User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 4

Archives

Current March 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 – August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 – August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – June 2010 July 2010 – December 2010 January 2011 – June 2011 July 2011 – December 2011 January 2012 – June 2012 July 2012 – December 2012 January 2013 – June 2013 July 2013 – December 2013 January 2014 – December 2014 January 2015 – December 2015 January 2016 – December 2021 January 2022 –

Yeah

That was pretty funny. He did the work for me. My favorite part is that I can't figure out how he stumbled on my page. When I checked his contributions, there was nothing that I worked on. It must have been something in the past. I read somewhere you went on a cruise, how was that? --Nehrams2020 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have another 15 days left until I head back to San Diego. I got a new and better digital camera, so hopefully I can contribute more photos. I've also been watching a lot of movies (got to love my Blockbuster online account) and mostly have been devoting my time to adding movie posters to films. Are you all situated with your administrator tools? Is there a noticeable difference in editing as an admin? --Nehrams2020 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. I just see a more tabs at the top of the page (like "history" and "edit this page"), "protect" and "delete". I get to see some special pages and features that regular users don't get to see (Special:Unwatchedpages, Special:Undelete/Wikipedia (3)). But yeah, I feel pretty comfortable with the tools, they're easy when you get used to them, it's the descision-making (such as when to delete/block) that's tough! ;) Cbrown1023 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they get to go on cruises. :) Newyorkbrad 16:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha-ha. :)

Master Exploder on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Master Exploder. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tenacious D Fans 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bobbiejoe Has a Sockpuppet

Hello Cbrown1023, the user you recently blocked called Bobbiejoe created a sockpuppet called Bobbiejoe1 and went right back to creating nonsense pages again.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Seems like admin Asterion got to it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sherman Paintings

Hi there, thanks for closing the recent afd on these paintings. Unfortunately it seems I overlooked another article - Carousel In The Country - which is very similar to the painting articles discussed in the group nomination. The others that were nominated in afd are now to undergo mandatory merges. I guess I have to go through a merge debate for the Carousel painting article by itself (the merge is opposed by Howard352, who wanted to keep the other articles too)? Sorry for the oversight on my part Bwithh 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nerd pride day

Ok, so my article has finally been deleted, taking into account just the number of votes but not the arguments given. I would like to know one thing: if the holiday is celebrated again this year, will I be able to write the article again or not?--LeChimp 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See if it becomes notable in the English-speaking world, then re-create it. I think... Cbrown1023 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A particularly fine block

Maybe I shouldn't admit it, but I laughed at that vandal name ... I was tempted to do something snarkier, such as "this block is of a particular fine vintage, indefinite, worth savoring for the long term." But no.... we take ourselves so seriously ... :) Antandrus (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my page, only two minutes after it happened, that's rapid fast! It looks like I'm finally starting to make more enemies out here while on recent changes patrol. That's OK, I always find it entertaining when they devote their time to editing my page. --Nehrams2020 06:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing, look at this one from Brad's page! No problem, though, it's fun reverting vandalism! (to some extent :)) Cbrown1023 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Films_Project_Council

Need your input. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingy döt Net

Hi, thanks for closing the AfD. I just wanted to point out that there a couple of redirects mentioned in it which need to be deleted as well. Best, — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: No-Importance

(From Talk:Ibaranoff24) That class is only for cats, templates, and other projects. All articles have some importance. The lowest for articles is "low". Thanks, :) Cbrown1023 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall rating an article to be of "no importance." I wasn't even aware that there was such a rank. The lowest class I've ever rated any article is "low importance." (Ibaranoff24 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

...[1]... (I saw it and looked no further) Cbrown1023 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, if you say so. I made the edits. (Ibaranoff24 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Re: Vandalism

Thank-you for dealing with vandalism so promptly! Although I am a new wikipedia user, I am interested in learning more and want to contribute productively to such a fascinating creation! Xnuala 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Child modeling (erotic)

The revision history needed to be modified to remove the link to a child pornography website. I did so to prevent someone to look back within the revision history and find the link. Similar deletion is done when someone's personal information is posted within the history -- I merely deleted the revisions with the affected link. (Or at least so I think. However I could be horribly wrong). I did what Ral315 did before me (see deletion log), so my deletion does not go without someone else doing it before me. Child modeling (erotic) was down for maybe 30 seconds, tops. I think that explains my actions, and if not, don't hesitate to contact me at my talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For deleted links, it really isn't such a big deal to have a link visible to a little over 1,000 administrators. Personal information may or may not be oversight-required, depending on the situation. Congratulations on the recent admin promotion, and best of luck! If you would like to know anything else, don't hesitate to ask (but I may not have the answer -- I only got admin 6 months before you! :P). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Lost (season 1) on deletion review

I have asked for a deletion review of Lost (season 1). (and the bundled Lost (season 2) and Lost (season 3)) Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as A Trip to the Moon (film).Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Cbrown1023 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Farewell to class needed

My condolences for the departed class. Good you took care of it. Hoverfish Talk 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't put class stub on Tap (film)!! The author says that's all that can be possibly written about it. I had it stub and he erased the whole template (by mistake) to get it out. We should make a class="That's all folks". Hoverfish Talk 20:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense to the author or anything, put I see some more information that can be added to the article. Just one glance at the subpages of its IMDb page, gives new information and links to some other websites. I doubt that that is the most information that can be provided, and I don't expect the user in question to do any of it. It can just be expanded. Cbrown1023 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Afd-mergeto

Proabbly best not to subst this tmeplate. Rgds. Rich Farmbrough, 21:49 6 January 2007 (GMT).

Image:Andthelordsaid.jpg

Hey, so if an artist says that it's ok to use an image of a work of art, how do i justify putting it on wikipedia? cheers! Murderbike 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends, how did they say it and what exactly did they say? Cbrown1023 05:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

i asked him if it could be used, and he said, "yeah, totally". it was pretty casual. i didn't know a certain way it needed to be done. Murderbike 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Make sure that the author is stated and then put {{GFDL}} for licsensing. Cbrown1023 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One more indef bloke

I was looking for other aquatic Film/Participants when I came to #127 User:The Green Fish. He/she/it has also a sockpuppet indefblock so I followed your method and put the invisibility cloak over it. So Nehrams got promoted to 127. Hoverfish Talk 09:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hah!

I didn't even notice that you'd already added that threat. Thanks for helping me maintain what is, by far, my favorite part of my userpage. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

Just contact me on IRC (my nick is also Shanel), and I can give you access to the channel. :)--§hanel 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Redoaknew.jpg

Per the website: "All Contents Copyright © SS Red Oak Victory & The Richmond Museum of History, Richmond, California" and "Photo courtesy of the Edna R. Moeller Family Collection, Richmond Museum of History". There is nothing to say this is a work of the US Federal Government. I have restored the copyvio notice. --MECU≈talk 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No mistake, you probably just didn't look at the source page close enough (or just trusted the uploader's comments). But I will try to be more clear in the future. --MECU≈talk 20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

List for deletion

Hi, I don't know if you noticed, but List of years in film has been tagged for deletion. I am neutral, but gave opinion. Would you like to comment on the AfD? Hoverfish Talk 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books in computational geometry

May I have your thought process in keeping this? The Merges (and deletes) outnumbered the Keeps. I haven't a vested interest but just want to do things better next time, if that means not submitting these kind of 'List of books about ...' to AfD. Thanks. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just meant keep by "no consensus", but I just changed it to specify that. Cbrown1023 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome needed

User:Jbmas99 has joined in today and I really hope he joins Films. I gave him some links to my tools, but a formal welcome would be nicer. Hoverfish Talk 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is today with posting you notices. I hope it's not any "bug an administrator today" subconscious thing. This time however is the least important. Just noticed you are in Particpants twice #191 and #206 :) Hoverfish Talk 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You got me with all these initials. I have gmail. Is it compatible? You are most welcome to use my email facility any time. I used to reply and keep in touch until Wikipedia got me. I still check it daily though. Hoverfish Talk 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot

I think it's pretty self-explanatory by the contributions that it was a trolling account. Khoikhoi 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd reported the same user to AIV right around when Khoikhoi blocked it. Blatantly obvious Cplot sock. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Boudoir

On Dec. 21, you speedy deleted Boudoir as G4. The original version that had failed AfD was a single line dictionary definition, but by this time it was a more substantial article with a discussion of the history of the room, so it was in substantially different form. I'm sure everyone was acting in good faith. I've attempted to post a review request at WP:DRV. Geogre 14:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I speedily restored and closed the review. Feel free to revert if you think the review should be run the full five days. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris Sullo on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chris Sullo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jyothisingh 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Film newsletter.

"The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)"

I'd like to not receive the letter anymore, thanks. -- Kevin Browning 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's quite amazing, especially the last few days. I think we're getting a lot more involvement with our members within the project. I believe we have promoted more articles to GA in the last three months than we have in the last two years. But I'm definitely not complaining! Right now, I am waiting for feedback on the article Ben Stiller from another editor to see how it needs to be improved before I put it up for GA candidacy. Do you think we should mention something about the infobox request in the newsletter or just let is stay at the talk page and the film tasks template? --Nehrams2020 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add it, reword it as always! --Nehrams2020 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin nomination?

Have you seen Blofeld's talk page? Hoverfish Talk 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

POV film template

{{Template:Synopsis}} was created by a user to simply support his point of view. AfD? Hoverfish Talk 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedied. Cbrown1023 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Isaacs

I thought this should have been no consensus, and wondered if you had noticed that two of the "keeps" were deleted (it's not very clear) as someone had !voted in triplicate. I feel there is a question mark over this article. If you're maintaining the decision, I'm not going to quibble though. Tyrenius 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed to no consensus, I missed the un-bolded one. :)_ Cbrown1023 00:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Tyrenius 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius wrote half of what I was going to write. As for the other half, you rather disappointingly fail to indicate that you actually read what followed the single words "keep" and "delete". When there's real arguing within an AfD, it's normal for the person who closes the AfD to comment on this and if possible to speak rather as a judge summing up and evaluating the substantive arguments made by both sides; see for example Alphachimp's comments on closing Afd/Martin Perreault. NB you've inadvertently left the edit comment remove AfD notice, result: KEEP in the page history of the article; neither you nor anybody else can edit that, but you might wish to make a small comment on it in the article's talk page. -- Hoary 00:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC) .... PS whoops, I now notice that you already did what I suggested that you might do (thus my self-deletion above). Perhaps I'm too sleepy. -- Hoary 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Judgemental summation is entirely up to the admin. Those wishing to keep the article will obviously be acquainted with the objections to it and would do well to address them. "No consensus" leaves the way open more easily for a future AfD, when the first one will on record and the arguments available to view. Tyrenius 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

24 Season 6

Thank you for locking the page... however it was locked WITH the illegal spoilers posted. Could you remove those? Thanks! Kermitmorningstar 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Illegal information"? You are clearly biased, from that statement alone.

Oh and well done on the protection till Tuesday because now it's going to be wrong. Bravo! Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable 24-related article protection

I understand your concern that Wikipedia obey copyright law, but it's patently clear to me that the episode detail that was being posted on these pages is not considered a copyright violation. Copyright laws serve to prohibit use of the "creative work" for purposes that are not condoned by the owner. What we have on Wikipedia is a description of that work. This is not a copyright violation, and this should be obvious from the fact that TV programs remain under copyright even after they air, yet that does not prevent us from writing about them. There is no law that says that you cannot describe something that was obtained illegally, even if its owners don't want that to happen.

Furthermore, one does not have to break the law to see these episodes - anyone can see these episodes right from their browser, through websites like YouTube and Dailymotion. The only law-breakers here are the people who leaked the episodes, not viewers.

The point is that although this may seem shady, it's not against the law, and it's most certainly not against Wikipedia policy. Feel free to discuss this with other admins, but at least consider that the issue is more complex than it seems on the surface. Thank you, DLand^TALK 04:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and comments, I have discussed it with other users I trust (yes, mostly admins) and they have agreed with my actions. We fully accept the fact that it is more complex than it appears on the surace, which is why we believe that it is "better to be safe than sorry". We viewed a real-life incident for comparison. If you really do believe this to be incorrect, please contact the Wikimedia Legal Department. Thanks, Cbrown1023 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also remember that this is only a temporary protection and will be lifted once the information in question is officialy released. Cbrown1023 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I respect and accept your decision, but I think you'll agree that the Harry Potter incident (which is an interesting analogy to make) was a fishy judicial decision at best, and clearly surrounded by controversy. The reason there had to be a special injunction from that Canadian court was that spreading the information was not technically against copyright law. It's one of those situations where it's not against the letter of the law, but it's so troublesome that something has to be done about it. I'm not sure that it's Wikipedia's responsibility to go beyond the pale of law and organizational policy.

I'm not contacting the Legal Department because I'm just trying to make a point (not a WP:POINT, don't worry), especially since the spoilers will come flooding in as soon as the article is unprotected. I think what has happened here is that the nature of the situation has sent out "red flags", so to speak, and the natural reaction is to assume that rules have been broken, when they haven't been.

On a semi-related note, it is slightly problematic to wait until Tuesday to unprotect, since the episodes will air starting on Monday, and people will probably want to post information even as the show is in progress. But that's up to you guys - I'm just bringing up the issue. Best, DLand^TALK 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, why did I choose to help out WP:RFPP on this day?! Cbrown1023 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, sorry :) --DLand^TALK 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

pics

why you deleted my pics of chinese mosques.7day 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers

Hi, where can one write a complaint about your abuse of admin powers regarding the 24 season 6 article? Your protection of that article goes against everything wikipedia stands for. Please immidiately revert your decision and stop this abuse as per above. Kinmultor 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid name-calling such as referring to "abuse of admin powers." This was obviously a good-faith decision in a difficult and important area, and Cbrown1023 indicated that he consulted with several other people which was the right thing for him to do. If you want to seek further input on the decision, you can consider taking the matter to the Administrators Noticeboard (WP:ANI) or the copyright problems page for further discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

24 season 6.

Don't worry, this isn't another user flamming you or questing your decision to protect the 24 season 6 article. I actually wanted it fully protected since this stupid edit war began, and i've been the one trying to get rid of the copyvio since my original request for protection was denied. So, thank you so much for protecting it.

Anyway, could you please look after the article, since you have unprotected it, to make sure that no one decides to put copyvio infomation in there again while the article is being written? I realize that my request only extends until the Tuesday episode airs, since it was only episodes 1-4 that were released on BiTorrent (i am correct about that, right?).

Thanks. dposse 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Image:Dave keuning.jpg

I noticed that you were the admin behind the speedy delete of the Creative Commons-licensed photo of Dave Keuning that I uploaded to replace the image that was to be deleted under the new WP fair use guidelines. The license on the photo is specifically "CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5," which is a specific extension of the Attribution 2.5 license -- a free-use license. However, I did notice under the criteria for speedy deletion that for some reason photos uploaded under this license are no longer allowed. I don't particularly understand WHY, as WP is noncommercial, and it is acceptable to expect that an image used in an encyclopedia article will be used as-is. However, that, I suppose, is neither here nor there at the moment, but as anyone could have hopefully seen by looking at the image summary, I am the uploader, creator and license-holder of this image. I was unaware of this particular policy regarding licenses, and I simply used the license that I use on all of the photos that I publish. However since I specifically uploaded this photo that I took for use on WP and did so in good faith, I feel that you failed to follow WP:AGF in this deletion. I was not given enough notice as to what the problem was, let alone to correct it, before the image was deleted. The message left on my talk page stated that it would be deleted in 48 hours, but that amount of time was NOT left for me to rectify the licensing problem which I am more than capable of rectifying. I request that you undelete this image so that I may do so, because I am certainly not going to go through the trouble of uploading it again after issue with it were so improperly handled. LaMenta3 08:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave Keunig.jpg deletion

I realize that you did not tag the image, and at no point did I say you had. However, it appears that you are the admin who deleted the image out of process. (You're supposed to wait 48 hours for a speedy on an improperly licensed photo, as per what the tagger wrote on my talk page. LaMenta3 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not illegal for improperly licensed photos to be on Wikipedia when the license, under the broader concept of U.S. law, allows for its use, even if the license is not acceptable under WP policy. There is a difference between "against the law" and "against Wikipedia policy." Also, thank you for restoring the image; I have fixed the license. LaMenta3 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Gonzales

Por favor senior Cbrown, can you speedelete the following project pages (all redirects, what link heres and movements taken care):

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Argentine Films
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Argentine Films: M
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Argentine Films: M-Z

Just make sure you don't delete the pages they redirect to. Muchos gracias. Hoverfish Talk 21:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, and nice Spanish (bueno español), :-P. Cbrown1023 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

GFDL compatible merges

Hello Cbrown1023. When you have a moment, would you please restore the history of the Trainer (games) article? Based on my understanding of the GNU Free Documentation License and standard Wikipedia practice, whenever we merge and redirect a page, we need to replace the original article with a redirect placeholder while keeping the contribution history in tact. See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, which states "The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires." If we run into a situation where people are undoing the merge without consensus, we can consider a hard redirect to Cheating (video games) at that time. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of that and I normally do, one of the votes had said "delete and merge", which is what I had done. However, you are right that in this case, that is not a very good solution, so I have restored the page. Thanks, :) Cbrown1023 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Pics

the pics have been corrected i hope you can have a look.7day 08:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems good. :-P Cbrown1023 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Officializing film Barnstar

I don't know if you noticed that I put our Barnstart up for official authorization in Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals. I wanted to add it in the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject awards and noticed it needed a bit of red-tape. Hoverfish Talk 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Voted for support. :) Cbrown1023 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphan tag at Category: Invisibility: confused?

Isn't it abnormal to link to categories (i.e. they get populated and placed within supercategories instead of being linked to)? So why is there an orphan tag? I put a tag requesting population and placed the category inside supercategories. Hopefully that will do. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

lol, thanks, I must've put the wrong tag. :) Cbrown1023 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Erik Bornmann protection

Hi. Saw your removal of the sprotect on Erik Bornmann, apparently following up on this edit comment by User:RockMFR:

sprotected2 should only be used for long-term/indefinite situations

Well, as this trial is still pending and the block has only been on there for a week, it's still "indefinite" although not as millennium-spanning as Jesus. Well, not yet anyway, but the trial and the p.r. spin-machine that whirls around it yet isn't anywhere near over; it hasn't even really begun, especially since the other aspects of the scandal this is part of involve a sitting provincial government and a potential federal government-to-be, with the latter group facing a federal election in coming months which this scandal's details (and EB's involvement in their organization) may become issues - and so the object of spin-doctor attacks/manipulation again. It may be that the puppetmaster/vandal whose edit war and various insults and attacks on editors trying to make this article relevant (see its AFD, sockpuppet, and checkuser reports, linked off the talkpage) has given up the game, as it was clear "he" wasn't going to get his way, and some of the Wiki-finagling surfaced in the local press/blogspace, causing exactly the kind of attention the puppetmaster wanted to excise from the article in the first place. It may be a moot point now, but between you and RockMFR passing judgement on this hard-fought-for protect status, apparently without reviewing the circumstances/background, I must request that you keep Erik Bornmann on your watchlist in case the puppet show begins again. As it very well may, given past behaviour.Skookum1 00:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as stated in my edit summary, it was a RFPP request to unblock. I am actually surprised that you'd think that (not in a bad way). Futhermore, it seems that the editor only used two sock puppets which probably stopped. Long-term semi-protection is never the answer, articles are normally only protected for a few days. If an article was semi-protected for weeks because of only one user, that would sort-of defeat the whole idea of a wiki. If the user comes back, you may either ask for him to be blocked (specifying he is a sock) or ask for re-protection. Cbrown1023 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to my talk

I thikn your reversion was very wise! You are learning 8-)--Light current 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More categories for speedy

File:Speedygonzalez3.svg

They are in Categorization talk. The listed entries are empty. The others in the text have films and aren't a problem as far as I can tell. Hoverfish Talk 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) All speedy deleted per C1 with the edit summary It is a category that has no items whatsoever in it and has been empty for at least four days. Cbrown1023 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC) "Arriba! Arriba! Ándale! Ándale!" Thank you, I hope it doesn't get boring. Hoverfish Talk 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Spotlight

Today, Golden Film was passed as GA. For Spotlight, would that go under film-related, or are film awards unrelated to the project? --Nehrams2020 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll do it in a minute. There are several new members who have not received the WP:Films welcome template yet, who usually does that? I looked over another welcoming template and it recommended that the user watch the actual project's page to keep up to date on changes and its talk page, do you think we should include that? --Nehrams2020 01:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll modify the template some and then send it out to the new members.--Nehrams2020 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Film.Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Cbrown1023 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob "The Grinder" Baker Protection

Hi Cbrown1023,

I appreciate your prompt action on this. I saw a couple of changes on Recent Changes and went to check. The dialog between the two of them goes far beyond the article, unfortunately. I tried reasoning and suggested sample articles in that field as examples to no avail. This seemed like the best shot at getting some time for cooling down. I have no interest in the boxing area, but am willing to try to help with the rewriting and restructuring.

Again, thanks!

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete image

I recently upoaded a new image over an old file here for the same article and I think I need the old file to be deleted for the new one to replace it. Could you please delete the initial file? Thanks in advance. --Nehrams2020 08:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'd never done one of those before, but it took only two clicks! :) Cbrown1023 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Job for a Cowboy

Hi, WP:RFPP is never a place to request unsalting of articles. The deletion of that particular page was endorsed at WP:DRV yesterday (here's the diff), and yet you went on and deleted the {{deletedpage}} only hours later. Please fix your mess and read on the relevant guidelines before you act, thanks. - Bobet 12:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I would have thought the same thing. However, at DRV closing message was "Deletion endorced -- currently in userspace". Doesn't that mean that it should be moved back to the mainspace eventually? Correct me if I'm wrong, because that sure seems the case. (And I know that that is not what normally goes on, yesterday another person asked it and I told them to take it to DRV, before I got your message.) Cbrown1023 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I re-read something and I guess I should just tell them to take it to DRV also. Cbrown1023 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure there will be a perfectly reasonable explanation but why did you unprotect and move the page before moving it bakc and protecting it? The DRV closed with it being in a userspace until enough work was done on it to move back. I believed enough had, and it appeared so did you, so I was wondering what changed? Asics^Talk 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I believed it was ready. However, Bobet reminded me that this should not have been done at requests for page protection, but at deletion review. I'm sorry, but we need more of a "consensus" (which is attained at deletion review) to re-create the article in the mainspace. Sorry, but that's just how it is (I forgot that part when I made the change). Please open a deletion review by following the links I have given. Cbrown1023 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Job for a Cowboy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Asics^Talk 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Outreach and "needs infobox"

Do you think we should mention the recurring discussion on criterion collection boxes in "Current proposals and discussions"? Also did you place "needs infobox" in all the new Argentine films? I hope not yet. Hoverfish Talk 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, I'm not that familiar with that discussion, so I would appreciate it if you would do that. I am just about to add some information about the development of a Film Board and a Tech Board for our project. I am not sure I understand your comment about the new Argentine films... Cbrown1023 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good block

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_%22The_Grinder%22_Baker

I appreciate you blocked this page, mkil has been doing some strange things, i have contacted many people in the past about his edits and asked for protection, at least some people are doing some work. This page should remain blocked. Also it should be moved to Robert Baker, since that was his full name, how to do that? Current version is ok. Thanx.

ps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR he had problems before

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 I suspect this is the same person, only logged from his normal ip or different computer and left a very strange message on his talk page, i mean it's common sense, ibro editors need to speak good english in order to be part of ibro and write for them, so yea, it's very suspicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.0.60 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

That page will be unprotected after the edit war is over. I did not protect the page based on the users themselves, but on the History of Reversions on the page. The page cannot be moved until you discuss it on the article's talk page and the page is unprotected. Cbrown1023 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine, that's even better, should stay protected for good.

That is out of the question. Cbrown1023 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am saying, what's better, have that kil guy including some weasel words, ah well, suit yourself, but like i told you, he is a sophisticated vandal, not much to add.

Trial category intersection

You participated in an old thread about this at the assessment project. Please see here for a suggestion to use the trial category intersection to combine article importance and ratings. Carcharoth 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools.

Thank you also for your very kind comments accompanying your support !vote and in our interactions on other pages over the past couple of weeks. I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to speak my mind in response to a certain "optional question" that I had expected to come up, but never did. You know that you are an excellent administrator yourself, and whenever I am intimidated by the new duties and technical capabilities before me, I will be relieved to bear in mind that even a juvenile can do them that I have experienced collegues like yourself to guide me. :) Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Member block

Haw! Fistful of Questions is facing a ridiculous block. Can you please clear him? Hoverfish Talk 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (Does C stand for Charley, by the way?) :) Hoverfish Talk 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I e-mailed you my response, (no, among other things). Cbrown1023 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to [Shawn Hornbeck]

• An entry has been logged regarding the recent protected edits to Shawn Hornbeck. Regards, Navou ^banter 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your early closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism (second nomination)

What were your grounds for closing this Afd early after only two days of discussion when a lively discussion was in process? The grounds you gave, "no consensus", are good grounds for continuing the discussion for the full allotted time and perhaps giving it a bit extra. But why cut off a discussion-in-progress that has clear potential to reach consensus in the allotted time? The remedy to a lack of consensus thus far would be to let discussion continue and reach it. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was in the January 14 log. It obviously shouldn't have been there. Cbrown1023 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the January 14th one was the first nomination, a speedy delete. This is the second nomination. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion. Thanks! --Shirahadasha 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Fistful of Questions = User:Mactabbed

Greetings I noticed that you lifted this sockpuppet's ban... the Buttocks article is but one example. This user's continued mistagging of images as being released under GFDL (here and here as well) and disruption of copyvio notice (see that the image in question is still not properly tagged) and editing on the same topics makes this user's status as a sock very evident. Just like User:Mactabbed this user has a history of making disambiguation pages see history of Mudhoney. This user has a long history of using revert tools to counter good faith edits (just like this sock). This sock edits on the same topics. Here was User:Mactabbed's removal of the male buttocks image and replacement with another copyvio which he lied about claiming it was a photo he took. For further info please see the ridiculously long list of this user's other sockpuppets. Please reblock this sock. Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cbrown, why did you lift my block without discussing it with me first? That is an extremely rude thing to do. Have you read the unblock page where it states "Remember, there was probably a good reason for the person to be blocked. Please discuss the block with the blocking sysop before unblocking."? This is a definite sock of a banned user, following exactly his pattern of editing. I have spent many months dealing with this editor and his sockpuppets. This is an obvious sock, a case that doesn't require checkuser. "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet-Block. No checkuser is necessary." If you aren't familiar with this editor, please do not reverse other admins' blocks. I would rather not detail publically his past transgressions and editing patterns for obvious reasons, however, I assure you this is not an individual who should be editing. I am reblocking. That rule was put inplace for a very, very good reason, namely as the result of disruptive wheel wars. All admins are expected to follow it. I realize that you are new, otherwise I would be a good deal more upset. Please use this as a learning experience for the future. pschemp | talk 23:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for asking to lift the block. I feel bad I pulled you into all this. I promiss I won't do it again. Hoverfish Talk 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, just make sure you have all the facts before declaring my actions "ridiculous". pschemp | talk 23:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp and I conversed by e-mail and instant relay chat and made up...

Fike Recreation Center

Given that the AfD discussion contained only 4 votes, when would you suggest I consider its re-nomination? I'm also curious as to why you didn't just re-list it for further discussion. Thoughts? Rklawton 00:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I normally don't relist when there is more than 2 votes, because some days people just don't want to to vote and we have to deal with that. But you are welcome to renominate it if you wish. Cbrown1023 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation sent

After yesterday's ordeal I also had a server-down for several hours today. Finally the invitation was sent. Enjoy. Hoverfish Talk 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Another development: PhantomS is ready with the technical side of modifying Template:Films to transclude Template:Upgrade needed (to be created). You can see a demonstration in my User:Hoverfish/Notebook. The transclusion will happen in all talk pages where class is set to stub automatically. Since Template:Film is protected, I'm not sure what the proper path is. Should PhantomS coordinate with you, should we post somewhere? Let me know. Nehrams checked in WP Films discussion and sais since no one objected and everyone agreed, consensus is secured for a go-ahead. I am being overly cautious with proceedings as I wouldn't like to draw another thunderhead on us. Hoverfish Talk 18:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have instructions how to do the change: it's just one line. No need to contact PantomS. Hoverfish Talk 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you did it!! Great! Hoverfish Talk 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Red Eye of Dawn

Um, can you please give me a copy of the article you deleted, Red Eye of Dawn? Thanks very much! Uioh 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

E-mail not enabled, posted on talk page. Cbrown1023 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid☎ 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

As shown by Wile E. Heresiarch the keep votes on the Guido Caldarelli article were made up by fellow self-promoter Thomas Fink and/or fake accounts. The only real vote was Wile E. Heresiarch's delete... at least now the article doesn't feature the "I'm currently writing a book!" paragraph.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.14.35 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 January 2007.

Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby

Their is still a lot of debate about whether or not to include their birthdays on the talk page. The only arguments put forth are that you can find the dates in newspaper articles or Elizabeth Smart has her birthday in her article. I'm just trying to follow policy, and there's not a lot of people backing me up. I'd like for you to weigh in, if possible. I'm certainly not prepared to launch a full scale campaign over this, but I think an admin weighing in on the page again might help. AniMate 05:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted the following the pages (the second indent was on the user's talk page):

Policy is a very important thing and is the "supreme order for Wikipedia". Policy says that because we are "in doubt about the notability of the person in question", we should "err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date". That is what is currently on the page. Elizabeth Smart and the others you mentioned, are currently over 18 or are "famous people" such as actors and musicians, in which case, they are not the same. The smart thing to do would be to just include the birth year or the month, which is what was done. As I am an administrator, my only opinion is policy, and I am, therefore, quite neutral on this topic. Cbrown1023 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that you continually repeating the information is also making it more "widely available" and is not a smart thing to do when that is the information that is being evaluated for inclusion. If you say it once more until this discussion is over, I will have to block you for BLP reasons and violation of policy/privacy (posting personal information). Wait until this discussion is over and consensus has been reached before typing the date of birth again. Cbrown1023 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Regardless, I've decided to disengage, as it appears this is a battle I'm not going to win. Again, thanks for your help. AniMate 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I already re-read what you wrote, and edited my comment. I'm dividing my attention between this and work, and I guess I'm not reading anything too closely... which probably means I should be concentrating on work a little more. (sigh) Back to the salt mines. AniMate 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit problems

Hello, the user mkil is becoming big pain, he is after many websites, many articles. He attacked bob baker, marciano site, i was contacted about him long time ago, see my talk page, also, here's some prove of his previous problems... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR I am sick of this, he simply wants perfection. When something goes wrong he accuses of lack of civility, following wiki rules, objectivity and stuff like that,gives some wiki links, then argues same point all over again, but from a different standpoint and different rhetoric, never admitting to his mistakes, but he does weasel out other problems and points them out on a huge scale, I tried to work with him, I do not want him to leave me any more messages on my talk page, as I will no longer leave on his, otherwise i will have 100's of messages in a few days. I am doing my best to keep all articles from neutral point of view, sure, we all argue, no problem, but this guy is over the limit, I hope he is not allowed back here for a long time.

The problem is, this guy wants link and proof on just about anything. Ok, if something is given and accepted over a long period of time, accepted by majority of people, it's no longer pov, i mean, the guy is killing and killing and kiilling. When I ask him to work together on something else, meaning... (we should do that anyway, i mean you and me) redoing lineal heavyweight champions, he never replies to that. I know we need links and sources, this guy simply is using those excuses for a given, for a known truth (correspondence of truth) to point out his stuff, no doubt he will reply here with long argument, but for those, there are answers on my talk page, his, baker and rocky marciano, not much to add there. But as it is and mkil does not belong here, he was warned before twice. This guy will not stop, i will revert back, then I will get in trouble, so before that happens, I am telling you. Also he was told:

Folks, no one is going to compare your edits and judge them on their merits until you simply stop changing them and allow people to read them! You'll never be able to create this article if each of you have such ownership of the text. But, please understand, THAT is not the problem with this article. Your reverts will cause the article to be protected or the editors blocked or banned. Please take this argument off of my User page... Lmcelhiney 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll back down. Thanks for the words of advice. MKil 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

So there you have it, there was his reply, again, he did not stop doing anything, every time i do something, he jumps to the chance to revert stuff and also add stuff, claiming he is simply correcting written mistakes and stuff like that. This will and can not be allowed. All those articles he is screwing with have been around in the same form for over 2 years, now he comes, rewrites everything and claims it's better, but this way he disrespects the work of all hard working contributors. -Boxingwear Boxingwear

Try WP:ANI. Cbrown1023 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

WP:Films tasks

On the Template:WikiProject Films tasks there is a section for peer review. How long should these stay on there? I have looked at some of them and it appears that they were last edited back in December. Are they ever closed or merely stop once people stop editing them? Just want to know if they should be removed and since you are one of the peer reviewers. --Nehrams2020 05:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made the information located at the Peer review announce page appear as an active transclusion, exactly like what I did for the CinCollab. Normally, the requesters don't close them, so we have to by ourselves when they have had little activity or reached their ideal status (as stated in their opening message). :( Cbrown1023 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stand and deliver

When and how is the Newsletter to be delivered? Hoverfish Talk 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem reply

Ok, but i do not want to disturb all the administrators, i am simply requesting some action over mkil. I explained in details yesterday. -

No, simply look over one guy, you can't, wow?! How do i post it there? How do I request good and professional administrator, those are hard to find. I was hoping you are the man, since you blocked that one site mkil was vandalizing... Boxingwear

Cbrown, sorry to hear that BoxingWear is bugging you. I must disagree with him that I am "vandalizing" anything. Apparently BoxingWear thinks that any attempts to improve his writing or remove POV language is "vandalism." As for taking our disagreements to administrators, I think this is a pretty good idea. Thank you for the suggestion. MKil 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Sorry that Mkil is bothering you, but I alredy explained and you know the situation, i will not, can not repeat and explain myself million, million times, same story over and over and over AND OEVER again. This guy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.8.84.229 This is most likely mkil, since he is the one who always puts citation quotes, when things go wrong, he goes under 58.8, ip, so, since you were here in the beginning, good to have you doing few things about this vandal.

I simply want you to block this guy from touching marciano site, he is simply refusing to listen, i explained, he explains again, then he tells me to go on talk page, which i will no longer do. As far as leaving notes on main notice board, they may block marciano page, and mkil's version may remain frozen for long time, i am not requesting a lot from you, simply tell him to get lost, as you can see here, others did, but he did not follow. I sent you the the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cbrown1023&diff=prev&oldid=102725043 -Boxingwear

Below you see he was warned by another administrator to stay away from marciano site... your job is to enforce law, you are wiki cops.

Folks, no one is going to compare your edits and judge them on their merits until you simply stop changing them and allow people to read them! You'll never be able to create this article if each of you have such ownership of the text. But, please understand, THAT is not the problem with this article. Your reverts will cause the article to be protected or the editors blocked or banned.

Please take this argument off of my User page...

Lmcelhiney 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll back down. Thanks for the words of advice. MKil 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

And he did not back down -Boxingwear

For clarification purposes, I should point out that Lmcelhiney directed his/her comments to both of us, so characterizing it that I was warned to stay away from Marciano site is false. Sorry this disagreement has moved to your talk page, but I just needed to clear up this falsehood. MKil 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

There is nothing I can do about this man, to him every single word is disagreement, to him every single word I write is redundant, the guy simply has his own agenda, the good people must never allow him to do this. Yes, he was told not to screw with that site by more than one person, go on his talk page.-Boxingwear

Good Administrator

The only thing me and marciano killer mkil can agree is on lineal restoration... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwernol#Lineal_Heavyweight_Title,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwernol#Complain

Now you know why it's soooo hard to find good administrator, this guy gwernol should be investigated, since many people requested recreating lineal heavyweight championship. Tell me, all deleted files they are still in the history under undelete, only administrators can delete, right? If so, go there then on that deleted talk page, the voting was majority 5-1 NOT TO DELETE THE PAGE, And even so, the page is gone, that is a shame. I am more than happy to contribute to that site and make it work.-Boxingwear

Brooklyn Tech

THANKS, very much.--Tenebrae 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mactabbed sock block

Thanks for your prompt action. Noticing your block message on the latest sockpuppet I thought I'd just indicate that on the article The Last Hard Men (film) the only editors have both been User:Mactabbed socks → User:Made of people and this last sock. (→Netscott) 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I hate to delete a film article, :-P... CSD G5. Cbrown1023 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this individual for some time now and on the accounts that have had any life we see the same pattern of putting the project in jeopardy by replacing free Commons images with mistagged "GPL" images and utlization of revert tools across good faith editors/edits as well as block evasion (when he has been legitimately blocked for shorter durations). The project is better off over the long term without the involvement of this large liability. (→Netscott) 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was kinda joking, cause I'm a member of WikiProject Films. :) I know about you and this, I would have just blocked him based on your word because of all the stuff you do with this user. But you gave good links as well. Cbrown1023 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GAs

Today, The Blair Witch Project was delisted as GA so I was wondering what we do for the Spotlight page. Should we have some other color/symbol denoting that it was delisted so people will feel "inspired" to fix it and renominate it or do we simply remove it? Also do you think that delisted films should be put into the template film tasks as articles in need of attention? I just wanted to know as I want to keep all of the GAs we have (unless they get upgraded to FAs of course!). --Nehrams2020 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

casey!!

hey casey, what's up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cateanthony (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Delisted GAs/FAs

I'll get to it then. --Nehrams2020 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot poll

Can I get you to weigh in over here? Since the template is protected you would probably be the one to edit it.--Supernumerary 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

blah

i am so glad that midterms are over... hey, you have to tell me when you start the rube goldberg proojects! i totally am going to laugh a lot at all of you and offer some advice that she doesn't give. my favorite part of the project was the takin apart aspect. i used a sledgehammer! it was GREAT!!!

Horny Women Humper

I knew this User was going to be deleted. I put a ":)" in to show that what I said about keeping the pictures was humorous (though the pictures are probably still somewhere on Wikipedia). Acalamari 21:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know; but about what I said, I wrote it because I've learned from other users that a bit of humor now and then (humor from decent Users, not trolls) makes editing Wikipedia more fun. Acalamari 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was slightly concerned about the bolding of "deleted," so I wasn't sure if you were telling me if I had done something wrong (i.e. bolding "deleted" as opposed to saying if I had done something). Since, however, you took my message in good humor, then I have nothing to worry about do I? :) Acalamari 21:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It does make it easier to see, I agree. I know about the bolding of "blocked." I've bolded "allow" and "disallow." I suppose my disallow was useless anyway, as the User didn't really stand a chance of being kept. However...I've seen and reported Users with more offensive Usernames than this one. Acalamari 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling a bot dumb is not a "personal attack"

A bot is not a person, so I think it's entirely reasonable to call it dumb when it does something dumb, like archive a request as "completed" when it fails to comprehend the logic in the request. I know all about WP:NPA and I was quite polite on the bot author's page. I don't think WP:NPA applies to things which are not persons. Am I missing something? —Dgies^t c 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck

My comment was not directed at any administrator who locked the article. It was directed at users who would not request an unlock sooner because they wanted to hang on endlessly to their point of view. Ward3001 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox film

The original programming had the 'peer review' field show up in the box. It was only because of programming errors that the field showed up below the box. However, I could have it go below it. --PhantomS 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The peer review field now shows below it. --PhantomS 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

dear i request for page protection but and make it as it was before eiditng but image is still there on artilce ,please change it as it was before my and other user edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Khalidkhoso 16:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear i am watching this page for long time but u have made any changes on it.i mean u should have revert it to last changes before me and other user? Or just protect that page beacuse that picture is on Article .if this so then i am may be wrong to ask for protection.

Khalidkhoso 17:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Cbrown1023 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok.i will wait till it unlocked how it will be protected? i mean can u tel me how long it will in same postion

Khalidkhoso 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be protect until 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC). Cbrown1023 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear according to ur artilce Administrators have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited except by other administrators. u can still make changes.i am just requesting to revert me and other users edit thats it,it is offeneding to see picture .

Khalidkhoso 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that cannot be done by the administrative guidelines, please read the link I gave you further and discuss it on the talk page. If you come up with a solution on the talk page, we can unprotect it sooner, so please work to solve this issue quickly and then link me to your solution so I may unprotect the page. Cbrown1023 17:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear with who i should disscus beacuse that guy just wanted to put image and u can read arguments down image,what i should say him ? he is having lots of attack on same page.? and Disscusion is already on page "Muhammad" regarding picture.that user just came and uploded pic that's it?

Sorry to interfere, but I think that no pictures of the Prophet should be allowed in this article. IMHO, this shouldn't be up to consensus talk, this should go up high (policy?) and some decision on the basis of respecting this religion's principals should be established. Hoverfish Talk 18:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean this, so that no single administrator gets blamed for going against consensus. If it would be reported hi up in Wikipedia, it would be much better. And yes, it may end up causing anger. Hoverfish Talk 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User Brad Barnett states that he will put the image back in and the article is no more protected... Hoverfish Talk 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I just found out there is Mediation on the issue and posted my opinion. Hoverfish Talk 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Film

There seems to be a problem with the needs infobox=yes parameter. When used, the articles are appearing in the T section of [[Category:Articles that need a film infobox instead of the first letter of film title. I removed the parameter for Talk:Stars and Roses and Talk:Boys and Girls (2000 film) and added the {{needs film infobox}} template instead. I have left Talk:Prodigal Son (film) intact for you to examine. Thanks. Alan Smithee 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Cbrown1023 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks, I appreciate the advice! Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of sandbox and sample pages

Sure. I've speedy-delete tagged all of them. --PhantomS 20:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, {{Film More Information}} may also need protection, due to it being a part of the template. --PhantomS 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I moved the page because as it stood it looked as though it was the second RfA, not the fourth. The others were under Werdna, or Werdna with some number after it. For the purposes both of voting and archiving, it's better to preserve the link between the four requests. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Public Enemy

I didn't remove the reference. If you check clearly, the reference is still there in black and white under the "Notes" section. What I did was abbreviate the reference as it's used more than once - after it's used in full once, you can abbreviate it and it still appears under the "Notes" section etc. Many FAs like Halloween (film) use it to save space on the article's size and so on. This is standard practice. LuciferMorgan 02:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it would've been better if I used a summary, but sometimes forget to. My apologies. I always think little things like this are good, especially if you wish to work the article towards FA standards. As you know, each reviewer has something they're stringent about (mine being cites) - some others moan about article size. As the article grows though, it's something to keep the size down. I found it through Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#The_Public_Enemy if you're wondering - if they vote the article fails GA, it gets stripped of GA. Good luck if you intend to take measures to prevent this. LuciferMorgan 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not a bad guy really lol. I don't usually look on the talk pages of GAR candidates, so you're a little lucky really that I noticed. They're meant to notify people via the article's talk page. I'd raise the issue of not being notified on the GAR talk page also, even if just a reminder. To be honest, if it loses GA I wouldn't worry as it's too easy for people to delist GAs - if you really like the article you're better off having it peer reviewed and improving it overall, and then try FAC. James Cagney was a brilliant actor by the way. LuciferMorgan 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rqquju

Would you mind terribly if I kick him up to an indef? I mean, a neonazi template, this, this, and so forth? He's clearly not a new user (first edits were to create/use a new userbox, and to post that RfC), and seems to have started the account purely to make a disruptive WP:POINT-style point. Not to mention the possible sockyness. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mr.DestinyDVDcover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mr.DestinyDVDcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not noticed that it was orphaned. I have deleted the image. Cbrown1023 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected pages

Hi, I realise that, however Category:Date computing template still lists those two protected pages when it should be empty!--Rudjek 14:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dolly!

I'm curious as to why you reverted the "stub" tage I removed from this article. It's as detailed as it can be. What more can possibly be said about the subject? Thanks. SFTVLGUY2 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, I re-graded an article that you had removed the class from, I see many things that could be added to it, including a cast section. Another thing, the infobox isn't even complete! Cbrown1023 19:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just so you know, I don't look at the history of the articles. When I find an article that is unassessed, I just assess it, I don't look to see if someone removed the grade or not. Cbrown1023 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As it was before, there was a plot section, a cast section and then they all got condenced into a stub! Hoverfish Talk 19:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

when you make a request, you must show and tell the exact changes that are to be made. That helps administarators in understanding and completing your request. You show your ability to code in your comment, so just practice in the sandbox and then tell what changes you want on the talk page. Thanks, Cbrown1023 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I would prefer the details of that be worked out as a consensus. I would not have too much trouble coding them. But what solves my problem wouldn't solve the problems of others and might even cause them problems. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Bdean1963

Just like in the article for the War of the Pacific, Tacna Region is suffering from the same problem involving Bdean1963. Apparently, he is not going to gave up his disruptive behavior and unilateral interpretation of a legal and valid International Treaty. Not only that, but he refuses to discuss any possible compromise, but keeps re-posting his contributions over and over again. Messhermit 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already requested Third Person mediation but I have received nothing so far. Plus, I'm tired of all this reverting war. He is not willing to compromise and keeps attacking my Wikipedian credentials and person. Any solution that you might want to suggest? I will be looking forward for your answer. Messhermit 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected. I would definately approve of 3rd opinion. Cbrown1023 talk 01:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: Every time that I clash with this user, he attacks my person or loves to post almost everywhere that I was banned for certain articles'. To whom should I complain? Messhermit 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, things have quiet down because he is "assuming" that you are protecting his editions. I believe that you should clarify that to him. So far he has not attempted anything to solve the dispute in the talk page, even after I already started to present my arguments in the talk page of both articles. What should I do? Messhermit 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some film info boxes on Argentina. The majority already have the info boxes and have nice images and the basics have a browse through Category:Argentine films. I have almost finished the filtering of the missing films for Argentina too, removing e.g short documentraries, one off independent films etc leaving a list of films to add to wikipedia and then research each one into fuller articles later. I have a list of the films without info box anyway but I promise from now on as this is up and running that I will always use an info box 100% of the time - saves more work later . All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also-ran

Per the edit notes in the history... from Wiktionary:

also-ran (plural also-rans) 1. A person or animal who competed in a race but did not win. 2. Figuratively, a loser; one soon to be forgotten.

As in, "Cbrown1023 is not an also-ran." Thanks for approving Facing the Giants. If I knew how to draw a happy face after the definition, I would... Kghusker 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

January Newsletter Delivery

I just wanted to check and see if you still wanted to do the delivery of the newsletter. I don't want to intrude if you want to do it but I'll take over if you want. Again, it doesn't matter to me who does it, as long as it goes out. Let me know what you want done. By the way, the newsletter looks really good, and packed full of information. I'm glad that we got more people to contribute to it. --Nehrams2020 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is really good this month!!! I see that you are approved to use it, but have you downloaded it or tested it yet? I really don't care either way and am postive that you wouldn't have trouble with it. Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've used it a couple of times, mostly for counting how many infobox requests are left. How exactly do you use it to deliver the link for the newsletter? And when did you turn green? --Nehrams2020 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

lol, I turned green yesterday. Do you like it? On the Outreach page, it gives you most of the information.

1. Under "Make from", access the pull-dowbn menu and then click "Links on page".
2. Still in the "make from" section, go to filter, and make sure only "user" and "user talk" are checked. click apply.
3. Go onto the list and right click, then select "conver to talk pages"
4. Remove the users who have set "No delivery" or "Full contents" from the list, using the tools provided...
5. on the "Set Options" tab, un-check all the "General" options and the "skip non-existant pages" options.
6. On the "More Options" tab, go onto Append/Prepend text, check enable (it should then be alraedy set to "append"), and paste the "Link-only" code found at the Oureach page.
7. go to the "Start" tab", set your options and then "start"... continue normally.
8. After it has finished, go back to the "full contents" users, and manually deliver the newsletter's full contents to them using the template given on the Outreach.

If anything seems unclear, please don't hesitate to ask me. Oh, and just so you know, this doesn't mean that you have to do it, I'll still do it you want. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it this month just so I know how to do it if I have to later down the line. I'll let you know if I encounter any problems. I'll send it out probably tomorrow night if that sounds like a good time to you. I'll run through and update the newsletter one last time before I send it (if it needs it). --Nehrams2020 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the green name must signify how you're green with envy? Are you jealous of somebody? Or is it symbolic for wealth money? Or is it not complicated at all, you just like the color green? --Nehrams2020 02:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you need any fast help, you can always instant message me, but remember I am UTC-5 (Eastern Standard Time), so I may be asleep. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I just like the color green, and another user told me that I should get a better sig than the default. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unassessed films

I'm doing them right now, I've already done 10 or so. What I hate about this is having to add the infobox template since we were progressing so well with completing the requests and then I added 150 or so from old actor filmographies. Then somebody adding another 100 for foreign films so its jumped up to higher than it was at the beginning. I'm hoping that the newsletter will persuade more people to jump in and add infoboxes. Don't worry if you can't help with this, you help enough with everything. This will probably take less than 30 minutes as the majority of them will be stubs anyway. --Nehrams2020 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Boomerang (video) needs an article? I couldn't find anything on imdb and there are no sources.--Nehrams2020 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll nominate it right now and see where it goes from there. I think it appears non-notable and the majority of the information is already listed at the Richard Serra article. It doesn't like it will ever be expanded beyond a stub. --Nehrams2020 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's nominated. That's the first AfD I've ever nominated, I've only done speedy deletions in the past. Thanks for getting back to me. I'll work on sending the newsletter out later tonight. We currently have four GACs waiting and I was hoping to see if they would reach GA before I deliver it though. But they've been on the waiting list for a couple days now, and I'm sure they will probably not be passed within 10 hours. --Nehrams2020 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't like to guilt trip people, but I guess it still helped so thanks for passing it. January really has been amazing in terms of GAs. I don't feel comfortable passing the articles, I would rather work on nominating them and then processing them through the spotlight department, newsletter, film tasks, etc. It looks like there is quite a backlog of articles in many of the categories there that could use some help. I know what you mean with schoolwork, mine's really starting to pick up this week. --Nehrams2020 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your amazingly prompt

For prompt and helpful mopping up of a luddite's wikipediing you've earned the Thumbs Up Award

mopping up of my William Edmondson issue. For this you receive the not-so-esteemed Thumbs Up Award. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

DAMN. That was fast. Carptrash 02:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for semi-protecting Club Penguin. Your protect helped many Wikipedians with the vandalism. HyperSonicBoom 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the other users above, I am very active in CSD and AfD. I have also added direct links to the template with pre-selected warning to speed up the Speedy Deletion progress. Although I am I currently busy in real life, I am helping. Cbrown1023 talk 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)