User talk:Zscout370/Archive 3

Re:

Because the user in question is a sockpuppet and a vandal, who has dishonestly added one image (a crest, aka "no-brainer") due to a grudge against its uploader. As for the Castro image, there is a more appropriate place for questions concerning it, and protocol should be followed. See Wikipedia:ANI and do a quick ctrl-F for "Coqsportif." Shem^(talk) 04:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Stiil, just say "keep" the images at IFD and you can say about the image source and also that futher discusion is needed before we can delete the image. And, sure enough, the image will be kept so we can find out what the issues are. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it wise to encourage disruptive behavior by vandals. He's using Wikipedia as a playground for his entertainment currently, backed up by feigned Wikiquette and cheap wiki-lawyering. Shem^(talk) 04:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have *never* vandalized a single article. Shem throws around angry words for reasons that can be only speculated on. He even insults me with words like wiki-lawyering, which I don't even know. I hope he can get over it. Coqsportif 04:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems like you two have been fighting each other for a while. While I do not know what caused it, nor that I care, I want you two to stop messing with IFD to wage your wars. What I will do is instruct the admins to carefully look at the image, and for you, Shem, to ask for the images to be kept. Then, we will deal with copyright issues and all of the other stuff. Deal? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll not hear this addressed as two users "fighting," or as my being involved in some "war." He's been watched and tracked as a vandal since he joined, and chose to "mess" with IFD as payback against another user. You're coddling a troll here, Zscout; just check his contributions, watch his disruptive wiki-stalking, and don't buy this obvious sockpuppetry. Shem^(talk) 04:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That is the solution I am offering to you both so you both might actually work things out. Take my solution and put it into use or leave it. My final offer. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in "working things out" with an obvious troll. Shem^(talk) 04:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Then take your fight somewhere else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Gladly; and please, spare me the patronizing "fight"/"war" rhetoric. Shem^(talk) 04:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you zscout, I don't want to fight with Shem at all, I avoid him where I can but he follows me around unfortunately :-(. I will go along with your decision about how best to resolve it and hope it can all work out amicably. Shem is angry about something, which is a shame and I will do what I can to mitigate that anger. I think there are several copyright breaches in images I have seen and they should go, it seems that Shem will oppose such moves for the only reason that it is me nominating them. Oh well, perhaps he'll get over it soon. Either way, he will have my best wishes and encouragement as an editor, I respect his contribution and hope he can learn to respect others' contributions too. Coqsportif 04:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to offer a solution to this problem on IFD. Because if one editor objects to the deletion, it was be kept by default. So, we could look at the image and see what can happen. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

SD Meetup

Hi. I'm interested in a San Diego area meetup. I'm based in Encinitas/Carlesbad. Bovlb 15:09:25, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

• I am in Oceanside right now, was in Vista for a little while. I was thinking about a San Diego meetup, but I think that they decided to head up to LA for a weekend and have a meetup there. But, if the folks from LA want to come down here for a weekend, fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

24SevenOffice

I'm trying to figure out why 24SevenOffice is relevant on Wikipedia. The company is a complete unknown in the business. With only 1000 customers, there are pieces of shareware that have more users than that. The consensus was to delete the article. The exception to that was the employee of 24SevenOffice who originally posted the topic who voted to "rewrite". Can you help me understand what reasoning went behind keeping the article? I've tried providing a neutral point of view on this, but its hard since the product really is an uknown in the industry. A google search for his company brings up 2000 articles -- most of which stem from blog posts, forum signatures with url's to his company, and information from Wikipedia itself.

The article went through a VfD. Three voters voted to delete it with only the company employee voting to rewrite the article. For some reason User:ABCD decided to keep it. I know wikipedia isn't a democracy, but the only person advocating that this article stay is User:Sleepyhead81.

Additionally, the same employee of 24SevenOffice has spammed his links across several technology articles and competitor pages in an attempt to bolster his position. Its an obvious attempt to market his product. I've fought with User:Sleepyhead81 on this (he is the employee) with no luck in finding common ground. Please feel free to contact him or myself for more information, but I would be very interested in finding out what criteria was used to keep this product page alive. Thanks in advance. - Sleepnomore 15:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:ABCD, acting as an admin, has to be careful on what he or she deletes. If, the article could be saved if it sounded like a spam ad, he decided to give it a chance. However, if time passes and no one has made a rewrite to the article and it still does not gain notability, then you can always send it through VFD again. However, if you do that, you must note the first VFD vote and and explain why you want the page to be deleted and also explaining the situation about the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The first VFD was in April, and it was closed with just 3/1 in favor of delete, but others who voted to delete said the article could be rewritten too. So, if you want to place it on VFD, fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is such crap. The same user, Sleepnomore, that has such a grudge he asked you to lock Ajax (programming) and Jesse James Garrett so that he could fix them in his "unvandalized" (POV) state is now asking you to get involved in a VfD against the user who caused Sleepnomore to actually join here (hence his name, Sleepnomore, a pun on Sleepyhead81). Please don't take the bait. Jason 20:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If he or she wants to put the page up for deletion, then by all means, they can do it. Enough time has passed, and the user thought the program is still not notable, then they can put it up on VFD again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not ask for protection on Ajax. I asked for protection on Jesse James Garrett to protect the article. A user had been deleting both the links and the criticism sections repeatedly. He refused to join the discussion so I was forced to ask for intervention. If we can agree to talk about the issue rather than just having them randomly deleted, I'm fine with asking for Administrator intervention to remove the vprotect. Obviously that only works as long as we can discuss before making sweeping changes. I'm open to opinion on how to make Mr Garretts page more neutral. I'm even fine with removing a criticism section as long as it still describes the other side of the "argument", as it were. - 68.58.169.30 22:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (User:Sleepnomore out of town)

I'm glad to see that you'd be willing to endorse unprotecting the page if people can agree to stop randomly deleting the section. Of course, it's disappointing to me that you didn't agree with this sentiment two days ago, when I did exactly what you now say would be fine (history page showing my version of the page, edited to collapse the "Criticism" section into the preceding paragraph, maintaining the sentiment while removing the falsely-attributed quote and the POV links). At that time, you just plain reverted the page (diff), again calling it "vandalism" when it was no such thing. I even wrote on the talk page (look for the timestamp at 22:08, 13 August 2005 UTC) what I had done and why I had done it, but you called it vandalism and reverted without so much as a discussion. So can we now undelete it and revert to those edits, and use that as a starting point? Jason 22:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We have to keep them, just incase if either myself, you, or other editors get flagged by someone over some type of Request for Comment. Plus, while I did come over to your side of thinking, I just needed to get the facts right and take a look at most of the stuff myself. Sure, it does take time, but once everyone got calm and got to talking, everything is just fine now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how this sectino got side-tracked into a discussion of Garrett and Ajax, but as a side note, I've received sufficient evidence from Sleepyhead81 that his company's software is regarded by a relevant 3rd-party that it deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. I won't be seeking a VfD since the evidence provided speaks for itself. - Sleepnomore 15:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Heraldry

I very much appreciated your work on the article Canadian Heraldic Authority (I awarded you a Barnstar, remember?) I have just nominated the article Heraldry for This week's improvement drive, please vote to get it improved! Oh, by the way, have you seen the changes I made to CHA? I added 9 images! --Mb1000 01:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mb1000 21:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Eastern European board

Just started at Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board. Please take a look and I will post announcements to BE, PL, RU and UA boards. Also, re Belarus, I remember there was an active editor User:rydel. And of course Mikkalai would probably we willing to help. You may contact Rydel about that. Also, please copyedit my announcement for a better English. Cheers, --Irpen 02:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I bookmarked it, and I can see what I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I will probably post announements to the boards tomorrow. Hey, Славяне! --Irpen 02:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

As you can see by my talk page, being an admin changes everything that I do on here. I still want to work on Belarusian articles, but I have now clue how much time will be spent on here doing admin stuff. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No rush. Check you email, BTW! --Irpen 04:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Replied. While I had to change my Wikipedia email address to Google since I became an admin, you can go ahead and still use my Hotmail account. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Replied, I think it is close to acceptable anyway, and if you don't have time to take a quick look, I will just announce it around as it is.

Remember, there are plenty of other admins too, so don't worry about not doing all the admin work you would have done if you could. Also, we had an interesting discussion with Sasha about copyrights at talk:History of Kiev. If you would like to share your thoughts there, you are welcome. We are serious about making both Kiev and its history become FA's. It will take time, though. Cheers, --Irpen 16:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I could try to add my say about copyrights, and I think we should have a page of national copyrights so we can place templates there. I could also help on the Kiev article too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Irpen 23:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vote or die

Hi. From the looks of things the Current Events Barnstar proposal should be voted on, but nothing's happening. What are the necessary steps to take so it can be put to a vote? Is there a help page somewhere? --Kizor 09:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just set a subheading under the Current Events Barnstar and see if the Barnstar idea is accepted. Then, we can fight over the image. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unused files

There is a special page for unused files. Some have been unused for years. Could we clear this out without putting any of them on IFD? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd be against speedy deleting files from Special:Unusedimages. People should be given one last chance to review these before they get permanently deleted. (Of course, some might be candidates for speedy deletion.) (Also, note that there's no way to tell when an image was last used. Special:Unusedimages is sorted by upload time, not time of last use.) dbenbenn | talk 15:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

False account Deifuego

I assume that nobody's gullible enough to fall for the vandalism done to this page by the new user Deifuego and think that it was me, but I'm throwing it out there to keep the record clear. Jason 01:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

We have had a lot of problems with these types of vandals, called the doppleganger vandal. I blocked the vandal, accordingly. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, I love the name doppleganger vandal. Awesome. Jason 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a problem that is exploiting how text is read and presented on Wikipedia. Some others have been using Unicode text to cause problems. But, the vandal only made three edits before I blocked him, so no real damage was done against your repuation. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I came back

Okay, sorry about my attempts to leave. I guess I'm desperate. I am going to give you a Purple Heart to add to your award collection. D. J. Bracey (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (rm Purple Heart)

While I welcome you back to Wikipedia, I cannot accept this Purple Heart. Please try to find another award that I could accept, please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

While I welcome you back to Wikipedia, I cannot accept this Purple Heart you gave me. Please try to find another award that I could accept, please. My father is in the US military and I knew of several people (including one widow) who were presented this medal. I hope you understand my decision. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I hope I did not offend you. I'll give you a Working Man's barnstar instead.

Happy editing, D. J. Bracey (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not personally offended, but I am just letting you know that in the future, try not to present the Purple Heart as a Wikiaward. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I won't D. J. Bracey (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have also replaced them with WMBs for everybody I put those on except Redwolf24, who had already acknowledged he had it. Thanks for warning me, I should have not been so incoherent about people possibly getting upset. D. J. Bracey (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. If others choose to accept the Purple Heart, then they have the right to do so. But I am encouraging everyone to not award the Purple Heart. However, I will think that people should go to Barnstars, but I do not mind if people award defunct honors, like a Hero of Socialist Labor. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Good evening, Zach. I've seen your great work getting pictures for Gay Nigger Association of America, and I was wondering if I could ask a favour, unless this is too much trouble, I don't know. Some time ago, Wikipedia received two new articles, Rami Nuri and Gopal Das, which were related to a small religion called Eckankar. Although I'd never heard of the religion until that day, I strongly defended the articles when they went to VfD. I felt that, if they are important to a notable religion, they are in and of themselves, notable. They survived, just barely. But they didn't look good; unreferenced, filled with questionable material and perhaps with hoaxes/jokes. So I researched, merged them, rewrote them, and referenced them in a new article called ECK master. I also added material, all insanely referenced. It's a notable concept. User:Flowerparty left me a flower on my talk page for this. But I still have some problems: You see, I had to remove two pictures, because there was no copyright information on them. They were from the Eckankar official website. I thought it might look good to have pictures, though, but I can't upload them. I was hoping you could help. Also, other problems: Anons have either reverted the Gopal Das and Rami Nuri redirects back to the articles they were before, which are full of, as I suspect, hoaxes, and just now they tried to merge the questionable material into the new article. Is there any way to protect the redirects? Thanks for reading, CanadianCaesar 04:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can protect the redirects. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the pictures, you can upload them, denoting the source. If there is no copyright information, say so and declare the images as fair use. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. CanadianCaesar 04:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops

Hey, next time please edit my talk page rather than my main page, otherwise I won't find your message as easily! Scott Ritchie 07:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

i understand how u would assume this is a personal attack however,it was not it wasnt my intention ,i looked up the name of j philippe rushton on the internet and found his bio,read it and decided to do a cross refrence on wikepedia,when i looked on the page i found it odd that the author copied his bio verbatim minus his south african history ,i provied a link, and accomplished two things: a)questioned the authors bias,not on an attack but an authentic question of facts b)provied more insight to mr .rushtons background,if there was any misunderstanding i apologize

Sorry about the Scott, my goof. As for the above, I need to check and see what is going on before I comment. I might have reverted or deleted something in the past, but I need to see what I did. But, apology is accepted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

{{Olympic-stub}} icon removal/addition

I noticed that on 23 May, you removed the flag pic on this stub. I'm presuming you did so because the size reduction on Image:Olympic-rings.png resulted in an unacceptable icon representative. I've uploaded another image, based on that original, to Image:Olympicsicon.gif. Comments? --Durin 16:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Perfect. I still have no clue if stub icons will be used, but I can find that out for you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for your sources

I'm still waiting for your sources. You are reverting my edit and disputing that Leo IX was the most significant of the German popes of the middle ages, yet you have not shown me any sources. If you believe there were other German popes who were more significant, you are the one who needs to prove it. You cannot revert without explanation. That is vandalism. 83.109.138.29 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No, since your introducing POV information about Pope Leo IX being the most important pope of that time period, it should be up to you to provide the information. Plus, I locked it again not because of you, but because of the Palpatine vandals again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to show you a source for a basic fact which you can look up yourself in any standard work on the history of the Catholic Church in the middle ages, or in any encyclopedia. If you are reverting an edit which was made with good intentions (and especially when the same edit has been reverted without explanation by a person who seems to be an anti-papal POV pusher (Jtdirl)), it up to you to provide a relevant reason.

