User talk:White Cat/Archive/2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today is Friday, 13 June 2008, and the current time is 08:07 (UTC/GMT).
There are currently 2,410,808 articles and 786,819 files on English Wikipedia.

User:White Cat
User Page	User History	Office
Talk Page ⁺	WOPR edits	Sandbox

Hello this is an Archive. Please do not edit. You are welcome to post comments regarding material here at my user talk page.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Always believe in yourserf and your dreams, you have a wing!

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2005		02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

——————————————— Archive History 2008 ———————————————

1 January
2 February
3 March
4 April
5 May
6 June
7 July
8 August
9 September
10 October
11 November
12 December

January

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Joint Command Lisbon.gif

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Anime episode

Template:Infobox Anime episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Farix (Talk) 13:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Awards Role Call

WikiProject Awards Rolecall

To check whether all of our members are still interested, we have blanked the members list, if you still wish to take part please add your name back on the list.

// F9 T 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thought you might want to see this

Hi. Though I'm not an admin I've left a statement on the ArbCom request. In other news I thought you might want to see this. If this case gets accepted I'm going to ask for a neutral and uninvolved admin to mediate because clearly he is neither of those things. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We have been in tougher situations Al. We are here to put things right that once went wrong. Perhaps we need Dr. Sam Beckett to correct this one. Sorry I have just been watching too much Quantum Leap lately... :)

I'd like that. I wonder how far this crusade will go. How are admins that mock people for their opinions be legitemate candidates to enforce civility? I hope they are having a good belly laugh. Shows how seriously they take the matter.

I really do not want to defend myself. Whenever I do that people accuse me of drama. I be damned if I defend. I be damned if I don't defend.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia#Outside comment on sources

Well, they demonstrate how unfriendly they are towards any uninvolved parties. I wonder how long this nonsense will continue.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:G20countries (IN).png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:G20countries (IN).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. WinHunter ^(talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] extremely late greeting

Hi White Cat, thank you for Christmas greetings! I hope your holidays went well and that you have a great year. --Kyoko 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two redirects up for deletion

I have nominated both .818182 and 0.818182 up for deletion at redirects for deletion as I do not believe they will serve any kind of purpose. My rationale is viewable there, and perhaps you can expand as to why you believe anyone would search on Wikipedia for either .818182 or 0.818182 intending to find the September 11, 2001 attacks.--十八 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great minds?

I heard great minds think alike but this is ridiculous! Mind the time stamp. -- Cat ^chi? 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What are you trying to get across? Rudget . 16:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You and I made the same edit nearly the same second? That is rare. And I randomly noticed it too, I mean the vandalism. -- Cat ^chi? 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. :) Rudget . 16:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Would it be possible to get a more reasonable short username that isn't a complete sentence? -- Cat ^chi? 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just call me Harry! It's not the longest username around! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know that. It is just not very RC friendly. RC is recent changes. -- Cat ^chi? 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How's this? (Finally got a round tuit!) Harry the Dog (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is more compact. However you merely altered your signature not your username. User:Harry the Dog hasn't been taken so you can request a username change to that. -- Cat ^chi? 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It would be helpful if you would help

Have you considered taking some of the redirected articles that you are fond of, putting them into your userspace, repairing them, and then putting them back? No one can object to you putting up a repaired version of an article that meets all relevant guidelines. Simply shouting "TTN IS BAD!" doesn't help anything ... it just helps edit wars happen. Point redirects like we were talking about in your last ANI report don't help either. Unless, of course, your goal is to eventually derail TTN so that Wikipedia can be full of bad articles that are mainly plot summaries.Kww (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles are not written in userspaces. Stubs are not banned. We do not expect articles to be in featured quality when placed on mainspace. As you point out improving article quality involves expanding them, not blanking. This isn't a matter of good and evil. Articles that are mainly plot summaries are 1/3rd complete. That leaves the reception and production sections. -- Cat ^chi? 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think sandboxes and userspace pages are for? I didn't use the word "expanding", by the way. I said "repairing." Stripping the plot summary down to a paragraph, and then adding all the awards the episode has been nominated for, real life impact, things like that. And, if it never has been nominated for an award and has had no real-life impact, leaving it as a line or two in a "List of" article.Kww (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandboxes are there to experiment. For example how to use images. Userpace is there to help you manage articles you care about and to communicate. You are neither expected nor required to have any content in your userspace to write articles. Otherwise stub articles would be banned. They aren't.

Certainly an episode or movie that received no award is not automatically non-notable. There are plenty of movies that received no Oscar awards. Having an article on every movie made does not seem to be a problem on my end. Wikipedia is not paper. Just like how we do not exclusively have articles on physics theories that won the Nobel prize we do not expect nor require every movie article to have an award. Wining prizes has not a whole lot to do with notability but instead about the reception the particular movie received. Also, just because something has real-life impact or won an award does not make it notable.

You seem to be confusing the concept of notability. You seem to be seeking a universal notability which would be a mistake.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Welsper and his demon-angel Blue Lance.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sigel (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Satoko Yamano (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shohei Yoshida (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Toraichi Tamiya (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Otaki Aoyama (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shiho Sakakibara (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hild (Oh My Goddess Manga).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x17.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x17.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x15.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x15.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x07.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x07.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x22.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x22.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x12.0.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x12.0.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Troubador (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Keiichi Morisato.png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 12.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 12.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 11.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 11.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 10.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 10.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Belldandy and Holy Bell.png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sentaro Kawanishi (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chihiro Fujimi (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Megumi Morisato (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chrono, Ere, Ex (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gan-chan (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ru Fe Morgan (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Celestin (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Almighty (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lind (Oh My Goddess! manga).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hijiri (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Senbee (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Goddess Relief Office.gif)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Koshan (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sayoko Mishima (Oh My Goddess!).png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nekomi Institute of Technology.jpg)

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

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes. -- Cat ^chi? 12:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 3.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 2.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot.png)

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

[edit] Talk:WarGames

Hi, would you like to discuss your edit to WarGames [2] on the talk page where I had earlier started a section on my edit to the plot summary? --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lets continue there. -- Cat ^chi? 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your removal of my comment from the workshop page

Please do not remove posts like that. --Jack Merridew 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration workshop is not a discussion page. Please place your general comment elsewhere not in the main section. Not even arbitrators place comments there. -- Cat ^chi? 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? There seems to be a whole lot of discussion going on there. Is this another of your official comments? I've edited that page 74 times, so I think I know what's appropriate. My comment even seems to have prodded you to focus on that section. In fact, I somewhat agree with you that a lot of the proposals are unsupported by evidence. --Jack Merridew 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The sections are divided among arbitrators, involved parties and outside parties. It has been a tradition to keep it that way. I haven't heard of anyone 'disobeying' the tradition to date. Was merely trying to help better organize. -- Cat ^chi? 13:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The format of the workshop has changed since the prior case. I feel that as long as things are clear, my comment is fine; removing it not yours to do. The case does need to focus on actual evidence. I offer the suggestion that you reword the end of your comment to "…presented have no evidentiary basis."

Also, there is no need to copy this dialog to my talk page; it began here and I will answer here. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The format of the workshop still reads those three headings. Feel free to alter it/reword it as you see fit.

I typically copy threads to the talk pages of everyone involved on the thread. As you suggest I will stop. I normally do not check other peoples talk pages for responses.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you check earlier edits of mine to the workshop page (w/edit summaries including the word tidy), you will see that I have made a variety of edits to the overall format of the page.

If I leave a note, I have my preferences set to automatically add pages to my watchlist, so I'll see a reply. I have 2,459 pages on the list at the moment, and I often cut things. --Jack Merridew 14:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdistan Workers' Party flag

Can I replace it with an svg file of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by U2blueEagle (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But the flag is copyrighted so it is not commons compatible. Just keep that in mind. :) -- Cat ^chi? 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to articles relating to Turkey and Kurdistan. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, two things:

You should re-apply for adminship, since you appear to be a good editor who would do the job right. You were close in the last vote and you're an admin on Wikimedia commons (which is good to establish your credibility).
Some of the links in your userpage appear broken. In the TOC, none of these work:

# 4.2 Affiliations
# 4.3 Languages
# 4.4 Contributions
# 4.5 Vandal Honors
# 4.6 Wiki-philosophy
# 4.7 Humor
# 4.8 Likes
# 4.9 Other

☯ Zenwhat (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TTN

Asking for administrative intervention concering User:TTN is outside of the purview of WP:AN and WP:ANI. You are both involved in the arbitration case which is still on going. Wait for the ArbCom to decide on something.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked the presence of an RfAr is not a license for disruption. TTN is being disruptive in the absence of consensus on the matter which is exactly the point of the RfAr.

I find this culture of people going out of their way to prevent any kind of review to TTNs behavior. Any post to ANI about TTN is immediately attacked and rendered useless within minutes which adds to the disruption.

-- Cat ^chi? 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

February

[edit] General discussion in ArbCom

I realize you mean well, but the general discussion section exists for a reason, as it did in the previous case and every other ArbCom case. Please stop moving it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It belongs to the talk page. My GOD I cannot even move discussion to the talk page... You know, just forget it. I won't even try discussing this. I surrender to your revert-waring skills as I clearly can't compete. -- Cat ^chi? 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Always good to see the skills are recognized. Seriously, though, the General Discussion section belongs there. Perhaps what they're discussing belongs on the talk page, but in that case you should have just moved the discussion, not the whole section. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose I have misjudged you. I am just so sick of revert wars. Why don't you do what you suggested? -- Cat ^chi? 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Seems a reasonable thing to do. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I owe you an apology. This episode thing has been way too intense :( -- Cat ^chi? 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Starfleet ship classes

An editor has nominated List of Starfleet ship classes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Starfleet ship classes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indian women artists

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Indian women artists, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Kikuchi_Masami.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kikuchi_Masami.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Ja-0

A tag has been placed on Template:Ja-0 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Ja-0

Template:Ja-0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Naohiro19 revertvandal (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? -- Cat ^chi? 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess Logo.png)

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

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png)

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

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png. 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.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:List of computer viruses

A tag has been placed on Template:List of computer viruses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Afsouth-logo.gif

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

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oh My Goddess Manga cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess Manga cover.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.

[edit] Checkuser then?

