User talk:Splash/Archive7

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005 – Archive to end 22 October 2005 – Archive to end 19 November 2005

Deletion question

Just wondering if a page can ever be undeleted.

this is in referance to the deleted Charlie Wenzel article.

As i stated in the discussion for deletion, google had no time to index all the pages discussing Charlie Wenzel and in fact still has not. As of today the total google pages indexed now approach 10,000(9,890 to be exact) Google,

What would be an appropriate number to be considered "notable"?

and if in fact it is notable how can the error of it's deletion be rectified.

Todrick 22:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and explaination... it is appreciated

The entry was deleted from wikionary within 1 hour... mostly because the person who did include it did so in an atacking manner(something i did try to avoid with the wikipedia entry) That was the avenue attempted first, and was the reason I attempted the wikipedia entry forcused on Charlie himself as opposed to the term "Wenzeled". It is quite easy to write what we know about charlie in an objective manner, but rather difficult to explain the term "Wenzeled" without it sounding like an attack on him.

It is tough pill to swallow, there are a lot of people who know the charlie wenzel story but many seem to want to simply attack the guy at every opportunity instead of documenting the story.

As for sticking around here... I have browsed for years, now that I have joined i will likely make some edits here and there.

Thanks again.

Todrick 18:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, Splash. This is in regards to a deletion, so I am posting it here. The article "Japanese Journal of Religious Studies" was deleted by administrator RedWolf for a copyright violation. Below is a transcript of a brief discussion with RedWolf about the article.

• The article contained verbatim text because it is intended to be the same article, as it is part of a major Japanese bibliographical project/class that has been ongoing at Columbia University for many years. I, personally, do not claim authorship for the text in the article. My responsibility was to put the article up on Wikipedia after a bit of editing and addition of information. The article on Wikipedia contains verbatim text from the site because it is indeed the same article, and it is not intended to be an original.Jb05-crd 19:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Please see the article WikiProject Japanese Bibliography. Thank you. Jb05-crd 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• My suggestion is to post an undeletion request on Wikipedia:Deletion review along with intentions to obtain permission to release the text under GFDL. If you can obtain this permission, your undeletion request should be granted. RedWolf 02:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Splash, I wanted to inform you of this exhange, because it seems that you recommended the article for deletion, and may be interested in what has happened since. Thank you for your time. Jb05-crd 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for all of your comments! Best, Jb05-crd 04:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A refresher...

Whew! You must be thirsty after cleaning up the WP:TFD backlog, so why not have a drink after your work? Thanks for taking care of that, mate: if you do it again, there's more where this came from. Blackcap (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -Splash^talk 22:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

*grin* Yeah, I know the feeling. You're welcome: you've been on that page for a long time, and someone had to do the dirty work... Thanks again. Keep up the good work! Blackcap (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL's RFA

Hi Splash,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see you've been reverting User 72.136.3.182's vandalism of Louis XIV of France. That user has been targeting that individual all night. I have now imposed a 24 hour block. It is possible that they will reappear and continue the vandalism using a new IP. I'm sure you know it, but if they do impose an immediate block, using the template {{MIPblock}}. That template is designed to tell people that the block is not simply for someone vandalising using that IP but that they have been using multiple IPs for vandalism. FearÉIREANN 00:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nanome.gif

Hello again... I noticed that you'd tagged this as {{or-fu-nr}}. Do know where it's copyrighted from? I like this image, and I know that it has virtually no chance of surviving, but I was just wondering if/how you knew so that permission might be gotten. Blackcap (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, I know, it not only will but ought to be deleted. Still, I like the little guy. Ah well, it'll have a good week. Blackcap (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Experimenting with the Delete function.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. EddieSegoura 20:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hi, I'm moving the category and interwiki stuff from the header to the main CP page. I think they were originally put in the header because they would get in the way of new listings if they were at the bottom of the page. But now that we have daily subpages transcluded onto the CP page, that shouldn't be a problem anymore. Coffee 22:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I see... I just figured that if anyone wanted to make legitimate changes to the categories and interwiki stuff they'd look for it in the usual place. But it's nothing I feel strongly about, so it's just fine in the /Header too. By the way, I've made a few changes to the header to hopefully help streamline and unclutter things. Coffee 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Great. :) Coffee 22:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO RfA

Splash, I am sorry you didn't approve and I will do all I can to ensure that this opinion you have of me changes. I wasn't trying to dissuade other voices from chiming in, but merely addressing one users sentiments and explaining my actions so they may also understand that I have never intended any malice towards others. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you and I'll do my best.--MONGO 04:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura 2 --Viriditas 09:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Re-created lists

I was closing some keeps for the 17th and noticed that List of Catholic scientists was blue-linked despite taking a thumping and being deleted here. It is now a re-direct to List of avowed Christians in science which was created by User:T. Anthony while the AfD debate was on-going. I tagged the re-direct db = G4 and was tempted to do the same with new list as it's presumably a re-creation. However, I cannot view the old content as I'm not an admin--perhaps the new list belongs. User:Mailer diablo closed it initially and I'd contact him but his last edit was a wikivaction note so I went searching for someone else instead. Cheers, Marskell 09:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The new list involves some recreation. of the List of Christian scientists(not the Catholic ones, Catholics are predominating at the moment because I merged stuff from an aborted Jesuit scientists page into it when starting) but it's specifically about scientists who contributed in some way to both religion and science. I also have almost every name sourced and there's in least 6 references listed at the bottom. I hope you allow this one to survive.--T. Anthony 10:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to alter it some from the deleted lists. I'm looking more through theologians then through scientists categories. I'm also dropping many of the non-ordained people in it.--T. Anthony 14:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had to sit and think fairly hard about this, and am still not sure I have reached the right conclusion. I'm not going to speedily delete the new article. The previous article, whilst incorporated almost entirely in the new one was not substantially identical from a content point of view, includng as it did far fewer entries, no references and little context. On the other hand, AfD is supposed to decide on the topic not tthe article, and the AfD debate Marskell references does do that, and is indeed a thumping delete. On those grounds, it's a borderline speedy since the topic is very plainly the same; the word "avowed" in the title makes a difference by narrowing the scope, but not much of one. Nevertheless, the addition of external material and "reasons for fame" is just enough to keep me from speedying it.

