User talk:RMHED/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Death List 2 Fair use rationale for Image:Bill-Daniel-meeting-JFK.jpg 3 dyk 4 David Mannon 5 Your article, Eric Schopler, was selected for DYK! 6 What do you want cited? 7 KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK ON FILLING THE PULITZER 8 Vandal 9 Speedy deletion tags 10 DYK 11 Dorney Court 12 Jan Murray Article 13 Fair use rationale for Image:Lherbier.jpg 14 Marcel L'Herbier 15 CSD A7 and Notability (Razor (band)) 16 Media & PR 17 We Posted the GNU License Info on the Bio (ref Jerry Calliste Jr.) 18 Emails Sent Over An Hour Ago 19 MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS 20 Cayo Hueso 21 Tony Reed 22 DYK 23 Milly Vitale 24 Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-nurse.jpg 25 Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Teacher.jpg 26 Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg 27 Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Constable.jpg 28 Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg 29 Fair use rationale for Image:Carry On up the Khyber.jpg 30 Fair use rationale for Image:Carry On Henry.jpg 31 Fair use rationale for Image:George-and-Mildred.jpg 32 Fair use rationale for Image:Ghost-of-st-michaels.jpg 33 Fair use rationale for Image:Reach-For-The-Sky.jpg 34 Fair use rationale for Image:Mr-Pye.jpg 35 "Goodbye Orlando" ? 36 Fair use disputed for Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg 37 Fair use disputed for Image:Carry-On-Constable.jpg 38 Fair use disputed for Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg 39 Fair use disputed for Image:Carry On up the Khyber.jpg 40 Fair use disputed for Image:Carry On Henry.jpg 41 Gerontology Research Group 42 RE:AFD Comment 43 Hampstead School 44 Closure of Andrew Glyn AfD 45 Closure of Dorothy Walker Bush AfD 46 Inappropriate closure of Ocean Finance AfD 47 Inappropriate closure of Andrew Glyn AfD 48 Inappropriate closure of Rockbitch AfD 49 Inappropriate closure of Stephen Coles AfD 50 Inappropriate closure of 300-page iPhone bill AfD 51 With all of these complaints 52 General comments on speedy AfD closes 53 WP:BLP applies everywhere 54 Mass tagging of Heroes episodes 55 Mass tagging of Star Trek: The Animated Series episodes 56 No problem with policy 57 Shakatapuram 58 Uncyclopedia 59 You can stop 60 3RR violation on Emily Sander 61 Funny how some people can get a block overturned, but not others 62 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Glover 63 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg 64 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Constable.jpg 65 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg

[edit] Death List

I with you on the Death List / Pool issue. If you have any problems, give me a shout on my page. All the best in the just fight. Gretnagod 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bill-Daniel-meeting-JFK.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bill-Daniel-meeting-JFK.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dyk

On June 26, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bill Daniel, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] David Mannon

I agree that this looks like a hoax. I can't find any information on this guys or his crime on any of the major news site or elsewhere. I have removed the entry from Deaths in 2006 and have contacted the author to request sources. Cheers TigerShark 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article, Eric Schopler, was selected for DYK!

On July 18, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eric Schopler, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! (note that technically I should not have selected it, the article was created too far back in time, but I did and I don't undo mistakes unless they're really a big deal, selected is selected) ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you want cited?

You have added the {{fact}} tag to the death of Michael Anderson. What exactly is it you want cited? His death, or the films he directed, or the fact he got a Best Director nom in 1956? David | Talk 13:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A link to a news source reporting his death, as I can't find anything so far on Google.--RMHED 14:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK ON FILLING THE PULITZER

COMPLETE UP TO 1983! James Janderson 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it can be labourious finding all the internal links, especially as newspapers have a habit of changing their names.--RMHED 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Dude, stop vandalizing my articles. If you review the history pages you'll see your request for deletion battles have already been fought and won by me. This information has been shown to be relevant and frankly I was just cleaning up stuff and allocating it to a better place. It was in other articles before. User: Nlsanand

Dude, you're a punk for trying to get my stuff deleted the way you did. I'll give it three days...if you find any support I'll address your concerns. Though you never said anything on the Discussion page. User: Nlsanand

My articles weren't pointless and you did not give any justification for them, aside from you didnt like what they were about. I'm sick of people like you riding me for no reason. I am sure you do no care about public transportation but don't take it out on my articles. Why do you even care? The articles serve a purpose, maybe you just don't seem to care about it. Do you gain some joy out of ruining other people's work? And that's why you're a punk! You needlessly sabotage other people's work for no reason. And then you vandalize my user page instead instead of utting it in the talk page (where it's supposed to go. User: Nlsanand

