say, I'm pretty disgusted with Wikipedia. You say the blocking admin acted in good faith. I don't see how. Instead of bringing objections to my attention, admins just blocked. Again, that's simply childish. I never gave anyone any reason to think I wouldn't respond to discussion. Even you could have simply made yourself clear. What a ridiculous organization. Noroton 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let me clarify. You wrote about a consensus to leave something because there was no consensus to take it out. I'm not being disingenuous when I say this: I find it a hard concept to understand that since there's no consensus that means something's protected by consensus. I'm going to go look at WP:Consensus right now and see if I can find some clarification about that. If you can point out to me elsewhere where it says an editor has to abide by that, I'd like to hear it.

I'm trying to abide by rules here, and I've demonstrated flexibility, but I'm also trying to do what I think is right. And I'm asking around and being open about what I'm doing. I'm not going to stop doing that, so please be clear and please don't anybody opt for intimidation. Noroton 18:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You did follow the 24 hour limit on not altering the links. Thank you. I've not gotten involved with your subsequent work, I just wanted to explain my reasons for unblock. Honestly it might have been the most roguish thing I've ever done as an administrator, and your first post-block edit did not fill anyone with confidence that I had done the right thing.

I think you acted appropriately in the incident; that's why the block (while issued in good faith) was incorrect. The de facto consensus to leave the links in did not emerge until after you were blocked. Again, this wasn't a consensus on the policy, just that there was no consensus about whether it was an attack site or not, and people had stopped warring over it. I think this was a practical consensus to "abide by the outcome"—at least for the time being. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at that -- WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus in practice and WP:CCC on the same page, and I see CCC really doesn't apply to what I did. OK. You've convinced me. Noroton 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

I'm sorry that you did end up getting blocked; even though we didn't agree, I never had any doubt that you were motivated by the best of intentions. It's a difficult question, and if we end up with some clarification on the policy toward attack sites as a result, maybe some good will have come from the whole thing. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for the Barnstar...

I certainly was surprised and did not expect it! Thank you for that and I wish you good luck with your future editing. This whole fiasco really is nothing that should stop you from continuing to improve Wikipedia. Once again thanks for the barnstar and thanks for your edits (just remember to stay cool when things get hot). Best regards,¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Galleries

Thanks. I'll keep you in mind and keep you informed. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Domenech

You're welcome. Haivng access to a newspaper archive makes sourcing stuff much easier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, thx for your message.I haven't got the PDFs and I would love them. Like you I'm off to bed (6am here :-)) but I will temporarily enable my email tomorrow so you can get them through - I'll let you know when its operable. Provided the PDF is saveable then it can be attached and sent. If not, perhaps display them, do a 'Print Screen' and send me the image. Speak tomorrow. TerriersFan 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the bit in the article was added by Alansohn - I don't have either article. I have enabled my email address to enable you to send them. I don't keep the email address enabled routinely since I get crap from the vandals that I block :-( BTW I see the nominator is trying to become an admin - it's producing a lively correspondence! TerriersFan 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, nothing has come through yet. If it doen't arrive in the next few hour I'll have to trouble you to resend your email adress. Wikipedia email always was a bit flakey :-( TerriersFan 22:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, would you send your email address again, please? TerriersFan 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Got the PDFs, thx. TerriersFan 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Afd

Sorry, I got it now. This twinkle tool still has kinks in it, I suppose. • Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your prior block