Surely there is enough for a checkuser for this then? - "#Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick" - whya don't you put it up there? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators are capable of handling checkusers. As this is arbitration related on a complicated case, I don't want to spread the disruption in any way. -- Cat ^chi? 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, was wondering about that. Thought it could get lost on that huge page though...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It wont get lost. I wont make the same mistake as I have done with Moby Dick. ;) -- Cat ^chi? 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Planetes episodes

List of Planetes episodes is under discussion at WP:FLRC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

You have made many edits at List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes which is under discussion at WP:FLRC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Proving Ground (ENT episode).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Proving Ground (ENT episode).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.

[edit] CVU

Hey, I don't mean to bug you too much but what happened? I haven't logged in for a while and the link on my userpage to CVU is broken! Thanks! --MADISON (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Essjay had booted me off the group and started a CVN. Since then I avoided it. Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit is still out there. -- Cat ^chi? 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typical behaviour

How much do you know me to make that assertion? Have we met? -- Cat ^chi? 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've witnessed your behaviour in several places. User:Dorftrottel 23:37, February 19, 2008

Can you name some? After if it is "typical", it shouldn't be hard to give examples. I do not consider myself to be remotely abrasive so I would like to know what area to work on. -- Cat ^chi? 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow. User:Dorftrottel 23:53, February 19, 2008

OTOH, wouldn't you agree that you have kind of a controversial history? Granted, some if it dates back to your Cool Cat days, but I see a similar attitude at play in the way you've been crusading against Jack Merridew for quite some time now. Or maybe it's my own POV. User:Dorftrottel 00:12, February 20, 2008

Umm... Feel free to double check on that. I feel the contrary is happening. I do not particularly feel like a controversial individual. If my analysis on Jack Merridew is correct, Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir would have been wiki-stalking (WP:HA) me continuously for the past three years. -- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll follow the development of that. If half of it turns out to be true, I owe you an apology. User:Dorftrottel 00:30, February 20, 2008

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit2

A tag has been placed on Template:User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Userpagebox

A tag has been placed on Template:Userpagebox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template speedy deletions

You really don't need to notify me like that. If it needs to go, just speedy delete them :). -- Cat ^chi? 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you nominating every orphaned template for speedy deletion? If so why? -- Cat ^chi? 23:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly that would be "yes" and "that's a very good question", respectively. In the cause of "cleaning up old data" we're creating further "data" in the form of an equal number of talk-page discussion, and absorbing large amounts of people's time. Not much time per person, granted, but integrated over the whole wiki, a good chunk. Here, "speedy" is a complete misnomer; the not-very-lightweight process involved is really much more in the style of a highly speculative "prod", which really just serves to remove the requirement for any actual deletion rationale beyond "it's orphaned, so hey, maybe it might also be 'deprecated'". Alai (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm tagging templates that seem to no longer be of value to the project. There's no real need to keep old templates around; in fact, a lot of them seem to be test templates or templates from when users were new and unknowing. I'm (trying) to avoid templates that are substituted or are part of a larger series. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve to seek them out and get them deleted? Deleting them wastes more server resources and admin time. So I would recommend leaving them alone as they do get deleted (slowly) over time. Instead of tagging them one by one, how about compiling a list and let people process that. This would save you time as well. -- Cat ^chi? 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a list; as you can see from my contributions, I do letters of the alphabet at a time. Some of the templates I've been tagging are years old. And, I don't mind the work, and I usually end up deleting the templates myself when seven days has elapsed (no admin time wasted). Also, I try not to waste server resources as much as possible (one small step: not using an annoying image alongside my user notifications). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a problem with the templates, 'deleting' them does cause problems. For example you generate an extra log that wastes server hard drive space. Of course the amount of waste is trivial at best. I really think you should leave the matter to its natural course. We have greater backlog on copyrighted images with possible legal implications. -- Cat ^chi? 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oop, forgot one thing. The script I use automatically notifies the original creator of the template that is being tagged. I don't check who it is, and unfortunately, getting a list of pages that a user was the creator of isn't particularly easy to do. So, unfortunately, you may get a few more messages. I apologize for any inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would probably get hundreds of messages. If you take a look at my talk page, it has been dominated bu bot talk and that does become inconvenient over time. "You have got a message" pops up and it turns out to be a bot... -- Cat ^chi? 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Kurdistan Workers Party

Y Done for 1 week. See if that helps. If after the protection the vandalism resumes, feel free to re-request at WP:RFPP. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 7#Episode and Character Rfar

Can you please take a look at this? At the very least confirm that you had seen it. :/ -- Cat ^chi? 12:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it (though I would much prefer that you guys keep your arguments on the case pages). Kirill 13:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom /evidence page for episodes is a bit too long and editing it has been rather difficult. I am somewhat panicking because the voting on the arbitration case has started and I feel the late evidence I provided may be overlooked. The sections on the evidence I collected that I would like arbcom to take a closer look are:

So far arbcom has addressed the sections (to a degree)

I can understand why arbcom would perhaps disregard these sections in "/Proposed Decision"

Aside from these I feel the combative mentality (comradeship) exhibited by some of the users has not been addressed. This is more evident in sub pages of the arbitration case itself such as the talk page of the proposed decision. Any time something is said about one of them they all defend each other 'to the bitter end'.

I am very concerned because after the first arbitration case the disruption continued. I do not want to deal with 2 more months of disruption just like the past case. As it stands I feel the passed remedies will not be adequate in resolving the dispute. Despite the temporary injunction by arbcom, people have continued to mass remove material. Alas on 'video game' related articles and not 'television'.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

March

[edit] your evidence

Re your addition of: [3]

Uh, what? -- Ned Scott 05:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I would like to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. While it would seem that we are hopelessly at odds about some issues, I'd like to limit that, and not have it bleed over to any time we interact on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer/Scepbot

If your bot uses the pywikipedia framework, you might want to change the following code in redirect.py:

                   # watch out for redirect loops
                   if secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == secondRedir.sectionFreeTitle() \
                           or secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == redir.sectionFreeTitle():
                       continue

to:

                   # watch out for redirect loops
                   if secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == secondRedir.sectionFreeTitle() \
                           or secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == redir.sectionFreeTitle():
                       content=secondTargetPage.get()
                       secondTargetPage.put("{{db-r1}}"+content, "Tagging for speedy deletion")

Then, your bot will tag them for deletion when it finds them. Will ^(talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I would like to do that but I also want to keep the bot in sync with SVN. Also CSD#R4 would be better criteria me thinks (alas that was created today by me). I'll tell this on #pywikipediabot -- Cat ^chi? 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"<Filnik|away> White_Cat: tell Will that he has an old version of redirect.py and if he will send me a patch suitable for the new version I'll consider it (and apply if correct)"

So if you can do that, we all would benefit from this. :)

-- Cat ^chi? 21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Newest as in SVN, yes? Will ^(talk) 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd wager $2000 thats what he meant. :) Of course if I am wrong I won't be paying. :P -- Cat ^chi? 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a place I can test it? Wikimedia projects cache the list, which makes it useless. Will ^(talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know. You could test on a private wiki, perhaps wikia. -- Cat ^chi? 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying Wikiquote, by looping an already double-redirect, then running the script on it. I'm trying to find out where the error is being thrown, though... Will ^(talk) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And done, and patch generated. Will ^(talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

SVN has been committed. Will ^(talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Point

You accuse me of pointyness? Maybe I tried the talk page of multiple arbitrators and they failed to respond in a satisfactory manner? -- Cat ^chi? 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't know if you have or not, but the point stands. The page makes it clear that you should use the talk page. Just because your proposals haven't found any traction doesn't mean you should try to force them into use. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not forcing anyone to do anything. For example if they gave me a single rational explanation why they are completely ignoring the evidence I provided - that would be a satisfactory response.

I will cease responding to you or anybody on this any more because I know people are waiting in a long queue seeking a mere excuse to block me over the most trivial error (this isn't an accusation directed at you, they know who they are). I will not give them the satisfaction. To put it mildly, I am very frustrated.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I understand you may be frustrated about your evidence not being seen, as I went over Krill's talk to see an example, but it seems to me that Krill at least has acknowledged it. Just because they don't accept it doesn't mean they're ignoring you. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well?

As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat ^chi? 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've told you before, I've looked at the material you've presented, and do not believe that modifying the proposed decision will be in the best interests of the project. Neither, apparently, do any of my colleagues. Kirill 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be having difficulty communicating... Would you prefer IRC?

Would you find it in the spirit of the passed arbitration remedies if people carry out the edit behaviour they had on television-related articles (what this case handled) to video game related articles? That is what is happening to a degree due to the wording of the remedy with an emphasis on "television". Video game related articles are typically not television related. This is only one of the issues I feel arbcom failed to address.

Is meatpuppetary not an issue? Granted arbcom is passing the "Fait accompli" thing, yet again... I presented evidence of editors are acting as a group on hundreds of articles. Surely this is not the preferred way of editing per "Fait accompli"... So why can't arbcom pass a ruling to limit or discourage any more such behaviour?

There are 10 headers on the evidence I presented. All I ask is a rational explanation why none of it is not used on the /Proposed decisions? I never expected all of them to make it to /Proposed decisions.

-- Cat ^chi? 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of your evidence is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand. This case concerns the broad question of editorial conflict over the disposition of certain articles; if you have private conflicts with certain other editors involved in the matter, you should pursue the dispute resolution process in that specific regard, rather than expecting those issues to be handled as a side effect of an unrelated case.

The rest of it is no different, in essence, from that presented by the various other parties. We're already well aware that there are two groups of editors fighting over the issue here. The current remedies remain, in my opinion, the most appropriate method to deal with the editorial conflict at this juncture. If the conflict spreads or otherwise increases, we can deal with the matter then; but I see no need to try and predict where someone might try to take it in advance. Kirill 05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it strange that arbitration committee is willingly overlooking problematic behaviour. Is the desire for me to file more arbitration cases? I can do that if you like. I already filed two arbitration cases on Davenbelle, I can file a third one no sweat. I can file a video game rfar as well, fyi it has already spread. Evidence to this end has been presented and that is not just by me. I can file an rfar over meatpuppetry issue. Is this what arbcom wants? More workload? -- Cat ^chi? 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yardım

selamlar cat,

senden bir ricam olacak, ben benim vikide Şablon:Metakutu yu çalıştıramadım. Bu şablon Fransızların Modèle:Début des onglets [4] şablonu. #if fonksiyonu görünüyor, tablo oluşuyor ama yarım yamalak.Burda görüldüğü gibi

şunu belirtim Türkçe vikiden css ve js dosyalarını yükledim, ama benim serverda ekstsnsin dosyası boş bununla bi ilgisi var mı ve ya sürümle. Ne yapmam gerekiyor

PHP: 5.2.5 MySQL: 5.1.1 Mediawiki:1.11.1

tr:Kullanıcı:Sweetghost--81.213.165.83 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinin kurulumu bilmedigim bir konu size nasil yardimci olabilecegimi tam bilmiyorum. -- Cat ^chi? 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Well?

