User talk:Sephiroth BCR/Archive 22

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin coach

Hey Sephiroth... BCR, saw the message you left me and I'm "writing" back to ya, cause I'm very much interested in getting an admin coach, and if you're still offering, I'd like to accept your offer, if... you know... the offer is still there. You don't say? Your were Gary's mentor? Very nice to meet ya and I would like to say that me and Gary are homies. ;) Well, I see in his page that he does not want to be an Admin., I respect that, but I think he would be a phenomenal one. :P I wouldn't want to "push him" over the "limit". If that slot is open, count me in, if its open. Peace, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, from where I am, good morning. :) Yeah, I've taken that step to be civil with other users here, so I won't be known as a "grumpy" individual. Article work: From my previous Rfa, I was told to work on other articles, besides wrestling, because some users thought, that if given the tools, I would have gone out of my way and "protect" wrestling related articles, which I knew would have been conflict of interest, but the users we're not gonna take a chance. So, I took their suggestions and have worked on other articles, that have nothing to do with wrestling, but I still work on wrestling articles. ;) Admin work: I've done my job with CSD and have reported users to AIV, but I need to put myself in discussions for deletion and related stuff, as well. But, what I would like to know, if you see my Rfa, can you help out with the scenario of an Admin. threatening another Admin., cause the answers I wrote didn't help me at all, and I would like to know what should be done. Believe me, I've read the guidelines and policies, is just that I find it hard to believe that another Admin. would do such thing. For the CSD, like I've said, I've done my fair share; Some articles that I've placed for deletion, per the criteria, get deleted or it comes back to haunt me (at my talkpage), explaining why the article has somewhat of a notability to keep. Everybody make mistakes, I know that; No one's perfect, cause I certainly am not. Also, change came to America, I think Wikipedia could use an update, that's if you could help me do that. ;) Forgot your comment about the list. I tried working on a South Park list, but I have no idea what to do. If you want proof, here's the proof, there's no progress there. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptiveness and Canvassing

Hey, if you have some time, can you take a look at Dream Focus (talk · contribs) actions of late regarding the Gantz equipment list, Card Clow AfD, etc. It seems pretty disruptive to me, but may just be because he's starting to get on my nerves. He's dismissing all consensus discussions as not being consensus because they don't have "enough" participants, no matter how many are there, and implied that I was "vote staking" discussions because only "my friends" participate. Also, to me this seems like canvassing by attempting to claim that his list is the "same" and that if one is deleted then the other will be to.[1] I removed it as canvassing, but he has restored it (twice)[2]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked a sincere question there, and you erased it saying it was canvasing. I then went to the wikipedia page for canvasing, and asked for an opinion there. Another editor stated it didn't seem like canvasing to them. I don't believe it is canvasing, since I only posted the question in one place, to try to figure out why some weapons pages were allowed, while others were deleted. Collectonian is twisting my words around. I didn't dismiss all consensus discussions, only stated that it was wrong such a thing was decided always by such a small number of people. And in the case of the Clow Cards, I asked the discussion be reopened, since only the person nominating it wanted it deleted, two wanted it kept, two voted to merge/redirect, and one voted for redirect. This all started when I asked her not to delete a relevant fact on the main Gantz page, she then deleting my comment and posting something on my user page, claiming it was an attack against her. Please read from the start if you decided to look into this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dream_Focus#Messages Dream Focus (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have to bother about this again, but DF is again making personal remarks and falsifying statements made in a conversation on my talk page in an AfD[3] the coming to a Wikiquette alert filed on my behalf (unasked, I might note) and made more ther.[4] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He asked why you were going around trying to delete manga articles, and I stated that you said on your user page, you are a delitist. Dream Focus (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*[5][6] he apparently is now determined to make his own additions anywhere and everywhere to make false statements and be harassing and contrib stalking (which at this point, seems to be his only purpose). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And here we go once again. I have the dispute page on my watchlist. I look over the current dispute, check the talk pages in question, and post my opinion. I then find the Star Trek planet's page I posted at earlier has had Collectonian reply after me(I can't be stalking her if she appears at a place she has never been before, and post after I do). Please click here and tell me if you believe I have done anything wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lake_Placid_2 I asked her to post on the talk page instead of posting threats on the first time editor's page that he'll be banned if he doesn't stop reverting her edits. Dream Focus (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek is a film topic. I'm in the film project. Enough said. The other editor isn't reverting my edits, I'm removing his vandalism. He has ignored all attempts to get him to stop, including both warning templates and a personal note (which look, I did leave), and made it clear he would continue just copy/pasting his personal writings into the article by also putting it in his user page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