Regarding your request: I blocked you for 3RR because I was afraid your mass removal of links from multiple articles, with your stated intent to "revert forever," and your citing of a controversial interpretation of a controversial policy as justification to continue indefinitely, was seriously hindering productive discussion on the issue. I still feel that the block was necessary at the time; however, I did not object to Cool Hand Luke's unblocking-with-a-caveat. I apologize if the block seemed overly harsh; it is now in the past, and I hope there are no hard feelings. --krimpet⟲ 06:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I don't fault you at all for intervening or confronting me, but I do think that blocking me instead of confronting me with a warning was inappropriate in light of WP:Blocking policy#Implementing blocks (see "Education and warnings", last paragraph), which I urge you to review, as I have. Whether my interpretation was controversial or not, I was following the plain language of WP:NPA policy, and the controversy indicated discussion was going on — discussion that I was participating in. Therefore I don't think it would have been correct to interpret my "revert forever" statement as definite evidence I would not work with others. I was willing to discuss the matter (and was discussing it), and I made it clear that my actions were based not on uncontrollable rage but on a reading of policy, and my actions and statements did not indicate I was rebelling against policy or would refuse to stop reverting if told I must. Please tell me if we agree that (1) in order to meet your goal (which I won't criticize) it would have been better to begin by warning me; (2) the warning should have been accompanied by the reasoning you would use to block me; (3) you should have given me a chance to discuss the matter with you or given me a clear understanding of exactly what I could do to further my sincere goals in a way that would have avoided your blocking me. If you don't agree with this, please tell me where I'm wrong.

I think circumstances determine whether you should issue a warning instead of immediately block. For instance, a repeat vandal, previously warned or blocked, clearly isn't listening and probably wouldn't respond to a warning. This was a different case, which (I assume) was unusual for you as it was for me, where a specific exception to 3RR policy was cited. It was a bit more complicated to figure out the reasons to stop reverting than to follow what one policy (WP:NPA) clearly stated. That means that, even if you knew nothing else about the situation, you knew there was a strong possibility that I was not on some unreasoning rampage.

I made mistakes too. Continuing to revert was never the ultimate solution, as even I realized: I reported the matter to an administrator forum for protecting pages even before much of the reverting started because I thought the solution was to protect the page (without the link, as per WP:NPA policy) and then discuss the matter till we achieved some kind of consensus. I still think that would have been the best solution. Instead, the page was first protected and then unprotected (if I remember right), and the discussion went nowhere, resulting in no consensus.

Perhaps it was crystal clear to you that I needed to stop reverting because the consensus process was the way to determine what should take place. That wasn't clear to me until much later when I discussed the matter with CoolHandLuke (higher up on this discussion page). The way consensus interacts with policy often isn't simple. I've wrestled with it in the past in trying to figure out how consensus and policy should mesh in deletion discussions, and I was influenced here by some of the reasoning that administrators have used in saying they don't always have to follow consensus in those deletion discussions. I now see I was misapplying that idea because the circumstances are different in this case. That idea was also blinding me to the larger, simpler truth that no matter what policy says, constantly reverting isn't a decision-making process once discussion starts.

Luke essentially got me to review and think about WP:CONSENSUS — that's what his discussion with me was about. We should have had a similar discussion and it would have met your goal.

You asked me if I had hard feelings. It's more accurate to say I'm troubled and concerned right now. Again, please review WP:Blocking policy#Implementing blocks ("Education and warnings" subsection, last paragraph) and tell me that whether if you were faced with the same circumstances in the future, you'd warn before blocking. I can tell you that if I came across the same circumstances again, I'd refrain from reverting and follow what the consensus is (or to what a no-consensus result tells me). Noroton 20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [edited out "that", replaced with "whether" -- Noroton 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fur people

The merge looks fine to me, and I certainly have no complaints. Loganberry (Talk) 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movie theatres in Delhi

I already changed my !vote, a couple of days ago.  :) Corvus cornix 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't !vote keep, but I did remove my opposition. I still think it reads like a travel brochure, but I won't object to it being kept. Corvus cornix 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :) Corvus cornix 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for defending my article on Grover Middle School. Although the article debate still did not end. styrofoam1994 22:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lists of African Americans

Lists of African Americans, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Lists of African Americans satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of African Americans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Lists of African Americans during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Leuko 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies about the word "niggardly"

The Controversies about the word "niggardly" article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Imagism FA review

Hi ... Imagism is having its featured article status reviewed at the moment. It would be a shame to lose one of the few poetry FAs. Stumps 19:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:

The variants were non-notable, likely original research, and wikipedia is not a compendium of everything that existed. As for my closing of it early, I'd like to cite WP:SNOW: 3 delete !votes and an unsalvageable article. I'm sorry if I sounded a bit abrasive, I just think the reasons are a bit obvious… —[[Animum | talk]] 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If the outcome will be the same, I see no need to run it through DRV. —[[Animum | talk]] 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Schools

I wasn't too sure of the procedure but I'll add the tag next time. I thought schools were automatically added to the schools page so I was somewhat concerned to discover so many on the AfD page that hadn't been notified. I suspect the AfDs might need more careful monitoring in future so that there is a proper debate. Dahliarose 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Satisfaction

There are probably things more satisfying than trumping deletion arguments by improving the article. But I can't think of a whole lot, can you? :-) Noroton 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I remember the first time I looked at a school AfD, did some research and found that I could improve the article to easily satisfy notability. Especially at the high school level, it's often a no-brainer, but even elementary and middle schools will have evidence of notability available, if one takes a few minutes to look for material. There are few things more satisfying than actually improving Wikipedia articles and helping make this a more useful encyclopedia for its readers. It's very easy to be a deletionist; you can just sit on your butt all day and just keep on typing delete. It takes work to improve articles by doing research and adding sources, but it truly does make this all worthwhile. Yesterday, someone tagged Museum of Early Trades and Crafts for deletion, an article I had created way back when. I couldn't even remember why I had created the article, but 10-15 minutes of research produced a very interesting article. It's easy, if you have an interest. Keep up your fantastic work on this project. It's great to know that there are a few like-minded individuals out there. Alansohn 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, have you checked out Google News Archives? Even following the links to the descriptions of the articles they're selling can provide WP:N information. I also found that my library card gets me access to some Web resources through my library Web site. It's becoming a lot easier to establish notability nowadays. As much fun as I find it, there is a limit to how many of these saves I'll do, however. Noroton 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• My searches usually take to Google, then Google news, then Google News Archive. I'll check the NYTimes database, if reasonable and use some of my library's resources. But the overwhelming majority of sources are just unreachable, especially if something is located in a smaller town further away from a big city and its coverage zone. We can't each be responsible for saving every possible article, and sometimes I can't get myself psyched for a particular article, especially if there's enough there already to establish a reasonable standard of notability. Alansohn 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of Poets

Hi Noroton. The picture of Gregory Corso and Allen Ginsberg you were referring to was most likely taken around 1954 in Paris. I have to dig up the originals, but they came from a set of negatives that Corso gave me before he died. I fully intend on figuring out the year at some point, at which time I'll update the caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noncorporeal (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Best American Poetry series

Hey there--I think perhaps the Wikipedia citations are sufficient? If the names of the editors are made internal WP links and those WP entries show marriage to the individuals identified, is that enough? The Harwood thing I found cites for. I agree the assistants thing needs to be cleaned up, and I think I could do it--I own every edition of the BAP since 1988--but it might take a few days, as I've got an on-again off-again hectic weekend going. Burks88 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That book contains a story in which Harwood is identified as Lehman's wife (they're serving dinner to Ashbery, I guess, according to the link). The Library Journal review of the book notes that Harwood is Lehman's wife. Once you get to the link you have to click on "view more recommendations" to see the LJ review. Burks88 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

N, I definitely don't mind your recommendation of this dispute for review by other parties. I'll admit I grow tired of it myself--as, while I find the BAP an important and engaging subject, it actually isn't the only thing on WP that interests me, and I just hope this conflagration hasn't tired me on WP permanently. Best, Burks88 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

N, I just added this note to SDedeo's discussion page:

"I'm willing to agree right now to stop editing this entry, on condition that WaverlyR does the same. I trust you and Noroton to do it justice. Burks88 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Someone will have to convey the offer to him/her, as he/she long since started ignoring any queries I make to him/her, however well-intended. Burks88 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)" Burks88 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Noroton for posting on the BLP page. You seem to have summarized some of the questions that have plagued us quite elegantly. WaverlyR 11:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note: I haven't argued for removing negative reviews that are properly cited and have stayed out of the current debate over the Houston Cougar, Salt Hill, and Weekly Standard pieces. I'm interested in the outcome of BLP discussion and if it finds they should stay in, so be it. I'm sure we'll get guidance for the future. Reading through these I'm reminded of W.H. Auden's observation that "attacking bad books is not only a waste of time but also bad for the character. If I find a book really bad," he wrote, "the only interest I can derive from writing about it has to come from myself, from such display of intelligence, wit and malice as I can contrive. One cannot review a bad book without showing off."

Also, I'm not arguing to remove the spouse info (I introduced the info about 3 of the 4) but consider that given the lengths that Burks88 had to go through to find a reliable source for the Harwood Lehman marriage, one might wonder if Muldoon knew about it when he selected Harwood's poem. One couldn't make the same case for Hall, Gluck, and Hass.

As for the list of journals, I believe it belongs among the "facts" sections. However, I do think it would look better, read better, be more valuable if the font size were smaller and if the list was single-spaced. My html skills are rusty but if someone knows how to make that change, I'm for it. WaverlyR 12:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Information

N, I'm doing the research you requested in two installments: the second half is to follow.

Advisors and Assistants Thanked by David Lehman in his Acknowledgments Last Century:

1988: None.
1989: None.
1990: None.
1991: None.
1992: None.
1993: Kate Fox Reynolds. ["Assistant"].
1994: Kate Fox Reynolds. ["Assistant"].
1995: Maggie Nelson. ["Assistant"].
1996: Maggie Nelson. ["Assistant"]. C.A. Carlson. ["Assistant"]. Beth Gylys. ["of the University of Cincinnati"].
1997: Maggie Nelson. ["Assistance and support from"]. Prathima Christadas. ["Assistance and support from"].
1998: Mark Bibbins. ["Assistant"].
1999: Mark Bibbins. ["Assistant"].
2000: Mark Bibbins. ["Assistant"].

Nelson and Bibbins both appeared in BAP, Nelson in 2002, Bibbins in 2004.

This list also confirms Beth Gylys was not an assistant of Lehman, but some sort of University contact.

So, through the end of last century, across 13 years of the BAP, 2 of 5 assistants (40%) made it into the BAP. Of assistants who helped Lehman for more than one edition (i.e., more than a year's worth of assistance), 67% (2 of 3) got poems into the anthology. Burks88 06:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Advisors and Assistants Thanked by David Lehman in his Acknowledgments This Century:

2001: Mark Bibbins. ["Assistant"]. "Ideas or suggestions contributed by": John Diamond-Nigh, Jennifer Factor, Stacey Harwood (05), Martha Kinney, Christine Korfhage, Rebecca Livingston (06), Susan Wheeler (Appeared: 88, 91, 93, 96, 98, BoB*, 03, 05).

2002: Mark Bibbins. ["Invaluable assistance"].

2003: Mark Bibbins. ["Invaluable assistance"]. "Ideas or suggestions from": Angela Ball (01), Shanna Compton (05), Stacey Harwood (05), Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Carly Sachs (04), Michael Schiavo, Susan Wheeler (88, 91, 93, 96, 98, BoB^, 03, 05).

2004: Mark Bibbins. ["Invaluable assistance"]. "Made useful suggestions": Angela Ball (01), Shanna Compton (05), Kim Gek Lin Harrison, Stacey Harwood (05), Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Karl Parker, John Schertzer, Michael Schiavo, Susan Wheeler (88, 91, 93, 96, 98, BoB^, 03, 05).

2005: Mark Bibbins. ["Invaluable assistance"]. "Made useful suggestions or helped in other ways": J.D. Bullard, Shanna Compton (05), James Cummins (94, 95, 98, 05), Peter Davis, Denise Duhamel (93, 94, 98, 00), Stacey Harwood (05), Susan Hutton, Deborah Landau, Kelly Nichols, Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Karl Parker, Liam Rector (92), and Michael Schiavo.