My understanding is that AfD is about the article, and as an immediatist I think that's absolutely the way it should be. There needs to be a way to delete articles about good topics, when the article as it stands is more trouble than it's worth to clean up. G4 is supposed to be only for substantially identical recreations of the content. --Trovatore 16:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, AfD is about the topic. Imagine a 'good' article about a bad topic (a well-written non-notable band, for instance) deleted at AfD by a resounding delete debate and brought up at deletion review. If DR was happy that the AfD had adequately addressed all the information that was available about the topic, it would keep the article deleted — even though it was well-written. AfD is supposed to consider whether, at the present time, Wikipedia should carry information on the topic, or not, rather than whether it should carry the current information on the topic. It is for this reason that AfD is not Cleanup, and the very reason that Cleanup exists. From the immediatist point-of-view, we have speedy deletion. -Splash^talk 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup doesn't work. AfD should delete bad articles about good topics. Since G4 is written narrowly to apply only to substantially identical recreations (I believe that's the exact wording), people are free to write new articles on the same topic, provided they don't suffer from the same defects that got the original one deleted. --Trovatore 23:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

However, I do not think the current version of the 'Avowed' article makes the grade: it includes references but they emphatically do not provide any evidence that the people on the list were avowed Christians. I even clicked a few of the inline links, and the word Christian or Catholic was completely absent from the document. Now clearly, some of the entries on the list were avowed Christians, but there is insufficient hard evidence that all, or probably even most, of them were. I would want to see a little superscript after each and every entry (or an inline link) linking to a reliable source that explicitly says they were an "avowed Christian" or words to that effect. Marksell: you probably have a case for taking this to AfD, and T. Anthony, you probably have a (somewhat weak) case for defending it. Also, T. Anthony, your comment on your talk page reads rather like premeditated recreation of deleted content and nearly made me react by deleting it: you should be aware that, when AfD decides to delete something, it is not for you to think of other titles under which to spirit away the deleted material. You can ask at deletion review to have the decision overturned, but placing the deleted content elsewhere in "substantially identical" form is bad practise. -Splash^talk 17:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Per above, I have sent it back to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of avowed Christians in science. Marskell 09:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi Splash,

Just wondering--why was my vote here not counted? Can you give me a little background on this?

Thanks in advance! Telestylo 08:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Telestylo. It's fairly common to 'discount' 'votes' in debates such as this that draw many rather new users. These new users are often arriving in response to an off-Wiki campaign and/or are in some cases direct sockpuppets. Either way, they are participating purely on agenda-led grounds rather than encyclopedicity grounds and you will find most admins discounting that kind of contribution. That was not the case with you, I think, as you have a number of edits prior to that one. However, almost none of them were to Wikpedia: space (where AfDs are held) and most admins will also discount users who are very inexperienced in such debates, particularly when the debate is having to be treated with the kind of caution that this particular one required. In fact, your comment here was well-argued and I could probably have justifiably included it in my raw count. However, the raw count is not the most important factor in closing AfDs, particularly this kind, and the debate itself takes precedence. I indicated as much with the fuzziness of the numbers in my closure. So I took into account all the comments I judged were made in good-faith with a good-argument in deciding whether there was a consensus or not. In that sense, your argument made a difference, but in the sense of arriving at the most conservative deletion-vote count, I erred on the side of caution so that my decision was much less likely to be challenged and/or overturned at deletion review. I also had to make sure I treated both keep/delete sides even-handedly, of course. -Splash^talk 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Alleged relics of Jesus

Hi. You took part in the discussion over the renaming of this category when I nominated it for renaming on 14th September. I think that everyone agreed that it needed to be renamed, although there wasn't any agreement over what to rename it to. I've nominated it again and I'd be grateful if you could consider my new proposal to rename it Relics attributed to Jesus. Thanks! --G Rutter 09:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I will take a look. -Splash^talk 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

about possible copyvio

Perhaps you can help at User:David Pierce/Metaphysics. Thanks! +MATIA ☎ 14:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have got the relevant book out of my University library and will head over to that page and throw in my twopen'orth later (thats "my 2 cents", in England). -Splash^talk 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

grammar

My apostrophies IAR! :-) --Doc ^ask? 00:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lotvandal

Mysekurity, I'm sorry, but this template is actually being used. I've put it on TfD. You might want to userfy it or something. Speedily, if you like. I've removed it from George W. Bush and Muhammad already. This isn't personal, ok? -Splash^talk 02:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's nothing personal :). What do you mean by it's "actually being used"? I'd support a TfD (or oppose, rather), and see no need to userfy. I neither created nor added this template to any article, I merely fixed what I believed was bad grammar. It is written awkwardly, and as you said, it puts off newcomers to the project. Thanks for contacting me, but no, I don't take it personally . -Mysekurity 02:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw you in the edit history and remembered that you were involved in the discussion about the earlier template. I've dropped Voice of All a message too, because he did put in an article. By "actually being used" I meant that I thought it was ok to userfy if this was being used in semi-protect discussion somewhere because of your message on the template's talk page, but not ok for it to actually be in articles. (I also dropped the creator a line. I'd like to know how many variants of this are lurking on articles.)-Splash^talk 02:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, and sure. I don't really like the template, nor find it useful for articles, and only commented as I imagined it would be used for articles and therefore might be subject to vandalism/blanking. Thanks for checking the histories. I'll use a google search sometime later tonight to see what comes up. Thanks again, Mysekurity 04:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What's with the vandalism templates?

