User talk:XDanielx/Archives/July 2008
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
SarekOfVulcan RFA
Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.
See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom history
You said (somewhere): "We have never seen a successful reelection bid". Have a look at Wikipedia talk:ARBCOM#New arbitrator, where I said: "Technically, I think Raul and Fred Bauder both regained seats after an election, though not after sitting for three years previously. Raul in July 2004 and December 2004 was "directly elected" (if you think using that term is correct when all are technically appointed), while Fred was one of several appointed with "community support" to terms of less than three years, after the elections in January 2006." In the case of Raul, I had thought he was on the committee before July 2004, but I now see that he was initially elected at that point. His December election was for three years after serving for six months. Fred's reappointment was for two years after serving for two years previously. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Images tagged for deletion
Daniel my brother, You interceded once in support of retaining this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg by saying, valid claim of irreplacibility given -- image primarily depicts an event, not just a person. I was so appreciative for that and I thought the dispute was resolved up until today when the ADM who first removed it has now tagged it for speedy deletion again. Being new here with no friends or supporters, would you please help me? I am suspect of the user NPOV because in his profile he claims to be strongly atheist and how can he be 100% objective about an image with that title? I can't post an opinion because it's an image of me 32 years ago. I really need other users to post an opinion or it will be deleted soon. Thanks with appreciation. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your post re image deletions. Actually I did ask The Citizen for permission to post the images and they just flat denied it. I contacted the reporter from the Edmonton Journal who wrote a story on my 4000 mile hitchhiking trip from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon. 27 years ago in 1981. She's still there and loved re-reading her own work from when she was young. The administrators removed all reference to that trip, but mention my trip 5 years later East to complete my Canada wide mission. It doesn't make sense as it is, and I recused myself from making any edits to the article which is proper. I'm active in discussion. The information is in history for others to convert to Wiki language. I'm looking for volunteers.Sadly the reality is all the referenced newsreports are owned by the same Holding Company and they all say no. Giving permission wouldn't diminish the commercial value of it at all after 31 years. They see no profit promoting a prophet. Thank God for the internet. It's still news for people in Ottawa and beyond today if they weren't there in 1977. While I'm trying,I haven't made any friends on Wikipedia yet so I need help. The article is about me and I only discovered it April 19 started by someone I met once two years ago. He researched my talk and confirmed it by creating it. I'm going to try and make peace with J Milburn. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair use images of living people
Daniel, Foundation policy as expressed at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy expressely prohibits the use of non-free media to depict living people. This is such a core principle that there's virtually never any doubt about it. We simply don't do it. I've re-removed the fair use images that you put back onto the various baseball player articles that I removed them from. Please do not put them back on again as this is very, very clearly against Foundation policy. There's even a highlighted case that is quite similar at Wikipedia:NFC#Multimedia #7. If you think this is wrong, take it up at WT:FU. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
When closing AfDs, the {{subst:afd top}} template goes above the header, not below it. Just a reminder... —Kurykh 22:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to your comment on my view on the ArbCom RfC...
The reason I want to see at least two "tranches" (call them shifts, groups, or whatever), is so that we don't have a situation where we lose institutional memory of recent issues. Lets say ArbCom have been very unpopular/stressful over the last year, and a vast majority of the ACTIVE Arbitrators either decline to re-run, or are voted out in one fell swoop. You lose institutional memory of past issues that comes from having the same group hear issues a second time.
The way I had it explained to me, is "If someone convinces the Arbitrators that they're the good guys on one ArbCom case, but comes back again... someone might note that this person has been here before for these issues, and they might not be so willing to take this person at their word the second time around."
Also, again, it takes some time for new members of the Arbitration Committee to get up to speed with the various procedures, and it's good to have an existing group kinda smooth the newcomers way when starting. Again, if a vast majority of the Committee is voted out at one go, you don't have that buffer.
And finally, let's look at the current issues surrounding the ArbCom. Let's be frank. If all the arbitrators re-ran today, for an election, how many of them do you think would be voted out right now? In December, (the next scheduled ArbCom election), this will LIKELY have faded into a distant memory by then.. (I can never speak for the community, we tend to hold and cherish our grudges, don't we?) By not having all the ArbCom elections at one time, we run the risk of the Wikipedia version of a Moral panic having too great an effect on the composition of the Committee.
Hope you don't mind this lengthy view on where I'm coming from... SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Overstock.com
I noticed that you edited Overstock.com. I am not an administrator so I cannot. Could you please add a sentence to this article saying that the investigation was closed in June 2008 without taking action? I asked for that in a note on the talk page a while back.--Stetsonharry (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I added an additional tweak. Can you look at what I posted in the talk page?--Stetsonharry (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Umm
"The most recent deletion was premised on WP:CSD#I9, which is actually rather blatantly incorrect since you didn't claim that the image was freely licensed." - That is incorrect. A copyvio is a copyvio, even if you attempt to claim 'fair use' on it. The legal copyright holder of the image contacted OTRS asking that their image be removed. They chose not to release the image under any free license, thus the image was deleted.- Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll also note, that perhaps the image could have been better suited under WP:CSD#G12. Anyhow, the deletion log entry isn't the top priority - that is to make sure we aren't infringing on anybody's copyrights . :) - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it is a great stretch to apply either criterion. The image had a prominent fair use claim; I9 is explicit about "not [applying to] images used under a claim of fair use", and G12 is explicit about being text-only. You're right that the image hadn't been released under a free license, but that's the case with all non-free images, and certainly not reason for speedy deletion (by itself, anyway).