Posting my comment in your user page instead of the talk page,was an accident, sorry about that. I have nothing personal against you or public transport, it just seemed that those articles didn't really belong in Wikipedia so I put them up for AFD. I'm sorry you're harbouring such hostile feelings about it all. --RMHED 02:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay man I can assume good faith on that. And maybe you have a point, but you didn't really justify why they should be deleted. These are articles which could serve to promote transit use, and also keep the available transit station articles short and sweet with relevant links for information. That is all I was trying to do. I will allow the Afd to remain up if there is support, I will concede that they should be deleted. Sorry if my reaction was a little over the top! --Nlsanand

Please feel free to delete my comments here. And I hope it's water under the bridge. :) Nlsanand 02:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I concede that I could have given more detail for my AFD nomination reasons . As you say it's all water under the bridge now.--RMHED 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion tags

Please don't subst speedy deletion tags. Please also remember to be civil. Describing pages as "total bollocks" is unnecessary, and may be a personal attack. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's time Wikipedia created a total bollocks CSD tag, as such a lot of new articles fall under its description. Attacking the article isn't the same as attacking the individual who created it. --RMHED 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several tags that already exist, like {{nonsense}}, {{db-vand}}, and {{subst:prod|The page is complete bollocks}}. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 8 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alberto Cavalcanti, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Dorney Court

This article had been the subject of repeated vandalism. The article was unsourced and had evidently incorrect information in it. I requested information be supplied and WP:CITEd. The article had the information made even less likely. I reverted. The article was again subtly vandalised. I reverted. You the reverted my requests for sources and accused me of vandalism using the edit summary "rvv vandalism added link and reference".

The accusation that I vandalised this article is a personal attack and you should withdraw it immediately.

By all means recreate the article - with sources that can be verified. But think on before accusing people of vandalism, please, lest they think you a vandal. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of vandalism, it was vadalism from user 80.169.161.162 that hadn't been reverted,you must have missed that bit. I reverted that and added a reference and link. You deleted this article out of policy, it should be restored, you are an Admin it is your responsibility to follow Wiki policy--RMHED 22:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I say, feel free to recreate the article in question from anew, with sources that can be verified. The previous article did not do this and therefore was unsuitable for our encyclopedia. When an editor asked for these sources the result was a personal attack from you (cf "rvv vandalism added link and reference"). Therefore I will not restore the article as it stood. Again, I invite you to recreate it with sources that can be verified this time, however, I will be willing to delete it again if you cannot provide sources that can be verified. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have already explained I wasn't referring to you, but to the vandalism by user 80.169.161.162. It is not up to you as an admin to arbitrarily delete an article that doesn't come under the CSD criteria. You have abused your position an are now attacking me by accusing me of calling you a vandal, please apologize for this. --RMHED 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Now we are getting somewhere. For the first time, it now becomes clear that your personal attack against me wasn't intended as such - it just read as one. I now understand. It would have been useful if, rather than standing by the personal attack, you had simply withdrawn it. However, now is the time to move on.

So, we now need a useful replacement article with sources that can be verified. Articles on Wikipedia need to have sources that can be verified. The former article at Dorney Court didn't. This meant that, as you saw, when it was vandalised it was impossible to fix the vandalism. Any attempt led to the vandals - and you, accidentally looking like one of the vandals because the article didn't have sources that could be verified - simply making changes and falsely accusing the reverter of vandalism. This shows the value of sources.

The former article was severely compromised. It had been extensively vandalised, introducing wrong information that was impossible to refute. Therefore we need a fresh start. Start the article again, this time using the processes at Wikipedia:Citing sources inclusing <ref> templates (this may require a full reading of the page in question, rather than just glancing at it. Sorry). If every assertion is cross-referenced to a related printed or interweb document, it can be checked. The vandalism of the article by locals can then be held at bay and wrong accusations of vandalism will be kept to a minimum.

If you won't do this, please feel free to ask for a deletion review instead - the result will be more vandalism and an article that remains without sources, but you might find it less work. Thanks ➨ ЯEDVERS 23:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ě

So no apology from you Redvers for violating WP:CSD policy, I guess it doesn't apply to you. I did add a reference to the article and a link. There are many other articles about historic houses that also have no references, perhaps you might like to delete those too List of historic houses in England --RMHED 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Further to the above, I consider that it would be inappropriate to restore the article deleted by Redvers as it might provoke a battle with another admin. The best course of action would be to request a deletion review or to recreate the content. Capitalistroadster 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think I will request a deletion review, as if I recreated it the godlike Redvers would probably only delete it again.--RMHED 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the article. The deletion was incorrect in just about every way imaginable.