In fact, all other German popes in the middle ages were pretty unsignificant. Only Leo IX is remembered as a pope who had significant impact on the history of the Church, for many reasons, among them the great schism which broke out during his papacy, for his important contributions in defining the role of the pope and for instituting the College of Cardinals.

A short summary can be found here [1] "Between 1046 and 1049, Henry III of Germany had appointed a string of Popes. His last, Pope Leo IX (1049-54), was tremendously significant. A cousin to the Emperor and a bishop in an important reforming German diocese, Leo's major achievements are two.

1. He made strides to reform the government of the Church and make it independent from Roman nobles as well as secular rulers. He set up a body of high Church prelates at Rome to advise him and play the central role in future nomination of Popes. This 'College of Cardinals' he stacked with close reforming colleagues, such as Hildebrand, who had already served as Papal secretary; and Humbert, a leading ideologue of Church reform.

2. Leo initiated a ruthless campaign against clerical corruption in the form of marriage and simony. After a series of synods in Rome that legislated against such abuses, he, like a feudal monarch, traveled throughout Europe, holding court in the major diocese centers. From the spring to fall of 1049, he went throughout Italy, Germany, and France. At Reims in particular, anti-simony and anti-clerical marriage decrees were published, accusations against prelates were heard, and clerics were challenged to swear before the Pope that they had not purchased their offices. Several were deposed, replaced by more reform-oriented clergy. Thus, by the death of Leo's successor in 1057, the leadership of the Papacy as secular-moral judge of the Church was finally firmly established among most clerics."

Here is a Britannica article as well [2] with interesting literature references. 83.109.138.29 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What I did is that I rewrote your statement and made it NPOV: "Coincidentally, April 19 is the feast of St. Leo IX, a German pope and saint who instituted major reforms in the Middle Ages during his papacy." Does this work? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine too, although I don't see anything POV with my version. 83.109.169.195 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I just think the phrase "most important" was considered POV. But, I am glad we got this resolved. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

{{vprotected}}

Zach, I've temporarily protected your page to stop vandalism. It is under siege right now. Unprotect whenever you wish. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude, that's fine. Since I protected my user page, it felt like the vandals have no other choice and come here. For those trying to contact me email me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

At that vfd

Lots of controversy has happened including Agriculture threatening that he'll forever quit (see my talk page) Anyways would you mind making your vote clear? I believe the supermajority may be hard to clinch and sometimes closers won't count the nominater unless they specifically say *'''Delete'''

Respectfully,
Redwolf24 08:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but I figured with statements at "I do not think that this project should be here" would be clear enough. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

AOL Block problems

Please be aware that when you choose to autoblock a user, you also block all other users who are randomly assigned the same AOL/IP number. This happens to me regularly. Please see my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. I would appreciate a release of this block so I can get back to work.

Thank you WBardwin 08:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

--- Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Zscout370. The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mickey657". The reason given for Mickey657's block is: "imposter".

Your IP address is 207.200.116.203.

--

24SevenOffice again

I know I seem to have reversed on this issue, but I believe thats what one should do when faced with indisputable evidence. User:Sleepyhead81 has provided evidence from a credible third party newspaper that they are indeed considered to be at the same level of other applications in the same category. While they are not known whatsoever by my American peers, I must concede that they are evidently known abroad fairly well. I ask, therefor, that you add the link to 24SevenOffice back to Ajax_(programming). I'll be happy to find the evidence he provided me again (links to newspaper articles, etc) if you need it. - Sleepnomore 17:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I unlocked the article, so you can make the edits yourself. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done so. Thanks again for all your help and keeping a level head. - Sleepnomore 19:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I'm going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. Is that OK with you?

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Name

How can I change my name like you asked me to.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! Frank 19:32 EST, August 17th 2005

ZScout370, how long does it usually take for name changes to take place? Sorry to bug you and thanks!--Frank 23:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's ok. I have no idea how long it takes for the user name change to take effect, but once you change names, try not to use the account that you are leaving behind. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If an RFC if filed against you for that...

... I will clarify. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI

No hard feelings, while I think you should have gone to talk before VfDing the WikiProject, I know you weren't acting in malice, you're just doing what you think is right, and that is admirable. Agriculture 04:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Though, in retrospect, I should have. Though I know also in the next few days, I am probably needing to defend myself. As I mentioned on the Project talk page, I had at least one person vandalize my talk page (because my user page is locked for that reason) that I should be banned forever, that I am evil like Satan and that the State of Florida considers me immoral. Other pages and templates relating to this project have been deleted, but not by me. As you could see the post above you, the person who responded deleted the Florida law template yall created. However, I need to also concede three things: it was highly unusual to put a project up for deletion, so that is why I laid out my concerns and points when making the nomination. Two, we do have pornography on here and many are deleted on a current basis through IFD. While photos like autofellatio are kept, pictures of porn stars and other sexual things are deleted due to dubious or unknown copyright statements or their only use is to vandalize user pages, articles and or images. Three, the personal attacks on both sides is getting ugly. The accusations of sock puppetry and vote deletion are problems that I see in this very large VFD and it will be a huge mess to sort out.

However, I do have solutions for you. First, if you continue editing on Wikipedia, if you want to see that clear porn is not on Wikipedia, I would check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newimages out, since that is where new images are shown as thumbnails. Then, what you could do is watch them via your watchlist. If the images is not used, or contains a clear copyright problems (like watermarks), then send it to WP:IFD in the same manner as you did with the other photos. Most of the time, the users will ignore the IFD or say delete the image. Also, instead of using the term "indecent" or obscene, since those are POV terms, I would use UE, for unencyclopedic. You can also use CV for copyright violation and OR for orphan. We delete a lot of porn on here and we tried before to set up a policy on these images, but lately, people have been at each other's throats for many voting issues, such as the fate of VFD itself.

Finally, I am glad that I tried to be a clear head in the VFD, though it was my fault for setting up in the first place. I have no idea what will happen next. Along with the vandalism, I seen people accuse me of being reckless on the VFD by nominating the project for deletion. While I thank you for not dismissing the VFD completely, since you changed the project somewhat based on my suggestions. You are welcome to seek my advice anytime, but I just think that trying to create a policy on these images will be a hard time, since creating policy on here for me and others has been hard. Every policy I seen for the past few weeks have been shot down not due to merits of the policy, but because of m:instruction creep. Please stay on Wikipedia. A few weeks from now, most people will forget this event took place. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not leaving because of the VfD it's not about that. I'm leaving because it has been proven to me that the trolls and harrassers run Wikipedia. This will never be an encyclopedia. Agriculture 05:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is sad to see you go in this manner. Personally, trolls are a huge problem on Wikipedia and it will not get better over time unless we overhaul the whole thing. I also wish to tell you that myself, I am staying with the project until everyone stops appreciating my work on here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, if the page was worded as a policy changed and asked what should be the new policy on obscentity, I would not have VFD'ed the page. If the page does get deleted, which I think it might not due to lack of consensus, I strong suggest the page be renamed and also revamped to sound like possibly policy, not this is what we are going to do starting now (that is, of course, how I read it as, hence the VFD). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's out of my hands, I'm not associated with WfD. Agriculture 05:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The VFD is also out of my hands, I just nominate and see what happens. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My point is I don't intend to edit the WikiProject, so whatever happens happens, I really am beyond caring about Wikipedia at this point. Agriculture 05:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What you could do is just take a break, let some time pass, and just edit again, but if that is up to you. Plus, I also noticed you asked to be blocked to help you stop editing. We cannot issue blocks for Wikibreaks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to inform you, I have altered the guide to deletion process so that this issue won't appear so rude in the future...we'll see how long it stands.[3]--MONGO 03:58, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I won't planning on visiting VFD for a while, I had enough with reform. I am just going to edit and perform an admin job here and there. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Iron Butterfly In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida Riff.ogg

I deleted Image:Iron Butterfly In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida Riff.mp3. Thanks. Hyacinth 00:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Well, just do not add the vandalism template in the articles again, please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Interested in leaving a quote for the Signpost?

I'm writing an article about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency VfD debate. Since you nominated, I really would like your quotes in the article. (I do understand, however, if you can't do it.) See User:Ral315/Signpost. Ral315 07:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen

After the Flag of Hong Kong article, I hope that you can help me with the PR and coming up FAC of the Sun Yat-sen article. Wikipedia:Peer review/Sun Yat-sen/archive1 Deryck C. 07:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

sleepnomore rfc

you may look dimly on me because of the mudslinging between me and sleepnomore, but do you recall either sleepnomore or catmistake using a phrase such "thanks for keep(ing) a cool head" last weekend about the time the AJAX article got locked down? If so please post on the sleepnomore RFC as I believe the other identity used the same phrase on the same day to another user trying to moderate the conflict between sleepnomore and catmistake, and therefore this may be evidence that supports -- or doesn't -- the contention that catmistake is sleepnomore's sockpuppet Jemptymethod 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...while I am not going to look down on you, but I am hopeful that the RFC turns out to something positive. But I am going to sit out on the RFC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Belarus

I've gone through this again to add a little more polish. As far as I'm able to, I've also double-checked the references to material on other websites, and have eliminated most of the red wikilinks. Re-reading this article so many times must now qualify me as an amateur expert on Belarusian flags! :-)
Silverhelm 04:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I seriously thank you for what you are doing. Here, take a Barnstar as a token of my appreciation. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I went ahead and speedy deleted the image, since admins can speedy images that are only used for vandalism. Plus, the user has been blocked for a week, but has mocked the admin after the block. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank God! That man is a real fool. You have saved me much trouble...he'll vandalize my page whil I'm out of town, but...oh, well Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikithanks and I just blocked User:Xizer forever because of his racial attacks, his vandalism, mocking of users and admins. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

And, remember, I can protect your user page while you are gone. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No I don't want to block off my page...no one else had vandalized me except this new user who got mad at me for reverting her edits at Augusta...and she has since left. I have only been vandalized fourteen times since I've been here anyway. D. J. Bracey (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

For blocking Xizer forever, and for so many great things you've done in general I am going to do one of my favorite things on Wikipedia for you: that's right - add a barnstar: D. J. Bracey (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)  : )

I hereby present to you the Barnstar of Diligence for invaluable service to the Wikipedia community. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Just doing my job. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

...and you're doing a pretty fine job on top of that. (Sorry about crowding up your talk page...I'll stop after this note; we could just e-mail each other) D. J. Bracey (talk)

Addendum: Wow, I'm doing this at 1:37 a.m. after going to/sneaking into clubs in Ybor City; time for me to go bed. : ). Good night. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's no biggie about the talk page at all, that is why I have archives. The email will work, but the talk page will be the quickest to reach me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, had another thing to say. User:Xizer had brazenly admitted on his user page that he has been using the names "XizerX" and the IP address 212.0.138.91 - already blocked by User:Gamaliel. I don't know about his other name though. I'll keep an eye on him. D. J. Bracey (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

FOTW Images

Hi Zach - you wrote: I just read Marcus's email. While I am partially to blame to uploading some of the images problems on here (I created the FOTWpic template), I am willing to help fix the problems.

Fair enough - I don't know whether Marcus has done anything about it yet (I haven't because very little of what I've been doing on Wikipedia is flag-related). perhaps it's better if you chat with him about it, see and work out what's the best move. Grutness...wha? 08:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to find Marcus on here and see what he wants to do. I also found at least two other FOTWers who are Wikipedians, so I could start a small project page to clear the copyright images up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if you do - I've cut back my wiki-ing in the last couple of weeks (a couple of major real-world projects coming up) but if I can help I will. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Marcus to email me or to find me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Belarus flag

Thanks for messaging me. I still have a few points which I think needs to be addressed 1) could the past versions go under =History=? 2) I would like to see some reference to the figures in the 1995 referendum. You have also mentioned a defunct site. Is there a better reference you can source instead, so that it may be cross checked? 3) Could you remove the first column of the table referring to the colours. Since the link is already present, the data is superfluous. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I can move the historical flags into a History section. The information from the defunct website is on the Flags of the World website. What I can do about the tablke is remove the source's column and place the link next to the name of the source. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

vfd actions

[4] ?

Weren't you also the fellow(ette) who made this nomination? Hmmm. Granted, you didn't nominate this one, fair enough.

But because you voted delete there, my subsequent descision to do a speedy keep might yet get me into trouble. :-/ (There's actually no speedy keep policy, but there is some measure of consensus for there not being allowed to be delete votes. So I've had to make an imperfect call on that vfd :-( ) Kim Bruning 06:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not nominate this. However, I do support it's deletion since if the person who nominated it would have not done so, Jimbo would have killed it himself. But, I will not change my vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Then let Jimbo laugh at it himself :-P In the meantime, I reccommend you stay away from wikipedia: namespace deletion, in the strongest possible terms. I think enough damage has been done already, don't you? Kim Bruning 07:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Should I just stay away from the Wiki, period? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nah! You do a lot of good work here, eh? And you couldn't have known about the nomination thing. (Yet - here I am questioning your intelligence anyway. :-/ Sorry about that, if I didn't post here, I worry about not having been allowed to do the speedy keep), um...

But ...oh I'm talking myself into a corner here!

Like, whatever: In fact I actually think you're a pleasent person to have around. :-) Do please stay? *puppydog eyes* Kim Bruning 07:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The only time when I leave this project is by force or when people stop appreciating what I am doing on here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

:-) Kim Bruning 08:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Fancy a giggle?