I presume that your motivation for deleting this one in particular was the OTRS contact. In practical terms it makes sense to be more stringent with images for which complaints are received, but our CSD, our NFCC, and U.S. fair use policies are all completely independent of the copyright holders' wishes (in the context of non-free images, that is). If you feel it's very important to speedy an image in response to an OTRS contact, I think it would be better to just link to WP:IAR or WP:SNOW.
— xDanielx T/C\R 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps "blatant copyright infringement" could use better qualification? I must have gone through each CSD a dozen times, but I still find myself skimming the page for bold words every now and then, and "blatant copyright infringement" probably isn't the best description of either G12 or I9. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Other editors editing your talk
First of all, I want to thank you for your message and tone. You obviously saw my message before another editor took it off your talk. In defense of that post, I don't see anything aggressive in it at all. It is up to you to undo if you choose. I would not presume to do that on your talk. It reflects my blunt feelings as they are with my limited experience on this site and the people who involved themselves in the discussions. Having recused myself from editing the article on me, which is proper and right, I had to reach out to some others in the hope they might take an interest in developing and perfecting the raw information in the history and discussion. That hope remains unfulfilled.
Regarding the deleted images, I suspect most spectators to the discussions did not realize what was at stake. The FUR tag is an exceptional tag to be used in exceptional circumstances. Reading the 10 requirements for it's use, the images met requirements 2 to 10 without question. The 1st point was the most contentious. This was resolved by deciding if the images depicted a person or an event. The images were referenced No. 1 in the article to an event reported by the newspaper. Controversy and conflict would be bound to follow, especially for me, if images of a living emissary or prophet of God were accepted by Wikipedia as being 'historic".
It would take a separate discussion to speculate why Canwest Global Media, having a monopoly owning all major daily newspapers in Canada, most of them referenced in the article before being removed, would deny permission to use 31 year old images on me that have lost any commercial value a long time ago. This has been their first exposure since the event. Could it be just simple possessiveness? I don't think so. They were not in the article for commercial gain or purposes. The only other possible reason would be deliberate subterfuge. If you can restore the images with the FUR tag, I assure it will be only temporary. The discussion being resolved here, I would then focus on Canwest Global and get written permission within 10 days max. If permission in writing is not received by then, I will call for their removal. Thank God for the Internet. Thanks. Peace. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Daniel, the article is deleted. I was busy yesterday. I couldn't comment on the AfD. I will probably take it to WP:DRV. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank you
|
Thank you! | |
| XDanielx/Archives, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
My RfA
Hello Daniel. I withdrew my RfA. Thank you for taking part in my RfA. Your !vote was weak oppose. I believe that your oppose was a good-faith oppose. I will take care about the concerns you raised and apply again after sometime. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Here's an update of what we've been up to in this WikiProject...
We've created a page for every country of the world! They're not complete, and most of them aren't even in the main namespace yet, but...
A team of editors has been working on them, and the pages have come a long way.
We're about to run a competition, called "Around the World", in which participants will compete in the completion of specific data items across all of these country lists. For example, one task would be adding the population figure on each page.
The awards images are almost done, and the pages themselves need a couple sections completed before they can be moved to the article namespace and the competition can begin.
We could sure use your help...
Track down the administrative divisions types for each country
The first task is on the "Administrative divisions of" sections.
In each of these sections, there's an initial hierarchical list of the division types in that country, followed by subheadings for each of the types. Unfortunately, the types listed are those from the template I used to create these pages, and they aren't accurate for many countries.
The defaults that I used were:
(Where "x" is the name of each country).
For each country, change the links to the names of the administrative divisions for that country, adding more links if there are more than 3 division types. Those that are subdivisions of another type are indented under the parent type. In most cases, you would leave municipalities in place, because that's a generic name for "city". We'll blue-link those later. (Blue-linking is creating a redirect so that a link turns blue - that way, the link remains standardized on all the pages in the set).
Also change the subheadings in the same section to match the initial list, including the "main article" links presented just below each subheading.
To find out what the administrative divisions are for a country so you can add them, try looking on the government of x or politics of x pages for that country, and on the country's main article as well.
Add the administrative divisions to their respective subsections
For each country, find the list of administrative division for each type, and add them under that type's subheading.
For example, copy and paste the provinces listed at Provinces of Angola under the "Provinces of Angola" subheading on that country's list page.
See the countries listed at Lists of basic topics for examples of how this has been done for those. If there's a map showing the administrative divisions, grab it too.
Generally do not add towns and cities to the municipalities section, as there are usually way too many of them (and will unnecessarily bloat the page). Instead, provide links to the various pages (Cities of x, [[[Towns of x]], Villages of x, etc.
Complete the "Government of x" section
This section also has temporary data, and needs to be corrected/completed.
The titles of the head of state and head of government of each country need to be corrected, and the specific office holders added.
The branches of government subheadings need to be corrected/filled in.
Etc.
The above tasks are fun, because it's interesting to see how other countries operate. I've completed about 25 of the country pages so far, and I've been intrigued and even amazed at some of the approaches different countries follow. The U.S. is definitely behind in many respects.
Please help out as much as you can, and help us get Around the World started!
Sincerely,
The Transhumanist 17:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)