I want to clarify the following 3 sections before focusing on others. -- Cat ^chi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit point a

I don't think there is a lack of attention from the ArbCom White Cat. I personally had gone through all the evidence you submitted and i am still believing that i only could have accepted it if it were the basis of a separate case though i find it partially quite unconvincing (in most of its parts as it is presented now) as a proof of anything. However, i am still open to hear about any further or new solid evidence. There would probably be a few elements worth checking but my 'common sense' tells me it should be separated from this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll 'walk' you through what I meant with my evidence. Its ~~2:45AM~~3:25AM and I have an intercontinental travel tomorrow so this will probably be unsatisfactory today. I will post something more detailed tomorrow.

The first issue I'd like you to consider is #Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick

Some history. Firstly please familiarize yourself with these usernames

Coolcat -> Cool Cat -> White Cat

I have changed my username twice to date

Davenbelle - Moby Dick - Diyarbakir.

Davenbelle and Moby Dick had made identical/similar edits and have been treated like the same person.
Moby Dick and Diyarbakir are checkuser confirmed to be the same person. Both have been banned indefinitely.

Stereotek - Karl Meier

Stereotek has changed his username to Karl Meier. I have not been in dispute with this person for the most part. I hardly ever hear from him.

Fadix

User has been banned by arbcom on the 'Armenia-Azerbaijan' arbitration case.

I have spent a good part of my wikipedia's various dispute resolution processes such as collecting evidence for arbcom. To date I have been involved with four arbitration cases of which two were episode/character related. As it appears, on all four of them I have been dealing with one person that got banned several times.

First one was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek lasting between 24 July 2005 and 5 October 2005. If you take a glance at passed remedies you'll see "Efforts by Davenbelle and Stereotek to monitor Coolcat" which diplomatically addressed the harassment issue. The issue did not settle with the closure of the case. It lasted till 7 December 2005 (two more months) as visible at /mentorship and /mentorship talk
The peace and quiet was only temporary. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick particularly take a look at "Prior behavior by Davenbelle" and "Moby Dick has harassed other editors" Arbcom has again held a more diplomatic tone. This again did not end there. Moby Dick went to inactivity.
I did not really have much peace and quiet. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir shows examples of the kind of nonsense I wasted my time with. Diyarbakir focused on Turkey and Kurd related articles in a manner which is the exact extreme opposite of my edits. Finally Diyarbakir and Moby Dick was indefinately blocked by the community on Early May 2007 with the checkuser evidence. I genuinely thought my harassment days that started on spring 2005 have finaly reached an end.
Now I know a Jack Merridew has seriously started editing wikipedia just a few days after Moby Dick's ban. Unlike Diyarbakir, Jack Merridew focuses on fiction related articles again in a manner which is the exact extreme opposite of my edits. He has removed nearly all of my contribution to Oh My Goddess! related articles. He went out of his way to participate in any related discussion in a manner only to remove content including discussions on templates.
I am not sure how receptive the wikipedia community is on the matter of this notorious stalker in the light of this thread. Each year I file a new case and spend 3 months on thwarting Davenbelle's new account. Jack Merridew would be his 4th account.

Based on the evidence I provided, is there anything unconvincing on the identity of Jack Merridew? I am rather tired of filing case after another and request much much more severe remedies to get this guy (Davenbelle) off my tail. No one should be required to sacrifice 2-3 months per year on stalkers.

This is relevant to the case because it involves tv episode related articles and a disruptive party.

-- Cat ^chi? 01:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I get two things out of the above... You and your case and the E&C one. If you really believe in your evidence then you don't have to waste more than a few minutes of your time posting the above as a new RfA case unless you have to gather more evidence; which necessarily has to be really solid. Also, there's no CU findings for arbitrators' guidance. Again, the evidence as it seems now is unconvincing to me and concentrates more on you and your alleged wiki-stalkers. You may argue that the two cases are related and I would not disagree but as I see it in a whole I strongly believe they are partially if not minimally related because if you ask the majority of the involved parties they would tell you that they got a problem with an edit pattern and not with a stalker sock/meatpuppeter, etc...

If you decide to file a case and if your present evidence has a chance to be treated as a proof of any violation then obviously and simply the decision enforcement on the subject would override the original one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider these:

"For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." (#Identity).
"CheckUser results show Moby Dick edits from IPs compatible with the Davenbelle's location. Edits show a common interest in Kurdish and Turkish issues." (#CheckUser and common interests Davenbelle, Moby Dick)

Now consider these:

CheckUser results show Jack Merridew edits from IPs compatible with the Davenbelle's location. An hence compatible with the location of Moby Dick.
Edits
- Diyarbakir has edited until 10 April. He stopped editing on the 10th.
- On 11 April Jack registered and started editing and has done so until 19 April. He stop editing on the 19th. Jack focused this entire contribution between 11 April and 19 April on various non-profit organizations operating in Bali.
- Diyarbakir made edits on 23rd of April.
- Diyarbakir was blocked in 26 April for being a sockpuppet.
- On 2 May Moby Dick was also blocked indefinitely.
- Jack Merridew resumed editing on 8 May, 6 days after Moby Dick's block. From 8 May to 25 June (nearly 2 months) he made 48 edits most focusing on Indonesia related articles. [5]
- On July 2007 Jack Merridew made 881 edits almost entirely focusing (attacking) on fiction related articles as if someone switched off his interest to non-profit organizations in Indonesia. [6]
- On 27 July 2007 Jack Merridew participated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek)‎. I started the articles in question. Davenbelle and Moby Dick has a history in participating in votes I have participated in the opposing corner. This was the 6th AfD Jack has participated with my count. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir has a few examples.

As you seem to agree the two cases are related to a degree. Jack Merridew of course did not ONLY stalk me but also edited other fiction related articles in a problematic way. I cannot however understand why arbitration committee is going to disregard users other related disruptive behavior. Arbcom is a dispute "resolution process" and the dispute concerns Episode and Character related articles. There exists an alleged sockpuppet harassing one of the editors editing episode and character related articles. By basic logic it is very related if you ask me. So long as the issue surrounding Jack Merridew is not addressed, the episode and character dispute will not be resolved. Arbcom isn't supposed to be a bureaucracy.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Point one - You already state that ArbCom is a dispute "resolution process". The thing is the ArbCom hasn't seen any dispute resolution process followed by you to sort out the alleged stalking and sock/meatpuppetry. With no RfC and no CU request, the ArbCom cannot rely on just a user's analysis. It doesn't require an arbitrator to agree that the two cases are related for your evidence to be addressed. That's why, at the absence of CU, at least solid evidence is required. That is for the weight of the evidence.

The other point... This is not bureaucracy but common practice. Also, as a common practice and sense, cases are referred to on a historical and eventual basis. In other words, your case dates back to years ago and has evolved under different circumstances than those of episodes and characters case. Your case involved 2 or 3 users while this case involve many more users. Your case involves stalking and sockpuppetry according to you. The community sees the whole as two different things and i haven't seen any change regarding that. They just happened to interfer somewhere and the only existing relationship between them is you. The community may then refer to two different ArbCom desicions for convenience using referentials. Your case appears to be more complicated than the E&C since you believe it has taken a long time to be fixed. It does not mean that we cannot sort it out through the ArbCom. We are here for that reason but cases cannot take longer times. Your case can be addressed separately. We cannot keep the status quo for a huge number of articles because of a problem that can be separately resolved. The community cannot accept that White Cat.

The degree of relationship between the two cases is relative of course. So add to that the lack of solid evidence and a CU finding. This gives you two broken eggs. I have suggested how you can keep them for later on instead of losing them all now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have linked you to the checkuser material twice (once on /evidence and once here). For the the third time, please click here. That is a report by a checkuser. User:Moby Dick's IP is still indef blocked. So, Moby Dick by very nature of computer science and our blocking system has to change his IP to make edits. Under that assumption Moby and Jack will not have indentical IPs.

I will not engage in any forms of dispute resolution process - particularly something as dysfunctional and useless as an RfC. I kindly ask you to never again mention 'RfC' to me because I am to, put it mildy, sick and tired of engaging in the dispute resolution processes for the past THREE YEARS. I have used each step including RfC multiple times. I feel it is jawdroppingly obvious that this is him. What kind of evidence would you classify as "concrete" or "solid"? I may be able to provide it if I know what you are looking for. I do not know what exactly is you want me to provide. I do believe Moby Dick has a learning curve so he will not give me any obvious evidence like he accidentally did in the past. For example User:Diyarbakir pretended being a Kurd born in Diyarbakir. He added a category:Kurdistan to many articles strictly to bait me (per RFCU evidnece). One of his major mistakes was editing as Moby Dick in march which made checkuser a possibility.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what i meant by the above is that a "complicated long-time case that needs more digging cannot impede, even unintentionally, the smooth running of Wikipedia. Your case can be better dealt with separately for referential and historical reasons plus convenience and Wikipedia standards and common practice while giving the main case a chance to go sorted out on time without delays. There are many editors out there waiting for things getting to normal." As you see, you can still disregard my 'Point one'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at, but see my comment on part c. While things should run smoothly, rushing an arbcom case is more problematic. If the passed remedies are not effective in resolving the dispute more community/arbcom will be spent on the continuation cases. This happened with the first RfAr case on episode articles for example. So rushing it may not be smoothing the process. -- Cat ^chi? 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be probably right but we are talking about 'part a' here which can be better dealt with separately for referential and historical reasons plus convenience and Wikipedia standards and common practice while... -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. I am inclined to do as you ask and file a separate case simply for the convenience alone. I just am skeptical what good will it do (per section c). I guess what I am asking is assuming my assessment is right - that Jack Merridew and Davenbelle are the same person - what remedies can arbitration committee enact so that I do not deal with Davenbelle any more? Blocking him indefinitely doesn't appear like an effective measure. -- Cat ^chi? 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking White Cat and it is not only for convenience. I am explaining to you what is appropriate and reasonable and why. So let me explain it to you again that the answer to your last question can only be answered through a separate case if needed otherwise everyone is under the radar of the ArbCom and the people who help at the ArbEnforc. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I did not express myself well enough. I was inquiring on what arbcom can do as in what are the limits of the committee. Can arbcom take any action beyond indef blocking this user? I do not want to spend another 3 weeks on an arbitration case if arbcom lacks the authority to do anything. -- Cat ^chi? 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can arbcom take any action beyond indef blocking this user?. Well, yes. It can be a ban and i am referring to any user who would exhaust the community patience, not necessarily this user because we still don't know. ArbCom can only indef block user accounts and its socks or meatpuppets after verifications of facts, a thing that also the Community can do without involving the ArbCom. We are not the police White Cat. The maximum the ArbCom can do is to ban someone. Now, before even indef blocking or banning anyone, we must analyze the evidence and to do so we need to hear it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And he can pick a new identity in less than a week. In best case scenario arbcom can ban this what I believe is an indef blocked user that is somehow still editing. You do see where I am getting at I hope... In other words I will have to put up with harassment unless I leave wikipedia and hide in a bunker assuming a fetal position. :P