• The building is notable, not, as Redvers claimed, non-notable.
• It was deleted in breach of WP rules on deletions.
• It was deleted on the basis that it had no sources. Sourcing is not a condition for deletion. Articles requiring sources simply have a template added in requesting that sources be provided.

It was a depressing abuse of procedure by Redvers. Admins aren't infallible. We all make mistakes now and then. Where the wrong procedures had been followed, the onus should have been on Redvers to make a case for deletion in afd, not on you to make a case to overrule a deletion, which is the presumption in reletion review. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jtdirl for restoring the article, I was just about to go to deletion review when your message appeared. If Redvers had listed it for AfD, that would have been fair enough, but to just speedy delete it seemed bizarre. --RMHED 23:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dear RMHED, please accept my apologies for last night's unpleasentness, which was due to a very bad day on Wikipedia where I could do nothing but attract personal attacks, user page vandalism and foul emails. I allowed this to colour my view of the discussion we had and the article itself. I shall apply my own rule about disengaging when stressed more diligently in future. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and no hard feelings, we all have our bad days. --RMHED 13:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Murray Article

Thanks for the Jan Murray article. I looked for an article about him after reading of his death earlier this summer and found none at that time. Thanks for the research which went into writing the article. Dbart 22:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lherbier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lherbier.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel L'Herbier

On 22 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marcel L'Herbier, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

A nice article and tagline. Look forward to the IDHEC DYK next! Thanks for the contribution! -- Samir धर्म 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD A7 and Notability (Razor (band))

Hi. I went ahead and prodded the article rather than engage in a revert war, but I wanted to point out that the policy states that a speediable article has to make no assertion of notability. I use the guidelines established in WP:MUSIC to determine whether the article makes that assertion. Number of albums is a criterion mentioned, but only if they are "on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". For all I know, this band could have recorded and produced the albums in the garage; hence, the number of albums isn't what matters. It may be that I'm wrong and this band is notable, but it sure doesn't look like it right now. Cheers. -- Merope 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• You could have just done a quick Google search, and you would have found out they are notable. Several of their albums are on well known labels. Why the rush to deletion?--RMHED 21:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because 90% of the newly created articles on bands have only a MySpace page to recommend them? I have no problem with researching an article before nominating for PROD or AFD, but for speedies they have to say something about why they're significant. This article did not. -- Merope 21:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• True, no specific claim of notability was given, but the fact that quite a few albums were listed over a significant period of time should maybe have given you pause to do a quick search, after all it only takes less than a minute.--RMHED 22:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media & PR

Dear RMHED

I assure you Wikipedia will not receive a response from my company Bassmint Music Inc. or Bassmintmusic.com claiming copyright infringment. What else needs to be done to claify and confirm who I am with Wikipedia? I am also performing artists Hashim Music and I just posted information about my musical career on here as well.

JC JR Bassmint Music Inc. mediapr@bassmintmusic.com

[edit] We Posted the GNU License Info on the Bio (ref Jerry Calliste Jr.)

Release the hold on Jerry Calliste Jr. we do not have time to play games. It's a free service. Why not wait until you hear from the copyright owners before you say this is in "violation of copyright". They will usually send a cease and desit letter out and in this case you will not receive one since it is our material we are posting.

We posted this GNU license info including your username to the Jerry Calliste Jr. biography for your satisfaction.

TO: RMHED

The Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

Let's use some common sense here. Our Wiki user name is mediapr and our email address is mediapr@bassmintmusic.com. It's the media departments at most companies that usually work with this sort of information and repost it.

Thank you

mediapr@bassmintmusic.com

[edit] Emails Sent Over An Hour Ago

RMHED

We have sent emails to permissions at wikipedia dot org from the various accounts and original source of the information. Please remove the hold you have on Hashim Music and Jerry Calliste Jr. so we may finish working.

Thank you.

Media Pr mediapr at bassmintmusic dot com

[edit] MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS

You should learn to mind 'your' own business and postings and not everyone else's. Get a life!!!