2006: Mark Bibbins. ["Invaluable assistance"]. "Made useful suggestions or helped in other ways": Shanna Compton (05), James Cummins (94, 95, 98, 05), Steven Dube, Deborah Landau, Michael Schiavo.

2007: Mark Bibbins. ["Invaluable assistance"]. "Made useful suggestions or helped in other ways": John Ashbery (Several), Amy Donow, Steven Dube, Stacey Harwood (05), Sarah Ruth Jacobs, Deborah Landau, Kathleen Ossip, Michael Schiavo.

Clearly 2003 was a banner year for cronyism. Of Lehman's eight assistants or advisors-- 1 assistant and 7 advisors--seven of the eight (88%!) have appeared in the series. Keep in mind tens of thousands of poems are read each year and 75 are selected, and the guest editor supposedly has the final say. [Blogger Jim Behrle has also rightly noted that, because every year a certain number of poems by canonized poets must appear in the BAP (it is a stated goal of the series to put new poets beside established ones), the actual number of spots for upstarts like Lehman's assistants and advisors--and the entire rest of the poetry community--is far, far less]. The odds of this happening are the odds of being struck by lightning three times in a row. It was after 2004 that allegations of cronyism first surfaced on blogs. Before then, 9 of 20 total assistants/advisors (45%) were published in the series; since the controversy started, "only" 3 of 12 "new" assistants (25%)--not counting Ashbery--have appeared in the series. [The cynic in me says, "give it time"...the pre-2005 assistants/advisors have had more years of "eligibility," so to speak]. Overall, 12 of 32 assistants and advisors, Ashbery excepted, have had poems published in the anthology (38%). With Ashbery, it's 36%. Those who fail to "get" why these numbers are shocking forget that the average poet likely has something like a .01% chance--all things being equal--of having a poem selected for the BAP since 1988. I'm spitballing, there, and am not suggesting that .01% figure is entry-worthy, but in assessing newsworthiness an editor must consider that there are at least 350 print publications in the U.S., and as many or more on-line journals, each publishing 25 poems a year on the very low end. Multiplied by 20 years (and subtracting accordingly for years before literary publications existed on-line), and that's an insane number of poems (hundreds of thousands at a bare minimum) from which only 1500 (20 x 75) were selected, based on the series' structure (75 poems a year) since 1988 (in many instances, by a recurring group of canonized poets; the number of poems by poets not anthologized elsewhere [e.g. Norton] is far, far less).

An astonishing 8 of the 13 multi-year assistants since the inception of the series (62%) have published poems in the BAP.

^ Denotes "Best of the Best" anthology edited by Bloom and Lehman. Burks88 07:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, the quotes are direct quotes, though, as you say, the capitalization is not always taken directly from the source. I'd have to defer to you as to how to present the information in a way which is acceptable; I certainly trust your judgment on this. Burks88 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition

These assistants and others who were thanked by Lehman in the acknowledgements sections of the series also had poems published in the series, usually in later editions. Some were established poets, such as John Ashbery; most were not:

Name	Identification in acknowledgements	Edition in acknowledgments	Edition(s) poem(s) appeared
John Ashbery	"ideas and suggestions"	2007	1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997, "Best of the Best" '88-'97, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006
Angela Ball	"ideas or suggestions" / "useful suggestions"	2003, 2004	2001
Mark Bibbins	"assistant" / "invaluable assistance"	1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007	2004
Shanna Compton	"ideas or suggestions" / "useful suggestions"	2003, 2004	2005
James Cummins	"useful suggestions"	2005, 2006	1994, 1995, 1998, 2005
Stacey Harwood	"ideas or suggestions" / "useful suggestions"	2003, 2004, 2005, 2007	2005
Rebecca Livingston	"ideas or suggestions"	2001	2006
Maggie Nelson	"assistant"	1995, 1996, 1997	2002
Danielle Pafunda	"ideas or suggestions" / "useful suggestions"	2003, 2004, 2005	2004, 2006, 2007
Carly Sachs	"ideas or suggestions"	2003	2004
Susan Wheeler	"ideas or suggestions" / "useful suggestions"	2001, 2003, 2004	1988, 1991, 1993, 1996, 1998, "Best of the Best" '88-'97, 2003, 2005