*scream* I'd saw its obvious he's following me around at this point.[7][8] He has absolutely nothing to do with local articles like this, and seems to be deliberately looking for reasons to oppose me anywhere he thinks he can. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I oppose you at the newspaper site? No. I left a comment, stating I didn't think a local newspaper was notable, thus agreeing with you there. And this about that, or the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fritzpoll#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FGirlFriends_.28manga.29 I noticed you were involved in the administration notice board with someone, and clicked around to see your history with him, thus finding my way to those two articles. I am not following you around, which isn't against the rules anyway. Dream Focus (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Right...and you just decided to try this[9] for fun? Calling it edit warring when the guy was vandalizing the article by adding a BS image? And yes, following someone around IS against the rules. Its called wikihounding, is considered a form of harassment, and you can be blocked for it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You consider all edits you disagree with vandalism. He wasn't doing something to vandalize, he had a disagreement over what should be there. And the three revert rule was violated by you. I reported it to the proper people. Dream Focus (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was vandalizing. The image was NOT from where he claimed, as you could see if you bothered to actually LOOK! Its a random image from the commons, which he first claimed were two fans of the podcast, then claimed it from an event. His other edits have also been vandalism, unless of you course you actually consider this and this to be good edits, though maybe you do. He also followed here[10]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A big thank you

Thank you for replying to some of the other editors at Talk:Stargate SG-1 and being so calm about it. I noticed that I was giving too much of a WP:FUCK and needed some time off (which presented itself by visiting a friend over the weekend), and I think I have mostly regained my cool and my old wiki-perspective now. I just want to say that I really appreciate that I wasn't left alone to fight all the bad faith targeted at me (this is new for me). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Naruto characters

Hey, just wanted to pop a note to see where the merge of List of Naruto antagonists to List of Naruto characters is at? I see the discussion on the main list talk page seemed to have consensus in October. (curiosity mostly roused because someone is arguing that because Naruto has two, so should their favorite series).-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 05:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Naruto Uzumaki GA nomination

I am considering nominating Naruto Uzumaki for GA status. Comparing it to the GAs Sasuke Uchiha, Sakura Haruno, Kakashi Hatake, Orochimaru (Naruto), Shikamaru Nara, Rock Lee, and Gaara, I believe it is ready. What are your thoughts on a possible nomination? Scapler (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

As you may have noticed, it was nominated for removal 15 days after promotion. I don't know what your policy is for such circumstances, but could you please leave it open for now? I do want to try to address this user's concerns. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks Gimmetrow 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my latest post at User talk:Gimmetrow#RE: Edit warring over project banner. I really hope we can nip this in the bud before it turns into something it doesn't need to be. AN/I is seldom the best place for this kind of thing, and based on past experience I find it highly unlikely that administrator intervention will come into play on either side. As Giro has said, Gimmetrow has a good record, and this incident has now been logged for all to see should it need to be referenced in the future. It would go some way if we can suck it up and say the necessary words to avoid further drama. If Gimmetrow can do the same, then this could all go away in a more-or-less amicable fashion. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Bleach episodes FLC

Don't know if you are aware of this, but I left a couple comments after my support that still stand unaddressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: FT image

Are there any other recognizable symbols of the franchise? I can use the flame from the logo, but without the red element it's not very distinctive. I might try just a "B" done up a similar way. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a draft, by the way: File:B with flames.png --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that at 60-70px, the 'bleach' would be nigh unrecognizable, as would the text effects. I think it's best to leave it more emblematic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobel laureates capitalisation change

Hey, can you delete Category:Wikipedia featured topics Nobel Laureates and its subcategories? They're no longer needed. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, and Category:Wikipedia featured topics Nobel Laureates featured content and Category:Wikipedia featured topics Nobel Laureates good content. Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of Chrome Shelled Regios episodes

On February 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Chrome Shelled Regios episodes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 01:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fictional element notability

You referenced my position during your comment at WT:Notability (fiction). This is to inform you that due to revisions of the guideline, I have had to switch my position from support to strong oppose.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the subject of a bit of edit-warring: [11] is the revision to which I refer.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Jutsu (Naruto)

Hi, I am reviewing your article, Jutsu (Naruto), for GA and have started my comments at Talk:Jutsu (Naruto)/GA1. I like the article and find it interesting, but I am concerned, first, with one fundamental issue. I am worried that this article is too much a series of embedded lists rather than an articles. Could you consider and discuss this issue with me? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Collectionian issue

Please look at what is going on now. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Collectonian_and_Farix_refuse_to_honor_the_Merge_consensus_on_AFD I have two editors following me around accusing me of forum shopping, among other things, which make no sense at all. Both of them refuse to honor an AFD consensus. I mention it now, since whenever there is a problem, she post here, and you end up on my talk page discussing whatever she told you. Also as an administrator, perhaps you can tell me if they are breaking some rules. Dream Focus (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

Modelled after List of Naruto characters, I created two test articles: User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/WC characters for Winx Club, and User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/TS! characters for Totally Spies.