Media Pr mediapr@bassmintmusic.com

[edit] Cayo Hueso

As you tried to redirect Cayo Hueso, I'm letting you know that I have nominated Cayo Hueso for deletion as a POV fork. -- Donald Albury 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Reed

I am the artist that this article addresses. I don't care whether I have an article on this site or not, but apparently at least one fanatic does. I don't challenge deleting the article so much as I suggest blocking the account of the user. After actually reading the article, however, I propose that it be changed. There are some things that Qabbalah wrote about me that are not completely true and some notable things that were left out. Also, there's some personal information posted there that I prefer not to be accessable to the public. How did he get my wedding photo? I certainly agree that the pages dedicated to my albums ought to be removed or merged. The same with Cafe Graffiti which was not notable except, perhaps, as a side note. I will be happy to change it myself, but I don't know how so you'll have to bear with me as I learn.

PS, what does NN stand for? And why should I be a Pokemon character? User:TonySReed

• NN just means non-notable WP:NN. Now if you were a Pokemon character you'd be guaranteed of an entry, Wikipedia sadly, is awash with Pokemon articles. --RMHED 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 10 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frantisek Kotzwara, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Andrew Levine 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milly Vitale

There's a good article on her in the Italian wiki I have in my sandbox on my userpage. Do you know of anyone who translates Italian articles to English? We should find someone. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I copied the Italian article to the discussion page of the English article and made a request to see if anyone will translate it. Hopefully someone will bite. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 00:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully someone who knows more about her will come along and flesh it out a bit.--RMHED 15:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-nurse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-nurse.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Teacher.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-Teacher.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Constable.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-Constable.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carry On up the Khyber.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry On up the Khyber.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carry On Henry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry On Henry.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:George-and-Mildred.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:George-and-Mildred.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ghost-of-st-michaels.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ghost-of-st-michaels.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Reach-For-The-Sky.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reach-For-The-Sky.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mr-Pye.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mr-Pye.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Goodbye Orlando" ?

Hello RMHED. You've deleted Mr. McFarlane, first because the citation wasn't English (Deaths in 2007, 19:05, 21 July 2007), and then because he's not notable. If you've studied "Deaths" you'll find many of the deceased either don't have an English citation or a Wikipedia article. Mr. McFarlane did play in majors, so there is some notability. Some of the people listed in Deaths were college athletes, and the list also includes a horse (Jan. 29). Mr. McFarlane may be borderline for inclusion in Deaths, but so are a lot of other entries too. I am not sure why Mr. McFarlane deserves this speedy deletion and the rather disrespectful "Goodbye Orlando." What's that all about?Que-Can 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-Regardless.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 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Carry-On-Constable.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-Constable.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 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.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 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Carry On up the Khyber.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry On up the Khyber.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 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Carry On Henry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry On Henry.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 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerontology Research Group

Going to get involved in the equally contentious Gerontology Research Group? ---- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As (s)he's closed one, he probably shouldn't close the other one. I do applaud RMHED for doing that close though, as it was starting to go in circles. It sometimes does take an outside voice to say "guys, you aren't going to agree here". Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I'll stay on the sidelines and watch with interest to see the outcome. RMHED (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:AFD Comment

Haha yeah that was quite a nomination. And sadly I have gone through each article, in order to tag each one. The article you mentioned though, that is a stretch to say it is notable. There is a bus-stop in my home town that holds the distinction of being lowest in the city, but I doubt it will ever get an article. Just a thought, and I wonder what the record is for the most in one go?!?! cuz that took some time haha. Have a good day/night. Good luck editing.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Too be fair though, this station is claiming to be the lowest in the country, not just a city. Train station notabilty is a thorny subject, you realise that the chances of getting any of these deleted is very slim. Mass nominations like this rarely get deleted, especially so if they're the slightest bit contentious. RMHED (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

True, I dont know, its hard sometimes because I know that there is no encyclopedia that would include this info unless a major event happened there. These stations are not notable on their own, excluding maybe one or two. But we shall see, it should be an interesting debate. Hope you have a good day/night.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's what makes Wikipedia so different, everything from pokemon characters to quantum physics. There's always something in it to annoy everybody.
And it's goodnight from me. RMHED (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hampstead School

Thank you for closing the AfD. I am sure that you have it in hand but just a reminder that you need to place the AfD result tag on the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I always forget those things, is it compulsory though? I thought I read somewhere it was up to the closer. Probably good practice to do so anyway. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it is now considered compulsory; without it it would be very hard to spot on the talk page whether or not the article had been through an AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will definitely try to remember to do so from now on. RMHED (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of Andrew Glyn AfD