---

• The Best Ameircan Poetry 1995: "assistant": Maggie Nelson (author of poem in the 2002 edition)

• 1996: "assistant": Maggie Nelson (author of poem in the 2002 edition)

1997: Maggie Nelson. ["Assistance and support from"]. Prathima Christadas. ["Assistance and support from"].

• 2003: provided "invaluable assistance": Mark Bibbins (poem in 2004 edition); "ideas or suggestions from": Angela Ball (01), Shanna Compton (05), Stacey Harwood (05), Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Carly Sachs (04), Susan Wheeler (88, 91, 93, 96, 98, Best of Best, 03, 05)

• 2004: provided "invaluable assistance": Mark Bibbins (poem in 2004 edition); "made useful suggestions": Angela Ball (01), Shanna Compton (05), Stacey Harwood (05), Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Susan Wheeler (88, 91, 93, 96, 98, BoB^, 03, 05)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheModernReview.gif

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EpochMagazine.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EpochMagazine.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 6#Wahroonga Public School (closed)

Hello, just here to inform you that the deletion of Wahroonga Public School has been overturned. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:PostcardNorwichCTAerialLaurelHill1916.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PostcardNorwichCTAerialLaurelHill1916.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 03:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolt Risk

Hi, Noroton. Thanks for the info. Whilst I'm not certain that the information would completely sway people to keeping the article (tho' I could be wrong), I do know that had you noted your would-be additions before I had closed the AfD I would not have closed it as a delete on the spot. It is a tricky situation, because the article was pretty bad, including as it did a promo-bio of the author. I think the fairest thing for me to do is to restore the article, and re-list the AfD on today's list in its state before I closed it. I will note what has happened on the AfD, ask you please to write something there too, after you have edited the article, and I will drop a note to the nominator. Is that OK? Splash - tk Splash 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex Andrew Kelly

I certainly have experienced situations where I have felt strongly one way in an AfD in the face of what seems to be obstinate opposition to the contrary. I think that the Alex Andrew Kelly article is on the encyclopedic side of the WP:NOT#NEWS policy and that it is worded vaguely enough to be interpreted differently. I hope you don't spend too much more time on this article, and that the better use of our collective time on this issue would be to clarify those situations where an individual might merit an article. Thanks for all of your work on Wikipedia, it truly disappoints me that we are on the opposite sides of this issue. All the best. Alansohn 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't bother me at all if we disagree on something -- in fact, it's got to happen. I appreciated your points, and they helped me to think about the matter. What annoyed me and caused me to take the deletion discussion off my watch list was the attitude of some of the other editors. I find I don't feel nearly as bad about being on the losing end of a deletion discussion if the article is kept -- I guess that's my inclusionist attitude at work. Cheers! Noroton 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You know where I usually stand on these debates, but I hope that I am demonstrating on a principled basis why articles should be kept, and doing the due diligence to expand and improve those articles that are up for deletion. Again, I appreciate your points and hope that this can help us clarify a reasonable dividing line on such articles. Alansohn 23:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PostcardNorwichCTAerialLaurelHill1916.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PostcardNorwichCTAerialLaurelHill1916.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:PolarBearChurchillManitobaNov2007.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PolarBearChurchillManitobaNov2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Jusjih 04:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:WestportCTGreensFarmsRRstaMainEntrncNwCreekRd11172007.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:WestportCTGreensFarmsRRstaMainEntrncNwCreekRd11172007.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution

Hi, just a note to make sure you haven't missed Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)