I am fully aware that arbcom is not the police, particularly not the Indonesian police. I just am not convinced what arbcom can do to actually prevent this person Davenbelle from further harassment.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to hide in a bunker. But just don't shoot. There is RfAr out there and its doors are open. We will verify your allegations and decide. If we find out that what you say is right then the harasser will be banned. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I patiently waited, collected evidence and got Moby Dick banned. That was the product of 2 years of patience until 2 May 2007. I was almost completely alone during the entire time.

We are in March 5th so it has been about 10 months this blocked user continued editing despite the ban - assuming if I am right of course. I am very skeptical that arbcom can offer a real solution. :/

-- Cat ^chi? 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit point b

I am somewhat saddened with your statement that my evidence concentrates more on me and my alleged wiki-stalkers. That is not true or at least was not the intention.

#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry) demonstrates that at least these four users act as a group to dominate a particular discussion. Not just issues concerning me but on other incidents as well. There are numerous examples of such participation. Also if someone files a complaint against either one of them or if one of them files a complaint against someone standing in their way, other three are quick to come to assist. Consider the case here for example or look at the workshop of this rfar. Granted not all four show up all the time as it is more of a combination of three people than four. This is more visible with the evidence. This was not addressed at all.

The statement that there are two groups of users fighting each other is not right. The diplomatic tone on arbcom remedies imply as if the inclusionists and deletionists united in fronts. There are multiple groups of people writing articles on unrelated fictional topics and a single group of users trying to purge it in a systematic manner. There are other unrelated deletionists groups who operate more reasonably.

For example, I focus on various anime (mostly Oh My Goddess!) and Star Trek. I have a dispute with a group of users (TTN - Ned Scott - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - ?) on Oh My Goddess! and Star Trek related articles. If the same group purges or attempts to purge "Hannah Montana" (random pick) related articles, the same people will be in dispute with a separate group of people writing Hannah Montana related articles. Me and people writing "Hannah Montana" do not work together against the deletionist group while deletionist group works together against separate groups of editors who actually write articles.

They cannot yet meet the resistance they are faced by people editing more popular TV shows so they pick on the smaller ones: User talk:TTN/Archive 8#WP:FICT isn't working. In other words they dominate the episode/character related discussion. This is an "imposed consensus" by them. This isn't what real consensus supposed to be.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it was not your intention White Cat. You are probably just disagreeing with Ned Scott and some others. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that all you have to say on this? The way you put it is very insensitive and infuriating. Is this the way we prefer our users to edit? Work in groups and dominate discussions? -- Cat ^chi? 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention at all. We cannot stop anyone from having deletionist or inclusionist tendencies. Plus i don't agree with the assertion that they avoid popular TV shows because of resistance there. That's not a solid assumption. If there are no canvassing or any other poor behaviour habits, then all what I can understand is that you just disagree with each other. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You may disagree with it but in TTN's words:

“

Now they only have any sort of "power" over the big series like Harry Potter due to numbers, but things like that will always go slowly due to numbers anyways. I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones.

”

When I talk about "they" I don't refer to any random deletionist but to this group of users.

Someone having over 750 common edits with another is clear indication of canvassing especially if the edit behavior is anything but coincidental and instead identical. Two RC patrollers editing the same article is one thing and two users backing each other on the blanking of hundereds of pages is another. On my evidence page on the issue (#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)) I show examples of these users collectively revert waring on multiple occasions. On Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode) or Out of Their Minds for example all four (TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott) users have edited the article in a similar/identical manner.

If you divide the total distinct pages edited by both user X and TTN then divide it by the total number of distinct pages edited by X and then multiply it by 100 (percentage of the edits matching) you get the below values:

%26.77 of edits by Jack Merridew are to pages that TTN also edited
%15.35 of edits by Eusebeus are to pages that TTN also edited
%4.42 of edits by Ned Scott are to pages that TTN also edited

This should be telling something?

-- Cat ^chi? 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated that this evidence is not solid. Even if we disregard that aspect, the numbers above appear to be normal since the same figures can be found within any group of users working on the same WikiProject or set of articles. That is an element that the mathematical model used above doesn't take into account.

Seriously White Cat, %4.42? By the way, Wandalstouring is inviting me to help him write a set of articles. If I had enough time I could have %4.42 of my edits similar to those of Wandalstouring. Is it a proof of anything?

I confirm to you officially that all the above mentioned users are unrelated to each other. They are not the same user. No evidence of canvassing trend. As for meatpuppetry, there's no evidence of an exhibit of recruitment or canvassing. And I am sure if there would be any in the future, you'll find many admins dealing with it on the spot.

Again, they share the same interests as you (editing these articles) but they only share their POV between themselves. This is not an exception to this area you edit, it is a common fact around Wikipedia. What the ArbCom can do is to judge inadequate behavior. This is what we do.

Your quote re TTN...Now they only have any sort of "power" over the big series like Harry Potter due to numbers, but things like that will always go slowly due to numbers anyways. I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones.

TTN said and did many inappropriate things and he is not going to be restricted for no reason. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight so because Wandalstouring is asking you to help write a set of articles that is enough for you to completely disregard the evidence I provided? You are right that the numbers merely imply canvassing/meatpuppetary and they need to be accompanied by diffs showing evidence of canvassing which has been provided. I seriously doubt there any four users that you have voted in an identical manner on xfds (on articles all four of you have no edits) on multiple occasions.

Have you checked the "Extended Evidence (TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 60)" expandable evidence? These are 60 pages all four of the users have edited. I listed all of them for fairness and transparency of my evidence. Not every case of the 60 pages is valid. It is possible for four people to coincidentally edit same pages. For example all four of them editing each others talk page isn't exactly surprising. However all four of them editing Out of Their Minds in an identical manner isn't normal. Or consider True Colors (That's So Raven). These are just two examples of the many.

You said: "they share the same interests as you (editing these articles) but they only share their POV between themselves". Is that not the definition of canvassing or even stealth canvassing? Is the notification of a biased (campaigning against fiction related articles in general) and/or partisan (votestacking on xfds concerning topics of fiction) group of people in a secret (via email for example) manner not problematic in any way? Are you claiming that these people do not in any way communicate on/off wiki and yet coincidentally show up on hundereds of pages just hours to days after each other? These people collectively revert war and vote on hundereds of pages. Of which on all cases they collectively remove/blank/redirectify articles. They are not collectively writing articles at all. You want me to provide hundereds of diffs? If you check the actual articles they edit and the way they edit you can see that they are not mere coincidences. Canvassing and particularly stealth canvassing is not easy to document.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"They share their POV between themselves" is an analogy with your case White Cat. From their POV they may think that "You share your POV with users who agree with you." We are talking here about deletionist and inclusionist tendencies and I've already explained to you that We cannot stop anyone from having such tendencies unless it is disruptive. It is common to find different camps at different topics and it is not necessarily a bad thing. We only deal with behaviour and the Fait accompli refers to this point and one of the remedies deals with it; all parties remain instructed and warned. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of deletionist tendencies. This is four or more self-righteous people dominating/canvassing discussions and votes together. "Fait accompli" is common sense. It has been passed many times by arbcom. What is the sanction if a group of users violate it? Certainly the TTN group as violated that many times. -- Cat ^chi? 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We have the general sactions and editing restrictions passed as motions as explained below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit point c

The remedies on the case focus on Episode and Character articles on television. The original case was filed concerning all Episode and Character related articles weather they are related to television or not. There are many non-tv characters such as the ones on video games, comics and stories. As it stands the arbitration injunction has only served to shift the dispute from television episodes to video game related articles due to its focus on "television". So the intended resolution by the arbitration committee is already tested and is not working.

Wording should not restrict this case to television. That is the entire point of #Gaming the system such as the arbitration injuction.

It is very stressful and time consuming to file an arbitration case. So I want the current case to have few to no rough edges.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a good point though i see no relationship whatsoever to Jack Merridew and you so that it would require another case to be filed. After all, any motion can change that to cover a wider, probably infected, scope whenever it is necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can't. This section 'c' is related to the general issue and not a spesific user. Every 3rd level (===) section of my /evidence has an indeppendent logic and rationale. I do not want to file an arbitration case on video game related articles. Just how many cases do you want or expect me to file so that arbcom will look into it? An arbitrator restricted this to 'television' not the people filing it. The dispute had never been restricted to television articles. So I cannot understand why remedies are restricted to television. -- Cat ^chi? 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can't.

Of course it can be done if it would be deemed necessary.

Just how many cases do you want or expect me to file so that arbcom will look into it?

White Cat, you haven't filed any case related to E&C yet.

So I cannot understand why remedies are restricted to television.