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Glyn. However, when you do this, can you please use {{subst:afd top}} (or {{subst:at}}) in place of {{afd top}}, and similarly at the bottom, as described in Wikipedia:Deletion_process? Among other things, that way the wubbot can recognize that it's been closed and automatically archive it from any deletion sorting pages it belongs to. Additionally, that way the "please do not modify it" line and a comment about how to open a new AfD are visible when anyone tries to edit the closed AfD. Thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, will do so in the future. RMHED (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of Dorothy Walker Bush AfD

I am requesting that you undo your extremely premature closure of this AfD. If you do not, I'll have to put it up for deletion review since you closed it less than 24 hours after the discussion was begun. --Strothra (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll need an Admin to open it up again, sorry if you think my closure was premature, but I just thought it highly unlikely that this will result in anything but a keep or possibly a no consensus. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, DRV opened here. Strothra (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV speedy closed and AFD reopened by an administrator (myself). The point of running XfD for five days is to allow consensus to develop over time. It is never correct to close way early as no consensus. GRBerry 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate closure of Ocean Finance AfD

Your non admin, speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Finance was inappropriate. Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest. In addition, the close did not match all other viewpoints expressed in the AfD. The point of running XfD for five days is to allow consensus to develop over time, not to circumvent it through a speedy close. Please adhere to Non-administrators closing discussions. -- Jreferee t/c 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree I think I acted perfectly correctly, and would do so again. RMHED (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  You did not act correctly. It is wrong to close a discussion you have been a significant participant in. This is a fairly basic rule of etiquette around here. GRBerry 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree, aznd would act accordingly again. RMHED (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Look non-admins are only supposed to close only non-conterversal AFDs, such as unaminous keeps and merges votes, etc, not no consensus and especialy ones that you particiapated in. Not even admins can do that, if you disrupt AFD one more time I will block you This is a Secret ^account 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    Clearly we have different definitions of disruption, how did my turning Ocean Finance into a redirect cause disruption? RMHED (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    No answer, because no disruption was caused, by merging and redirecting all useful information was retained. RMHED (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I took the answer of "would act accordingly again" as disruptive, my fault, as meaning that you would close AFDs like that even though you are warned from several different admins, don't do that again please. This is a Secret ^account 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate closure of Andrew Glyn AfD

Your non admin, speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Glyn was inappropriate. You closed the AfD asserting that Andrew Glynh has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, yet neither the article nor the AfD brought out significant coverage. The speedy close reasoning did not match all other viewpoints expressed in the AfD. The point of running XfD for five days is to allow consensus to develop over time, not to circumvent it through a speedy close. Please adhere to Non-administrators closing discussions. -- Jreferee t/c 17:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope disagree with you again, if you think you're right then re-open the afd. RMHED (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed I was hasty.RMHED (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate closure of Rockbitch AfD

Your non admin, speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockbitch was inappropriate. The nominator cannot withdraw the AfD once others have posted deletion opinions. Closing the AfD as withdrawn once others have posted deletion opinions circumvents the deleter's right to have their views weighed as part of a consensus determination. In particular, the speedy close reasoning did not match all other viewpoints expressed in the AfD. Please adhere to Non-administrators closing discussions. -- Jreferee t/c 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Another disagree, I think my closure was perfectly reasonable and would act accordingly again. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

After giving this some thought, you are correct, I didn't follow policy. RMHED (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• • You are wrong. Wikipedia:Speedy keep specifies that a nomination can be speedy kept when

“

No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion.

”

If there are other delete opinions in the discussion, it is clearly and obviously wrong to speedy close it as keep because the nom was withdrawn. Do not do this again in similar cases. GRBerry 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• It wasn't a speedy keep, it was a keep. RMHED (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  It was speedy, it was less than five days after the discussion began. You many not have used the word "speedy", but that doesn't affect the fact that it was speedy. GRBerry 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  If that criteria were followed to the letter afd's would be backed up for days. Plenty of other people have closed afd's early with a Keep decision. I stand by my closure. RMHED (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (third nomination) also was inappropriate because the nominator cannot withdraw the AfD once others have posted deletion opinions. -- Jreferee t/c 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I should have called it a Keep/Nom Withdrawn, but apart from that small error still a perfectly good close.

Yes I was premature in that closure, I apologise for it. RMHED (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• • That's the only close I fairly agree with This is a Secret ^account 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate closure of Stephen Coles AfD

Your non admin close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles was inappropriate. This clearly was a controversial and ambiguous AfD. Your closing statement "the keepers and deleters seem unable to come to an agreement" lacks logic and may have served to inflame the situation even more. The close reasoning did not match all other viewpoints expressed in the AfD. Please adhere to Non-administrators closing discussions. -- Jreferee t/c 17:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Another perfectly good closure, if you disagree re-open it. RMHED (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the No consensus result I called was the correct one, but in hindsight I really should have left it to an Admin to do. RMHED (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate closure of 300-page iPhone bill AfD

Your non admin, speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination) was inappropriate. This was a close call, controversial, and ambiguous AfD. The speedy close did not match all other viewpoints expressed in the AfD. Early closure as no-consensus is never appropriate, no matter by whom. The point of running XfD for five days is to allow consensus to develop over time, not to circumvent it through a speedy close. Please adhere to Non-administrators closing discussions. -- Jreferee t/c 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I probably should have left it a while before closing this one, please re-open it, I bet you it ends up as No Consensus though. RMHED (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With all of these complaints

perhaps you should consider that you're closing inappropriately, and should take a break from that aspect of the project for awhile?Mr Which^??? 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe so, maybe not. Who can say? I'll drift where I may. RMHED (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments on speedy AfD closes

Hi RMHED. I see what you are saying about the likely outcome of AfDs you speedy closed. However, I'm not so concerned about your closing with the right or wrong outcome as I am about giving each of the AfD participants the chance to feel that they were being treated fairly. A very important aspect of consensus is that everyone participating in that consensus needs to feel that they are being treated fairly and equally, particularly when it is apparent that they are going to end up with the short end of the stick. People's perception and belief about being treated fairly in the consensus affects how they act towards others. A correct outcome does not help the losers accept the results. A fair process does. That is one reason to let an AfD run five days even though it initially has many keeps in the first day or two and seems unlikely to be closed as delete. -- Jreferee 01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the backlog, there always are plenty of AfDs that need closing at AfD old discussions. -- Jreferee t/c 01:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply, You are of course right, perception is everything. I shall give myself a severe thrashing. RMHED (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  Sarcasm is always a great response when an admin tries to give some constructive criticism. Mr Which^??? 02:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  I wasn't being sarcastic. Flippant possibly, sarcastic no, I'ts just the way I come across sometimes. RMHED (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  Perhaps. But either way, it's completely unhelpful and counterproductive. Mr Which^??? 02:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Counterproductive to what? would you rather I be contrite and ever so humble? I'd rather just be me, than put on a false front. RMHED (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    Counterproductive to the collegiality necessary to make a project the size of Wikipedia work. Your attitude towards those who have tried to approach you doesn't further the project at all. Mr Which^??? 03:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP applies everywhere

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all pages everywhere. Accordingly, a portion of this comment was inappropriate, and I've redacted it. Not the worst thing I've ever seen, and clearly not meant to be true, but also clearly an attack. Comments that would be thought nothing of in the blogosphere may not be acceptable here. Please be more cautious about this in the future. GRBerry 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Duly noted. RMHED (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass tagging of Heroes episodes

You are invited to take part in the discussion regarding your mass-tagging of Heroes episodes with {{notability}} on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes. — Edokter • Talk • 15:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you mass tagged the heroes episodoes. I undid the tagging, because if you tag all the episode article, that would eliminate the point of having a Heroes Wikiproject. If you want to discuss the episodes notability, the proper place to do that is on the wikiprojects discussion page for heroes. It makes no sense to tag all those episodes when we have a project page and that is one of the main tag. You should really take more time and care when tagging articles. I see from you talk page that you have tagged several episode pages for several different television series. are you new to wikipedia? or are you just bored and feel the need to tag an article that is connected to a wikiproject? the wikiproject page for heroes has the purpose of setting task that need to be done. they can not be done over night. please take more care in your tagging in the future.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference the Heroes episodes then to meet WP:NOTE, I bet you can't somehow. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- keep up in this fashion, and you'll be headed the same way as Alkivar. Just stop it.JJJ999 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean I should stop tagging articles with WP:EPISODE, then rest assured I've given up that futile exercise. There really is no point in fighting an unwinnable battle. WP:EPISODE is 'holed below the waterline', it may once have had consensus but I really doubt that it does now. RMHED (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass tagging of Star Trek: The Animated Series episodes

