User talk:J Greb/Archive Mar 2008

re: LexCorp

Interesting, I guess I hadn't noticed those in the aforementioned articles. Would the same criteria merit inclusion of Daily Planet in Superman supporting cast articles, or Daily Bugle in Spider-Man type articles (where releveant in each case)? It doesn't seem to be what was envisioned under "team", though its fits characters in more niches I suppose.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Good luck! :) Can non-admins vote? (I don't remember whether I voted for Emperor or not) BOZ (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Good luck. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

Categories

When creating temporary maintenance categories for use on articles, please create the category page and add __HIDDENCAT__ so it is not displayed to readers as a red link at the bottom of the page. —Random832 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Something that needs a watch...

This.

Specifically re 19:47, March 2, 2008 and 19:13, March 4. Both of which are reverts to 19:50, February 15, 2008, his previous version with very, very minor tweaks.

The first one may be outside the 1 week window, but it's still blind reverting with WP:OWN issues.

- J Greb (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I think in this case, I'm going to ask him directly. - jc37 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If J Greb had checked the article he would have seen I modified it slightly, and then when the other poster was persistent, created another page for membership with a link as per the effort on the Avengers page. That solved the issue nicely. As for the speculation on the 2008 series, J Greb cannot disagree as we had to nix the same sort of thing on the Mighty Avengers before it happened. Another poster has since agreed. J Greb should also have noted that I did agree that the information could be posted (per the Talk page) after the series is published and certifiable fact. If J Greb is at a loss as to how to use his energies, perhaps he could assist with the spate of what appears to be spite over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melter. I have been assisting BOZ, which I believe is the goal - teamwork.

Asgardian (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect that was a tad harsh towards J Greb , but seriously, I and a couple of others are just trying to "hold the line" against what has been an influx of vandals and inexperienced posters in recent weeks that are editing everything in sight. We are making progress, but a little more good faith would be appreciated. If I had been "difficult", I would have just reverted instead of helping out another user by creating a new page.

Asgardian (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

First time I've been talked about in the third person on my talk page, but <shrug>...

And, yes Asgardian, I did note you made/left cosmetic changes to the article. and that you managed to leave the link to the Italian Wiki.

In light of that I find it downright unbelievable that you missed that your reverts, both of them, created problems in the infobox along with the notice box on top of the infobox. Just like you did, again here.

Bluntly — Look at your edits. If not with the "Show preview" button, then after you save the page and before you go your next page.

And yes, you have been doing good work, that's what makes this so damn frustrating. It a backslide of what reads as WP:OWN reverts on March 2 and March 4 (You went back to the content of your version of Feb 15) and the March 4 edit reads as a breach, intended or not, of the ArbCom restrictions. This is the same thing Hiding cut you slack on as per this warning on your talk page.

And teamwork is the goal, bu it doesn't look like you're aiming for it in this case.

(addendum based on what was added above)

If you had been reverting multiple articles, it would be a case of explicitly calling for a block based on the ArbCom, not asking an Admin to just take a look. Even if your 3rd edit with in a week to this article had been a revert, that's where it would go. - J Greb (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads-up on a change to Template:Infobox

I notice you've been using {{Infobox}} a lot, so I figured I should let you know about a small change in its behavior that I've just implemented. The old "title" parameter now puts a title on top of the box rather than within the first cell, as was done previously. Instead, the new "above" and "abovestyle" parameters fill the roles that the old "title" and "titlestyle" parameters did. I've gone through all the existing templates that use {{Infobox}} and updated them to this new usage, so everything you've done previously should still look exactly the same, but I figured I should let you know in case you created a new infobox and were surprised that it didn't match the style you were used to. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Avengers-175.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Avengers-175.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things...

First, I'm not sure if you saw my response here.

And I'd like an uninvolved admin's evaluations of the last sentence in this post.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. I'll claim trying to think how to write the nomination as my defense (which is partially true, the other part is related: I find it to be work to write nominations. There's so much I want to say, yet so little space to write it : )

I'll check out the second in a bit (working on answering responses to past discussions first.) - jc37 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

<g> Not a problem. - J Greb (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J Greb

Ok, I think I've edited it down to something reasonably readable. (I was rather tempted to add: "And can be impatient with what he felt was my, at times, lack of speed/action." : )

If there's anything you'd like modified/clarified, please let me know. (I fear in the editing, I may have left some sentence contextually vague.) So, I'm happy to edit. - jc37 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<g> Looks good... and it's nice to know some one noted the spiffy new yellow tags on almost 500 team articles... (almost 400 to go through yet... then the two biggies... and maybe the white room...) - J Greb (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And accepted and answered. - J Greb (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And what do we do if there's been an ivote prior to transclusion? - J Greb (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, and thought about reverting, with a talk page note to wait, but honestly, it's probably "no big deal".

Also, I dropped notes at User talk:Doczilla and User talk:Hiding. We can either transclude now, or, if you would like, wait until they have had a chance to comment. - jc37 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And btw, is there anyone else you think might wish to co-nom? (I'd like to avoid stepping on any well-wishers toes : ) - jc37 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No... not that I can think of (and even if I could, that may look like stumping). And I'm not to clear on the ground rules... but if Doc or Hiding would want to co-nom rather than just voice an opinion, I've got a feeling the trans should wait. - J Greb (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (And with that several other project members come to mind.) After they (and anyone else in the meantime) comment, I think I'll just post it to the noticeboard as I did with Doczilla's. - jc37 00:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A note

A note to someone who soon will (presumably) become an admin. Every admin is different. One thing I believe that User:Hiding and myself have in common is that neither of us are on "vandalism patrol", so we're not much for being WP:RBI admins. (I'm speaking for him only in that he and I have discussed this in regards to a certain set of user incidents.) Indeed, I tend to try to treat blocking as a last resort in most cases. (WP:AGF until I have evidence otherwise.) And, of course, avoid blocking if you've been involved in the content discussion/dispute. I suggest reading WP:BLOCK until you know its intent like you know yourself. As in all things, obviously, you'll have to find your own way in this. I wish you well : ) - jc37 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Moviebeast.jpeg

Thank you for uploading Image:Moviebeast.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Question and concern

I've got a concern with User:ComicsPlace.

First off is the info on the user page: It can be read as an ad, and it make it look like an "open" account (any one in the store can use it).

Second is the contrib list.[1]

The initial one is straight to an AfD, and reads much like CmdrClow's keep statement. After that is a series of reverts to the original, direct to DVD DC animation articles. These are in support of Clow and include the threat "Leave it or I'll report you.".

- J Greb (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and protected both pages (in the hopes of seeing some positive discussion). The amount of back-n-forth reverting is obviously inappropriate.

As for the username, I think that there is possibly enough for a CU request. A note at WP:AN/I might be in order. But to be honest, I think it should probably be blocked. Seems like an account for the owner(s) of the store, and would be unsure of the intended use for the account (COI, for example), except that we're already seeing edit warring. - jc37 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "COI" equates to, but the concern I've got is that it feels like a puppet given the history and the tone of the only substantive talk edit. - J Greb (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mygreatestadventure80.JPG

I have tagged Image:Mygreatestadventure80.JPG as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anita Bryant Infobox

Hi. Can you fix the Infobox in the Anita Bryant article? It says "[[Image:|220px|]]" at the top of it, and as Infoboxes are not my forte, I was unable to remove it when I tried. I couldn't find where it was in the Edit field. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, I didn't place the infobox or the image in it. I simply stumbled across the article when surfing, and noticed that mistake. And thanks on your adminship! Welcome to the club! :) Nightscream (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Do everything you're supposed to and nothing you're not! :) GlassCobra 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Spencer^T♦C 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

your RfA

Are you sure it was me? I don't remember commenting on your RfA. Kimu 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, you are correct. Well, your welcome :) Kimu 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - and with almost unanimous support! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Congratulations you earned it!! Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! BOZ (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Congratulations!! -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, congrats. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC).

Glad to have you as an admin. Now I've got someone else to try to pass the buck to. He he he he he... ;) John Carter (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Way to go!!! ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Sorry for my lonely oppose ... just be careful with those indef. blocks! ;) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now we've got you!

Enjoy the mop and bucket. Doczilla _RAWR! 03:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You walked into that trap! Now we have you exactly where we want you! Mwah-ha-ha-hahahaHAHA!!!! Doczilla _RAWR! 03:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Exxxxellent : ) - jc37 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks for taking the time to thank an old "commentor"! Have fun with the tools! --Camaeron (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Batman image.

With the 4 Batman figures, the 1 you have labeled as 1999 (Batman Beyond), do you think you could add a note to label the year as 2019? This is to give a reference to time that the Batman in Batman Beyond is an aged Batman. 2019, because, the episode itself says 20 years ago from the Batman Beyond time of 2039. The 2039 came as a result of being 100 years after the year Batman was created in 1939. It also says so in a book. Neal (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC).

Image:New_flashl.jpg

I have tagged Image:New_flashl.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archival

regarding this change

• regarding this change

His talk page is extremely long. When I added the archiving, I thought it would be a good thing. I was not forcing him to use it. I even suggested he revert it if he did not want it. I may be mistaken, but I don't think there is any policy stating I can't set up a user's talk page for archiving. I'm going to readd it.--Rockfang (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

your possible 3RR violation

I'm not sure if there is a template for this, but I would like you to be aware of this.--Rockfang (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I left some comments there. - jc37 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Noting that the notice has been resolved. - jc37 21:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... so I see. - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Extra eyes...

Before I burst something, could I get a second opinion on some thing?

Ran into an editor forcing an archive function on another editors talk pages.

The fall outs are here: The user talk being modded; the modder's talk; and mine.

I need some 3rd party feed back. - J Greb (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page. - jc37 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Avengers members

There is a recent addition to the talk page of the above article from Tom Brevoort, editing from an IP, added to the Talk:List of Avengers members#Questions about the membership wrangling. I can forward to you the e-mail I received from Mr. Brevoort separately as well, which I think contained the material verbatim. Also, the IP does indicate that there is an officially published source on the subject making those statements. I can't be sure, but I think that the source, in and of itself, is probably sufficient. I would however welcome your much better informed opinion on this matter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions

The reason why the images were uploaded is because there is currently a RFC going on concerning those images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema - as per the message I left on the images -

Please do not delete. Image currently being used in a Request for comment at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema as per

Criteria for speedy deletion. Images and Media 5. Unused unfree images - Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.

therefore in order to discuss them, it's important to have them included in the version under discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662

So I would kindly ask you to lighten up, relax, and not delete until the RFC is finished.

Have a good day,

--Skyelarke (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Avengers character list

Wow, another person who just seems to be looking at pages waiting to pounce when someone does something he doesn't like. Okay, I'm not the world's greatest authority on comics (probably closer to being its worst) and I'm not gonna start an edit war over it. Just thought it might make navigation easier, that's all.Skteosk (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the partial retraction. I did my best to only include what I believed to be characters who were known primarily as members of the Avengers and I also believe characters like Zemo have encountered the whole group rather than just individual members. However, I'm always willing to bow to someone with greater knowledge and I accept the compromise.Skteosk (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:J_Greb

--Skyelarke (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimates

someone moved the page to the Ultimates, can you moved it back? He's also got a fat sackload of edits going on there, and i'm not sure all of them look 'kosher'... take a peek as extra eyes? ThuranX (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was more concerned by the removal of all cited real world content, which I've left him a note about. as for splitting out plots, Ithink it's a particularly bad idea, as it leads to more and more cruft. ThuranX (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that in the indicia, but the titles on the covers of all the books include "The". Is there some enyclopedic precedent or rule that indicates that indicia take precendence over the title of the book? Also, even if we remove "the" from the article title, wouldn't it still be appropriate to include it as an alternate title in the opening of the Intro? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Extra eyes... (2)

With regard to something at WP:AE. It should be self explanatory. - J Greb (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not being here to see this. (Though it's apparently been resolved.) - jc37 07:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite... even in the face of the extended and expanded ban Sky has gone through and removed 'bot delivered orphan tags on 11 of the images, blanking the notice on his talk about the extension and question Elonka about the enforcement close.

Frankly I'm not sure how much latitude I've got here since:

1. The tags are valid and should be replaced.
2. Since Sky has been warned by multiple editors about removing tags, a level 3, or higher warning should, under normal circumstances, be put on his talk.
3. Given the close, he's in breach of the ArbCom strictures which would call for a minor block.
4. Given his action with WP:AE, I'm truly in it up to my eyeballs.

1 through 3 should happen, but am I with in bounds to do 1 and 2 but required to tak 3 to AE? - J Greb (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've requested clarification from Elonka. - jc37 18:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

J Greb, as I see it, you are free to participate in this situation as a normal editor, including placing or replacing tags, calling for deletions, giving warnings, participating at the talkpage, etc. The only things you should be careful about doing, are actual use of administrator tools, meaning that you shouldn't impose or remove blocks, you shouldn't protect or unprotect an article, and you shouldn't personally delete or undelete anything. But requesting a deletion is not the same as accomplishing a deletion, so there is no conflict there. Does that help? --Elonka 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That's about what I thought the case is at this point, but I wanted it clarified before moving on to the next steps. - J Greb (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted at Skyelarke's page too.[2] If you need any other clarifications, let me know. --Elonka 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:SHDYGNET YG Logo 2.jpg

• Image:SHDYGNET YG Logo 2.jpg
• User:WIKIVUE Detroit

I'm not sure, but the note under the image on the user page would seem to be contrary to the license? - jc37 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily... but I've got problems with the way they are using the Scripps logo. And the userpage... doesn't that verge on self promotion? - J Greb (talk)

I thought so at first, but as I read further down, it "appears" to be a fan. Could also be a "joint account" of those who work there. Not really sure. - jc37 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Truce

I would like to propose a truce - i.e. I avoid intervening on your edits, you avoid intervening on my edits - I'm sorry, I just don't think you're being objective or civil with me in general - If you see problems with my edits, I'd prefer you report them directly to a noticeboard and not communicate with me - no offence intended, I just feel there are unworkable differences in viewpoint that require a buffer.

--Skyelarke (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(reply posted here as per my understanding of Skylarke's request.)

I can see where you're coming from, and that works, up to a point. That's why I had sought the clarification above.

That seems pretty clear on the point where this get taken to a notice board. As far as communications below that point, based on your request, I'll avoid try to avoid placing long, prosaic posts to your talk page. However, I'll still post warnings such as the one for deleting tags. This isn't to tork you off, but as a requirement with regard to correcting improper behaviour. The warnings show you've made aware of the problem so that if the worst happens and it has to go to a notice board for action, those looking at it there can see that all of the steps have been covered.

- J Greb (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Luthcontessa.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Luthcontessa.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) 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Fictional_captains

I notice you're the most recent editor of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_captains. I'm dying to get into that list & organize it alphabetically. The list didn't come up in the edit page, & I'm a relative newbie here. How do I get into it? wbm (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

3PO

I was going to drop this on Doczilla's doorstep, since he's had some experience with WP:UCFD in the past, but since he seems to be only semi-active (though his insight would also be welcome), you're the lucky winner : )

First, the original userbox:

• User:Aldaron/BGG

Then the category populated by the userbox:

• Category:Wikipedians who play German-style board games

Then the WP:UCFD discussion regarding the category which is populated by the userbox:

• Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/March_2008#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games

Then the DRV nomination by the user:

• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_18#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games

And then the new userbox, created, presumably as a result of the ongoing DRV discussion:

• User:Aldaron/German-style Gamer[3]

And then the new category which is populated by the new userbox:

• Category:Wikipedians interested in German-style board games

Ok. As things stand now, the user has a new userbox, and a new category. Both those should be fine. The old category has been deleted (and doesn't look as if it will be overturned by the DRV, since even the user says delete it if you wish). The problem is the old userbox.

The user has "refocused/repurposed" it to mean something which it didn't prior to the nominations. What that does is misrepresent those who have placed the userbox on their userpages, and who may be less-than-active, or maybe don't even notice the change. That's fairly clearly considered disruptive. [Adding signature for clarity of threading - jc37 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)]

• This is false. What I find frustrating is that this a completey abstract argument that just isn't relevant here. What's disruptive is having a category pulled out from under users. As I've said before, I think there's a big misunderstanding here that I've tried to clear up in the relevant discussion. I'm not "attempting to misrepresent Wikipedians". Quite the opposite. I'm trying to represent them correctly, and repair a simple mistake that will in fact result in misrepresentation. As jc37 correctly points out, repurposing a user box so that it re-categorizes a user is a bad idea. But that is not at all what is going on here. As I've pointed out already, even for users who thought they were expressing a website "affiliation" (something that doesn't even really apply here in isolation from an interest in German-style games), the chance they lack an "interest in German-style games" is effectively zero. Moreover, as I've maintained, I think most people with the userbox had their interest in German-style games foremost in the first place, and were only incidentally concerned with the website (I know this from personal conversations I had with several of them). To the uninformed, the original characterization of the category ("For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek") is easily misinterpreted, since it hides the fact that the set of people who "frequent BoardGameGeek" is a strict subset of the people who "play German-style boardgames", so that the latter characterization (and the updated category) is correct for everyone in the old category. Because of this, the correct correct thing to do is to have the old userbox point to the new category. — Aldaron • T/C 21:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to revert the Userbox to the previous version, rather than it being a "duplicate" of the new userbox, as the creator is attempting to enforce. I'd simply protect the box, and probably nominate it at WP:MfD, but my "involvement" may appear less-than-transparent in this case, and I'd rather things be as "clear" as possible.

So anyway, I'd like you to take a look at things as a third party opinion.

Thanks in advance. - jc37 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, are you asking for a 3po on the DRV or the edits on the original userbox? - J Greb (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The original userbox. - jc37 19:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... and I'll post my thoughts here first. If there is an actual discussion other than edit summaries for the 'box, I'll re post it there:

• Looking at the whole set, there are some of unanswered questions:
  1. How were the 2 boxes distributed? There are ~130 users linked to the old, some through a redirect, and ~260 linked to the old. Since each has a redirect, the numbers look like doubling. Was there a redirect that was missed?
  2. Why was the BGG 'box re-purposed to German style gaming in Aug '06? This was done about 5 months before the 'box was moved to a sub page of User:Scepia. The box has move twice, as a ref for the gaming style, since then.
  3. Was there an intent to redirect all the "current" users to the style box? If so either 75 or 130 (depending on what's happening with the redirect) were missed.
• If an assumption is made, and it may have to be, that all of the users using the 'box are aware of the change made in Aug '06 and kept/added it due to their interest in German style gaming, then the remaining users should be migrated to the new 'box and Aldaron/BBG either be held for users interested in GameBoardGeeks, it's original, pre Aug '06 use, or deleted as redundant.

The first thing I'd suggest is changing the redirect at User:Scepia/BGG to the new 'box and see how many user pages that leaves attached to User:Aldaron/BGG. If none, suggest to Aldaron that the 'box be either kept as originally intended or removed. - J Greb (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Refering to question 2, moved to not break up the full set)
  That's part of the point: The "change" I'm being accused of attempting to make, was made then, to clarify the purpose of the user box. Users hardly left in droves since then, and many of the users are new since that change. This user box has been pointing to a category for users who "play German-style games" for more than a year and a half. Now that that category has been deleted (for reasons wrong, but now moot), it's being asserted that having it point to a category for users who are "interested in German-style games" is "repurposing". I think you can see why I'm having trouble following the argument that the userbox should point to anything but the new category. — Aldaron • T/C 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From looking at the referenced material and the edit histories of the 2 'boxes and the 2 redirects I think the biggest hitch is that change in 2006 was incomplete. The BGG box that existed prior to Aug 2006 only dealt with users that used BGG. That's all the 'box said, and that's all the long deleted category title said. The 2006 CfD changed the just the category title. No where in the 'boxes history can I find a point where the 'box say "This use uses BGG and enjoys German-style games." That is barely implied by the BGG only 'box line and the attached category titled for a totally different topic. To be honest, that CfD should have added the play/like/interest about the German-style games so that the 'box generated 2 cats.

As far as the recent UCfD, as near as I can tell it's rooted in seeing Wikipedia as an attempt to create an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. That would mean that the 'box and cat should be structure to point editors to those who are interested and knowledgeable about the topic of German-style games when looking for help in editing articles on that topic. Not just as a way of fonding others on line that share that interest. (That is going to be a byproduct, but it shouldn't be the primary purpose.) Right now there is a 'box, which you, Aldaron, are hosting under your user page — User:Aldaron/German-style Gamer. Keeping the BGG box in the same format is redundant.

As I pointed out above, following the BGG history shows that it has moved 3 times: once to put it under user space, then two more times to land in your user space. Only one of those former user pages redirect to User:Aldaron/BGG, the other points to the new User:Aldaron/German-style Gamer. It looks like User:Scepia/BGG needs to be changed to point to the new 'box, which should move most if not all of the users currently linked to the old BGG 'box. At that point, a decision needs to be made about User:Aldaron/BGG, either to delete it as redundant, or to put it back to it's pre-2006 role as a flag for a user that particapate at BGG. - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Change User:Scepia/BGG redirect to User:Aldaron/German-style Gamer? Fine. Then as an experiment I will have User:Aldaron/BGG point to the old deleted category for a while, and then delete it once people have had a few months to notice. How about that? — Aldaron • T/C 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... Scepia/ has been changed. Give it some time to cycle through though, for some reason the transclusions are sticking even though there is no direct link. - J Greb (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like it has cycled through. All that is left that links to User:Aldaron/BGG is linked to 3 user talk pages (including this one) and 4 Wikipedia space pages. It's also directly transcluded to one, and only one, user page. Experimenting with the old cat would be moot, at best, at this point. - J Greb (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So I'll delete the User:Aldaron/BGG template. — Aldaron • T/C 02:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, how do I do that? — Aldaron • T/C 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion, since it's withing your user pages and unused you should be able to make the request as the page's creator. - J Greb (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedied per request above. - jc37 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted my "speedy", since it was userfied per WP:UM. (It's been established at WP:DRV that hosting users cannot use CSD:U1 as a speedy criteria on hosted userboxes.) So, since you no longer wish to host the userbox, I've reverted a previous move and restored it to being hosted by User:Scepia.

In addition, as User:AmbientArchitecture is not a user (through a rename), I've speedied User:AmbientArchitecture/BGG per CSD:U2. I've corrected all links to the page of the same name (BGG) hosted by User:Scepia. - jc37 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm rewiring the User:Scepia badge to repair the damage done. — Aldaron • T/C 02:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted the redirect. (And noting the comments on your talk page.) - jc37 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, found it

Ok, first, I think I owe Alderon/AmbientArchitechture an apology. The category change happened as a result of trying to standardise naming, and in that chaos, we missed the fact that that was a website. See: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16#More Wikipedians by interest.

So "we" (albeit accidentally) initially caused the miscategorisation back then. And this is something that should be fixed.

In looking over the various edit histories of the several categories and userboxes, through several moves, it's clear that BGG (BoardGameGeek) is a reference to the website.

The rename that should have happened then should have been:

• category:User BoardGameGeeks to category:Wikipedian BoardGameGeeks

not

• category:User BoardGameGeeks to category:Wikipedians who play German-style board games

- as happened.

Here's the deal, though, and the reason, I think, that Aldaron is arguing for the redirects/repurposing. In the time since the renames, it's been determined that "Wikipedians by gaming website" cats should be deleted. So if we go by what "should have happened" in the rename, then it's followed up by deletion. (Another case of where "the userbox, as is, should be fine, but the category should be deleted.)

To further confuse things, time has gone by. So now we have Wikipedians using one of several different userboxes, which may have been placed sometime (at least) in the last 3 years.

So apparently I made a mistake in speedying BGG.

What should probably happen:

1. BGG (I don't care who's userspace it resides in) - should exist using its previous text of "BoardGameGeek", with no categorisation (per the UCFD result, and many previous XfD discussions/precedents). All redirects of BGG should point to that userbox.
2. German-style Gamer (which should probably have a lower-case "g" for gamer) - can also exist, with the categorisation of the new (presumably appropriate) category: Category:Wikipedians interested in German-style board games
3. The difference between the two should be clarified: at each (in "noinclude" tags); and by being listed appropriately at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing#Websites_and_services and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games#Board_games.

This is the path of the most accuracy, and least disruption.

Note that if this is agreed to, I'll be happy to implement the fixes. - jc37 18:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. Things shold be left as they now are, except that "Gamer" should probably change to "gamer" (and the BGG box in my user space can stay deleted). — Aldaron • T/C 18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it appears that my only choice at this point is to let the greater community decide (either MfD or DRV). I'll decide soon after some research (and after deciding whether to nominate them all for deletion, to "start fresh"), and let you both know. - jc37 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It may also help to note that "BGG" refers to "being a 'board game geek'" (i.e., a person "interested in" or "who plays" German-style games), and not to an "affiliation" with a particular website. The site is named after the interest, not the other way round. That's why the earlier renaming of the category, preserving the connection to the user box was a clarification rather than a "repurposing" and didn't require a deletion of all things "BGG". Now that the category name is cleared up, and there's an appropriately named user box, the right thing to do is leave things just as they are, with any remaining "BGG' boxes redirecting to the new user box. Things should be left as they now are. — Aldaron • T/C 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that BoardGameGeek (note the lack of spaces) rather clearly refers to the website. That those who traverse there (and others) may also call themselves "geeks" is incidental to the issue. That those who traverse there may be interested in some topic is also incidental to the issue. Let's put it this way: Just because someone may like the Sesame street doesn't mean they'll like the Muppets, or even more specifically, doesn't mean they'll like Elmo. And vice versa ad infinitum. When dealing with likes/dislikes, interests and preferences, it's best to not presume. To do so may result in (wait for it): MISCATEGORISING/MISLABELLING EDITORS! Mis-ascribing something to someone which may or may not be true. This isn't about sets and sub-sets, as much as you may wish it to be. - jc37 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi. I have a question. I met Greydon Square last November, and took a pic of him to add to his article, but he didn't like it, saying it made him look like a "weenie", so he changed it, uploading his own pic with the Attribution license tag. I have no problem with this, since respect for an article subject is part of BLP policy, but the caption in the article says, "copyright Greydon Square". Is this right? If he used the Attribution license, doesn't that mean that the copyright is no longer his? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite.

Based on reading through the material on the attribution template, it amounts to the image falling into a grayish area. It's a non-free image in all cases save where it is accompanied with attribution of the copyright holder. As long as that's there, it can be used freely. I get the feeling that the template is one that Wiki needs to have, but isn't really happy about.

The (c)/attribution note needs to be there for the image to be used. If he has had, or would have, the image copyrighted under his stage name, assuming he isn't in the process of legally changing it, that's his option.

As far as the article goes... it may be a "rock and hard place" scenario: by BLP, and IIUC the concepts of "right of publicity, he has a degree of say on what images are used, and by image usage guides free use images of living people are preferred.

I'm of the mind that it's really just a minor issue here, but the Foundation legal beagles may disagree. It may be worthwhile bring this up either at WikiProject Musicians or WikiProject Biography to see if either has a standing consensus on leaving such images in or not. - J Greb (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)