This is the locus of the dispute... The dispute centers on the existence of articles regarding individual episodes and characters from television series, and is part of a broader disagreement regarding the interpretation of notability guidelines with reference to fictional and popular culture topics and one of the proposed remedies is that all parties instructed and warned. Please read this carefully: They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Anyone can file a clarification request and if problems spread further and becomes an issue that the community could not solve then a motion to the present case can be easily passed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

An arbitration case is a very stressful, complicated and time consuming process. Filing an arbitration case is like suicide regardless how merited your case may be. For example it can very easily ruin an on going RfA and any future ones. I sincerely hope you understand what filing an arbitration case leads to for some users. I do not want to file cases for the sake of filing them. For example filing the RfAr on Davenbelle and etc was the greatest mistake I have made on wikipedia. I have been through hell ever since. So I am not very enthusiastic about bringing something in front of arbcom. I do not know what else I could have done back then, but the arbitration case did not help me at all. Neither did the second one given I am prompted to file a third one. I seriously doubt a 3rd arbitration case will do me any good given the overall dismissive-looking attitude of some arbitrators. I am telling you this in an empathic manner. It isn't like I care about a reputation (nor have one - well a very negative one). If Jack were indefinitely blocked today he would be back editing in a few days. In a month or less he would be back to the harassment campaign only he'd be just more discrete so the fourth case would be much harder for me to file. What can arbcom do? For all practice purposes? because if I am right blocking Davenbelle serves no purpose.

Reasonable people like me can understand what you are saying here in words without a second thought on it. When arbitration committee said "halt all activity" a number of users have already tried very hard to trick the system. They have to a degree succeeded. I hence feel arbitration committee should be more explicit in the remedy. Arbcom looking at something "unfavorably" may not be enough for an administer to take action against a user engaging in behavior sanctioned him from on "television" related articles. We have seen examples of this before on other complex cases.

-- Cat ^chi? 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about E&C here. I am talking about a motion if deemed necessary in the future, be it tomorrow or after years depending on the situation and the state of the disputes. You are talking about another arbitration case and you are talking about your prior cases. Again, we are dealing with "two eggs." -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the omelet-like egg metaphor - and you got me quite hungry actualy. Right E&C... So why can't we avoid explicitly restricting this to "television" related articles and define the scope as "fiction related articles" in general? This dispute at no point was restricted to "television" related articles. People have already edited non-television related yet fiction-related articles. I can list many examples even before this arbitration case started. -- Cat ^chi? 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, you are experienced enough to understand why we have motions in Wikipedia arbitration process. Also, if you are an observer of the Arbitration process, at least recently, you will notice how smoothly we can amend prior decisions everythime it is deemed necessary (a recent infamous example). General sanctions can be added or lifted when necessary. However, the ArbCom role is not solely restricted to sanctionary measures and you are experienced enough to know that guidence is also part of its role. We have to maintain this balanced approach and manage it optimally. We still believe users' general attitudes and habits to be reformed. This is contrary to the rushing you referred to above. After all, you agree that rushing is not good. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I just don't want a rehash of this dispute on say video game related articles. The first rfar on episodes and characters was quite disappointing. This one is somewhat reasonable and not entirely satisfactory to me as it stands. I am very concerned about the continuation of this disruptive behavior as I have been dealing with this issue for over a year now. It is quite tiring to deal with a dispute 24/7 for a year. -- Cat ^chi? 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you agree that the decision is "somewhat reasonable" then that's great.-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I also feel they are more than inadequate in resolving the dispute in question. -- Cat ^chi? 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, if TTN asks another user to nominate an article or series of article for deletion via email or even talk page he can effectively ride around the restrictions he got. Or if he gets a new account... Any user is free to continue edit pattern that TTN made. Arbcom only singled out and sanctioned TTN but his edit pattern is shared by many others. This issue as it stands is not addressed at all. People should not go out and mass xfd or redirectify entire topics. They can initiate a general discussion involving the general community and not a deletionist group and perhaps reach to a compromise/consensus. This is not done. -- Cat ^chi? 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Or consider a slight topic change [7] [8]. These are dated 25 February, 8 days after Kirill posted to /Proposed decisions. Or 22 days after the 3 February temporary injunction. -- Cat ^chi? 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You say that Arbcom only singled out and sanctioned TTN and then you ask me to consider two slight topic changes by TTN?!

if TTN asks another user to nominate an article or series of article for deletion via email or even talk page he can effectively ride around the restrictions he got. Well, TTN would even make phone calls if he wants to but that is still just an assumption White Cat. Indeed, it is irrelevant because what is important is keeping order inside the house. We can't stop anyone from canvassing via emails but we can stop disruption at AfDs. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He could even go to the neighbor if he is desperate enough... Thats no the point. I would like to see a general sanction against the way TTN edited. You know... something in the line of "don't go mass afd/redirectifiy every fiction related articles without prior consensus to do so" or "seek community-wide consensus before taking any kind of mass action".

Also note the articles in question were exempt from the arbitration injunction as they are video-game related. TTN could have legally redirectified any one of those. I am merely showing the shift that has already happened... Arbcom remedies are out of sync with whats currently happening.

-- Cat ^chi? 03:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associação Académica de Coimbra

Associação Académica de Coimbra is a Portuguese multisports club with several teams which compete in many top sports leagues and championships of Portugal, ranging from rugby union to volleyball to athletics. As far as I known, sports teams names are never translated in English see Deportivo de La Coruña, Mladost sports teams, Djurgardens IF and Real Madrid. Please, restore the teams' names and redirects to the previous versions in Portuguese or simply to a shorter form of the Portuguese name like Academica Coimbra or so. Yodaki (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, why are you asking me this? -- Cat ^chi? 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's because of this [9] . Yodaki (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The job of the bot is to fix double redirects - a technical task. I take no part in the name of the article by doing so. If you look at page history you'll see that User:Philip Baird Shearer moved the page. You may want to ask him. -- Cat ^chi? 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

I'd say it's one of the nicest and most-polished I've seen so far! --SpockMonkey (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cobden, Ontario

Hello, I'm a moderate user of wikipedia. My Opus for this site has to be the article I wrote on Cobden, Ontario. This is my home town and I did a lot of research into it's history and everything so that I could make a good article on it. I have received a lot of comments from people in my town about the article and a lot of them have told me they learned things that they didn't know before. Recently a user named Bearcat has merged a lot of stub articles into the article about their region. I'm not sure what the policy is on this. Most of the articles were about very unnotible places (mclarens settlement being the best example). But I'm a little unclear on why he seems to insist on merging cobden aswell. The article was over 10,000 words long. I know that there doesn't need to be articles on everything on earth but, and I realize I may be the minority on this, it seems like towns should have their own articles. I mean.... people may want information about them and it was hard for me to find it all. Now the information is all broken up and scattered across the whitewater region article.

Anyways, the reason I'm bothering you with this is because you seem like you would probably know a little more about wikipolicy than me and I saw you get involved before. I guess you could say I'm asking for your help and opinion. And my main question is this: Are towns not worthy, ever, of their own article?

Ok, thanx--Matt D (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobden, Ontario? Reverted yet again. I will notify the administrators noticeboard now. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cobden, Ontario -- Cat ^chi? 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that things are getting a little heated. I certainly hope that this can get sorted out. I'm afraid to pop my head in as, being the main contributor to the article, I may seem to have an obvious bias.--Matt D (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soru

Eğer Türk değilsen, neden ana dili gibi Türkçe konuşuyorsun? Özür dilerim, sadece Türk olduğum için böyle şeyler ilgimi çekiyor... Türkçem kötü ise kötülüğün sebebi Türkçe ana dilim olmadığı için - ben Londra'da doğdum ve şu anda orada yaşıyorum. Siz nerelisiniz? Onur (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Internette kisisel bilgi vermeme taraftariyim o yuzden malesef sorunuzu yanitsiz birakacagim. -- Cat ^chi? 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tamam, o zaman, ben ona saygı duyuyorum. Ama gerçekten çok güzel Türkçen var :-). Onur (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yadim edebilecegim bir konu varsa cekinmeden sorabilirsiniz. -- Cat ^chi? 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a PageRank boost for Wikia

[edit] expatriate lifestyle

While you're free to ignore this, I though I'd drop you a link that might give you a bit of insight into the expat community on Bali;

The Yak — Schools for our kids.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Depiction of Jesus

That was an inappropriate edit. Selected galleries with informative captions should not be "moved" to Commons (where they probably came from in the first place), least of all without raising the matter first. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is common practice. This is why commons exists. It was not moved from commons because I created the commons page. I do not have to extensively discuss weather or not I can make edits. I'd find the suggestion of such a thing very disturbing. -- Cat ^chi? 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not common practice, and is a bad edit. Someone else very rightly reverted it. Selected galleries as part of articles are a legitimate part of articles, including FAs. I know you hate discussing your actions, but this was completely out of line. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not hate discussing my edits. I do not wish to discuss this edit. I am completely uninterested what happens to the article. Do as you please. What more do you wish me to say? -- Cat ^chi? 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. You may find this FA nomination, where the issue was discussed, worth reading to see why a shoot-on-sight attitude to galleries is not correct. You are probably aware the WP:Galleries was A) never accepted by the community and B) referred to stand-alone galleries, not those in articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to use this to illustrate the possible move of images from Mohamed picture depiction to commons as a compromise to settle the dispute. This whole thing demonstrated how naive I was to think such a thing. I suppose I got what I deserved. -- Cat ^chi? 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well! Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot help to rate unrated WP:FA articles in their project tags?

FYI, [10] can you help with this? Cirt (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jack Merridew. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question...

Was it your intention to have your robot "fix" double-redirects even when they are #redirect [[]] {{R from misspelling}} or #redirect [[]] {{R with possibilities}}? Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot fixes double redirects (redirects that link to redirects). Bot does this task in a mindless manner following data at Special:Doubleredirects. From what I can see that is exactly what the bot did. I do not completely understand your query. -- Cat ^chi? 17:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I got your reply.

Since you didn't find this note clear, I left my question here.