On 23 November 2007 you mass-tagged every episode of Star Trek: The Animated Series with {{notability}}: List of Star Trek: The Animated Series episodes. This is the series the Los Angeles Times referred to as a "Mercedes in a soap box derby", due to the quality: [1]. Because of the pervasive cultural impact of Star Trek, these articles are as notable as many other articles on individual Star Trek episodes. To achieve consistency and uniformity with your mass tagging, we'd need to tag/delete most other Star Trek episode articles. Obviously that won't be done, so I suggest you revert your mass-tagging of the animated series episodes. Joema (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure the series as a whole is notable just not individual episodes. If the other Star Trek episodes you mentioned don't meet WP:EPISODE I'll tag them as well (possibly, if I can be bothered). RMHED (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are individual articles for virtually every Star Trek series episode: List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes. In general, The Animated Series is no different from many of those. We must have consistency on this. If the others are not tagged, neither should be the Animated Series episodes. Your mass tagging should be removed, or else you should immediately tag all the other Star Trek episode articles that don't meet WP:EPISODE. If you're not prepared to do that, you should remove the Animated Series tags until you are prepared. Joema (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good grief! but if you insist, then so be it. RMHED (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts I haven't the stamina to tag all that lot, I really don't care enough about the issue to do so. My regards to you. RMHED (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, could you please undo your mass tagging of all the Star Trek: The Animated Series articles? Joema (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• They are correctly tagged as they lack the required references to meet WP:NOTE, but if you or anyone else wants to remove them so be it. I won't re-add them, no point in fighting a losing battle. It's clear nobody takes any notice of WP:EPISODE, so why should I. RMHED (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed them per the above discussion. From a pure technical standpoint, I agree with you. A strict interpretation of might indicate these aren't notable. However -- the same is true for hundreds of other episode articles: Star Trek: The Original Series, Dr. Who, etc. At some point we must bow to the overwhelming prevailing practice, regardless what WP:NOTE says. There are thousands of episode articles. We must also use common sense. The presence of these articles doesn't hurt Wikipedia. Mass tagging them or deleting them doesn't improve things. It only engenders conflict and consumes a lot of time. It would be a Herculean effort to tag all these espisode articles, would burn thousands of hours in discussion/debate and would likely not result in deletion.

By contrast, there are many articles (on various subjects) which could use qualitative improvement. Instead of mass-tagging articles with no prior discussion, using your time and knowledge to improve the quality of existing articles would be more beneficial. Add content, clarify wording, correct technical errors, etc. Joema (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A thought. Before doing mass-nominations of similar articles to AFD, it is generally a good idea to do a test AFD of a few individual articles. I suspect the same approach would work well with tagging. Tag a few and put a note about it on a central place (list of ... or WikiProject ...) saying explicitly that they are being done as test cases. That gives a smaller set of articles with the tags on them, and more focused effort can be put into them. This strategy might work better in the future. GRBerry 03:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would never do a mass nomination of any articles as this is always counterproductive. I'll steer clear of tagging as well. I cannot see any chance of WP:EPISODE guidelines being enforced in regards to very popular TV shows, there just isn't the consensus. Maybe it's time notability standards were lowered in regards to TV episodes as this is the de facto situation at present. RMHED (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem with policy

I have a problem with how you choose to force your own interpretation of policy with massive, uncollegial edits. Instead of trying to engage on an article, explaining the whys of what you wish to do, you simply do massive tagging (or controversial closing of AfDs). This is unhelpful in the extreme. I'm not the only one who holds this view. Your flip attitude towards those who dare challenge you on your application of your interpretation of policy is not helpful either. Mr Which^??? 18:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Tagging articles is good policy, how is that uncollegial? I sugest you read WP:NOTE you seem to be somewhat clueless. RMHED (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  I am quite familiar with the policies and procedures of the project regarding notability. I have informed you that I have no problem with your having an interpretation regarding these articles with regards to policy. I have a problem with your methods in attempting to force your interpretation onto the project en masse, instead of engaging in productive discussions about the whys of your interpretation. Also, regarding your assertion that I "seem to be somewhat clueless", I would ask that you be much more civil in our future dealings with one another. Civility is a core policy at Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know, given your extensive policy knowledge. Mr Which^??? 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see how tagging an article is trying to force my interpretation on others, they either take note of it or not, I can't force anyone to do anything. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. RMHED (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems here that there is a dispute with how RMHED views policy that is not being resolved due to his unwillingness to change in the face of strong advice from more experienced editors and admins. I suggest that this conflict go to WP:RFC. I believe that only in this way will RMHED understand that his actions thus far are counterproductive to the project and his refusal to alter them is nearly a violation of WP:POINT. There is a big disconnect between using WP:BOLD to take non-admin janitorial actions and taking such actions that result in the denial of participation in the Wiki processes to other editors. --Strothra (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• How is correctly tagging articles incorrect, please show me which policy I am violating? I have made no closes of AfD's since the above mentioned. I find that I am being harrassed for no good reason, please desist from doing so. RMHED (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  You call me "clueless", and then ask what policy you are violating? As for your assertion that you are being harrassed, that's simply not the case. You're simply having your interpretation of policy challenged, nothing more. And when you go around placing notability tags on multiple episodes of a number of popular series, what did you expect would happen? Mr Which^??? 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  I apologise for calling you clueless it was needlessly rude of me. You do of course make some valid points. RMHED (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakatapuram

Hi,

I noticed that you have supported this article's nom for delete. I have cleaned up the article now. Can you please have a look and review it to see if the article looks in a good shape to keep? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

I notice you performed a "non-admin' closure of the AFD for Uncyclopedia. Just wanted to say that in the unlikely event you encounter any challenge to this, I fully endorse and support your actions. Regards Manning (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (Administrator)

Thanks, I thought it was such an obvious candidate for a SNOW closure. Hopefully most others will agree, though perhaps not the nominator. RMHED (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You can stop

Anytime you like now. Persistant pushing of this issue and dragging it on to Jimbo Wales talk page doesn't make your arguement stronger and only makes you look like your trolling. Please stop this behavior. — Save_Us_229 02:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• How could expressing my opinion look like trolling? I'll take the argument wherever I choose. Or am I not allowed to argue my point? RMHED 02:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RMHED - I'm just swinging by to make a few comments. I respect that you have fairly strong views on this issue, and it is never fun to be accused of "trolling". So you have my sympathy there. Appealing to Jimbo is generally considered bad form - one because Jimbo is unlikely to ever read it and two because it gives the impression (whether you intended to or not) of being a bit "over-dramatic". If you want to delete your additions to Jimbo's page, by all means (although I won't permit anyone else to do it.)

It's never fun to be on the wrong end of a consensus, but that's life at Wikipedia. We've all been through it. You're a good editor, so try to stay focused on that and keep up the good work. Regards Manning 03:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'm not really appealing to Jimbo as I know he doesn't really get involved in these things. Still it would be nice to get his opinion on these type of articles, as I can't see what they add to the encylopedia. A young woman did a bit of part time nude modelling is murdered, media turn it into a big story by focussing on the most sensationalist aspect. I guess sex and death sell papers. RMHED 03:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation on Emily Sander

Please try and gain a consensus on the talk page before taking any action. The removal of a section of text from the article was clearly opposed by other users as seen on the talk page. You are very welcome to make constructive edits after the block has expired but please remmeber that it is better to communicate your points on the talk page to try and convince other users rather than going against consensus. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC) [2]

[edit] Funny how some people can get a block overturned, but not others

I guess it's who you know that counts on Wikipedia. RMHED 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia you have severely pissed me off with your petty block, it serves no useful purpopse other than to make me very disinclined to be cooperative in the future. RMHED 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but you did violate WP:3RR and Talk:Emily Sander#Modelling does show a lack of cooperation. Im sure that you can be cooperative and have potential to contribute constructively and well to this encyclopedia but even the most experienced of users can get blocked for violating WP:3RR. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And what purpose does this block serve? As a punishment it's meaningless as a warning it's meaningless. I've already said my intent was not to violate the 3R rule, but it seems that is not good enough. If Wikipedia wants to make enemies it's going the right way about it. RMHED 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

:::I've protected this page for 30 minutes as a result of your inexorable blankings and undoings thereof. Please stop; such behavior is not helping you. —Animum (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC) POWER

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Glover

I've expanded (and hopefully balanced) the article quite a bit, would you reconsider your opinion? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

By the way, about the sourceless images - I think you can cite Amazon.com for them. For example, Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg looks a lot like the picture on http://www.amazon.co.uk/Carry-Regardless-Sid-James/dp/B00005MFJD (see larger image is a 500x500 image, but surely the DVD cover is rectangular, not square). Since they're fair use images anyway, it really shouldn't matter where we got them, since we're not claiming we have any permission, but sometimes these things get enforced by bots, or people acting like bots. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've done as you suggested, I hope it's acceptable. RMHED (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-Regardless.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. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Constable.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-Constable.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. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.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. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that source info has to include who the copyright holder is, not just the website the image was taken from! Thanks! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a new one. If the copyright holder is unknown, we can't use it through fair use? That seems silly. Fair use is regardless of the copyright holder, the entire point of fair use is that we're using it despite the copyright holder. But I added a boilerplate sentence as demanded, as that seems easier than debating the point now. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use just seems to get more complicated by the day. RMHED 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)