I've used your name in vain (and stole your format too!) -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 20:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not stealing (points to his PD license). Plus, User:Hallibut is also using the Ribbon bar format for his Wikipedia awards, so I am not alone in doing this. However, there are some ribbon bars that I have not drawn yet since I never got the award (like Minor Barnstar). But, I am glad you found and liked my format and that you are using it now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I nicked your navbox too but put it in a separate page as a template: User:Francs2000/Navbox. Very little on my user page is actually original... And thanks for the recognition too! -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 21:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome and if you want anything else, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify

[5] Please clarify why you are reverting. There are clearly 9 popes in the category:German popes. I was the one who made the original counting back in March even before he became Pope, and who wrote that he was the 8th German pope, but I came the conclusion today that I might have left one out. Using the edit summary would be highly recommendable when you are reverting edits in the future. 83.109.158.244 03:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I used the rollback feature and using that feature does not allow you to use an edit summary. The reason why I reverted is that we had the count at 8, and we have been dealing with vandalism all of the time. But, if you think nine is right, go ahead and change it and I will not revert you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the vandalism of the article is very disturbing. But I don't find it likely that the vandals would change that numbering. What I meant is that reverting manually with an explanation always is better unless you are dealing with very obvious vandalism (like the Palpatine images). 83.109.158.244 04:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I reverted back to your version, since you are right about the numbering. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to know

Glad to know I'm as unwelcome as I feel, well as you'll be no doubt happy to note, this is my final edit. Agriculture 06:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And you said that nearly a few days ago. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

AOL proxy block

• 03:44, 22 August 2005 Zscout370 blocked "User:195.93.21.72" with an expiry time of 24 hours (constant vandalism)

Please check whether an IP is in the list of proxies before blocking (Special:Blockip) and respect the instructions not to block a proxy IP for more than 15 minutes. Thanks! JRM · Talk 12:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

IFD

Hi Zach. Thanks for working on WP:IFD! A couple comments:

• You need to fix up Image:BreastsCF.JPG. Remember to remove the {{ifd}} tag for kept images! Also, I think it would be good to put a link to the deletion discussion in the talk page.
• More importantly, you deleted Image:Handj.jpg, though there were only 2 delete votes, and 3 keep votes.

dbenbenn | talk 14:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I mainly deleted the handjob image since it was an orphan. Also, I will remember what you said next time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

Thanks for reverting the anon who closed this VfD in my name. I just wish the anon had closed it properly as no consensus defaulting to keep instead of a straight keep consensus. --Allen3 ^talk 03:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Page History

Hi Zach. It seems that when you moved the BoNM to the Commons, we ended up loosing the page history as well. You are more knowledgeable than me on this, do you believe we could restore the history without undoing your move? I feel it would be important to get the history back for accurate author attribution — right now, only Admins can visualize the old history, as the "79 deleted edits". Redux 12:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I copied everything that was posted before I deleted the image and pasted it when I deleted the image. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I know, and indeed there were no problems with the page itself. I was talking about the page history, which has disappeared (now it starts on August 21, and at this time has only three edits listed in it — all that had been recorded until then was lost due to the deletion). I was thinking that we needed to preserve the complete Page History for the sake of accurate author attribution. But I've given it some extra thought, and now I'm not so sure if this is so important, since this is not an article and the stuff written in there is not really relevant for practical purposes. I'm not completely sure about it though. Redux 22:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I am not worried about my edit counts. If you wish to restore the page itself, thats fine with me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, your idea to move the image to the Commons makes sense. And as I said, I'm no longer so sure that preserving the record of the Page History is necessary (or important) for a image/award page that only lists "trivia" (if we can call it that) about the award. My first instinct was that the record would need to be preserved, until I thought wait a minute, that's not an article, and the edits are not even pertaining to the image's status. We can leave it alone, I guess. Besides, if anyone wants to see the old History, an Admin can provide them with the information. No big deal. Redux 23:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside comment: Those who appreciate Zscout370's contributions

Those who endorse Zscout370 as a fine wikipedian and a valuable contributer sign here:

1. brenneman^(t)(c) 07:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
2. His behavior when I was trying to deal with a now-banned vandal aside, absolutely. Shem^(talk) 07:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Ground Zero 09:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
4. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 14:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
5. --Irpen 15:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC). Gladly co-nominated his adminship and gave him two awards, including the well deserved Order of Friendship of Peoples
6. Zscout370, what's going on, my friend? Of course your contributions are appreciated! You're a great editor and admin. Do you just need a little wikibreak? They can help, (I know from experience). Func( t, c, @, ) 15:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
7. No doubt about that. - Svest 23:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
8. Please don't leave us; be assured that we all value your contributions. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
9. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 00:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians for censorship

You might want to check out the discussion page of the recently closed VFD on the Censorship Wikiproject. Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. Two users/ admins seem intent on abusing their admin powers should anyone renominate that wikiproject for deletion in the future (ie: 2 months or more from now). Both were ardent supporters of the project.Gateman1997 20:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not touching that project again. Look at what I caused with just the nomination of the project. However, if you do want a suggestion, if the project is inactive, place a historical tag on it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportals

Hi Zach. We are in a process to start nominating some unmaintained portals for deletion. Actually, we've started w/ Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Today#Wikipedia:Wikiportal.2FSweden. I've started a new process for that (creating new templates such as WPfd instead of Vfd or Cfd for deleting portals following the process used w/ categories. That would be great so we won't mix the process of deleting portals with the Vfd process used for articles. I am almost done but need your help as you were involved in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal#Only create a portal if you intend to maintain it. Your help will be much appreciated. Cheers - Svest 22:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Well, if there is ever a time where the Belarus portal is up for WPfD, you will not get an objection from me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Abusive edit

I see this edit to User:Agriculture's talk page. Is this in keeping with administrative excellence? Just curious if you can explain...I may be misunderstanding.--MONGO 08:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was annoyed at him for telling us that he is leaving and telling us to f... off, then come back three days later to stir up more trouble. He has done that at least one or two times before. So, that is why I wrote that blunt message. Of course, an admin should not do that and an adnim should always try to show good faith, but frankly, my good faith is about to be lost (hence the break). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, tempers were high...but put aside your distain for the project and put yourself in his shoes...he was only trying to act in good faith by creating the project and it is highly unlikely that it ever would have posed any real threat to anything...and admittedly (not that you did any of it), the commentary with almost every delete vote, vandalism to his user space, people using sock accounts to post the decency tag all over the place to make the thing look ridiculous certainly was a mitigating reason for his hostility...not that I agree with his response, just that I have understanding for it.--MONGO 00:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I also caught a lot of heat for putting the project for deletion. While I did not do the sockpuppetry, vandalism and all of that stuff. I know why he was angry. Personally, I think he should have used another method to suggest change in the Wiki on our image policy and I would not have wanted it deleted. But at the time, when I saw the project, it was actively trying to do something that I thought was circumventing the rules (mainly the Not censored part). Plus, as I told folks, most of the images he and his group put up for deletion were deleted due to other things, like it is not being used. While in hindsight that the edit I did was harsh, but I personally think that if Ag wants to leave the project, he can do so, but leaving then coming back to cause a bit of a problem was not helping his cause. I am just glad the VFD is over, but me and Ag might have started something that will never be stopped. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough--MONGO 00:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ok ZScout3338, I wantged tyo email ytou and here it is./ I don't have problem wiuth gyou as ma person, or anything. You were just being an ass on my page and stuff. I think you're ans awesome guy. If I want to stay or leave, it's my own fuckiung nbusiness not yours. Okay? We aon the level? Ok. Well so, this is how it is. Wikipedia is trash. Too many trolols. You're not thought ok? You're awesome, just a bit misguioded and mean sometimes. Anyways, so it's like I didn't like what Redworlf was doing. He was blaming the A-G_I_R_C_U_**I**ture guy, who was a vandal. And he's an ADMIN! You get it? He should do his research ok? He's su[pposed to be a person ion a position of power? He needs to rresearch his facts thats all. Still, no bad, he's cool. He's just irresponsible. Anywas, I'm goinna go now. I hate Wikipedia, but I'm, in a better mood thanks to Kentucky bourbon, and so I'm posting to let you know the following:

• • • • • • • You rock
            • S'all cool

peac out. I love you man. Agriculture 06:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Leaving the above as is. But as a disclaimer, yes I was drunk. Agriculture 15:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Ag, email would have been fine (just click on "E-mail this user"). Well, every admin screws up every so often and yes, we do have problems with troll. Though I am on some break, I still have to block a few people in clear-cut cases. Well, I admit I was harsh, but I hope this passes over very soon. I think this break, along with classes starting, is helping me calm down. Though, I freely admit, once becoming admin, my attitude changed a bit. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Мы, беларусы

It was a pleasure. --webkid 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza

Hello, I'm trying to show some people off my friends list a new society, somewhat similar to WP:KC, Esperanza. Its still in its early stages but nonetheless I'd appreciate it were you to join. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this have to do with Esperanto at all? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Guess not, but I could join. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

As someone who was formerly involved with one of my disputes, I thought you would like to know that I'm no longer editing on Wikipedia after yet another hotly contested debate over another article. In the mean time, you might want to know that the Jesse James Garrett article was vandalized again yesterday and the work that was so carefully discussed previously was removed. Feel free to leave it how it is or revert it. I just don't care anymore. I just thought you might want to know. Good luck with wikipedia. - Sleepnomore 20:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally, I am not going to touch the page since I was blind going in, and still confused. Plus, I caused some problems recently, so I am laying low for a bit. While it is sad to see you go, just stay well. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

User talk:இ

I guess we have a "unique" user here. He/She hasn't made any detrimental or useful contributions yet, and I couldn't find anything blantanly wrong with "இ" as a username at Wikipedia:Username. What do you think? Sango123 23:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor changed it to User:UniqueTamil. While I do not speak Tamil, Ed's reasoning and mine is that we are an English langauge website, we should try to have user names in English here (or at least we can read in English characters). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Sango123 23:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Psst..its me.

Relax dude, its me- Fonzie Fan.(Just dont tell anyone)

PS:Im not or never have been a sock of Dr Zoidburg

Linux filesystem sizes

• Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
• /dev/hda2 688M 272M 381M 42% /
• /dev/hda1 99M 18M 76M 20% /boot
• /dev/hda8 14G 559M 12G 5% /home
• /dev/hda9 99M 4.1M 90M 5% /tmp
• /dev/hda6 2.9G 2.0G 803M 72% /usr
• /dev/hda5 2.9G 81M 2.7G 3% /usr/local
• /dev/hda7 487M 250M 212M 55% /var

Should fit on your 6Gb drive. You'll need to make /home smaller though. You probably want to make /usr/local about 1Gb and extend /usr out to about 3.5Gb.

• Once I figure that out, I will take your suggestions. Thanks a bunch. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If any company is listed, all companies should be allowed.

I fail to see why smaller companies are removed from an article, or from wikipedia in general, when larger companies are allowed to remain.

A company is a company, regardless of how long they have been around.

Please explain!

The articles I saw, and deleted, were just one liners refering to each other. Both did not show notability, this falls under the speedy deletion. Plus, there are very many small companies that do not have articles here, due to the notability rules we have. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the offer to help

Hi - Thanks for the offer to help with Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations (and the barnstar). I ran the idea by Raul654 over the weekend. The list is very rough at this point, but the processing is mostly in code so it's not too hard to manipulate. As soon as there's a bunch of hand editing that happens (to fix stuff up), it will either be hand edited forever or the manipulation code will need to get smarter. I'm thinking about replacing the list of articles with a list of stars (or something) each linked to an article. If you're curious the manipulation code is mostly awk at this point. If you want to collaborate on the code, I'd be amenable to moving to a more popular language (perl might be appropriate). Let me know what you think. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

While I do not know code: I can fix everything by hand, since I noticed the code produced duplicates. Plus, if your looking to add a small star to each article, you can use {{FA}} (which I use on my front page). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

FA again

Thanks for helping me doing the Flag of Hong Kong FAC. Now I'm coming up with another project, FAC of Sun Yat-sen. Hope that you can give me some advice about this article before I put it on FAC to maximize the chance of success. Deryck C. 06:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see what I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Harvey Jackson

I restored this article as I don't believe that it meets Speedy Deletion criteria. Whether it meets regular Deletion criteria is another question. Rmhermen 04:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I speedied it again. While my belief is that this person should not get an article, due to him only being notable of losing his wife in the hurricane. I was trying to prevent these articles from being littered on WP, like the 9/11 articles that were on here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Помощ

Urg. But I don't get it. It's a fine idea, but look at both of the items listed there. Now look again. What's the first one about? And the second? Yeah, I know! Who did that? Huh? That's weird. What should we do about it? And btw, look at Merudia. Dmcdevit·t 04:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since I am not familiar with Bulgarian subjects, I will let someone who knows what they are to see if it is valid. I redirected Merudia to Merudia (Disambiguation), since the same information is copied twice. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is that the second one doesn't seem to have anything to do with Merudia. Right? Dmcdevit·t 04:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Uhh...I need to check. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. The disambig page was killed, I changed the redirect. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

:-) Dmcdevit·t 05:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Man, that was confusing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

GDB Award

For your multiple efforts towards providing Wikipedia with free graphic files, I, Redux, hereby award you The Graphic Designer's Barnstar. Congratulations! Redux 14:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zach. You deserve this newest Barnstar for all your work creating files that we can use, on multiple fronts! Enjoy! Redux 14:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Redux, it has been a while but thanks a bunch for this new award. While my graphics are not the best in the world, I am glad I have been able to use them on here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Honorary appointments to the Order of Canada

From some Rideau Hall Press releases I have determined that there have actually been 11 Honorary appointments to the Order see the Order of Canada page and its talk pages for more info - just thought I would let you know Dowew 02:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Alaksa

Your article was the one I was thinking of. I made the comment (not a vote) because I thought it was odd that your article was passed over for being new, when the Alaska article is in the same situation. The Alaska article, was on peer review for less that 1 day before it was also added to FAC and most of the activity from people other that Toothpaste has been restricted to adding images. The Alaska article is one where there are probably a lot of people with some knowlege about the topic who could contribute, Lupo's objections are valid and there are probably several other people who know about the subject who could point to deficiencies in the article. I'm not intersted in a time requirement for an FAC nomination, but I do think that stability is important, give it a week or two on peer review, advertise it on regional noticeboards and so on so, it can't hurt.--nixie 06:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

While I fixed some objections that did not deal with time, the Belarusian wikiportal is a one man project (me). So, I am going to have to visit the Eastern Europe portal, which I think will have some problems (since Poland is having a tiff with Belarus right now and that is not working in my favor). I'll see what I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz

Hey, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on where to go regarding that "situation". Sigh, where do these \people come from? Karmafist 18:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably blogs. I got many annon votes at Harvey Jackson's VFD, since I bet many blogs are posting a link to this VFD and saying the article should be kept. I would not be surprised if the blogs were calling me a careless and heartless asshole. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Zip!

ROFL!, physically. -Splash 23:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Redwolf24 tried to be a 1337 h@xx0r and get credit for the zapping. Oh well, at least I got a WikiCookie from FreplySpang from this. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Lots of barnstars

For having most barnstars of any user I know, I, GraemeL, hereby award you The Lots of Barnstars Barnstar. Congratulations! GraemeL ^(talk) 23:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This is my 24th award (perhaps a record, unless Essjay and Redwolf24 are coming close). For Great Encyclopedia! Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

GNAA on FAC

• See Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections - all objections are covered. Can you submit to FAC again and address any objections in the calm and sensible manner you did last tim? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I got FAC's going now and there is one dealing with Terri Schiavo that people are killing each other over now. Sure, I am willing to renominate it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • One of them is failing and I have another one that is being begged to be removed and sent to a desolate place called WP:PR. I think in about two weeks I will nominate it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Your recent edit to add "not safe for work" to lastmeasure.com how exactly is it not safe for work? --Timecop 02:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I was told on IRC to add the message there. If you wish to remove it, just let me know and I can do it or you can do it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but see Last Measure for why. --cesarb 02:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Maybe we should replace NSFW with a more clear warning. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the only problem is lastmeasure.com is the site for DISTRIBUTING the project, and contains no shock images ON the site (unless you download lastmeasure source tarball and view them, or follow the links). Thats why I was surprised to see nsfw notice. --Timecop 05:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

So, if I replace the warning with (Warning: May contain shock images), will that be acceptable to you Timecop? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good.

Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Really. I cannot express in words how tired I was of that VfD popping up on my watchlist. —RaD Man (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I felt like it was ready to close, since all I saw were keep votes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi , I´m missing a pic and an answer

Look here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noitall#Image:JoanSeverance-PBApril1990.JPG

I would propose , you bring the pic back again and we forget that ugly story. And please for the future: Do never ask Noitall again. Thank you. MutterErde 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I asked Noitall because he was an opposing vote. Plus, even with your keep vote, the photo was not used in an article and only used in a user gallery (which I was told can be deleted). As for restoring the photo, no I will not do it, so I suggest you can remove the link from your gallery instead. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the IFD was legal. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Closing VfDs

You should use subst: when adding the vt and vb templates, and you should also add a note (generally using {{oldvfdfull}}) to the article's talk page. See Wikipedia:Deletion process for details. I did both on Barbara Schwarz for you. --cesarb 21:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Flag issues

Hi Zach - your solution to the flag image problem sounds like a good, fair compromise to me. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

While I got no response from the mailing list, I will try posting something tomorrow there. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please contribute to the collaboration!

Girl is the collaboration of the week! Please come grow this article... Mamawrites 03:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I pass. I am working on a few things myself now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey, Zscout! Surprised the heck out of me, but I've been nominated for admin. Your support would be appreciated. :-) android79 19:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I am at an Apple store now, but once I get home, I can add my suport vote. Congrats, you deserved it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Feces

Hi Zach, thanks for letting me know. I don't how to get rid of it in that case, but I'll look into it. I'm tired of seeing it on my user page. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Join the club, it was used on my user and talk pages a lot. I know of some Commons folks who are admins, so I can see what I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

GNAA FAC

So, I wonder if all the people opposing because they think the GNAA isn't notable (or that the notability was somehow created on wikipedia??) are aware that since the article has survived VFD that their objection is a null vote and will be disregarded? :) --Gmaxwell 03:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Some will be nulled, but most will stand. And, based on some of what the objections are, I can't fix on my own. And it seems I am the only one wanting to fix it. My grammar, from what others told me, sucks and most of our sources are being debunked. I just decided to give it up instead of fighting for something that will bear no fruit. But, at least it is not a pissing match like it was last time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a note. I disagree with the statement that you've "lost" the GNAA FAC. I also saw it on the sybian FAC. Please try not to think of it as a contest. Even if an article fails FAC, it comes out of the process improved. With those two particular articles, I think you may have focused on subjects where there just wasn't enough information to be able to research them properly. I think we all noted and were thankful of the respectful way you handled the objections. Just remember that even despite objections, your work is still appreciated. -- Norvy (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

While I got other FAC's passed before, I wanted to drop a note at the GNAA page to let folks know that I am done answering objections since I cannot fix them all, and even if I do fix them, there will be objections based on those corrections. It is a never win situation with the GNAA. Oh well, I am going to see how Belarus does next week. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Good thing I got out now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of FA

Just wondering if you know about this: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Bringing Wikipedia to Canada

I note that you have expressed interest in holding Wikimania 2006 in Canada. I've been investigating the possibility, and thought you might be interested to know that I found an organization willing to give us free access to facilities at the University of Toronto. I am currently putting a bid together at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. Any comments or criticisms would be appreciated. - SimonP 16:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the only main concern that I have, and other have, is for how can we get folks into Canada who might have DWI's and other small type crimes. Other than that, I have no problems. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Zachary:
Thanks for support in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:29, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

No need to thank me, you deserved it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Double thanks

I was just about to block that character ranting on about that "Mediatech" booshwah or whatever it was. If they're from a university, I'm a goldfish.  :) - Lucky 6.9 00:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well heaeds up, both of you, they haven't gone away. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 01:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked users can edit their talk page. That was a change in the MediaWiki software. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know, it's a "feature". -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 01:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

All we can do is remove the legal threat and just try to convince him/her/it to take it through legal means. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Tried that, failed, had to protect the talk page. Despite having it explained to them in as plain English as I could manage they still persisted in posting the same legal threat: I'm hoping that by protecting the page they actually stop posting the same tripe and actually read the links that have been posted for them at least twice. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 01:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I was emailed the same threat and was asked to unblock him at the same time. I said no. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Belarus

Hi, the article is looking great. Two things still need to be tidied up, first I think religion should be merged into demographics, especially since it is written in summary style for an article that doesn't exist yet. Second the remaining see alsos that are still in the text at the end of sections like the list of cities and the couple at the end of culture should be put in the table, the interupt the flow as is. --nixie 23:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Belarus

I would prefer that the international rankings are not mentioned on the main Belarus page. PS I still think it needs a copyedit before I can support. Denelson83 volunteers for copyediting, you may contact him. And yes, you beat me to the FAC nomination. If it wasn't for lightning I would have pushed Bhutan before you. :P Take a look at Bhutan. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bhutan is looking very great. Well, I decided to keep the rankings in place since Hong Kong, India and Australia have the rankings, and all are FA's. I believe that I would have to put it in there anyways during the FAC. While I know you do not like them, my gut feeling is that they should be included. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, India does not have any rankings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your right, my goof. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Medal

Gosh - thanks! I've not had one of those before :) I just keep plugging away in my corner. Was there anything in particular that you had noticed? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have done a lot of Featured Lists :) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Reichstag picture

The original has no smoke and the officer has two watches, according to the sole oppose voter. The only problem i think about the original version is that the flag is not in the center and it is off to side and there is a shadow making it not as visible as the version that is up now. Jobe6 18:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am trying Google searches, but there could be an opportunity that we cannot find the original image. That said, we should denote that in on the page of the photo. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

here's a reprint of the your post & my answer...

Here's a reprint of the your post & my answer from Nichalps page:

Mark is Raul654. Gordon: I would advise to wait for two weeks before re-submitting, so you and the others can do final tweeking of the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I knew that was his name, either through his page, or elsewhere, but thanks for the heads up. Also, the article's fine as is, and (gasp!) locked, but that is neither my fault, nor a guarentee that the article is bad somehow. It is merely locked over one small but imprtant issue. It is FA-ready, or else I would not have renominated it, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the locking, not sure who did that, but Gordon, what I am telling you about the two week wait is what I have been told by Raul654 himself: wait for two weeks after the FAC failed, maybe send it to Peer Review to see if you have missed anything and then send it back to FAC. Trying to relist it now will get objections from people who did not object before, ether because the nomination already failed recently or that objections from the last FAC have not been solved/addressed. I sent stuff to FAC before: some failed and some passed. I am just telling you from experience. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I know who locked it; it;s even in the edit history, lol, but thanks! I have acted in a way compliable with my consience, and if you read the entire talky talky talk page on Schiavo's FA-nom., then you'll see why -it's a short page now, but it won't be forever; come and read it if you wanna see the inside scoop. RIf you run out of beer (or red bull, if that's your thing), read it twice: It will give you a buzz, trust me.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

While Pepsi is my cold one of choice (I'm 19, so I cannot drink beer yet), I read what was posted at the talk page. While you and others tried to justify restoring the FAC of Terri, but Raul removed it, another guy removed it and I removed it. Raul mainly removed it, I think, due to it being too early and many people voting oppose (including myself). Some of the opposition was due to the recent edit wars and protection, some due to it being early, but mine objection was towards the non-response/resolution of the image problems (which Carnildo touches on). I know that you want to get Terri's article up to FA, just like how I want to get Belarusian subjects up at FAC and pass. But please, kindly sir, just calm down, slow down and try to make this as painless as you possible can. While, from looking at your user page, that you have a huge stake in the article and you want it to do well. I am not going to hold that against you, but can you see where some of the objections and problems are coming from? Just take my advice, or, if you are still confused about the image issues, just talk to me and I can resolve them for the best that I can. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I just recently addressed a few new points on the talk page for the FA-nom.I answered all your concerns (I think), however, since the page is getting long, I suggest this: Go here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo&action=history

That is the edit history, OK? Now, what you can do to make your exploration painless and simple is to find a point in time (represented by the edit history) where you've read the WHOLE page, and then scroll forward "diff" by "diff" -click on "last" and then "next" for each one after that, and you'll see ALL the new entries as they appear in the edit history. Dig? Then, after you certify that you've somehow read the whole page, if you still have problems, hit me up, and I'll talk turkey, cool? I'm accessible via my talk page, email, telephone, postal mail, and, if you live local, a visit, but I doubt that's the case. One and all are welcome to communicate, barring time-constrictions if I get busy, and such. Let me know if this helps.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I am in california, so a personal visit might be out of the way. I have nothing against you at all, but when I made the revert at the WP:FAC page, I was doing it based on the two-week rule Raul654 told me about in a personal chat with him. I will check every photo and see what I think about them, and perhaps help you on this. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, most of the pics are GNU, but a couple, I think, are fair use. So what if a few are fair use; I PERSONALLY fixed MOST of the photos: Fair Use is legal, so the fact that MOST of the pics are GNU (which is "better" than Fair Use) should be even BETTER than "legal," so that's just my take. Let me know if there is a LEGAL problem. (I am not interested in emotional problems by editors, not to disrespect them or anything.)--GordonWattsDotCom 03:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but we will not get "sued" over the photos, but if this article is going to be a FA, it should try to limit the use of fair use images. And lately, there was a debate about fair use images, but I am going to see what can be find and how to meet Carnildo's objections. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of your discussions w/ Jimbo over this, and yes, a Featured Article has a "higher standard," but I think I met that by making "most" of the photos "NON-Fair-Use." Anyhow, I almost saved Terri's life in my 4-3 loss in court, but I ain't no lawyer city slicker -just a plain, somewhat-college-educated country bumpkin. Any help you could give in regards to the picture thing is great help, and thx in advance.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

See what I done at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

GOOD GOING on that image info -it helps; Three options:

• 1, Ask Jimbo to contact Terri's family, since he lives only about 30-minutes from them, if that; they all live in the Clearwater area, about 60-70 miles from me.
• 2, Contact them yourself: http://TerrisFight.org and click on the contact thingy.
• 3, Do nothing: It is Fair Use.
• BONUS: If it gets ugly, I may contact the family, since I am personal friends, but they are probably busy; better, I may call several TV stations and papers and ask them how they do it with photos and all --still better, since the spirits are telling you (not me) that there is a problem with Fair Use, you can contact a few California papers in your area, and TV stations to see how they do it, and monkey-see-monkey-do, we can copy the BIG monkeys and be ok. What say?--GordonWattsDotCom 03:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I will see what I can do about those options, except for one since Jimbo is jet-setting to various places in the next few weeks. While I wish I can catch him in San Diego in October (I am an hour from there), I could email the website in question and see what I can get. But, personally, finding the photos is not really that hard, and explaining their fair use is not hard either. Many news websites circulated the same photos, along with the folks on TV, so that is not the hard part. Trying to please Carnildo is. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, I fixed the problem images, since I noticed you took the photos of Terri's grave (I know that could have been hard for you, but I thank you for doing that). Let's see what Carnildo says and see what happens next. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "...but I thank you for doing that" You're welcome: I included a few "extra" photos with me in them to show I really took them; of course, only the "regular" photos can go on site, unless I become notable, lol. We did our part. Let's let God do His.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • And see what happens at the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

God says be a doer of the word, not merely a hearer; Come and vote: It is heating up, hotter than a summer stump! Come and vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

--GordonWattsDotCom 05:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• I struck out my objection, but I put a Abstain instead. I need to wait and see when the article stablizes but I want to help you and Carnildo out with the image objections. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute: If Gordon knows Terri's family personally, surely he can ask them for a photo to GFDL? That could wipe out most of the copyright concerns in one go. Besides, Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg is quite grainy, we could use one a bit higher quality. Borisblue 06:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I got this from a news website. You can go ahead and revert the image, but I think this is the best quality we got, IMHO. Zscout370 (Sound Off)

BLR

I still think it needs a cpedit. I've improved it in some areas, but the grammar still needs touching up. User:Denelson83 volunteers for copyediting topics, you may try and contact him. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Belarus Infobox

I've used the Template:Infobox country in order to create the infobox of Belarus. And I came across some problems, that I've posted in the talk page. CG 13:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed/answered the concerns. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your help is also needed at Talk:Terri_Schiavo

Your help is also needed at Talk:Terri_Schiavo

...time-sensitive issues; could you come and vote. Come and vote, please?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I am still getting complaints about the images, so I will come by this afternoon. Zach (Sound Off) 15:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation

Hey Zach, thanks for the heads up on the templates for the ranks uploaded. I have also create similar articles on ranks, such as Ranks of the People's Liberation Army, and I have to admit that this is quite tiring - so it will probably take me a lot of time to complete all of the branches of the Russian military. I'll eventually get to India, as it is also a world power.

Now the tedious task of doing the same thing for the Russian navy and Air Force. Ah, Wikipedia. Molotov (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

To make it easier, I am going to work on the Belarusian military ranks. I still need to draw a rank, but it should be easy. Zach (Sound Off) 15:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

But you have to admut, this is pretty tiring. : ). But I don't mind. Russian ranks look very sophisticated. Molotov (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Though they pretty much borrowed off of the Soviet system, as Belarus did. Zach (Sound Off) 21:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

GNAA

Thanks for the nice comments about the GNAA. While I don't have issues with blogs and such being references, I don't believe they should be the only references. Glad to know I wasn't just a voice in the wilderness about these concerns. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

And, sadly, those and the GNNA itself are the only sources we have, so I now am seeing the "feeding the trolls" comments. Rest assured that I am not touching that article again. Zach (Sound Off) 18:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Linux uber geek

How is that an inappropriate username? ~~ N (t/c) 21:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

We have an admin by the name if Linuxbeak, and there has been accounts created in the same time period that are calling Linuxbeak a fag and saying that he supports/love incest. I blocked it as a precaution, but I am willing to unblock and get it renamed. Zach (Sound Off) 21:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

AGF. The name doesn't seem to be abusive in any way, so I'm unblocking it. It's a perfectly legit username and shouldn't be condemned by temporal proximity. ~~ N (t/c) 21:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Um... Redwolf24 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

While I do not like to use AGF, I got an email from him saying he will not contribute to the Wiki due to what I did. Personally, I stand by my block, since Linuxbeak is still facing this problem as we speak. Zach (Sound Off) 21:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think you've been overzealous. "Linux uber geek", while it could be construed as an attack, is nothing like the other names that I noticed you blocking (much more vulgar and starting with exclamation points). Oh well. ~~ N (t/c) 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I am communicating with the formally blocked user via email now. Zach (Sound Off) 22:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Flag image

So what's was wrong with flag I displayed at Pittsburgh Penguins. I would prefer to keep it The consistent naming convention makes life a lot easier. BTW: Is "Belarusian" the proper terminology? ccwaters 01:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The Belarusian (yes, that is correct) flag I drew is more accurate and bigger. I been replacing Belarus flag large.png with Flag of Belarus.png, since other flag images are also being moved to Flag of X.png. While I am not familiar with any "naming convention" about flag images, but I was told images are being moved to Flag of X since we do not have small or medium flags of countries. Zach (Sound Off) 01:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Link FA

What the hell is Template:Link FA? It's generating garbage on Circle of fifths. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The template is putting a star next to the German interwiki link, since that article is considered Featured at the German Wikipedia. Zach (Sound Off) 05:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If you talking about the EMU EMU EMU EMU text next to the Dutch wikilink, then that was removed. Zach (Sound Off) 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/watchedUsers

I keep anyone who I converse with or that makes contributions to major articles I watch or has interesting conversations with others on their talk page on my watchlist. I find it is the easiest way to keep abreast of what is going on in areas of my interest. The page you refer to is just a one time download of the names on my watchlist, I should update it, I am sure it would be much longer now. Let me know if there is a better way to watch users active in areas of interest to me, a watchlist has some obvious limitations. NoSeptember 06:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to know what the list was about, since I seen other watchlists out there that main target people for making POV edits. Thanks. Zach (Sound Off) 06:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Terri_Schiavo#THE_Voting_Booth_on_SEVERAL_POINTS_OF_CONCERN--DISPUTE

Help needed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#THE_Voting_Booth_on_SEVERAL_POINTS_OF_CONCERN--DISPUTE

--GordonWattsDotCom 22:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm lost. Zach (Sound Off) 22:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Ouch! I told the other editors that we should just look at the issues on hand, and they went of in right-field; OK, it's simple: Three of the issues are open to all persons to vote, but just read the page there before it gets unmanageablely long and weigh in. I've recorded my vote and estimate others' votes -based on their comments. It's simple: Do we report the cold, dry facts surrounding the hospice admission completely and briefly -or, instead, do we bloat the article with unimportant stuff like Terri's cats and stuffed animals. Read, read, read, and then you'll get the drift, I promise you, but do not tarry -do not delay -do not wait very long.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA

Hey, Zach! Thank you for your support on my RfA. android79 22:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 22:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your support in my recent RFA! All those extra buttons might not be a big deal, but getting all this positive feedback sure is, please let me know if you have any problems or comments regarding how I use all these shiny new levers and cranks! Rx StrangeLove 00:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 02:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

ZScout, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but I voted Neutral. While from talking to you, you were very civil with me, but I have not known you long enough, and have not seen you try to get into policy issues, unless it was related to Terri's article. However, due to your legal background, Wikipedia would love to have you around if legal advice is needed. Zach (Sound Off) 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You voted your conscience, but the standard for adminship is not any higher than that for a regular editor: Notice the policy I quote on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom where I put new comments to address objections. ~~ As far as my contributions, you can see my contribs here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GordonWattsDotCom&offset=0&limit=500

Yes, there are others who have more contribs and more time on their hands, but comparing the current standards for admin (which are the same as an editor -and I have not ever been banned, blocked, etc.,), and seeing my contribs, I am suitable; After all, it's OK to vote -it's only Wiki and, in the rare even that I turn evil after getting admin powers (unlikely), I can get "fired." Come and vote:--GordonWattsDotCom 01:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, you might not know this, but I am an admin myself. The same process you are going through now, I went through about a month ago. I believe admins are held to a higher standard than other editors. And with the power that admins have, we not only have to be careful with the power itself, but also careful on who gets the power. While I tried not to be very negative about the situation, but I personally believe that with the stances you took on Terri's article, some are opposing you now will probably oppose you months from now. However, what I suggest for you to do is take part in policy/procedural issues that are not related to Terri's article. That is why I suggested that you could help us in any legal matters. While, as I said before, you have been very civil with me and I commend you for it, but right now, it just not is the best time to ask for Adminship. A few months later, maybe. Zach (Sound Off) 02:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You may be right; A burocrats may formally pull my nomination (the page is pulled from the list but still open) --however, I would not do that myself, for the reasons I posted on the RfA page -the new comments at the top: The vote is not 2/12/2, and I expect more favorable votes, whether or not that will suffice; Even though I clearly meet and exceed the standard for admin, the standard is rising and raising the bar, that is, --plus, even were I qualified, if people do not have confidence in me, then my leadership is hindered and not fully functional --now, there are many cases of people that were not "qualified" ascending to office (both George HW Bush, SR and GW Bush, Jr were made fun of but become effective leaders for the most part -albeit with controversies) --so, I fear this trend of snubbing good editors and admins is poison to the well, but all is not bad; After all, it's just wiki -Let's see what happens, Thx for your input -I saw all your posts on my watchlist, incl. the potential name change -we'll see. Thx again.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Heads up, there is another ZScout370, this one with a capitol "S" -- http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=ZScout370&dbname=enwiki Total edits 33 -- First edit 2005-04-27 01:33:35 Not to be confused with you - http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Zscout370&dbname=enwiki Total edits 12700 -- First edit 2004-08-09 02:03:16 Did you accidentally register under that name? If so, why did you just recently do so? Thx!--GordonWattsDotCom 02:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. I did not register that, the above name was a vandalism only account created by a vandal known as "Wikipedia is Communism." The user was blocked because of it. Zach (Sound Off) 03:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of double user names, it seems the wiki-spirits made me into User:GordonWatts -- sans DotCom --did you do that? Thank you.--GordonWatts 03:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not do it, but your welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 04:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It was Uncle Ed, who did the name change -with his last little bit of bureaucrat power -before he stepped down -I think is how it went-- and the system was so taxed, that the servers went down for a few minutes while all my files changed over to my new user name. (User name changes really tax the system -usually done in the evening. I must have had more contribs than I previously thought, hmm...)--GordonWatts 06:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Usually, if you have a lot of contribs, you have to stick with the name. But, I guess in this case, there was an exception to the rule. But, I am glad that everyone is happy in the name game situation. Zach (Sound Off) 07:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bulgarian rebellion

Any interest in Bulgaria? Belarus -> Bulgaria...reasonably similar. Anyway, have a look if you know anything, if not, ignore this request. Catch you around the 'pedia! Harro5 08:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Zach (Sound Off) 08:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, Zach,

We have an edit war regarding photos in Yulia Tymoshenko article. This started when her Cabinet was sacked last week and news of that was put on the Main Page. As far as I can judge from on-line news, the political scandal is currently in progress. I suppose that User:Zondor keeps posting the outdated photo because Tymoshenko looks like a martyr on it. In other words, under present circumstances the photo makes the article non-neutral. Can you look into it and make an independent judgement? Sashazlv 04:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Personally, the version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yulia_Tymoshenko&diff=23322716&oldid=23318459 looks fine to me. I can protect the article so yall can work it out. Zach (Sound Off) 04:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this may be a good idea. Just for a few days -- until everyone gets used to Yushchenko's and Tymoshenko's teams dumping s--t on each other. Sashazlv 04:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Zach (Sound Off) 05:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Zach,

I do not see what I did was vandalism. I thought vandalism was deleting things. You could say what I said was POV, but I can prove what I say is FACT. I simply made a remarks in wiki regarding Germany/Britain relations. I mentioned that they have not been good throughout history, and some mentioned Dresden as an example. I could have been a little more diplomatic, I guess. Someone didn't like it, and he deleted it. I responded, and you then threatened me with DISCIPLINARY ACTION, and backed up the other person. These are verifiable facts. Britain has usually been at odds with Germany, even waging war!! Usually when Britain has been friendly with Germany, both have been fighting France. Also true. I am of course talking pre EU days. That is HISTORY. Please do not say I am a vandal just to shut out the truth.

Kind regards, Wallie

Wallie 06:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think with the fighting France part maybe caught my eye, but the warning was for your edit at [6]. You cannot edit Wikipedia user pages, and what I saw there was vandalism/attacking another user. That what caused me to issue the warning. Zach (Sound Off) 06:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sad that you would take his side over mine...

Sure, the British have been fighting France together throoughout history. Take the Seven Years War, which I think Americans refer to as the Indian Wars??, plus the Battle of Waterloo. Many other times, Britain and Germany have fought against each other, as you well know, for example the Battle of the Somme, the Crusader Battles, and the Battle of the Battle of the River Plate. You may not be aware, but the relations between Germany and Britain are very poor now. I have lived in Britain for many years, and they do not like the Germans at all. It is not like America, where the Germans are the largest grouping. Did you know that only one percent of British people can speak German?

I objected to Johnaton just deleting what I say, and calling it vandalism. He is still doing it, but now says what I say is vandalism and POV. He now replaces what I say with his own santised version. He calls the relationship of Germany and Britain "excellent" which I think is patently false. The British are very good at WRITING about relations, saying they are great, and then SAYING the same people are rubbish behind their backs. Many Germans are well aware of what they are like too.

Wallie 07:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use images

I noticed you deleting unused fair use images. Is there any policy somewhere that says we're allowed to delete them on sight? I'm also eager to reduce the number of unused images, and I'd be glad to not have to go through IFD. Coffee 12:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

While there is no policy set in stone, IMHO, we cannot claim fair use on images that we are not using at all. I let the folks know on IRC that I am doing it and I got no objections there. I have done the first two pages already, so what you need to do is just go through and clear out unused images. If the image was in a talk archive for an article, they will be safe IMHO. User images are not to be dealt with, since I am still confused if they are orphans or not. Zach (Sound Off) 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Blondin Award

The Blondin Award

Well, this one ain't no orphan! Zscout370, this is your Blondin Award for your excellent defence of Wikipedia against the onslaught of the dreaded Fair Use Images. It depicts you carrying Jimbo Wales across the Niagara Falls on your shoulders. Bishonen

W00t! Thanks. Zach (Sound Off) 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Improper action

I am going to assume good faith and that you were just mistaken when you deleted the image Image:Proper Implants edited.jpg and that you had no knowledge that the image was used in 3 articles and was on several other pages or that it was just deleted right before you deleted the image. All the actions were improper and I hope that you will correct it ASAP. Thank you. --Noitall 06:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

When I check the "What links here," the image was not being used and there was not a notice that the image was used at all, like with Autofellatio. Plus, I have been going around and deleting un-used fair use images, since we cannot claim fair use on photos we are not using. You can re-upload the photo, but you must provide the true license and say where the image actually came from. Zach (Sound Off) 06:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That is an abuse of Wiki powers. You can't just go deleting pictures when you want to. You are wrong on the fair use and you did not even participate in any discussion. That is abuse. And as for it being deleted from 3 pages right before you deleted the image, it looks like something messy is going on. --Noitall 07:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not coordinating with people that are removing the above photos from articles. I am discussing the fair use issue not only at Jimbo's talk page with you, I am discussing it at a Wikiproject whose main goals are trying to revamp the fair use policy. As you could tell above, I let folks know on the Wikipedia IRC channel and two admins know that I am deleting orphaned fair use images, since we cannot claim fair use on images that are not being used. Zach (Sound Off) 07:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You made a big mistake and I would like to know how you are going to correct it. --Noitall 07:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I reuploaded the photo that I found via Google search. Zach (Sound Off) 07:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

And I added a tag to make sure that people know it is used in some type of capacity. But, I kept Carnildo's and others disputed tags. Zach (Sound Off) 07:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki has hope after all. Thanks. --Noitall 08:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. At least we were able to get this solved using calm talk. Zach (Sound Off) 15:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Were you able to determine the copyright holder of the image in question? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I uploaded the photo via a copy on a Wikipedia mirror. Zach (Sound Off) 20:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a shame. Can an image be fair use without a source, and if so, under what specific exception to copyright law? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That was my theory, but my suggestion is to send the image not to WP:IFD but to WP:PUI. And, due to recent rule changes by Jimbo, we can speedy delete any image that does not have a source upon a week after uploading. Zach (Sound Off) 20:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

So that everyone knows what is going on: if the above image does not have a source by next week, the image will be deleted again. It will not be by me, this time. Zach (Sound Off) 23:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the image was already redeleted under the new announcement, ample chance was given to provide a source for the material, and the use was clearly not fair-use acceptable to Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 01:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Images

You are deleting images. Are you sure you know what you're doing? You should have asked me before bluntly deleting the Zollner image. The image was created more than a 100 years ago by Zollner. Did you check this? Think about what you do before you do it. You are very young and eager to do right things and for that I congratulate you. Carry on, kid! Tavilis 21:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The images I am deleting now had no souce of the image tagged for many, many months. And because of that, Jimbo Wales wanted them to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=23398569. I know it sounds confusing, and the process is hard, but I hope with my explaination and the link, you can see what I am trying to do. Zach (Sound Off) 23:18, 17

September 2005 (UTC)

Please restore the picture Image:Vaucherpistols2.jpg that you deleted rom the Crass article. this picture was uploaded with the artists permission. quercus robur 12:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, after exploring a little here, I assume you deleted the image of Vo Nguyen Giap from the Tet Offensive page because it was unsourced, but I have to agree with one of the other posters here that adding a "removed unsourced image" to the edit summary line might save some confusion from people who aren't as quick or efficient as you in figuring this out. Sure, right and reason are on your side, but a pinch of diplomacy will help you in the long run, and it can't be that much extra work to paste in one more word, can it? Cheers, Kaisershatner 12:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted images

You should put a message on the talk-page of the people who uploaded the images you want to delete, before deleting the images. It is *very* frustrating to have found some of these images that have no copyright status, and seeing you randomly going through auto-deleting them. This is thousands of hours of work by thousands of wikipedians, uploading images that are very legal to use in the articles, that you are mindlessly destroying. Sherurcij 00:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo said on his talk page [7] that I do not have to contact anyone about the deletion. Zach (Sound Off) 00:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider the method you're using here. Even though you "do not have to" contact anyone, it would REALLY help to avoid any collateral damage. This is, I suspect, very frustrating to a lot of people and causing a lot of animosity that could be avoided with a little note. I came here because I suspected vandalism. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean the Village Pump images? They have not been sourced since 2003 and under Jimbo's edict, they get deleted right away. Zach (Sound Off) 01:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It is called Wikipedia the Free encyclopedia, and when we say free we speak of freedom more than price. The existance non-free material in Wikipedia derails the project's mission and can not be accepted. Non-sourced content can't even be claimed as fair-use even in the few places fair-use might be acceptable. The existance of images of questionable legality or reduced freedom discourages our photographers from making free alternatives. The mandatory removal of 'with permission', 'nosource', and other non-free images was announced months ago. The process has been proceding at an unacceptably slow pace. Zscout370 (and the others whom are in mass delete mode) is doing a great service to all the Wikipedia, even if it might not seem like it to you at this moment. We are sorry for the inconvenience, but the world will not end if some acceptable images are lost in this process... a NS image is already completely useless for many downstream applications. --Gmaxwell 02:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well put!--Jimbo Wales 06:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, but I still think a slight modification of methodology might help. Specifically, make some mention of why the image is being deleted. Someone coming in cold is just seeing edits that say 'rm v2-launch.jpg' and nothing else. Something along the lines of 'Removing nosource image'. Just a friendly suggestion from a fellow wikipedian, no need for any drama. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Images

Hey there - wondering if I can help out. Are you deleting images which have links to articles as well? Or primarily those which are orphaned at the moment? I saw this already. --HappyCamper 01:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I deleted everyone in sight, even if they are used in articles. Jimbo wants all of them gone. So just remove the photos from said articles and just whack them all. No notifications, just do it. Thanks for helping out. Zach (Sound Off) 01:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

super job

This is fun, isn't it. :-)--Jimbo Wales 06:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a preview of times ahead: "Image:AkiraFubuki.jpg" is a typical sort of thing I see in 'fair use'. The tag claims that the image has a known source. Well, it might be known by someone, but not by us! The page has no source information after all. I haven't changed anything about the policy on images like that, but assuming this speedy project goes well (and so far it seems excellent to me)...--Jimbo Wales 07:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is a fun job. While I have speedied about 100 un-used fair use images (irony, isn't it?) since they were not used. I will be happy to help in the fair use debate, but I want to get done what you want done sometime this week. Zach (Sound Off) 17:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Photos

On what basis have you removed the photos from the articles Vauxhall Viva, Vauxhall Chevette, Vauxhall Magnum, etc? Most of these images I took personally and I am quite happy for Wikipedia to be using them. If they did not have the appropriate copyright notice attached some discussion before wholesale deletion is usually good etiquette. I am happy to cxhange the copyright notices as appropriate (though the current rules seem pretty unclear to me - however, I took them, I'm fine for WP to be using them, so there is no reason to delete them that I can see). Graham 08:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

They had not been sourced, so they met the speedy deletion criteria under new rules. Zach (Sound Off) 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. They are perfectly fine to be used - they are my pics and I say so. It would have been courteous to at least have consulted with me, as the fact that I uploaded them is pretty clear from the history. I'd have been happy to adjust the source accordingly. Since you have already been taken to task about the same attitude on other images, I respectfully ask that you undo your precipitous changes and in future take a little more care not to annoy long-standing contributors. Thankyou. Graham 09:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't follow the initial conversation, and so I'm not taking sides on who's right, but here, Graham, it looks like you did the right thing by releasing the image under GNU, but Zach is knowledgeable in this area, and really tries to do the right thing. I wonder: Did you fail to put the "GNU" template on all your images? That would indeed be a problem, no matter whether you thought it was clear or not- others can't read your mind.--GordonWatts 10:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It's more than possible that the images didn't have the correct attributions, etc. They were uploaded several years ago, when things were less clear cut. I have uploaded hundreds of images over that time, and only more recently has it been clear what attributions are required. This means that there must be hundreds of legacy images (not just mine, but from other contributors) that do not have the correct tags - not because they are violating anything, but because the tag templates didn't exist at the time they were uploaded. At that time uploads simply required that the uploaded write in some form of copyright notice. There cannot therefore have been any consistent or standard wording. That doesn't make the images in violation of anything except ne wrules which appear to have been brought in also without any notice to ordinary wikipedians like me. The correct thing to do here is not to just delete without any notice or consultation, but to ask on the uploader's talk page if they can add the attribution. If they cannot, then fair enough, but in this case I am happy to release my own photography under GFDL. In a couple of these cases it won't even be possible for me to easily re-upload the image, because some of them are no longer on my everyday laptop or even in electronic form anywhere. This makes a lot of work to find the originals, rescan them, etc. I can't believe this action is in the best interests of the encyclopedia, nor done in a way which is in keeping with the general principles of harmony and accord among contributors; I know it's pissed me off a lot for one. Graham 10:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir, you are not the only one who was surprised at what was going on. Other users have complained to Jimbo about this, but none of us have seen this coming. I am just doing what he asked for. Zach (Sound Off) 18:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So, wikipedia is an egalitarian democracy with everyone equal until Jimbo issues a decree, at which point it becomes a dictatorship, with all of us just drones to do his bidding? I'm sorry, but that has to be wrong. If the original approach to image copyrights was insufficiently thought-through, then by all means let's decide what to do about it and put it right. But wholesale deletion is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My feeling is that there are probably more legacy images that can simply have the GFDL tag added and there will be no problem and no disruption to articles than there are where there is a genuine breach of copyright. Surely the integrity of articles is more important than image tagging, which is after all not something that adds anything to the encyclopedia as a body of work - it's just metadata. I also personally feel that the copyright situation is a complete snafu, though that's not wikipedia's fault, but the fault of a lot of ill-advised bad law. As a pioneering innovative new medium, wikipedia ought (in my view) to be also pioneering or at least demonstrating that the old copyright laws are inappropriate in this day and age. How can we build a first-class encyclopedia if we are stuck with a situation that forbids us from using the kinds of images that newspapers would not think twice about using. I know, I know, that's not for us to decide - and I'm straying off my point, which is that MY photos have been unecessarily deleted when all they neeeded was a GFDL tag adding, which I would have done had they been brought to my attention. All it's achieved is a) making unnecessary work for me, annoying me in the process, and b) damaging a series of perfectly fine articles. So I'd like to know what you're going to do to put it right? And if I may also suggest, what Jimbo says does not mean any single one of us has to do what he says unthinkingly. Clearly this plan hasn't been thought through, so a perfectly simple option is to DO NOTHING until a more thoroughly discussed plan is worked out. Graham 00:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

One, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Two, this came out of the blue, so I did not see this coming. Three, if Jimbo wanted sometime done, it will be done. We are supposed to be a free encyclopedia and these copyvios and fair use images are killing it. As for what I am going to do to fix this, absolutely nothing. I am following orders from Jimbo and I deleted photos based on his new edict. Zach (Sound Off) 00:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)\

Zieg Heil. Well, that's it then, for me. I've tried to contribute something, probably not much, but if this is the way it's going I don't see much future for me on this project. The minute anybody stops questioning 'orders' is the minute they sell their soul. I'm not convinced even Jimbo would want to see that, but you're welcome to it. Graham 01:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Bye. Zach (Sound Off) 01:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What will kill this encyclopedia is not copyvios, but the withdrawal of labour of its contributors. Without contributors, WP is nothing, and people only contribute because of their own enthusiasms and private motivations. If the copyvio stormtroopers like you go around pissing people off you'll find those enthusiasms drying up pretty rapidly. Nobody is forced to do anything here (not even you, whatever Jimbo says), so go ahead and take this attitude, see where it gets you. Graham 01:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

We get more contributors each and every day. And while all you see here is anger and disgust from others about the very issue you are leaving over, I got praise from Jimbo himself and various others for the work I am doing. Though, if I were you, just cut out the stormtrooper remarks. Zach (Sound Off) 01:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just who do you think you are? You may think you have a personal mandate from Jimbo, but your attitude is in violation of several other wikipedia policies. I am requesting some intervention, your behaviour is quite unacceptable. I have been a contributor for a number of years, and by and large have managed to avoid disputes and contention. You might feel that you can afford to lose contributors who obviously have the best interests of the project at heart, but I doubt you'll get much support if push comes to shove, which it will. You see, it's not up to you, or even up to Jimbo. Ever heard of consensus? Youi obviously haven't even heard of politeness. Graham 01:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, the idea was brought up out of the blue without a dicussion or even a hint at consensus. Jimbo wanted the photos gone and said that the admins can delete them off of the site with no communication with the uploaders and ask little to no questions. And since it was Jimbo who made the decision to alter the criteria for speedy deletions, I decided that it was alright and carry out his orders. Other administrators have carried out this decree, and many of those got flack for the same thing as I did. Of course, I will bring other folks into this discussion and get their input on here, but as I said before: if you wish to leave the project, that is your call. I am not going to stop you from leaving this project or trying to convince you to stay. I am sorry but this was needed to be done. Zach (Sound Off) 01:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, perhaps it did need to be done, but can't you see that it's seriously pissing people off who are otherwise valuable contributors? The encyclopedia might be able to afford to lose me, I have no illusions about that, but it could not afford to lose everyone. Clearly the so-called policy is having a divisive and negative impact on many people, and I seriously doubt that that was an intended consequence. That's why I say it was ill thought-through. So the time to think it through is now, before it's too late. The image deletion is damaging articles. And just because Jimbo decrees something doesn't mean it has to be done, where clearly it is having a very bad and probably unintended consequence. Unless Jimbo goes through and personally carries it out, a simple act of passive resistance will force the policy to be more carefully considered. That's all I'm trying to say - people who just carry out the 'orders' are no more than stormtroopers if they can see the bad effects their actions are having. I use the term unapologetically - it's highly appropriate, because that's how it feels when one is on the receiving end of it. All that is needed is what others have done in the past - make a note on the contributor's talk page that an image is untagged, and ask them to tag or delete it. Usually this is done within a day or two. I have been active in doing this myself wherever I've noticed images of questionable heritage. That is a courteous and workable approach, many images have been brought up to date by that means. Surely it's not too much to ask, and is after all the currently stated policy as far as I can see. If there has been a change of policy I'm not aware of it, nor do many others seem to be. The wider issue of copyright in general is something that we can leave for another day.Graham 02:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You are not the only one who is pissed off about the whole situation. User:Adam Carr has complained to Jimbo about this situation, among very, very overs. I am sorry that it had to go down this way, but Jimbo wanted something done and I made it happen. Zach (Sound Off) 02:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions. If you don't agree with the policy, why carry it out? You don't HAVE to, nobody is making you do it - it's your choice. Since so many people have jumped on your case about it it might be an idea to take stock and think it through a little more deeply. It is not your responsibility, Jimbo doesn't pay you to be his henchman, and in any case my feeling is that Jimbo didn't expect this outcome, nor wants people to go arpund acting in this way in his name, so my genuine advice is to stop doing this until a better policy is worked out.Graham 02:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the policy, though I was surprised it came out the way it did. While I am not paid to do anything (but it would be nice), but I believe that it is my responsibility as an administrator that this task is taken care of. Since few people work on image policy, me and a few others have to take this out ourselves. As for me stopping, I am not. Better, I have a script that is taking care of this task for me. Plus, if Jimbo did not want this to be taken out in his name, he would have asked me to stop, but he said that I am doing a good job, and other administators and users feel that I am doing the job no one wants to do. I am going to keep going and I will not stop until the job is done, which is never. Zach (Sound Off) 02:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well let ME say that in my view you're not doing a good job. But rather than sling mud, may I suggest a practical thing that might help to sort this out. The problem is that a) there are far too many unsourced images to be able to go through and contact every contributor to make them go back and check the tagging, and b) there is no one single person responsible for doing this. This is why so far the image tagging progress has been slow (though I wouldn't say it has failed altogether). A simple solution is to collect images into lists on the basis of their contributor. Then the contributor can be asked to go to that list and sort out the tagging, on pain of deletion if it is not done within some time period. This way the contributor knows exactly what is being asked of him, the amount of work involved is directly proportional to his own contribution, he has been given reasonable notice. The amount of work for the image deletion implementors is also drastically reduced, because rather than one great big overwhelming and unmanageable category, there are now lots of smaller ones each with a single responsible contributor. It will be clear where speedy deletion can be done, for example in the case of an anon contributor with no contribution history, and where a more inclusive approach is needed. This can surely be easily done with a little bit of work on the part of the coders, and saves enormous amounts of work down the track. It also saves a lot of bad feeling which is clearly something that whether you agree with the policy or not must be seen as a bad thing? I feel this suggestion should be given some serious consideration by the Committee for the Instant Deletion of Images, or whatever. Perhaps you could suggest how I might take it there? Graham 03:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just post your proposal on Jimbo's talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 03:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Zach, people might also be pissed because you're doing a rushed and sloppy job: I've come across articles which link to the images you've deleted. It's incumbent upon you to see if any articles are using the pictures and to unlink them, and if you're not willing to do the job correctly maybe you ought not bother. Some examples:

• Beijing Subway
• Bengal Tiger
• Billy Mitchell
• Lyonpo Yeshey Zimba
• Truman Capote

Your "clean-up" work shouldn't require people to clean up after you. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, this is to thank you for instituting the ODM award. I was thinking along similar lines abt instituting a similar award before running into the award created by you. However, my idea was to hv a award for articles on all sorts of awards by a recognised authority (like govt. awards for civilians, sports persons etc.). Thanks once again. --Gurubrahma 10:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 17:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

William N. Page

The image did come from the U.S. Navy, and was taken in 1918. Vaoverland 21:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Then it is in the Public Domain no matter which way we look at it. It came from the US Military and it was made before 1934. I just wanted to be safe. Zach (Sound Off) 21:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image swap

Thanks for taking care of it for me Zach. Redux 22:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Your quite welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 22:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Btw, speaking of images, I just saw that screenshot you keep of the vandalism in your user page. I must say, if that person were to put all that creativity into something constructive, he'd become one fine contributor. I mean, one must appreciate the..."thought" that went into it. You must have caused quite an impression on the vandal/troll. ;) Redux 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

To boot, the image was not taken by me, it was taken by a troll affliated with the GNAUK and put it on their website on how they "owned" Wikipedia. While I was surprised, but I was also slightly amused. Zach (Sound Off) 22:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Reactions to image deletion

Well you're not making friends this week. 8-)

I've been orphaning a bunch of unsourced images, and I see that some of them are now sourced. Removal from articles seems to attract people's' attention in a way that the addition of the {{nosource}} tag doesn't. Maybe we should be doing the former earlier. Bovlb 15:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, at least I waited until the heads up gave me approval to start. BTW, I was told to run a script now, so I just delete the images and others can remove it from the articles at a later date. Zach (Sound Off) 18:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

(BTW thanks for your note on my page). I would agree that orphaning first is better if possible, as it gives people a chance to notice something on their watchlist before deletion. However there are so many that this probably not possible. I will try to go through and orphan as many as possible that I think might not be copyvios to give a chance. Justinc 23:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't a bot be created to do that automatically? --DavidConrad 07:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you see that WP:CSD has changed yet again, so that the {{nosource}} tag has to have been on the article for at least seven days? Also, I note that many editors tagging an image as "nosource" don't seem to bother to notify the uploader. Bovlb 02:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Mainly, it is just the uploader usually sees that you have to add a tag, but they choose to ignore it. Plus, many uploaders just upload photos and just leave the project. But, I have a script going that the image will be delete if the image page was not altered in over 10 days (was 14, but I want to delete as many as I can). It is a messy situation, but it needs to be done. I also know that many people are not happy, but it needs to be done. Zach (Sound Off) 02:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you turn your script off until we hear from Jimbo about the user-by-user approach? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Zach (Sound Off) 03:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The uploader sees, but chooses to ignore? Was that the response from some uploaders of these images who were contacted? If not, how did you determine that? --DavidConrad 08:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

images and common sense

Hi - I saw your exchange above with Graham. Yes, Jimbo wants unsourced images gone, but I strongly suspect he also doesn't want to lose long term contributors. You were "following orders from Jimbo" but I think all this user was looking for is a little sympathy. Do you think you might reach out to him/her with a sympathetic message of some sort, perhaps something starting like "I'm sorry the images you uploaded are gone, ...". I understand s/he was quite rude to you, but s/he was clearly very annoyed and upset. I think a little sympathy wouldn't be out of line. I clearly can't make you do anything, but I urge you to consider making an effort. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned it a few times earlier in the above exchange with Graham, but there is nothing much more that I can do. Zach (Sound Off) 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yvonne Fletcher - image removal

Hi there, just wanted to be clear on the reason(s) for removal of Fletcher's image. I assume of course that there was a legitimate concern, but a specific reason was not supplied. Suggest reason(s) to be briefly mentioned in the edit summary in future. 203.198.237.30 09:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I now see that most of the recent discussion here concerns the new "policy" regarding certain images, which may help explain what happened to the Fletcher image. I rework the previous suggestion into a polite request to please make sure at least a brief boilerplate explanation is given, if nothing more than to minimise the number of users who contact you about this. 203.198.237.30 09:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC).

Most likely, what happened was that I was deleting about a bunch of photos at a time, and my finger slipped, so I could not stop and provide an edit summary. But, most likely, it was deleted for either being unsourced or being an un-used fair use image. Zach (Sound Off) 13:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look at the Yvonne Fletcher article you could have ruled out it being an unused image, but I can certainly see how you might not have time for that while "deleting about a bunch of photos at a time." If you used a bot to do it then there would be no trouble providing edit summaries, notices to uploaders, etc., and no worries about fingers slipping. --DavidConrad 08:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Tenerife

Yup fantastic. Thank you. -- Francs2000 File:Uk flag large.png 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 21:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Toro

Thanks for providing images. Is there an image of the Toro kingdom flag that we could add to the article? Gryffindor 22:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Zach (Sound Off) 22:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:UTAH SR-24.PNG

The earlier deletion was erroneous, and the new license may be OK. See User talk:SPUI#Deleted image. --SPUI (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There was still doubts to the license at the IRC chat room. I also believe the note from the state is false, so I will wait and see if WMF was actually sent something, because if they have, they would have told you about the image being ok. Zach (Sound Off) 02:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would they have told me? I didn't ask them to let me know. I believe the veracity of the note from the state, and you should too. The license sent in the email was for a pdf that he cropped and highlighted a route on. I'm not sure if the license is suitable though, but it's more than {{no license}}. --SPUI (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok, I most likely will try to write to the state myself and see what happens. Zach (Sound Off) 02:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You should probably talk to the uploader if you have concerns about the license, not me who originally marked it as {{no source}} and then {{no license}}. --SPUI (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Based from User_talk:SPUI#Deleted_image, it would have to be deleted anyways. Zach (Sound Off) 02:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted

I can't tell what this image was, but if it was an image of a plan prepared by Daniel Burnham, I don't know how it could be a copyright violation, since he died in 1912. - EurekaLott 16:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

it was unsourced, so while it could have been PD, the image had to go under the new CSD criteria. I am very sorry if it screwed you up in any way. Zach (Sound Off) 22:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the image was flagged by a script I ran. It was unsourced, that is what happened. As it being a copyvio, I personally would not know unless it was tagged. Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

On A related Note...

...two fair use images linked to from the Alexandria class heavy cruiser page have been deleted. I would have been more than happy to place them in the actual article if I had known that linking them via text would result in their deletion. TomStar81 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

But since they were not used, we could not cite fair use. Zach (Sound Off) 03:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I could have expanded the article by placing the pictures into the Alexandria class cruiser page, or (even better) by creating independent pages for both of the ships in question so the pictures could be used. By the way, the page Sadalahn class battleship is missing its image as well. You would happen to know anything about that, would you? TomStar81 03:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not, but I will check the deletion logs. Zach (Sound Off) 03:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[8] said User:JesseW deleted it, most likely using the same script I used (but he created) to delete images. However, the image was most likely unsourced, but the script never removes them from the articles before deletion. Zach (Sound Off) 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If I re-upload the two deleted alexandria class pictures and place them on the page as pictures instead of text-linking to them, will they still be deleted? TomStar81 03:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just source them and used them and they will be kept. Zach (Sound Off) 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

1. ...the image was most likely unsourced, but the script never removes them from the articles before deletion. -- I need to request clarification here: when using fairuse or other copyrighted material the word "unsourced" refers to the lack of a page where the image was found or the lack of permission to use it? And in either case can that image be reloaded?

• • the lack of the page where the image was found. but we have a category were we have a source but no license tag, so it could be both. However, I always deleted un-used fair use images by hand, since fair use is a very touchy area. But as long you provide the information, sure, the photos can be reuploaded.

1. ...Just source them and used them and they will be kept -- Do you mean providing an internet site or providing permission for use on Wikipedia? TomStar81 03:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Internet website and the appropriate tag, like PD, Fairuse. Zach (Sound Off) 03:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the help. For the record the picture that JesseW deleted was in fact protect under the umbrella of fair-use. In retrospect, I should have dual tagged the image, which I didn't, so in some small way the burdon for that pictures disappearence is mine. TomStar81 03:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• At least we got this sorted out. You have been calmer and more respective than many of the folks who came to me about the image mess. While I personally believe that the burden of the image copyrights is on the uploader, but I can see from you that even when things look clear and cut dry, one should be careful about it. Zach (Sound Off) 04:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You have been calmer and more respective [sic] than many of the folks who came to me about the image mess.

Why? Do you think you deserve it? Doing a sloppy and half-assed job isn't going to earn you roses, and considering the mess that you left behind that other people have to fix in your haste to wrack up the edit numbers (Was there some kind of race? Do you get a trophy?), count yourself lucky you weren't abused worse. --Calton | Talk 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If people think I am doing a shitty job, then they should tell me. The reason why I started to use the script, and others, is that we want the photos gone as soon as possible. Zach (Sound Off) 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Killing of Civilian Contractors in Falluja, Iraq 5 - March 31, 2004.jpg

File:Killing of Civilian Contractors in Falluja, Iraq 5 - March 31, 2004.jpg

Mutilation of ambushed Coalition Security Contractors in Falluja,Iraq, March 31, 2004

What happened to the image? JDR 19:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It was not sourced for months, so it had to be deleted under the new rules. Zach (Sound Off) 19:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

New rules? great ... got a wlink to them? I'd like to see the recent info on the image thing.

I did find a copy here (march 31 2004.jpg) ... seem to been off of http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13180.html (link defunct now) JDR 19:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The announcement was at [9], and the rules are now up at WP:CSD. The image history, [10], said the image was tagged with unsourced since July of 2005, which met the new CSD rules. As long as you provide a source and a copyright information tag, like fairuse, then it can be re-uploaded. Zach (Sound Off) 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you know if there is a undeletion for images? I can't rememeber @ the moment.

The image would be template:fairuse from http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13180.html. I didn't upload it the first time ... but I do remember when it was uploaded (this was a widely known image and news topic).

Just wondering. Sincerely, JDR

There is no undeletion of images, so you have to find the image and re-uploaded it again. All I ask is that you just cite where it came from and what license it is under. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have ask the original uploader about the image before the deletion?

Thanks for the info though. Sincerely, JDR 20:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I was told by Jimbo to delete on sight and not to contact the uploaders, since most have uploaded to the project and left. Zach (Sound Off) 20:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not very nice. A quick preusal of the user wouldn't hurt, though (IMHO). Oh well .... no biggie ... just to let you know, this uploader is active. Sincerely, JDR 20:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey ... I was looking around and ... I found that it'd be a good idea to put in {{subst:Image source|Image:ImageName.jpg}} --~~~~. It's @ Category:Images with unknown source ... and says "if some things can be saved here, or if some images can be inquired about, let's do that." Sincerely, JDR 20:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats new. I also redrew a few images there and at other places, but I think it will be hard to save them all or even most of them. Zach (Sound Off) 21:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

Hey, this is Mb1000. Just to let you know, I'm running for adminship, and since we've seen some of each others work (on the article Canadian Heraldic Authority), you might perhaps be able to Support my nomination. Thanks.

By the way, you better vote for me, remember that barnstar I awarded you? (kidding) --Mb1000 20:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I voted Neutral. While you were very civil to me and very helpful in the above article, the problems that users cited, such as the copyvios, is a real concern to me. Zach (Sound Off) 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the Graphic Designer's Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar. Very much appreciated! --Durin 21:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Your quite welcome. Zach (Sound Off) 22:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

image:cat-stub.png

Please cease immediately from deleting cat-stub.png. As it is, the image in a screenshot from Wikipedia, and a little courtesy note would have reflected much better on your action. Please make a note of it for future references, review and adhere to WP:WQT. Thanks in advance. El_C 00:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be fine now, but I do not understand why it is a screenshot. Zach (Sound Off) 00:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

{{cat-stub}} listed my userpage in the category; and I had issues formatting text with Image:Catstub.gif. El_C 01:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Zach (Sound Off) 01:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You might be able to help

See Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#OK.2C_not_done_this_before_.28help.21.29. Justinc 01:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Replied, but in short, block them. Zach (Sound Off) 01:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I cant I am not an admin (though it has been suggested I should become one). Who is the user you mentioned in your reply? I think this might have something to do with me... Justinc 02:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

User:MutterErde, plus, I am an admin and I can see about it, but I am going to wait for more discussion to take place. Zach (Sound Off) 02:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes. He decided to complain about me on Jimbos talk page. The particular thing he complained about was me marking as {{permission}} a commercial image owned by Bomis, a company that just happens to be owned by Jimbo himself. I noted that this was rather funny, but he didnt realise why, as he was trying to claim I was a vandal. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot... Very amusing. Justinc 02:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sure he has choice words for me and Kelly Martin, since we both were clearing out his gallery. Zach (Sound Off) 02:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

call for Block

Mm too bad that some people have to disrupt your building of this encyclopedia. Anways this is my first edit on someone elses talk page. YAY!!! Type O Spud 02:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the best thing since slice bread. While it stinks that people disrupt us, it happens and after a while, only the really nasty stuff annoys ya. Plus, I am administrator too, so I have seen some ugly things. Zach (Sound Off) 03:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Without notifying me...

... you seem to have deleted numerous images I uploaded of the comarcas of Catalonia, for example Image:Catalan comarca Valles Oriental.png. These were totally legitimate images, made for Wikipedia, uploaded before we had any consistent pattern on tagging images. Given that there were dozens of these, and they were no small amount of work to upload, would it really have been that tough to drop me a note? You only had to glance in the histories to see that one person had uploaded all of these, and that it was a (very) active contributor. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

They were deleted based on a script that was given to me, but I have since discontinued with the script. While I am sorry that this image policy is affecting you in a harsh way, I am doing Jimbo's wishes. Zach (Sound Off) 03:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

Hi again, I have added a sentence and link about the Australian Victoria Cross on the Victoria Cross (Canada) page. Turns out they created their own VC in 1991. Dowew 04:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats news to me, but I do not know how different the AU VC is thank the UK VC. Zach (Sound Off) 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatic null edits

// Start GWs autonulleditor
function addToToolbox(label, link, title, id) { // Create new child node of the toolbox object

  var myLinktext = document.createTextNode(label);
  var myLink = document.createElement("a");
  myLink.href = link;
  myLink.title = title;
  myLink.appendChild(myLinktext);
  var myListItem = document.createElement("li");
  myListItem.id = id;
  myListItem.appendChild(myLink);
  document.getElementById('p-tb').getElementsByTagName("ul")[0].appendChild(myListItem);

}

function changeLinks2Edit() { // Changes all links to ?action=edit
   for(
           var i=0; 
           thisLink = document.getElementsByTagName("a")[i]; 
           i++
       ) {
         newURL = thisLink.getAttribute('href')+"?action=edit&GWautosave=true";
         thisLink.setAttribute('href', newURL);
    }
}

function addChangeLinksLink() {
  addToToolbox('Autosave links', 'javascript:changeLinks2Edit();', 'Autosave links', 't-LinkConv');
}

function autosaveOnLoad() {
  if (window.location.search.indexOf("&GWautosave=true") > -1 && document.editform) document.editform.submit();
}

aOnloadFunctions[aOnloadFunctions.length] = addChangeLinksLink;
aOnloadFunctions[aOnloadFunctions.length] = autosaveOnLoad;
// End GWs autonulleditor

Paste the stuff between the <pre> tags into User:Zscout370/monobook.js (if you're using the monobook skin - my apologies if you're not). It will add an "Autosave links" link to your toolbox. When you click it, all links on a page turn into editlinks that will automatically save again when they closeload. So, you can just rapid-fire out new tabs or windows and close them when they're done. To get rid of the edit links on the page again, just refresh it. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Zach (Sound Off) 06:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I also fixed a possibly confusing braino of mine in my above message. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Drat, I should go to bed already, I'm getting forgetful. Okay, I added another function of mine you need to make this work. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

And be careful, this is not production code, just a quick and dirty hack. It will touch any link on a page, even those that already have arguments (like the regular "edit this page" links and the converter itself), breaking them. If you no longer need it, you'd better remove it from your monobook.js again. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: On a related note...

The missing images in question have been reloaded with faiuse tags. In the case of the Alexandria class cruisers the two text-linked pictures have been integrated into the table at the right. I believe that this will qualify them for fairuse protection. Thanks for all of your help. TomStar81 07:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome and they should be safe. If not, I will make sure to come by your way. Zach (Sound Off) 15:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Final decision reached

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2 case. →Raul654 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Zach (Sound Off) 17:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Flags

Hi I thought I may contact you to know if you would be willing to convert the India, Bhutan and Nepal (currently on FAC) flags to SVG. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I could try India, but Bhutan and Nepal will be very hard to do, though I do know of a scheme online to draw the Nepal flag. Check out the Flags of the World page on Nepal, and there should be a step by step instruction to draw the flag. Zach (Sound Off) 18:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a mathematical version of the Indian flag if your interested. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sweet, send it over. Zach (Sound Off) 18:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

have you heard from Jimbo?

Hi - I notice you've archived our exchange about turning off your image deleting script. Have you heard from Jimbo on this? I haven't seen a response on his talk page, and I haven't received one in email either. Just curious if you've heard anything. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing on my end, but I deleted the scripted from my computer, so it could not be used again. I am still getting flack over the images, but over time, and once the procedure has been refined, things should be ok. Zach (Sound Off) 19:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Read my lips: no new taxes

The clip works perfectly now, thank you again for creating it. Also thanks for complimenting the article. I can't think of any other improvements that could be made to it, and the article looks set to clear FAC pretty soon. - SimonP 02:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Good :) Zach (Sound Off) 02:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Award

I, Redwolf24, award you this Public Domain astronaut for your work with Copyvio's.

--Redwolf24 (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now...what kind of ribbon bar I should draw now. Zach (Sound Off) 05:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Signpost article

Thanks a lot for offering to write an article in the Signpost! Your help is appreciated, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message and I'll respond as soon as possible. I would prefer the article be completed by about midnight UTC (8 p.m. EDT), but if you can't, just make sure and get it done ASAP. Again, thank you for helping out! Ral315 08:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome Ral. Zach (Sound Off) 17:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Whitethroatspara.jpg

Thanks for the image tip off jimfbleak 12:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Why did you take it upon yourself to delete this image, clearly indicated as being my personal photo without even letting me know? It's obvious that I was happy for it to be on Wikipedia, it was my personal image, and I would have put a formal tag on if I'd been given the chance. jimfbleak 12:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Just looked at your webpage (not user page), effectively answers above question. Jim

also just looked at comments by another victim of your impolite and arrogant behaviour - I've made nearly 20,000 edits - is that inactive? And "just following orders" is a lame excuse. Jim

I am sorry about this policy affecting you hard. What I can just suggest is to re-upload it and tag it, but since it was not tagged for over 7 days when I deleted the image, it had to go under Jimbo's new edict. Zach (Sound Off) 17:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That's pathetic - what makes you his his axeman? (as an aside, why am I not also not surprised you choose to answer on your page, rather than more politely on mine?) Why did the image have to go? - you can read, it was clearly labelled as my image, obviously I'd put it on Wikipedia, why not more constructively tag it for me, rather than just delete, or let me know (I don't watchlist images). I can't see any point uploading this or any other image if some ignorant American kid is just going to knock it out again. You are totally lacking in common sense and initiative if instead of thinking about what you are doing, you just mindlessly follow your "orders". If I track down any more images of mine you've deleted, I'll be back. jimfbleak 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the answering on talk pages, I usually respond here. The reason why I am sometime seen as his axeman for images is that when many people become admins, they chose to do vandal-whacking or like to close AFD's. Me, I like to deal with images. Though I am getting some help now in this department, it was mostly me jumping up and down with joy and did most of the early deletions. Zach (Sound Off) 19:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I was going to let this drop, but having seen your last comment, I just can't believe that you appear to have taken nothing on board. I would be grateful for some indication that you would at least check with active contributors before deleting personal images, whereas you seem to be saying that you and your cronies are going to carry on with your unilateral deletion, come what may. Why not do something constructive, like writing articles, rather than deleting the valid contribution of others on purely bureaucratic grounds? (an approach that seems to be making you lots of friends judging by this page? jimfbleak 05:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Jim, look below. I did contact the uploader, told him about the deletion and the reason why, and that was what I got. As for doing something constructive, I wrote a signpost article, uploaded flag images in SVG, wrote on FA, helped two others get there. Pretty much, even if I stop with the image deletion, others will follow me and some will be nice about it and some will be using the same tactics as me. As for friends, my main goal is not to make friends or enemies, my main goal is to get a job done. Either it is cluttering the Wiki with flag images, Belarus-cruft or deleting copyvios, I am going to get that job done. Zach (Sound Off) 05:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? Why not just stop doing this, and leave it to somebody else? IT"S NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. At this rate you will have precisely zero friends on Wikipedia, so when things don't go YOUR way at some future point, then who you gonna call?Graham 06:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is the responsibility of administrators to enforce deletion processes like this one. Coffee 06:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Coffee, thanks for the back up and Graham, if no one is doing this, then who does. As I said before, most guys who get adminship get their rocks off at the chance to play whack-a-vandal. Me, I wanted to become an admin to deal with the image issues, since I draw a lot of them myself. And, since there were few people doing the image deletions until now, it was mostly me and about a few other admins. Now, since we got a few more into the image deletion process and more who are helping do Jimbo's task, I could just slow down. But, as you can see below, I contacted people now. One was fine with it and another acted like I should just FMAD . It is going to be a long process with the image deletions, but I am not going to stop taking part in it. Zach (Sound Off) 07:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, if I did leave this to someone else, then the other person who is doing most of the deletions will probably still get the same suggestion from other users pissed off at the deletions. I know that everyone was surprised by this and that some people are still having bad feelings about this or who are just starting to get to know this rule. Just work with us admins and we can solve this problem in a short time. If you want, just reload the images and just tag them in a way where the source and copyright information can be shown. Zach (Sound Off) 07:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You still don't get it - I have no problem with the deletion of images where copyright is breached or cannot be proved. I do have a problem with personal images, labelled as such, being deleted simply because they were uploaded before compulsory tagging. What copyright issue can there be if I've uploaded an image labelled as being my own? If you want it tagged, then let me know, don't just delete.

You say someone has to remove non-copyright images, and I accept that, but it has to be questioned whether you should really be undertaking this task, since you seem unprepared either to make the effort to inform your victims that their personal images are to be summarily removed, or to add the obvious GNFD licence tag. Both of these actions have been taken by other, more considerate, admins. jimfbleak 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia signpost: Jimbo later clarified, "In general I agree that users should be warned first, this is why there's a 7 day rule on these. But the simple sad fact is that many of these images are months or years old and nothing has ever been done about them.". Considering your reverence for his words, why not take heed of this? Jim

Re: Melissa Ashley (porn star)

I would dispute whether in this instance a legal name (even for someone using a nom d'étape) qualifies as "very personal information". A fact so trivial to research after being published in a major international newspaper hardly seems to fit that description. Her non-published home address (as opposed to her business address) or unlisted phone number might indeed be "very personal information"... but glancing at that 2257 statement business address should show how open a secret that "very personal" fact of her real name is. I'd also note comparable information is also given for some similar stars; the only reason I didn't list it as her birth name (as that example does) was because quick research is unable to determine if she is married... which detail might also better qualify as VPI. However, I won't add it back. Abb3w 20:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

We had some problems with personal information posted about porn stars before brought to our (admins) attention at WP:AN/I. This problem was brought up to me privately and what I did was removed the information. If you want to add the name back in, be my guest, but I will not remove the information next time. Some one might, but not because I told them to. Zach (Sound Off) 20:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Leave me the hell alone

Are they being used for commercial purposes?! I ask you, am I selling the images? F*ck off whoever you are. This is clearly for informational purposes. --Revolución (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It says at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/disclaim.html that "you use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only." Not only that, the author of the image was not credited. Zach (Sound Off) 04:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:West Vancouver flag.png

Hello. I am letting you knwo that this image has to be deleted due to the image being non-commercial. The website Flags of the World only allows for their images to be used for non-commercial purposes, as per http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/disclaim.html. I know this is probably something you did not know about, so that is why you got this message. Sorry about that, but I am just letting you know about the image rules. Zach (Sound Off) 06:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. Too bad as that seems like the only digitalized image of the flag in the 'net. Any suggestions? (I don't think I'm good enough to "make" one though. Maybe I'll ask W. Van government if they have a PD image of it). Anyway, thanks. WB 06:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Go right ahead and ask them. I wish I could draw it myself, but it will look very close to the FOTW version. I know many flag images will have to get deleted by this, but I thank you for understanding. Zach (Sound Off) 06:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)