I don't think we have interacted before. FWIW, I prefer it for my correspondents refrain from pasting my comments back on my talk page. IMO, if my correspondents wants to respond on my talk page, rather than on their talk page, and they want to let future readers read my original query, they can just link to my edit, as I have done here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] zh.wikinews

Hi, until recently http://www.wikinews.org/ had only 6 wikis listed. I have boosted that number to 10 wikis adding pt, sv, ja and zh wikis to the circle. I second guessed "条目" to be the word for "articles" in Chinese. Is this correct? Also does the Chinese on the page display correctly? -- Cat ^chi? 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"条目" is the phase they used over at zh.wp for "articles", so yes. The (simplified chinese) characters display fine. Hope that helps. :) -- KTC (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When I talk too little people don't understand, when I talk too much people don't pay attention. I seem to not comprehend the balance. I was wondering if you could trim it for me only leaving back what you feel is the most relevant. Is this possible? Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Likelihood of a pass

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/0/0)

Does the case has any chance of getting accepted? What do you think?

-- Cat ^chi? 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't predict White Cat. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mathmaticaly speaking there are 15 arbitrators 1 inactive 4 voted oppose 2 votes support. So 15-1-4-2=8 arbitrators are left to vote. To have a net 4 support I need the support vote of 6 more (4 of them to negate the opposition) arbitrators and get no opposition. Feels like a lost cause. So I cannot go to arbcom. Processes like WP:SSP and WP:RFCU will not work on complex cases like this one if my past experience in them is any indication. Such cases are generally declined. I do not believe Sam Blacketer is aware of the realities of the ground with his statement on the RFAR case. If I had "divisive administrative actions" why the heck would I even waste time filing a case? What would be your recommendation from here on? -- Cat ^chi? 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If the case is rejected then it is not the end of the world for you as an editor. Administrators have been empowered, through most of the recently closed cases and I am sure if X harasses Y, Y edit warred tediously, X attacks personally Y, etc they would be there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is meant to be constructive criticism. I would like to see something gets done about it. Eventualism suggests this problem will eventually explode if nothing gets done about it. I had been able to identify such time bombs in a timely manner before so I think I have a rational logic below. I am just pointing out my observation based on my recent experience and hope some or all of these issues are fixed. I am not trying to insult anyone or anything. Merely pointing out things on how it looks on my end.

I think Arbcom is becoming less of a dispute resolution process and more of a bureaucratic and incompetent body that exists only to glance at content disputes. And even then, in such disputes arbcom's rulings typically fails to resolve anything, just mere requotations of our policies and common sense which people do not follow before, during and after the arbitraton case. We have seen this in Episodes and characters 1 RFAR. Arbcom will almost never touch user disputes. Arbcom is meant to look at those not content related issues.

The slow speed of how arbcom operates when matter concerns a user dispute is also an issue of interest. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories gets accepted just two days after it was filed on 17 March despite being a content related dispute. On the other hand my case has been dangling since 13 March or in other words 8 days ago and looks like it will not get accepted. About a week ago arbcom was almost out of cases all new ones were being declined and existing ones were promptly closed just hours apart from each other (alas 01:02, 14 Mar, - 21:12, 13 Mar - 22:46, 12 Mar). I have never seen Template:ArbComOpenTasks this empty. I am really skeptical on how much attention every individual arbitrator gave to each of the cases. If the real issue is that arbcom is unable to handle the workload the number of arbtrators can be doubled.

Some arbitrators go out of their way to ignore me or at least give such an impression. Arbitrators like Kirill Lokshin or FloNight or FT2 will not respond to my inquiries on their talk page. FloNight won't respond to me on IRC for the past 2 months (or more). FT2 will almost always ignore anything I post to him on IRC. On very rare occasions FT2 did respond to me pointing out he was busy and he would look into the case in "a few days" but that "few days" had never come to date. A new arbitration case or matter seems to always have priority over me. Yet he is quick to respond to comments by anyone else it seems.

Whats more, Arbcom is taking the advice of a person that regularly trolls me on IRC (Sceptre). This is not exactly building my confidence towards arbcom and instead is obliterating any traces of such confidence that is left.

I believe I am not the only person that has lost faith in processes like dispute resolution and specifically arbcom. In any community where there is a lack of confidence in peaceful ways to resolve problems, people resort to violence in small manageable groups. I can give many real world examples but that would be a mere distraction. On an encyclopedia that translates as disruptive activity. We have seen many examples of mob editing not just in the issue of character and episode RfAr. I see the same issue on many other disputes. The reason arbcom is dealing with more and more disputes is because fewer and fewer people have confidence on the unbearable speed and uselessness of the dispute resolution processes with every passing day. This is destroying the project called wikipedia.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is fair criticism. However:

The emptiness of ArbComOpenTasks is relative. It can be a positive sign of a hard working ArbCom. Take it at face value.
I am not familiar with administering via IRC. I've only been there twice if I am correct.
A couple of arbitrators have been willing to look further into the matter. There are certainly many administrators out there who can help better (confirm or not the results of CU, block disrupters, etc...). If I were you, I'd concentrate on my work and if I 'do' believe that I am being harassed deliberately (attacked, reverted most of the time, etc...) I'd report it. Just don't report every single misunderstanding as a Wikipedia policy violation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LOTD

Congratulations! List of Oh My Goddess episodes was selected as a List of the Day for April. Let me know if you have a strong preference for a date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

25 August 2008 will be the 20th anniversary of the series. That would be my preferred date if this is possible. -- Cat ^chi? 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a LOTD for April. Only dates in APril are possible. I will assign a random date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If possible please not April 1. How about 23rd of April? :) -- Cat ^chi? 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robot

Hello

Your robot on Persian Wikipedia makes Arabic edit summaries instead of Persian Ones. For example could you change this edit summary "(روبوت: تصليح تحويلة مزدوجة)" to this one "(ربات: بهبود صفحه‌های بازگردانی)".

Thanks

89.165.7.104 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, I was wondering if you were available to look into a matter. -- Cat ^chi? 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yessir, I'm free. For an hour or so anyway. How can I help? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 20:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle. Thanks. I picked you randomly so you are an uninvolved 3rd party. -- Cat ^chi? 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out when I get back (leaving the house for a while). Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. Please explain why the article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of PRS). Jwri7474 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand. What seems to be the mater? Can you give some links? -- Cat ^chi? 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand. What seems to be the mater? Can you give some links? -- Cat ^chi? 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":

http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/fellowship_route.php training requirements for US board certification in cosmetic surgery]

Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties teach cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to cosmetics 15-30%)

There are many medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures, not only the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery". Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are telling me all this. Which article/edit are we talking about that is in dispute? The details of the topic in question is your expertise so I will take your word for it. -- Cat ^chi? 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted the information on your talk page because you commented on my page, so I thought you were interested in helping with the situation. Sorry, if there was any confusion. The article I'm speaking about is the "Cosmetic surgery" article which now has been redirected to "Plastic surgery".Jwri7474 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help, so Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery are different fields? -- Cat ^chi? 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki on wikisource:el

[edit] List

[edit] Discussion

I created more interwiki links on Greek wikisource, so if you have a chance, could you run interwiki again? thanks. Andreas ^(T) 14:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am holding back on interwiki linking on wikisource until all my bot flag requests on all my accounts on wikisource concludes. Also scanning an entire wiki is costly. If you could list the spesific articles I can deal with them individually. It would be more efficient. :) -- Cat ^chi? 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay so these are all translations from English right? What are each of these items? -- Cat ^chi? 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

These are mostly original texts in Ancient Greek that have been translated into other languages. The translations are in other Wikisources. For example, s:el:Κλειώ is the first part of the Histories (Herodotus) written by Herodotus and translated into English by George Rawlinson and into French by Pierre Henri Larcher. The transwikis point to these tranlations. A reader who has opened the English translation at s:History of Herodotus/Book 1 would find it convenient to find a transwiki link to the original Greek text.

Others are translations. For example, s:el:Ο Πλούτος μας is a translation of an original Russian text by Peter Kropotkin. Its English translation is s:The Conquest of Bread/Chapter I (the Russian original is not on WIkisource). You can easily find out what each of these items is by clicking on the English transwiki link. Andreas ^(T) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime I added interwiki links to the Greek texts of the Old Testament that point to the corresponding Hebrew texts. For example, s:el:Γένεσις now has a transwiki link pointing to s:he:בראשית ניקוד. Running interwiki.py on these pages will add interwiki links to Old Testament texts in many other languages. All the Greek old testament texts can be found in the category s:el:Category:Παλαιά Διαθήκη. Andreas ^(T) 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran the code. Please review wikisource:el:Special:Contributions/Ηλεκτρονικός υπολογιστής. Bot removed a few bad links. -- Cat ^chi? 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also run python interwiki.py -cat:Παλαιά Διαθήκη? this would add interwiki to Hebrew Tanakh pages and Hebrew interwikis to Old Testament pages. Andreas ^(T) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bible translations are a mess. I was explicitly instructed not to run an interwiki code for that. -- Cat ^chi? 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Andreas ^(T) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tuna

Is fishing an art form?Thriley (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? -- Cat ^chi? 15:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh My Goddess! related character articles

Hi, I was the author of most of these articles. I was wondering what is going on... :/ -- Cat ^chi? 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jack M decided that my correction of TTN's mistaken redirection of the major characters of AMG into the list article was disruptive and against some mythical consensus. I'm asleep so I'm giving others some time to respond. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Since I have a COI I will wait for a while before getting involved. Good night and good luck. -- Cat ^chi? 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

April

[edit] Question

So, White Cat... I have a Shadow Gelert character available. Want him? -^{(Doofallslya v^_^v)} Ékséj 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not quite understand. What is this about? -- Cat ^chi? 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it was an All Fools' Day joke ([11]). In truth, I had no idea you wouldn't respond until now. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I was offline for the most part of the past 48 hours. Could you explain what is this about? Granted the spirit of April 1 is gone but I would like to know. -- Cat ^chi? 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFA statement

Hello.