I thought it was a good idea to put a vandalism template on Islam -- I didn't put it up, didn't know it existed, but as soon as I saw it, I thought it was useful. The article is vandalized several times a day. You switched the tag to NPOV. What's POV about the article? The first template was a good idea. The second is a mistake. Explain to those of us who EDIT the article, please. Zora 03:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Splash, just got back from Thanksgiving dinner, got your message. Yes, I meant Muhammad. Muslim and Islam get vandalized a lot too. Any terrorist incident and the vandalism spikes. I wouldn't say that it's NOT a problem. I get damn tired of reverting it. I'm not sure that I want credentialed editors, necessarily, I just want educated editors who aren't fuggheads with agendas. I deal with people on POV crusades all the time -- some of them tinfoil-hat kooks with anger management problems -- and I'm getting damn sick of that too. As Bill the Cat says, ack-thbbppt! Zora 09:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

Splash! Thanks for your support on my RfA. I was glad to see your name on there, we don't cross swords so much now but I always find yo a pleasure to deal with. Hope to bump into you again soon, Steve block talk 10:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory

Hi- thank you for asking me about this article. It is the subject of a massive, months-long revert war; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine. JamesF has informed me that the Arbcom should have voted on it by next Monday. If they have not, then Tony Sidaway or I will unprotect the article. As it stands, we have no reason to believe that unprotecting the article will do anything but let Ultramarine keep reverting, so we are leaving it protected until Arbcom finalized the issue. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Advice requested

Should I push the issue at Sexual slang and use my full 3 reverts? I strenuously believe that the short version is ideally preferably to the long version, but lately I've been trying to tone down on my, uh, antagonistic approach to things. The Literate Engineer 17:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Last two reverts weren't actually by me or Bend Over. Seems Friday and Daycd got involved. I think everything's going to turn out ok with this article. The Literate Engineer 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[1]. Bend over got himself a new user name, moved the list into List of sexual slang, re-wrote his "letter" with somewhat more concise accusations of vandalism against me and VoiceOfAll (with at least one additional factual inaccuracy: I never moved anything), and sent a copy of it to about 15 people. I want to send the list to AFD (Sexual slang is fine now, although the "see also" needs to go, obviously), but I'm fairly certain it's still "too soon after the previous AfDs". So, advice? The Literate Engineer 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

TFD Log

One question about the TFD log: when I speedy a template (under G7, G3 or something else), should I add it to the deleted log, or should I just remove it from the TFD page without logging it? There really isn't any discussion to archive in those cases, so I'm not sure... Titoxd^(?!?) 04:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that actually is quite helpful. I'll start archiving them now, instead of just leaving them there for others (*cough*you*cough*) to decide what to do with them... Titoxd^(?!?) 04:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tim James (from Fucking, Austria)

Thanks for bashing the disambig page too, saves the extra AFD overhead. In your opinion, would it be unreasonable to propose something like this:

This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is an superfluous disambiguation page linking to one or fewer existing articles.
If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself.
Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deleting.

As a qualification for speedy deletion? Lol, in a perfect world maybe? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

By "one or fewer" I mean if it's a disambig page with only one blue link, or all red links, I feel it should be speedied. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I posted it. I must say, though, that I've never seen the wheels of justice turn so quickly. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Calamity

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Calamity please explain how you came to your conclusion after reading the page, because I read it differently:

• My request AFD
• Keep or rename.
• Keep. But merge
• Strong Delete Eusebeus 15:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge any valuable information in it.
• Redirect to Irish potato famine.
• Merge what is verifiable to the appropriate India articles,
• Delete as original research/neologism and redirect to Irish Potato Famine
• Redirect to Irish Potato Famine. Bwithh 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but disambiguate User:The Main Event only this one entry in wikipedia.

As AFAICT only one opinion was to keep and even that was to keep or rename. All the others were to merge or delete and/or redirect. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheap shot

I know that you don't exactly like me ever since I disagreed with your view point, however if you take another cheap shot at me again I will report you. Paul Cyr 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

After a previous debate with you on an AfD, on another AfD you told me oh get off 1 when I made an honest vote. I felt that you were retaliating against me, so I told you then that if you continued I would report you. Because of your previous actions, I feel that you were simply making these comments out of spite and contempt. Perhaps you weren't, but based on your previous actions it definitely doesn't seem you singling out my comment wasn't purposefully rude. Paul Cyr 03:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm always willing to keep an open mind, so if you want to start off on fresh note, I'll agree with that. Paul Cyr 23:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk

Oooh! I'm the first to post on this nice clean talk page :-) Anyway, I thought I might introduce you to the reference desk. --HappyCamper 04:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I got your wonderful message on my talk page. It will take me some time to adequately reply to it I think, but one will be forthcoming :-) --HappyCamper 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Splash - I sent you an e-mail through Wikipedia... Did you get it? (Also, I moved my original post down here, so that everything is kept together. I hope you don't mind.) --HappyCamper 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you got my e-mail. Wikipedia's e-mail system is rather like a black hole to me! We do generate quite a few new Wikipedians via the reference desk actually. I'm usually on the lookout for anonymous posters and the like. I'm glad you found my perspective a bit refreshing - it is by no means absolutely correct, but at least it is workable :-)

As for wireless communications, I don't remember ever seeing a question related to that on the reference desk yet. You could always ask a question yourself, and see if it attracts other users with the same interests there...as an aside, may I ask what you are researching? Channel fading? CDMA? --HappyCamper 03:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Franz Hemingbeck

What do you think of this article? It states that the subject is fictional, yet claims that he posts on an internet forum under the screen name Wombosi. "Wombosi" was a vanity article by the same author that was deleted. That author has had a couple of other articles deleted, and I just don't trust him, or most of what he's written. I also love the cute little answer he's given on the Talk:Franz Hemingbeck page when I asked if the subject was fact or fiction. Do you think it's worth trying to keep this? Joyous | Talk 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; you rock. Do you think it's nn-bio enough for a speedy? Or AfD? I think if I tried a copyvio, he'd pop up and say he's the copyright holder and of course he gives permission...yada yada yada.... Joyous | Talk 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:WEB

Can I get your opinion of my behavior on the bottom section of the talk here? It's always possible that I am the one out of line and that I'm not seeing that, but if you tell me that I'll believe it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking. Got to remind myself to keep working toward solutions. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Preventing Vandalism

Hi; I wanted to know why you reverted my changes to the vandalism-prevention notice on the Gay article. I've added some ideas for how to make the notice more effective to the bottom of that article's talk page. Cheers. Tlogmer 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Packages in Java

Hi I have restored some of this article which was deleted - I think if it is notable enough to a get a wikibook article, than it should get a shorter version here. I don't see why my vote was ignored for 'obvious reasons'. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packages in Java Wikibooks is much more of an obscure site, and unless there is a shorter article here on wikipedia which points to the wikibook article, than it would be as difficult to find as all the rest of the mass of information out there on the internet. Wikipedia is great because it brings all that info together Astrokey44 08:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. Please don't restore deleted content. Instead, ask for the matter to be reconsidered at Wikipedia:Deletion review. We have the transwiki process available to us to allow 'cross-fertilisation' among the Wikimedia projects and, if we always relied on the (true) fact that Wikipedia is much more popular than the other prjects, we'd never transwiki anything. Also see the comments made in the AfD debate by Mgm. Thanks. -Splash^talk 09:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok I put it up at the review, not sure if I got the format right.. I dont mind transwiking, its just that you shouldnt delete the article from wikipedia, you should leave something here with the {{Wikibookspar|Transwiki|Packages in Java}} tag - which incidentally I had to remove from the wikibook article (that anonymous edit there [2] ) because no-one else had bothered to - which proves my point about how wikibooks isnt as well used Astrokey44 09:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree strongly with a link to Wikibooks via a template. Is there one which says "Wikipedia does not have ana rticle on this topic, but Wikibooks does <link>"? There's one for Wikisource, I'm sure, but I can't remember its name to guess the 'books one with. You should feel free to add such a template to the article. -Splash^talk 09:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok Im not very good at templates, but I just made one here Template:Wikibooksarticle, do you know how to get it to direct to the article rather than do a search? Astrokey44 09:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your template already links to the article, no? -Splash^talk 14:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

yes it does now, I figured out how to fix it. sorry should have said that Astrokey44 14:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Church of Reality Restored

Don't delete the votes on the Church of Reality or I will point the membership at your talk page. These are votes - leave them alone!!!

Marc, threatening to vandalize someone's talk page isn't going to help matters... why don't you try to direct your energies in a more creative fashion? I created a placeholder for the CoR page on your user space here. Why don't you add to it (but keep it NPOV!!!) and maybe in a few days or so the article will be advanced enough to try to petition to get it reinstated. This back and forth will not help matters. Paul 19:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The process for getting something undeleted has been shut down by you. People are discussing it and one of the issues was if the Church of Reality has only one member Clearly this is not the case. So - what do we need to do to end the censorship.?

The community voted to reverse but you shut down the voting.

I am not going to stop until the Church of Reality is unblocked and restored. I will point my members at your talk page so that they can ask you diectly to stop the censorship.

all unsigned comments above by User:Marcperkel. -Splash^talk 00:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Clemson University and University of South Carolina

I've been getting into some discussion with an anonymous user on both of these articles, and would appreciate some involvement from other editors. If you'd care to help, do check out the Talk pages for both. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Splash, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and offering any sugguestions, comments, or edits you may have? Thanks, Mysekurity 12:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