I need your help, or at least your comment for those articles. Also, What can be done for Code Lyoko (1, 2, 3), Atomic Betty, The Powerpuff Girls, PPGZ (1, 2), Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Ed, Edd n Eddy, Codename: Kids Next Door (1, 2, 3, 4) and Ben 10 (1, 2) ? -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 13:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) And Huntik? -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for adminship... 3?

Hi Sephiroth BCR, it's now been over half a year since my previous request for the mop, and reviewing that RfA reveals that you were one of my opposers last time round. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future? Please respond wherever you feel it is most appropriate. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if you're on this but....

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow is now missing an image :/ rst20xx (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Citing voice actors

Check this. Your comment would help.Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FLRC of List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates

Dear Sephiroth BCR, what should we do with the FLRC of List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. We have to fix some rationales on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, but we can fix them. Should we close the FLRC? Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

TMM character list

I've gone through and pared down almost all of the individual sections at List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters except the Ichigo section and the Saint Rose Crusaders. For the rest, do you think they are better or do they still need work? G.A.S wondered if there was still too much plot retelling/repetition? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

S@bre RfA

I share your frustration with A Nobody -- his comments become Le Grande-er every day, and I take some solace in these otherwise uncertain times in seeing him revert to predictable type. But, I think it might be better not to respond to his asinine baiting and trolling. None of us is going to make headway with him -- and, fortunately (and as you've pointed out), he's not making headway with anyone else. Save your bandwidth for his next barrage of ARS spam. --EEMIV (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

History merge

Hey Sephiroth, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to do a history merge of List of Shaman King chapters and User:Dinoguy1000/List of Shaman King chapters. It doesn't matter which gets deleted for the merge. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: admin

User_talk:Gary_King#Re:admin Gary King (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

Hey Sephiroth, could you delete Template:Infobox animanga/Dorama? It was moved to {{Infobox animanga/Drama}} in 2006, and it looks like it wasn't used much before then - nothing transcludes it now, at any rate. Also, could you take a look at Template:Infobox animanga/Novel/Light? I'm not so sure it can be deleted, since it sounds like it was merged to {{Infobox animanga/Novel}}, but I don't know enough about the history. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography request

Hello, hope you're doing well. A reviewer at the FLC for Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography requested that somebody perform a copyedit of the lead of the list. Looking at your extensive contributions to FLs, I was wondering if you could take a look? If you can't, no worries. Thanks and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

about my edit concerning "Sen to Chihiro..."

i really believe that it should be said that Sen to Chihiro is a foreign language film that won an oscar. Regardless of whether the Academy used an english dubbed version to send to voters, the film itself is still originally in japanese, and the award belongs to the japanese creative team that made the film, not the english voice cast. The page i tried to edit was simply about foreign language films that had won oscars not counting the best foreign language film. I think this film fits that category, and is pertinent information as this is the only non-american, non-english film so far to fin that oscar, and as of 2002 the first japanese film to win an oscar since 1955. The page itself was not about what the academy "thought" they were voting on, but on film history itself. I think this film deserves to be on that same list.

i understand i might be arguing a non-important issue. If needed why not let me update the page with a note that the academy used an english dubbed version, though the film itself is originally japanese? thanks for listening Tsuchinoko33 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Tsuchinoko33

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bleach episodes

Congratulations for the Bleach seasons FT, good work! By the way I wanted to know why does the main episode list uses the a logo image; the first dvd used in season 1 already has the logo, so it could be used also in the main list, couldnt it be? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

C-Class discussion at WT:FILM

This discussion is due to close in a few days, and it could do with someone neutral to close it and draw some sort of conclusion. As the only project coordinator not to comment in the discussion, and being an admin of sound mind, do you think you would be able to do it? :) Thanks in advance either way! PC78 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Aria episodes

A while back on my talk page, you expressed an interest in this article. We've finished building the content up as far as we know how, and are looking for some guidance as to the next steps, possibly looking towards FAC. Would you be willing to drop by the article talk page and comment? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (February 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)

There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of WP:V for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at WT:FICT#The rules seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

D.Gray-man characters and the English voice actors

I'm sorry to bother you, but there is a discussion going on at Talk:List of D.Gray-man characters regarding the cast of English language anime adaption and whether they should be added to the article. Your comments would appreciated. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 23:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

FFXIII debate

I've got no problem letting it go. I was done arguing anyway and was just going to request third-party mediation from WP:MEDCAB, but I guess that is no longer necessary. If the problem arises again in the future, that's the first thing I'll do. Thanks. KhalfaniKhaldun 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delist?

Is it possible to speedy delist FLs? List of European Union member states by accession is now a redirect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you get on in time, Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of European Union member states by accession is the formal FLR. However, Gimmetrow has done some stuff with the articlehistory, so I'm not sure what will happen here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

こんにちは

Hi, I'm looking for an admin coach, saw you listed, and wondered if you could help me? Thanks for your time, --  Chzz  ►  01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus & User:Collectonian

I'm asking for you advice cause i see that you seem to have tried some mediation between these two editors. Again it has arrived at a wikiquette alerts with both editors throwing bad faith accusations back and forth. Neither seem that interested in the advice given or accepting that this behaviour is unproductive which is about the limit of what can be done at WQA. Can you suggest anything? take it to ANI, mediation? A topic ban? A ban on interaction? I suggested that they both draw a line under the past and assmue good faith in future but i'm not convinced it will be effective. Thanks in advance. --neon white talk 06:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there much to prove wikistalking by Dream Focus? i couldn't really find anything to it. Not in recent contributions anyway. Dream Focus claims to be watching certain pages which is fair enough. It's very difficult to prove motive without making assumptions (which is the point i was trying to make to Collectonian with regards to the bad faith allegations against Dream Focus) Whilst it seems that Dream Focus is a problem, i've seen plenty of evidence of Collectonian edit warring with Dream Focus and not really assuming good faith. Do you believe this is reasonable or unreasonable? One of the things that WQA is stated not to be for is to mediate long term disputes between two editors. As for ideas, i know the arbitration committee can set strict guidelines with regards to intereaction but it's required that mediation is attempted first. --neon white talk 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've handled a similar harassment claim with LessHeard vanU in the past, although this may be a different bucket of monkeys. I just see a big mess at the WQA so I've closed it in favour of an RfC/U. It was helpful when others got to see the dispute from the perspective of both sides last time, so this would be an ideal time to do so again. The evidence section is what interests me most, and participation by both of you in that RfC will be important (as mediator, and as outsider). From there, I can make a recommendation on whether the community can do something that will work, or whether this might as well be pushed straight up to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To neon white, there were several incidents of what I perceived to be stalking (see the thread above; I'm too tired to look for specific examples right now). Again, I think the root of the conflict is Dream Focus taking the "inclusionst vs. deletionist" conflict far too seriously and Collectonian overreacting to his zeal by edit warring. Part of the problem is that Collectonian tends to overreact to perceived stalking, some of which has occured here, so that has only served to inflame tensions. To be fair, she had to deal with another user who was stalking her (Abtract), and that had to be resolved by an arbitration case that restricted Abtract from interacting with her.

To Ncmvocalist, an RfC/U might be a decent solution. Get the two of them to vent all the perceived wrongs one has committed against the other and we can go from there. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I just couldn't find any recent evidence that stalking was happening since the last time which was why i was concerned that Collectonian continuing the accusations of stalking (which i believe was the stated reason Dream Focus took it to WQA) and more were not appropriate. I'm unclear as to whether it is reasonable for her to not assume good faith considering Dream Focus's history. I'm just not happy about an editor's history being dragged up during a dispute in this way. I think there has to be a point where good faith has to be 're-assumed'. To be honest i have no idea why the "inclusionst vs. deletionist" thing has to be such an issue. There doesnt seem to be that much flexibility in policy for such extreme views. --neon white talk 05:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw this on Ncmvocalist's talkpage, so I thought I might comment; The restriction that was drafted chiefly by Ncmvocalist between Collectonian and Abtract was a very comprehensive form of words which, if adhered to, should have prevented the wikihounding experienced by Collectonian (and also would have meant Collectonian agreeing to limits) - it is also flexible enough to be adopted by Dream Focus and Collectonian if the RfC concludes there should be an agreement that the editors should disengage. Abtract was only taken to ArbCom because of his gaming of the restriction, and was sanctioned largely because it was realised the restrictions were an appropriate vehicle for resolving the matter which he disregarded. I would recommend a review of the Abtract/Collectonian restrictions to see if a variant might serve the same intended purpose in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh...everything (and I mean everything) I was going to say in my reply has already just been said by LHvU. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a ban on interaction will be that productive. They are going to have to interact with other editors and some will have equally opposing views. These too editors essentially need to learn to disagree in a civil manner. --neon white talk 05:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to interact with other editors with equally opposing views; it's another thing to wikihound another contributor. Also, in some cases, a ban on interaction prevents the disruption that is caused when they insist on continuing to interact - a toxic environment is not desired by anyone. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Abtract/Collectonian restrictions might be a good idea. At least from my recollection, it was fairly easy to enforce and was rather obvious when one was gaming the restrictions. Also, Collectonian is familiar with the restrictions and probably won't have much of a problem with it. LHvU, could you link to the restrictions Ncmvocalist wrote up for those two? We might be able to simply skip the drama of an RfC/U if the two can agree to the restrictions to stay away from one another. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording can be found here, part of an archive dedicated to this matter. In respect of Neon white's concern, it may be that the part of "not commenting" upon each other could be addressed strongly to Collectonian; as envisioned, the restriction was created to allow both parties to edit constructively without the distraction of the area of dispute and was not supposed to favour any one other than removing the specific matters of contention. If the parties are amenable, and good faith editors should be, then the restrictions can be voluntary with each editor requesting a reviewing admin plus third (or more) invited by the others. If this wording (or similar) is agreed then it can be posted at WP:AN. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think something needs to be done asap with this. I've seen further examples of the two editors getting deliberately (as i see it) involved with one another. For instance [[12]] & [[13]], Collectonian has no history with either of these article at all but appears straight after Dream Focus comments. Both of these editor's behaviour seems to be dragging other editors down and i think it's causing too many problems. I'm not in favour of throwing around blocks but i really believe these two need a cooling off and time to think. --neon white talk 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair in this case, Collectonian watches the AfDs at WP:ANIME/D fairly regularly, so this is really Collectonian being involved in her regular set of articles more than anything else. Also, I'm not really seeing those interactions as being worthy of blocks or even attention even. AfDs are always heated between people on different sides of the inclusion spectrum. I think you're overreacting in this case. I'm more worried about Dream Focus' comments outside of AfDs in merge discussions and whatnot. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough but the timing of her conributions and some of the wording concerns me. For instance the comments about Dream Focus when nominating Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misa_Kobayashi. Were they really necessary? It seems a little antagonistic. To be honest i think both these editors are as bad as each other whe it comes to needling each other. I'm not in favour of blocks but these two editors do not seem prepared to either interact civily or avoid each other. Something has to be done. I'm tired of seeing them bicker and try to use every different process possible to justify it. --neon white talk 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was. I have ALWAYS noted when an article I am nominating was deprodded or a declined CSD, and I almost always note who removed it and the reason they gave. For a CSD, if it was "declined" by a non-admin, I also always note this. I'm not going to change my MO just because Dream Focus was the one who removed the tags, nor was I "antagonistic". I stated very simply that Dream Focus, a non-admin, removed both the prod and the CSD and quoted his edit summaries, same as I do for everyone else. Please point to some specific instances of incivility and personal attacks that I have personally done within the last 24 hours or so, and those by Dream Focus (including his newest, after he was blocked, on his talk page that basically mirrors his remarks below and in other areas without giving my name specifically). I think you will find that I have done little, if any, while he has continued full scale. Again, I have tried avoiding him, but when he keeps popping up all over the place, its rather hard to do and I will not just abandon my work in the anime/manga project because of him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not going to change my MO" i think you need to reconsider this. If such things may be percieved as antogonistic there's is no harm in altering your editing practices to avoid it. Why is admin or non-admin relevant? It comes across like an accusation that he didnt have authority to do so. Just don't comment on each other at all! You must realise that this only inflame matters. If you both follow that then it doesnt matter where he pops up. --neon white talk 01:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At least in that AfD, disclosing who removed a CSD and prod tag and the reasoning is perfectly fine. There's nothing antagonistic about it; in the nature of full disclosure, you're supposed to state that there was a CSD/prod tag if you put one on the article and it was removed prior to the AfD. I think you're overreacting here quite a bit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. In normal cases it might be appropriate to disclose but considering this involved Dream Focus which she had prior problems with i think it's a good idea to stay away from any comments whatsoever that involve him. I wasn't saying the intention was necessarily was to antogonise but it certainly has the potential to and may come across accusatory, considering the extreme polar attitudes of both editors. Most nominators find it sufficient to simply note that a prod was removed without naming the editor or reasons. It's these types of things by both editors that are causing the problems and stopping both making any comments whatsoever concerning each other has to be considered. These editors have to learn to accommodate one other and that will mean being cautious about their actions around each other. --neon white talk 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is that it can come off as antagonistic...with the language being entirely neutral in the opening sentence of the nomination and zero evidence that it actually was meant to be antagonistic. Again, you're overreacting a lot here. There's certainly other cases to address, but you're blowing this individual case way out of proportion. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you said you didn't want to hear from either of us, but this is ridiculous. I can not be expected to ignore any anime/manga AfDs just because Dream Focus commented on them first. Nor did I appear "straight" after him. 4-5 HOURS difference on one, 30 minutes on the other, and HE has no history of editing either either. And no mention of the opposite happening at both Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer and its AfD, nor his immediately removing a CSD tag I put on an article[14] nor his popping into a discussion at the South Park episode page[15] only after I did (and continuing his "merge doesn't mean merge" arguments. Despite my questioning Neon white's neutrality at this point, I have tried very hard not to respond to Dream Focus' continuing personal attacks at the AfDs mentioned, in the TWO 3RR reports against Dream Focus at the moment, and here in which he continues perpetuating the false statements that I was the first and only editor to remove a rescue tag from an article, when I was neither the first NOR the last, yet Neon white actually told Dream Focus that he should have reported all THREE editors to AN/I instead of edit warring with us.[16] I don't really see how Neon white can claim to want to resolve the situation while appearing to be throwing even more fuel on the fire.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the tag was petty disruptive behaviour begining with other editors which you got unecessarily involved with in my opinion. Seeking admin intervention is always better than edit warring. I'm aware that you were not the first editor to remove it so why the need to get involved? I'd have thought avoiding such actions would be in your interest. No-one is suggesting you to not contibute to afds but to avoid unecessary antagonism. You are both hurling bad faith accusations at each other and that has to stop. Attacking a volunteer attempting to resolve a situation is also inapropriate --neon white talk 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you continue to focus solely on my actions. You might note that now a FOURTH editor has removed that tag. Also, please point out where I edit warred. I reverted him ONCE. All other reverts were done by other editors who also agreed with the tag removal. I don't see you saying anything to any of them claiming it was "disruptive". Nor was I "unnecessarily" involved as it has already been established that I am a very active member in the parent project of the article and had, in fact, edited it earlier in the day to remove copyvio material after examining it when it was AfDed. So I noticed the tag was removed and that it was unnecessarily readded. I agreed with the removal, which Dream Focus had already been reverted on twice and very specifically asked for "a consensus with other editors before removing" so I removed as well showing additional support for its removal. I have not unnecessarily antagonized anyone, and again I do not see you saying a single word about Dream Focus' remarks in other places that ARE clearly unnecessary antagonism for which he has been chastised, even by his fellow rescue project members. So, again, I have to ask why are you focusing purely on me. It feels as if you think I am the only one at fault here or the one most at fault, and I just can't agree with that idea at all. I also have not attacked anyone attempting to resolve the situation, I've made what I feel is a legitimate question of neutrality because of the seeming focus purely against me without any negative remarks about Dream Focus' actions despite his remarks all over the place seeming to be a far greater issue of "bad faith".-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I commented on both editors actions in the WQA even though though the report was made about you. I warned both of you about the accusations being made. Whilst Dream Focus hasn't really responded to the requests and advice, you responded largely with denial and havent really shown any willingness to accept your part in the escalation which needed addressing. I am merely pointing out how some of your actions/methods may be reconsidered to avoid future problems. It's not an attack, it's helpful advice and is aimed at both editors. Both need to respond. If you respond and he continues his behaviour then he will deal with the consequences and not you.

I didnt actually say you edit warred. I said you got involved in an edit war that was going on with an editor that you have serious personal problems with for what reason? Why put yourself in that position? The removal was dispruptive in my opinion regardless of how many editors have done it. As was agreed by several editors in the edit war report, there is no logic to removing it other than to disrupt attempts to rescue an article. It's not up to a single editor to decide that an article is unrescuable. Deletion policy says we should do all we can to try and source an article. The afd will ultimately decide and attempts to rescue an article are nothing new nor unusual. It may be that editors have thoroughly searched for sources and found nothing and you may think that the rescue squad are wasting their time. Just let them and if the rescue squad do find 11th hour sources that save the article that should be welcomed. --neon white talk 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• If its on the Rescue Squadron thing I visit it, and I have several categories on my watch list also. Her accusations toward me concerning the South Park thing, is rather ridiculous. Some people are trying to delete over a hundred articles at once, without going through an AFD, calling it a merge, when in fact not one bit of information will be added to the main article that is not already there. I protest this horrible and deceptive tactic, whenever I come across it. And once more, she mentions the CSD tag, which says if you disagree with it to remove it, which is what I did. She stated that you had to be an administrator to do that, but an administrator showed up and said that no, you didn't, anyone could do so. And where did I claim you were the first or only editor to remove the tag? I copied the history over there which shows who did what and when. Dream Focus 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • She has a ridiculous attack against me on her user page right now. [17] Particularly in this case, where he tags anything and everything

"I have never tagged anything with the Rescue squadron tag before. I don't recall ever using any tag previously for anything. She on the other hand has a terrible habit of going around to articles that were voted keep, and erasing them anyway, calling it a Merge. Look through her history, and you can see she has done that quite regularly. You have an editor who refuses to follow closing AFD consensus, and is obsessed with deleting every single article she can get away with. Is there a way to search for how many articles she has added a redirect to, after they were voted Keep? Dream Focus 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Dream Focus

Have you had the opportunity to review the restrictions that I linked to for Sephiroth BCR? Do you think that this might provide a basis for you and Collectonian to move forward in the editing of the encyclopedia, once the current matter is resolved? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We can not avoid each other, she determined to delete every article she can get away with, while I wish to save those worth saving(she calls herself a deletionist, I an inclusionist, that not an insult, but a fact). Conflict will occur. She can stop calling me a stalker in her edit summaries, and other uncivilized acts. I'm leaving any and all discussions I've had with anyone on my user page. Dream Focus 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem boils down to Dream Focus' belief that Collectonian is "determined to delete every article she can get away with". That misconception is perhaps the key problem here (aside from being grossly incorrect and having no basis whatsoever) and needs to be addressed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, it also appears that Collectonian believes that Dream Focus is stalking her - and since harassment is in the eye of the beholder it is a valid perception - so I think that there can be a real benefit in having a restriction in them dealing directly with each other. While stillborn, there was an element in the old restriction of each party coming to one of the admins to mediate any immediate difficulty; thus reducing the potential of increasing friction every time the parties clash. If both editors can see how their own editing will be less effected, then I think that some sort of wording which distances both from each other might appear attractive. (I hope that folks can see that I am trying to get this agreed by the two editors, because it is much more likely to work when both believe they are deriving nett benefit from it...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And FYI to the other participants in this thread, Dream Focus has just been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation, so we'll put this particular question on hold for a bit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since my ban is up now, I'd like to comment on her statement above concerning the CSD tag. Or better yet, everyone just read what actually happened, and give your opinions please for that particular event.

Please look at the edit history of that article. Remember, read from the bottom, it coming first. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misa_Kobayashi&action=history

1. (cur) (prev) 02:29, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (825 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misa Kobayashi. using TW) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 02:23, 16 March 2009 X! (talk | contribs) (503 bytes) (rv, csds can be removed by anyone, not just admins.) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 02:18, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (518 bytes) (Undid revision 277548613 by Dream Focus (talk) rv; CSDs are determined by admins, not you) (undo)
4. (cur) (prev) 02:16, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (503 bytes) (It says "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice") (undo)
5. (cur) (prev) 02:14, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (518 bytes) (Undid revision 277546098 by Dream Focus (talk) rv; you are not an admin) (undo)
6. (cur) (prev) 02:02, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (503 bytes) (I object. An actor in three notable series gets an article, so why not voice actors the same way?) (undo)
7. (cur) (prev) 01:33, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (518 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). using TW) (undo)
8. (cur) (prev) 18:36, 15 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (504 bytes) (has worked as a voice actor on several notable series) (undo)
9. (cur) (prev) 15:09, 15 March 2009 Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) (771 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (undo)

Just read through that please. She appeared to believe only administrators could delete those tags, despite the fact it says if anyone disagrees with the speedy delete, they should remove it. Prods and speedy delete are just if no one would possibly object to the deletion of an article. Otherwise, you send it to AFD and discuss it, forming a consensus.

And if I delete her CSD tag right away, its because I had added that page to my watchlist after removing the prod placed by someone else. And I removed the speedy delete tag, for the same reason.

I would like others to read her comments there in the edit summaries, as well as on the AFD page as well, and comment. Did I do anything wrong? What about her adding the speedy delete tag back after I removed it? Isn't that rather uncalled for? I only mention the event at all, since it was brought up in the discussion above. I thought it just a common mistake, although a strange one, since the tag clearly states that anyone can remove it if they disagree, not just an administrator.

Notice that she appears to believe that everyone is out to get her. Do I appear in even 1% of the articles she is involved in? She edits a tremendous number of articles every day it seems. I'm certainly not stalking her, if we both show up in the anime/manga discussion, or something else we both signed up for on our watch list. Her constant behavior to ignore anything that the AFD voted keep, and then erase it when no one is looking, replacing it with a redirect, and calling it a "merge" despite nothing being merged, is a source of conflict. This is how this all got started again, she doing that to an article I had on my watchlist, and then in her edit comment calling me a "stalker" once again for it. I am certainly not stalking her. Dream Focus 01:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:AGF applies. You should assume that this is a misunderstanding of deletion policy. This wasnt what the block was for why is it being brought up? You need to provide some evidence to back up your claims. Do you have any diffs of these? --neon white talk 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I mention it only because it was mentioned above. She complained about me deleting her tag for a speedy deletion after she posted it, so I was responding to that. I mention that I didn't respond previously, because I had a 24 hour block. Sorry if I didn't write that out in the most coherent way possible. The block issue I believe was discussed elsewhere, most agreeing they committed vandalism by removing the tags. As soon as I was blocked, there were at least two more attempts to remove them, reverted by others. But that doesn't specifically concern this case. I am not stalking her, and do not wish to be constantly accused of stalking. She has falsely accused me of other things as well, every chance she gets.

My problems are with her constant accusations, none of which make any sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Collectonian.27s_behavior

Every chance she gets, she accuses me of going after her because she nominated one of my articles for deletion, the Gantz Equipment page. You can see on my user page that that only happened, after I criticized her actions elsewhere, and then told her not to erase a message on a talk page, because she didn't like what it said. She then nominated my article for deletion. I had problems with her in the past. Does anyone who has seen the facts, believe her constant accusation that I'm simply out to get her because she deleted one article of mine? She makes false accusations to try to sway others to her side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=276813655&oldid=276812516 She accuses me of forum shopping, on a recent history of quatrains page, despite the fact I only posted on the wikiquette, and then was told where to post instead, and then posted a second time at that location. Does anyone consider that forum shopping? And that article was kept, as consensus, after enough attention was brought to the fact that a few were determined to delete it, and put just a redirect in its place.

Those who have looked through the issue, please answer my questions.

• Do you believe I am stalking her, by appearing in the same AFD we both signed up notification for, and an occasional other discussion?
• Do you believe I was forum shopping in the history of quatrains issue mentioned above?
• Do you believe I am specifically out to her, in any way, for any reason?
• Do you believe it is appropriate for her to keep making these accusations?

Dream Focus 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review at FLC

Hi, Sephiroth. I conducted an image review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Naval Academy alumni, but the nominator has said that I was over the top, and too strict and nitpicky. I've asked Ecobbola, who is more experienced in image reviewing to comment, and I was wondering if you, as a non-image reviewer would be able to visit and comment also. Was I too strict? Does correct license tagging on Commons matter for article purposes, or should it be kept a separate thing?

I know an image needs a FUR if it is not GFDL or Creative Commons licensed or in the public domain, but when an image is said to be in the public domain, does that need to be verified or can it be assumed by, for example, the age or career of the subject in the photo?

This was my first image review, so if I was wrong, I'd like to know for future purposes. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with King's College London

Hi Sephiroth, just wanted to pop by and say nice job with the List of Nobel laureates affiliated with King's College London :) Flaming Ferrari (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sephiroth, I notice that you undid my latest edit to your List of Nobel laureates affiliated with King's College London. The reason I added the fact that Frederick Gowland Hopkins was educated at Guy's Hospital medical school was because this school later merged with King's College, and by my understanding this makes Hopkins an alumnus by extension, at least King's College seems to think so see here. It's up to you if you wish to reinstate that fact as I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way. Regards Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper Canvassing

Hey I hear you Sephiroth BCR, I just want to win this thing. I'll stop being innappropriate. Shamwow86 (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)