Could you please trim down/refactor your statement on WP:RFA? It currently stands much over the 500 word limit. — Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? It looks to be about 50 to me.... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? -- Cat ^chi? 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's talking about Wikipedia:RFArb#Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and he's right. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, yes. Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed you had two statements in different sections. I was, of course, referring the the long one. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot reduce it any more. It is mostly responses which wont be read if placed to the talk page. And I believe this is about WP:RFAR and not WP:RFA. -- Cat ^chi? 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You may refer to them in the main text, but unless you manage to trim it down to below (or at least near to) 500 words, I'll have no choice but to move things around myself. I'm sure you'd rather make that selection yourself. — Coren ^(talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been very patient with arbcom and every wikipedia process. Agonizing me further on this issue concerning Davenbelle will only serve to upset me. Arbcom is mostly ignoring what I tell them on their own talk page. This is the only place I hope they'll pay attention to me. So please leave me some slack here. -- Cat ^chi? 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That was... throughly edited. You may want to maintain a summary of your position in addition to the link, however. The point of keeping the statement short is to avoid "tl;dr", which is not good for anyone. — Coren ^(talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If only people made me not feel ignored things would be simpler. This comment/rant isn't aimed at you as clearly you are paying attention to my comments (at a minimum you are counting the number of words). :) -- Cat ^chi? 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem, right now, is that you're taking things way to personal. I would suggest you let sleeping dogs lie; you've been vindicated in your suspicions of JM, and there is little more that can be done, Arbs or otherwise. — Coren ^(talk) 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When people start not responding to you at all for months while talking to other people things get personal. When arbitrators act this way it is particularly unpleasant. This contributed more to my frustration than every other factor combined. If people (arbitrators or not) wish to ignore me they should show the courtesy of informing me of such an action. It is Davenbelles 6th account so... -- Cat ^chi? 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrected discussion from February

Hi, I just wanted to point out a follow up. :) -- Cat ^chi? 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at that. Seems I was partly wrong, so apologies as far as Merridew is concerned. Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists. Dorftrottel (troll) 11:00, April 2, 2008

I beg your pardon? -- Cat ^chi? 11:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

? What do you mean? Dorftrottel (complain) 12:06, April 2, 2008

What does "Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists" intended to mean? -- Cat ^chi? 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that I think e.g. that by far most episode articles are not articles in any encyclopedic way and for a complete and utter lack of available acceptable sources never can be and should therefore be wiped from mainspace. In other words, that content-wise I still agree with Merridew and believe that he did less harm to Wikipedia than the ridiculous clowns and trolls who advocate shit like allowing "articles" e.g. on fictional characters based solely on primary sources. But the sockpuppeting was clearly bad. Dorftrottel (complain) 14:00, April 2, 2008

I guess you are considering me a clown and a troll then. -- Cat ^chi? 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research I guess. Dorftrottel (canvass) 16:50, April 2, 2008

Excuse me? What original research? You stated "ridiculous clowns and trolls who advocate shit like allowing "articles" e.g. on fictional characters based solely on primary sources" that scope includes me. Why are you so hostile? -- Cat ^chi? 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hostile? I simply have strong opinions on certain content-related issues. This is caused mainly by two things: 1. The people who are against any encyclopedic standards are in the majority, and 2. those people are gaming the system like crazy. Like you and others do when you talk weird about some deletionist conspiracy when it's in fact the inclusionists who managed to adjust policies and guidelines and information channels to suit their ends. Now, you revived our conversation, could we now end it again? I see practically no common ground, except we both believe what we are doing is in the project's best interest. But that may not be enough. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 17:14, April 2, 2008

Hello White Cat. So I learn that Jack Merridew really was the sockpuppet you suspected him of being. Please accept my apologies for for my now unwarranted comments that mischaracterised your accusation. I wholeheartedly endorse Dorftrottel's comments above, however, concerning fiction articles and the value of Jack's contributions. Getting rid of this fancrufty rubbish was good work and I am sorry that he has behaved in a way that prevents him from making further useful contributions. Eusebeus (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser request

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle

All 6 accounts of Davenbelle had been blocked indefinitely here on en.wikipedia. Per the commons discussion on Jack Merridew you have commented on, do you think you can run checks to verify? Mind you that commons:User:Moby Dick's entire contribution on commons was wasting community time. There also seems to be activity in meta... You have checkuser access on all 3 wikis (I think) so you are the best candidate dealing with this issue. -- Cat ^chi? 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to make some time to evaluate this as soon as practical. However I note that the case is closed already. What, specifically, are you asking me to do? What is it you want verified, and why? (what justification is there for each specific check you ask for, that is) Please also keep in mind what you were told by multiple people on IRC regarding this. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently Jack Merridew has acknowledged being Davenbelle. Due to the complexities of this case, I want to verify (although it is 99.99% obvious) that commons:User:Moby Dick, commons:User:Jack Merridew, meta:User:Jack Merridew and en:User:Jack Merridew are the same person and not impostors or etc. In addition I'd like the identities of commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew and commons:User:Jack Merridew returns clarified. It may be necesary to check if those edits are coming from an open proxy.

Per past contribution of commons:User:Moby Dick to commons I am not really comfortable at what is going on. For instance he made a big fuss about being called Davenbelle. That was pretty much all his past contribution. About 1 year ago this was is response to an administrative warning.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it under advisement. The user is now saying they are going to try to turn over a new leaf. That's a good thing. Some advice to you, I'd stay away from anything to do with them. Let others handle it, avoid any direct communication, please. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you do not preform this check now you will not be able to do it later as checkuser logs will expire. I am very tired of that happening. I want a verification on who I am dealing with. Is it Jack Merridew? Or an Impostor of Jack Merridew. If it is the latter (impostor) urgent action may be necesary. In this complex case we have Jack Merridew and someone stalking Jack Merridew. I'd prefer to avoid bureaucracy through an out-of-the book check rather than an overly complicated formal one. Such a formal request would stress out all parties and I would really want to avoid dealing with it.

I am very involved in commons and I will not start a hide and seek game there. I also will make no effort in any way to make Jack Merridew's life miserable there. That is not my style. The lack of confidence I get from you is rather disappointing. Have more faith in me.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I said I would look into the matter and decide if a check is warranted. Please do not try to chivvy me, that won't work. Again, I point out that the en:wp RFCU has been closed as completed. Perhaps you might place the supporting material you have presented at the Meta crosswiki request page for wider notice, if you feel you're not getting satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This request is an interwiki one. en:wp RFCU has little to do with it process-wise. I am not asking for satisfaction, just verification. :P Please notify me with what you come up with even if you decline my request. Basically just post something on my talk page. -- Cat ^chi? 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll post something here (see User:Lar/Pooh policy ...) ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just prod me so I know its ready. I have a very very busy week ahead of me so please leave me some slack just this once. :) -- Cat ^chi? 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results

User Jack Meridew has stated this equivalence:
- commons:User:Moby Dick == commons:User:Jack Merridew == meta:User:Jack Merridew == en:User:Jack Merridew
- I adjudge it very Likely this is true.
User Jack Meridew has denied being either commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew or commons:User:Jack Merridew returns.
- I adjudge it very Likely that commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew == commons:User:Jack Merridew returns
- technically inconclusive that Jack Meridew is either of these (CU cannot prove innocence). However based on findings, and other factors, I adjudge it quite Unlikely

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- Cat ^chi? 10:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nijongo do deska?

Umaku narimashta? Moshi shitsuya areba, boku ni kite kudasai. Oshiyete ageru. Mata Ne! Igor Berger (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Konninchi wa. Watashi ni ha wakarimasen. -- Cat ^chi? 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Watashi wa, Nijongo ga wakarimasen. I am Japanese still do not understand! Crazy language..:) I do not understand Japanese! Igor Berger (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad bot

Hi. Are you connected with the bot that is leaving red links on user spaces? - House of Scandal 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a diff? The only bot I operate is User:Computer and the only task it is processing (currently) is fixing double redirects. -- Cat ^chi? 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank's for the reply. It's "User:CommonsDelinker". I asked because it's trying to use a barnstar image which I think is credited to you. It replaced my barnstars with red links which wasn't so cool. No big deal. I left the operator a message on commons. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Oh That was a newly discovered bug. :) -- Cat ^chi? 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars and ClickA

Hi, I was the person requesting the rename of various barnstar images. Seems like the rename caused you a few problems. Sorry about that. It seems like template use was causing the issue.[12] I have manually fixed it for you.[13] -- Cat ^chi? 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand what went wrong but thanks for fixing. Hope others weren't affected too! --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If my software engineering instincts are right, bot tried a find and replace and ended up replacing every instance of "Barnstar.png" with "Original Barnstar.png". Avoiding things like this is exactly why I requested the rename. Poorly named images will be problematic in many ways. -- Cat ^chi? 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar. Nice to see I'm appreciated! ;) Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've been expecting you

Hi there Mr. Biggleworth. So thats where you got to!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? -- Cat ^chi? 20:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot misbehaving

Please adjust the double redirect fix code and/or stop that function on the Hindi Wikipedia. It is making many errors. Here for example, after a less than helpful user had added #REDIRECT to the top of a legitimate page, your bot came and redirected it to an unrelated page, and mashed up the text that was there. Your bot should always recognize when there is text in a redirect and probably not automatically consider it a double redirect to fix. These types of things shown in this edit are things that should probably be fixed across all languages your bot is run. Thanks for running the bot though. - Taxman ^Talk 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do want to note that the bot acts as Special:Doubleredirects (or in your case hi:Special:Doubleredirects) directs it. The bot assumes that the redirectification was properly done (mostly as a page move leftover).

There is no easy way to check for such user errors or vandalism. After all, people may remove all content and leave a redirect for example among other things.

I'll look into it, though.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case at least, since the words redirect were just added to the top, it shouldn't be too hard to recognize that as vandalism. And specifically in this case no target was even given. I wasn't aware of those Special pages, and still don't know much about their inner workings. Perhaps it is something that needs to be fixed in them, I don't know. But thanks for looking into it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, [14] the page in question (vandalized version) was treated like a legitemate redirect by Mediawiki. So if I were to fix this it would break the recognition of other valid redirects. You may want to file this to bugzilla since Mediawiki treats it as a valid redirect so should my bot.