GWB vandalism

Hi there. You've recently begun something of a determined course of action to have this article protected. Admins have repeatedly unprotected it quite quickly; I was wondering if you were aware of this. It's fundamentally wrong to have our highest profile articles protected, in the same way we never protect the main page article. Most vandalism on GWB is removed in well under a minute, and those in #wikipedia-en-vandalism practically scramble to be the first to revert. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Semi protection instead? -Splash^talk 19:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. Yes, I am aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Semi protection, and have commented there earlier this morning. [3] There have been several recent cases where this page, the most highly vandalised and watched page on Wikipedia, remained vandalised for over one hour and fourty minutes, as originally pointed out by Rhobite in October. [4] As is noted on the Semi-protection policy talk page, the George W. Bush article is now being vandalised to such an extreme that, on average, the article is effectively in a vandalised state 8% of any given time. [5] [6] So, while vandalism may be reverted within 1–2 minutes, it is rather moot when the article is being attacked every other minute. The decision to temporarily protect this page was made [7] while the article was in the process of being simultaneously attacked from multiple IP addresses, meeting my interpretation of Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Uses first line item. The statement that "Admins have repeatedly unprotected it quite quickly" is open for debate after a review of the protection log, but please do note that I specifically requested that someone "please remove and protect from moves only when appropriate" after reluctantly placing this under {{vprotect}}. I believe we both agree that this article needs to be open to well-intentioned editors, but on that same token we are equally beholden to our readers to present them with a something more professional than "George Bush is a son of a bitch", or much, much worse. If you have any suggestions on how to better deal with distributed vandalism attacks such as the one made earlier today, please let me know. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for leaping right out and threatening an RfC, but perhaps we could discuss the matter rather than opening the page up to more vandals? I was annoyed with your "no point" summary, as if we should simply surrender. I'm not prepared to do that. Yes, protection is to be used as a temporary solution - that can even mean more than 60-90 minutes, even on a high-impact page such as this. Because, yes, the initial vandal flood was stopped - and another one just popped up in its place. --Golbez 17:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

You're quite right on the 3RR stuff - however, I think it is important that people are stopped from making contentious changes to a deletion policy page when there is an open poll on the issue. Surely you agree? Trollderella 23:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the poll's been up about an hour... Also, I'm not the only one. The community rejected this already, it isn't as if I am opposing something that has support outside of the usual suspects who, I am sure, would love everyone who opposes them to go an do something else while they write in all the things the community didn't want back into policy. Trollderella 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Trollderella for violation of WP:3RR, I have clarified why on User talk:Trollderella and on WP:AN/3RR Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfB

Hey Splash, this might be too little too late, but I thought I'd let you know I've been active in clearing the AfD backlog over the past few days. I've closed a lot of controversial debates (because the backlog is always full of the most controversial ones), so if you want some idea of how I view consensus, you might be interested in reviewing my contributions again. Johnleemk | Talk 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:XD log

Thanks much for taking the time to work on old xd deletions and add your pages to the log! Quite unexpected. Thanks again. ∴ here…♠ 19:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think XD has mileage, as long as it is managed properly while it finds its way. -Splash^talk 19:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

ifnone

Can be deleted now _→AzaToth 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hiya Splash! Just writing some thank you notes to the (wonderful, and obviously highly intelligent) people who have supported my RfA. Its not done, I might squeak by, but whatever way it turns out, you have my thanks! Good egg, you are! Hamster Sandwich 05:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

User:BulgarianBen

Thank you for containing this vandals apathy... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. -Splash^talk 15:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Jataledo

Good call on recognizing and blocking this user. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. EddieSegoura seems to have earnt himself a friend. -Splash^talk 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Supermarket skin / Exogenous xeroderma modo

Splash, I do not understand why the above article was judged to be deleted. Ifca 21:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarket skin and the argumentation therein. Basically, you were unable to provide reliable sources proving that the condition exists in the form described in the articles. If you can provide such sources, that'd be great. -Splash^talk 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Splash, Was this judgement made by you alone, or with other knowledgeable people ? Ifca 14:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

By the collected opinion of those involved in the debate. But I alone decided how to read that debate. The article at the time of deletion contained no references that made explicit the existence of the condition under these names. You will have to provide good, reliable references (preferably online, but that's not obligatory) detailing the usage in the article before it is acceptable. You'll also need to explain why both Google and PubMed both haven't heard of it. -Splash^talk 14:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that your lone decision may have been made in haste. It is a complex debate, involving many of the points you list above, also a debate that was not concluded; the original deletion proposer left without retracting the deletion proposal. Ifca 15:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't made in haste, I sat and read the debate, checked the article against the claims in the debate and then decided. However, the debate was quite clear: you didn't and haven't provided references or proof that this even exists, and noone could provide them for you. WP:V, a core policy demands removal in such a case. The original deletion proposer had absoluetly no need to retract the proposal. The fact that you have still declined to explain the lack of existence simply reaffirms my decision. However, we have Wikipedia:Deletion review which is a community forum where you can seek to have the decision overturned. You will have little chance of success until you fix the problems in the deletion debate. -Splash^talk 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Spash, If as you claim, you did not make judgement in haste, you would be able to explain, a) what 'Exogenous xeroderma modo' means. Andor b) explain which element of this description warrants a lone action of removing the entire content. (rather than suggest a more constructive course, such as renaming, amalgamation, or improving the article with your own fingers and mind ;) If you are unable to do the above, I hope you would either correct your actions, or refer this matter to someone who can. Ifca 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

the debate can be found at;- [[8]]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Image deletions

Hi Alkivar. Can I just remind you to tread lightly when deleting images? Three images from Ty Cobb were public domain by virtue of being published in the US in 1923, as the article reveals. Additionally, you left the redlinks to the images in the article, which is unsightly. Always check the "file links" section before deleting an image, and orphan it before deleting it. I've re-uploaded the images. Thanks. -Splash^talk 22:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You wanna tell me which images they were? Because I have only been deleting images that have been listed as Fair Use no source for more than 7 days.  ALKIVAR™ 23:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

nevermind I've found them:

1. 02:12, 10 November 2005 Alkivar deleted "Image:Cobbstealing3rd.jpg" (no source since 22 Sept 2005)
2. 02:11, 10 November 2005 Alkivar deleted "Image:Cobbruth.jpg" (no source since 22 Sept 2005)
3. 02:11, 10 November 2005 Alkivar deleted "Image:CobbLajoie.jpg" (no source since 22 Sept 2005)

I'm sorry but if approximately 2 months wth no source is a problem for you then you need to read policy more carefully, we are authorized and SUPPOSED to delete them after 7 days, you got an extra 40 days or so.  ALKIVAR™ 23:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page [9], but you already removed it. -Splash^talk 00:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed comments

I know it wasn't deliberate (probably an edit conflict) but you removed a comment from WP:AN that I posted here [10]. Careful! :-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry — I had no idea that had happened. I did have numerous time-outs at one point earlier on, perhaps my impatient save-save-save-save approach was what did it. -Splash^talk 01:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

MfD page

Hi Splash, super-admin,

The MfD page is fairly ugly with cluttering old debates. A few from OCTOBER even need closing. Radiant or Titoxd might do it, but they've voted in the things, and I don't know if any other admins visit the joint. Since you're my Wiki-hero, you were the first person I thought to ask to do the dirty work -- is that contradictory, or what? ;) Xoloz 10:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Xoloz. I'll call by MfD a little later on. I even have a social life this evening, so I may be a little later than I currently expect. I might also ask AllyUnion if she could have her bot add MfD pages to AfD/Old so that they get some exposure. -Splash^talk 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you forgot to delete this template:

Reference: Log of deletion votes

Template: Template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide

I've removed all references to the template from all articles. The template is now safe to remove. Infinity0 20:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Wonderfool alias

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another_Wonderfool_alias. Uncle G 16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Template: Philosophy (navigation)

Actually, I voted to Keep it. And by the way, I created it in the first place (I created both of them). I even have it embedded into the top of my talk page for instant access. I was its strongest supporter, but I've learned the hard way that it is too controversial, too prone to edit wars, reversion wars, tag-removal wars, growth problems, and too prone to deletion nomination, and just not worth the effort. It will keep popping up on TfD until they kill it, putting any further time spent on it at great risk. And they certainly will claim that they killed it this time, raising their ire to try again as soon as possible, or to go after it directly. This thing will always remain controversial and counterproductive. So just let it go.

But don't worry, I haven't been idle. There are better alternatives. The template has been listified, see-also-templatified, portalfied, and is currently in the process of being portalfied further in an integrated fashion into a brand new replacement portal. I stepped up efforts to do this after the first TfD, to ensure that the information wasn't lost to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the new Philosophy portal template, which is a simple link box to the Philosophy portal, has been placed on many articles, and doesn't seem to stir up complaints as the Quick Guide template did. The Quick Guide template could be useful to keep for the subject's overview articles, except that it has already been obsoleted by a new type of see-also template, which is seamless, unobtrusive, and easier to edit-in-place. Variations of it are already on some of the overview articles, and haven't received so much as a fuss.

I originally designed the Quick Guide to be part of an overall Integrated Navigation System for Philosophy, but it turned out to be the weakest link, so I have redesigned the system without it in light of the problems associated with it. In contrast, none of the parts of the new system have received significant complaints nor resistance. See the WikiProject:Philosophy talk page for more details on the navigation system. The Quick Guide served its purpose, but now it's time to move on to better implementations -- implementations that don't stir up trouble nor waste time.

Go for it! 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A question

As I am ever desirous of learning from my mistakes, and as you have expressed concerns over my AfD closures, I would like to ask your opinion of the following:

The articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Aoki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Quirk are slated to be closed. There are only two votes per AfD discussion, but both votes are, essentially, merge/redirect. I have merged the info at Don Aoki and Patrick Quirk (minus a lot of vanity blather in the latter case) into Keynote Systems as suggested by the AfD discussions. Is it kosher for me to now close out the two AfD discussions (assuming they're not already closed by someone else by the time you read this)? Or should I just mention in the discussions that I've merged the articles, and let someone else do the closing? → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your opposition to my RFA

My opposition to your RfA is reluctant and more a request to play around a bit more than anything. -Splash^talk 21:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your position, and I certainly take it to heart. I am indeed guilty of being a little "coltish" over the past week, and letting my enthusiasm outpace my common sense. I blame the rarefied Albuquerque air, as the AfD closures I performed occurred while I was visiting my Dad for the Thanksgiving holidays, and his house is about 6000ft above sea level.

My only regret is that the failure of my current RFA will force a delay of another two months before I can reasonably return for another shot at the brass ring, whereas if I'd waited another week or two before letting someone nominate me, I would have had a much better shot of passing muster at that time. Ironically, while I assumed that I would fail the RFA, I also assumed it would be a much broader failure, with a roughly even split between "support" and "oppose" votes. The fact that the voting seems to be so close is much more nerve-wracking than it would be if I had no chance whatsoever of success.

In any case, in the event that you haven't revisted my RFA, I did type out an explanation regarding why I was closing "no consensus" AfD discussions, which may hopefully be illuminating. I don't expect it to change your vote, but I hope that it will cast me in a not-quite-so-dismal light. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Keep" vs "Do not delete" vs "Please don't delete this" etc

I changed the wordings because I have seen on a number of occasions miscountings made by administrators who make a quick count of "keep" vs "delete" and miss all of these, either thinking that they are not votes, or else sometimes even thinking that "Do not delete" equates to "delete" because of the word "delete" being there. A recent vote miscounted, when it was actually 19/8 in favour of keep, it gave it 13/11 because of these miscounts, and hence was a "no consensus". I am sure that this is commonly done.

Why do you think that I am doing anything wrong in doing this? I am aiding in making the process fairer. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So its vandalism to change a comment from "Do not delete" to "keep"? When they mean exactly the same thing, and I am doing it to aid in cleanup? I think not. There is a precedent set in various Wikipedia discussions, where this kind of cleanup takes place. It is done, as I said, to aid in ensuring accuracy. Do you want me to be forced to go around to every admin who closes a vote incorrectly and hassle them about it? I don't want to get people offside about that. I wrote to 2, who made very obvious errors (one closed a vote as "delete by consensus" when in fact it was 1 keep and 1 delete - but they just didn't notice the keep because they said "do not delete") but I don't really want to be going around telling people off. I think its much easier to fix the problem before it gets out of hand. And again, why is that vandalism? Its aiding the process. I think you are incorrectly applying the status of vandalism if you are suggesting it as so. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, until further notice, I will assume that you are the voice of Wikipedia, acting either with approval of the founder, or else in coordination with his principles. Henceforth, whilst I think that the suggestion that cleaning up a page equates to vandalism is absolute nonsense and against the very heart and spirit of quality coordinated editing, if you say that that is a rule, and are implying a threat to ban me, then fine, its not that big a deal. I will attempt to source evidence that what you are saying is true, and if I find that you are lying to me/incorrect in any way, then I will start doing it again. But at present, with no evidence either way, and you making threats to me, I am not going to bother with this one and will just not change them. I may start participating in undeletion review a bit more often as you suggested, although I am sure that this will upset people a lot more than if they didn't make these kinds of errors to begin with. I was just trying to help admins do their jobs properly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, I obviously didn't say any of that stuff. I just asked Zordrac not to edit others' comments in AfD debates. -Splash^talk 00:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You implied it, didn't you? And since when is changing "Do not Delete" to "Keep" the same thing as editing another user's comments? Changing another user's comments is changing "Delete" to "Keep", changing the text of what they said, impersonating them, or blanking their comment. I did none of these things. I merely tidied things up. Anyway, I have put in a submission for independent review to see if anyone with authority thinks that I did anything wrong. I've also asked for confirmation of your status as an administrator with authority to speak to me in this manner. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in here and point out that AfD is not a vote it is a discussion. The admins do not merely count keeps and deletes and decide what happens. Also, just because you feel someone voiced support one way or the other in their comment does not mean that they were willing to go as far as putting a definite keep or delete to it. I often comment on AfDs perhaps with a tone towards keeping or deleting but without wanting to vote. Peyna 00:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, "tidying up" usually means asthetic things, like properly threading comments, whitespace issues, maybe attributing unsigned comments, etc. Discussions and articles are two different things. Feel free to change wording on articles to improve them, but someone's chosen words in a discussion are their chosen words, and it is not up to you to change them. I would not even recommend correcting spelling, punctuation, etc. If you feel you need to clarify, you can reply with what you think that person intended, but you should not change their words for them. One last thing: Do not delete and keep are not the same thing and different connotative and denotative meanings. Peyna 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay fair enough if you feel this way. In that case, please can you remove the "newbie" tag that you placed, and also revert the reverted edits put in place [11]. Per your logic, such a reversion equates to vandalism. The two are mutually exclusive (i.e. cannot co-exist). Either, he is allowed to revert such a thing and I am allowed to change their wording from "Do not delete" to "Keep" OR it all has to be left as it is. Can't be both.

Whilst it is nice to see you all back up your good friend Splash here, who I note is the 3rd biggest Deletionist on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:AFD_100_days), the logic and soundness of your arguments in doing so leave a lot to be desired. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy cow! I didn't even know that page existed! I think that I would rate so highly on such a list because I generally only voted to delete the articles that were most likely to be, ultimately, deleted. I treat each article on an individual basis, and register my opinion accordingly. Interesting page y'all linked me to through this corespondance! Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 02:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You are 16th with 66% delete. That's about my level, Hamster Sandwich. 66% is around about the community average of 60%, so doesn't make you a deletionist. Deletionists are the ones with 96% delete... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If equal

already done, left on links list is link residue _→AzaToth 01:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Running Wheel Thank You!

Wellsir I already tried a little revert here [12].If the person who left the previous edit had an account I could have left them a message to explain the revision. Oh well... Thank you for your support and good counsel from almost my first day here. Once, upon a time, long ago, you slapped me a little on a VfD debate. I think we agreed in the greater part on the article in question (it was deleted), but you pointed out to me that my reasoning wasn't a valid consideration. It prompted me to do some ancillary reading on Wikipedia procedure and protocol, and that is a good thing for any editor to do. So El Splasho (if I may), I can also thank you for that. A cabal, in the sense of WP, of intelligent, reasonable people who make sure that it isn't destroyed as a knowledge base and reference work, is something that I want to join! Do you know where there are any kicking around? I'll buy it a coffee and biscotti and we can sit down and chat for awhile, just me and the cabal, and perhaps we could look longingly into each others eyes and make, you know, a special connection...trade phone numbers...(sighs). I will NOT apologise for my love! :-D I'll be doing a lot of reading at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list for the next few days, and I will try to get in some AfD time as well. Thanks again Splash, I squeaked by, your support went a long way to helping me to help WP! I'm sure I'm up to it. Hamster Sandwich 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

(I reply here, right?)You know, I vaguely remember that VfD. It was something to do with free application of patent nonsense, wasn't it. The admin's reading list is certianly worth reading. Ten seconds after you make your first misunderstanding of it, you'll get a little orange bar appear...anyway, I'm pleased you're an admin: Wiki will be better for it. -Splash^talk 04:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you'

You have that in the wrong order. First, I have to say "Who, me?". -Splash^talk 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, I apparently hit return and didn't realize it. Coherent (I hope!) message found below. :-) Friday (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right

I'm replying here in an effort to not clutter Wikipedia talk:Experimental Deletion more than neccessary.

You're right, applying XD6 (my current favorite) is not the way things are most commonly done, at this time. Afd's and speedies are the way things are most commonly done right now. I find XD6 preferable in some cases. I suppose I won't convince you that it's a handy technique, just as you won't convince me that it's not. I disagree, though, that it's not reasonable to do it, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument about why it would matter how long a page stays in that state. I follow harmonious editing principles, and my use of XD6 is a classic example of the bold/revert/discuss cycle, so I don't see the problem. Friday (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Splash,

Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And let me ask a question of you - which of these shiny new buttons have confirmation pages after you hit them? I'm suddenly rather paranoid of having a spasm and unintentionally hitting one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

I have addressed your concerns as best as possible. Let me know if you will now change your mind about deleting my personal subpage User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thank you.--JuanMuslim ^1m 06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace

I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This revision

Okay! But I didn't think the Communist vandal should have a vote! (look at their contribs.) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sebastian Prooth

Hi--I didn't create an AfD entry for this, I just commented. It doesn't look like you created it, though. There was some sort of glitch when I was editing... did your comment get deleted or something? rodii 03:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Lady Godiva Memorial Bnad

Just to let you know the article is spelt that way, the article states that they spell it that way on purpose. So I don't think that my google search was any worse than yours. :-D Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I already 'fessed up to that. You do need to include the speech marks, however. -Splash^talk 04:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I just saw that after I left this message to you. By speech marks do you mean quotation marks? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. "Lady Godiva Memorial Bnad" ensures the search looks for all 4 words, preferably in that order, rather than just any one or more of the words. -Splash^talk 04:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah thanks! Fortunantly the google search yielded some hits with all four words. I'll be sure to include the quotation marks next time though. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if we're talking about Google, it means all four words in that order one after another, rather than all four words anywhere within the page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

When I referred to Wikipedia practice, I did not mean what was written on policy pages, I meant what was actually being done by the Wikipedia community in general. As you know, written policies often deviate from actual practice. By the way, Wikipedia:Image description page, which you cite, does not have a banner stating that it is an official policy. Is this an oversight, or are these simply recommendations? Wikipedia:Fair use has guideline status, but not policy status. I realize that there are legal issues involved here, but I do not think that claiming fair use for screenshots is a particularly novel application or one that requires extensive justification in each individual case. There are many, many Web pages that contain dozens (if not hundreds) of screenshots of specific copyrighted works, often with far less commentary per image than Wikipedia. I am not aware of any of these Web sites being threatened with C&D letters (much less actual lawsuits) for merely displaying screenshots of films or video games. Screenshots are almost always considered fair use, and the templates give justification as needed. In most cases, I will write a short, sentence-length description (see Image:Valentine Pelka.jpg for an example) stating where the image came from and why it is needed. I would prefer to save my loquacity for actual articles. As I stated, the vast majority of fair use screenshots on Wikipedia, including those in very prominent articles, do not contain even the length of justification that I provide, much less the essays that some of the Wikipedia namespace pages unrealistically demand. Firebug 05:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Afd

You believe that the icon I put into that template was not appropriate because "there might be nothing wrong with the article". Well, what about if I put a question mark beside the icon? Or should the template just be left as it is?  Denelson83  07:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Sugali

Hi! You had deleted the Treaty of Sugali on October 9:

"08:05, October 9, 2005 Splash deleted "Treaty of Sugali" (one of a pair of copyvios from http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9062.html on CP >7days)"

I had created the article in question. From the summary, you mention that it was listed on CP. Unfortunately, the copyvio tag was not added to the page. Without the tag on the page an article should not be deleted.

Now the article is NOT a copyvio. It was copied from the Library of Congress site (I had also referenced it). The site unfortunately does not have static html pages (they are generated after a request); so a fixed URL is not possible. The LoC site is a US government site, so is in Public Domain, and matter from the site can be copied verbatim.

I have restored the page. Please be more cautious in the future. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do usually delete CP articles that are listed but not tagged since I see no need for us to retain copyvios and WP internal procedures don't give us any escape from that obligation

If an article is not tagged as a copyvio, it gives the author absolutely no change to respond/defend his/her claim. Unless the copyvios are listed by a familiar/regular username, I think its best the person who plans to delete checks to see who the contributors are, and if the source is PD. In the case of an article delete, text can be easily rolled back, but in the case of images, it may be lost forever. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I always do look at the history in every single case to make sure that I really do have to delete the whole thing rather than just rollback to an earlier, copyvio-free version. I also check the copyright status of the source for every single CP article I delete. Most websites carry no copyright notice, but US law grants them protection anyway. But like I said, I don't click through every link in the article, especially those that don't identify themselves as the source of the article — even a note on the talk page would be enough, because I check that too. In future, I'll tag and relist articles by registered users since there's actually a chance they might notice the tagging. -Splash^talk 18:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)