By the way hi:Special:Doubleredirects contains a self redirect that needs to be fixed. My bot cannot since a human should decide weather it should be redirected to some other page or deleted.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi White cat

Awesome user page. We are having a little discussion at the CVU talk page (link) Our membership has grown since formed in 2005. I proposed that it's time to let CVU members, who don't do vandal fighting, go. Also, out of the concern some editors brought up to the CVU talk page, I proposed to allow users to have a page to post concerns about the behavior of a CVU member when it's not appropriate such as: using abusive language with other editors or biting newbies. Whoever engages in this type of behavior should be let go. Some users feel that because it's not an official WP entity, it's pointless and all it would just be a bureaucracy. Others feel we are NOTHING at WP and thus, there is no need for it. I believe you felt that we are somebody and have a mindset which sets us apart from regular editors. I also believe that as membership grows and some members engage in behaving inappropriately (as it appears they have already) while displaying the CVU label, the community at Wikipedia will look at us as a nuisance and will be frown upon. What do you think? If you think it's time to raise the bar and do without those users who do vandal fighting and are giving CVU a bad name come to vote for Do (something, like the new desk page and rules or whatever). If you think like others it's a waste of time, then don't bother. Jrod2 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_0.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_0.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please move such images to commons before seeking their deletion. -- Cat ^chi? 09:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Archer_with_Porthos.jpg)

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

[edit] Image:Porthos_in_archers_room_in_mirror_universe.jpg

I have tagged Image:Porthos_in_archers_room_in_mirror_universe.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Project FMF (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Forgotten (ENT episode).jpg)

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

[edit] Move of two templates

In this edit of Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals you called for moves of two templates. These proved to be controversial. Please see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#GFDL-en for the resulting discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CUC

Would you please bring WP:CUC to the attention of user:Stavros1. a) He had started to upload to the Commons but seems to have reverted. b) He gets a lot of stick from me, if someone else could confirm the importance, it would help. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I was developing that page, it isn't complete yet. I actually need help in getting it completed. Do you think you can help out? I can then bring it to that persons and general communities attention. -- Cat ^chi? 11:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think your new page is an unwanted WP:CFORK - we already have Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. How did you intend to bring the page Wikipedia:Commons Upload Campaign to people's attention? That is the important thing.

I suggest that you prepare two templates encouraging people to upload to the Commons. Use one to put on the talk pages of WikiProjects that use photographs, eg. all those listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe for a start! Use the other to put on the user talk pages of people who have been uploading images here. But I am not sure how one identifies such people! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis of the CUC should be on getting people to do their new uploads to the Commons. Moving existing stuff there is less important. Look at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr see how they have stressed the Commons! Go ahead, be bold, propose changes to Wikipedia:Upload to stress the Commons. ~~For example, you could change "my own work" into a link to an intermediate page which has a big link to the Commons upload and a small link to the Wikipedia upload.~~ They seem to have done that already!

Regarding transferring existing images, as you can see from the comments below there is plenty of scope for improving Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. If you do so and when you copy over your paragraph about freedom of panorama, please explain how it is possible that an image might be OK in a Wikipedia but would not be allowed on the Commons because of freedom of panorama laws. I don't see the difference. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons is more of a "How to" guide. It is also outdated: "If you have used a different name, go to all articles that use the image and change them". That is no longer necesary since we have Commonsdelinker for that.

The idea behind CUC is to get multiple people working collaboratively to mass move images to commons by paying attention to issues like "freedom of panorama" and "derivative works". CUC is intended to be launched on many wikis so the text on CUC should be brief allowing it to be more easily translated to many languages.

Things I have left out include the importance of "file history", possible use of bots to assist with this task, complications of some laws such as the Eiffel tower being copyrighted at night and being copyright free during the day.

-- Cat ^chi? 08:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palmiped

RHaworth suggested I upload my wiki images to commons have tried in the past but gave up, a good idiots guide would help. --palmiped | Talk 11:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is scarcely any difference between uploading to the Commons and uploading here. What difficulties have you encountered? Points to note:

when writing the caption, links to here need :en: at the start and | at the end - see this note
they do like you to put the image into one or more categories and add it to at least one Commons gallery article, but it is not mandatory.

-- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasnt uploading directly to commons but copying from wikipedia to commons. I cannot remember the exact problem as it was some time ago Ive an idea I tried to followed some instructions. --palmiped | Talk 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that is quite different! I count myself an experienced editor but even I find Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons daunting. I will try and find time to add a section to for people transferring their own images. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now created this note on transferring your own images to the Commons. Please change it if it is not sufficiently idiot proof. But please do not feel under any obligation to move existing images to the Commons. But please do upload any new stuff to the Commons. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Png !!

Why on earth have you been converting jpeg's to PNGs? As a JPG, Image:Kurdishfuneral.jpg was 22k bytes long. Converted to image:Kurdish coffin rally (30 March 2006).png it takes up 103k bytes. Personally, I don't see the point of changing image names anyway. But if you must do it, why not just copy the image? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the conversion may have accidental. I do not recall exactly why I made it a PNG. PNG crush would probably reduce the file size. Looking over it's use, I do not believe that fair-use image really adds to the article. -- Cat ^chi? 08:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know who to go to, so can you send this to the people in charge?

I have a problem with some Shadow8soulz who keeps vadilizing Mikey Simon, Mitsuki, and Lily. Now he's threatening to have me blocked when I didn't do anything wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.20.69 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LOTD

Congratulations! Two lists you have been involved with were selected WP:LOTDs for May. You may want to add the {{ListoftheDayheader}} or {{ListoftheDaylayout}} templates somewhere in your userspace. Other template options are at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/templates. Your list will appear as WP:LOTD twice. If you have any date preferences in May let me know by April 25th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belldandy

Please watch this article per this, thanks! -- Cat ^chi? 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Your diff has an error in it. What am I looking for? 21 655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted. Thanks anyways. -- Cat ^chi? 04:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

May

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:List of Anime Ep TV

Template:List of Anime Ep TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to withdraw this? -- Cat ^chi? 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jack_Merridew - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't contact you about this, I was hoping to catch you on IRC. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts and I'm more than happy to discuss your concerns either here or privately. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Discuss what exactly? My opinion had been most consistent on this matter for the past three years. You did not even bother notifying me of this. What am I supposed to make out of this?

Will I be accused of disruption if I file an RFAR against him? Although the conclusion of the last one was rather solid: [15]. Will I be accused of disruption for getting stalked by him? He has developed many very cunning ways over the years...

In no way will I make any effort whatsoever to avoid him. In no way will I agree on anything concerning Davenbelle. I will not be inconvenienced the slightest bit for Davenbelle anymore. If there is anyone that will be inconvenienced will be Davenbelle. In addition the entire community will need to baby sit his current account (Jack Merridew) and all possible sockpuppets. Community seeking to unblock him should do so knowing this. Enough is enough.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not avoiding. Know the old wive's tale about cats and babies? (sigh) Shenme (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one accused of stalking someone for three years. Stop treating me like a criminal. I am required to notify all non-indef blocked parties in any arbitration case or clarification. -- Cat ^chi? 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Davenbelle

Thats a speedy deletion criteria? Why the martial law? -- Cat ^chi? 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are willing to discuss in the light of speedy deletion criteria, I plan to recreate that redirect (I may get it undeleted). It is quite a pain to type "Stereotek"... -- Cat ^chi? 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said to hbdragon88 above, there should be nothing but cases (and administrative pages like completed requests) as subpages of the main requests page. I remind you that no arbitrator has agreed with your renaming suggestion, for a variety of different reasons. --bainer (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard a single word in relation to the speedy deletion criteria from you. I care not what arbitrators has to say. I have not proposed this to them and I do not intend to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- Cat ^chi? 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot flag on vec

Hi, I suppose this is your home wiki. Please apply for bot status on vec.wiki here: vec:Wikipedia:Bot/Elezsion. Cheers! LV (admin on vec) --LV~El me diga, sior 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your bot account has been blocked on vec.wiki for flooding the recent changes page. Please apply for a bot flag as soon as possible. Semolo75 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean??? I thought your bot was called vec:User:Computer. --LV~El me diga, sior 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For your kindness in notifying me, I owe you an explanation.

Firstly I apologize for running the bot without requesting a flag. Although it is rather embarrassing to admit it, despite having my list. I had completely forgotten about requesting a bot flag on a number of wikis (all entries with a NR next to them).
As for the other point, I name my bot "WOPR" temporarily until I learn the word for "Computer" on the local wiki. In the case of vec wiki that was an error in my copy paste. I overlooked "vec" on my list.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, I saw that after a few minutes you correctd WOPR to Computer, so that's not a problem. But I am a bot owner myself, and I don't think it's a good idea to use all those different names, it's not suprising that you do errors like that. I really can't imagine how you can manage such a large number of accounts working this way... :-( Bye. LV~El me diga, sior 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I try to honor every individual local language in my own way. You are right maintaining such different names especialy for languages that use non-latin characters is not easy but it had been my personal style for bot names. :) -- Cat ^chi? 16:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot request at ko.wikisource

I am a ko.wikisource sysop.

s:ko:위키자료집:봇 신청

This is the Bot Request page. :) -- WonRyong (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Air (tv) logo (lesser whitespace).png)

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

User talk:White Cat/Archive/2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

January

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Joint Command Lisbon.gif

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Anime episode

[edit] WikiProject Awards Role Call

[edit] thought you might want to see this

[edit] Image:G20countries (IN).png listed for deletion

[edit] extremely late greeting

[edit] Two redirects up for deletion

[edit] Great minds?

[edit] Username

[edit] It would be helpful if you would help

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Welsper and his demon-angel Blue Lance.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sigel (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Satoko Yamano (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shohei Yoshida (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Toraichi Tamiya (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Otaki Aoyama (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shiho Sakakibara (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hild (Oh My Goddess Manga).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x17.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x15.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x07.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x22.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x12.0.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Troubador (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Keiichi Morisato.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 12.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 11.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 10.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Belldandy and Holy Bell.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sentaro Kawanishi (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chihiro Fujimi (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Megumi Morisato (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chrono, Ere, Ex (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gan-chan (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ru Fe Morgan (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Celestin (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Almighty (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lind (Oh My Goddess! manga).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hijiri (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Senbee (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Goddess Relief Office.gif)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Koshan (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sayoko Mishima (Oh My Goddess!).png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nekomi Institute of Technology.jpg)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 3.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 2.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot.png)

[edit] Talk:WarGames

[edit] your removal of my comment from the workshop page

[edit] Kurdistan Workers' Party flag

[edit] Barnstar

[edit] TTN

February

[edit] General discussion in ArbCom

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Starfleet ship classes

[edit] List of Indian women artists

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Kikuchi_Masami.jpg

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Ja-0

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Ja-0

[edit] February 2008

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess Logo.png)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:List of computer viruses

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Afsouth-logo.gif

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oh My Goddess Manga cover.jpg

[edit] Checkuser then?

[edit] List of Planetes episodes

[edit] List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Proving Ground (ENT episode).jpg

[edit] CVU

[edit] Typical behaviour

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit2