Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:41, 21 February 2011

/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Signature

I'll try it, BRB ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 07:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 07:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you don't understand? The changes I made or why they were necessary? —teb728 t c 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, those didn't work either, I don't know what's going wrong? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 05:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Try again with my new versions. (It needed quotes around "gray"). —teb728 t c 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my name is "Not Scott Adams"

In reference to your message, no, I am not Scott Adams. At the time, the licensing said something about "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide." The licensing goes on to say, "In case this is not legally possible, I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." That, TEB728, means that particular image falls under being not legally possible and with conditions. While I realize that I am not the "copyright holder" of the image, I did make sure to mention that Scott Adams was the author of the work, and that the image was cropped, and therefore edited, from the original work. I would still like that image to be on the article, though: it is very descriptive of the character it portrays.--CornfieldMannequin (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Scott Adams is the copyright owner of that image. Only he can release the into the image into the public domain or grant anyone the right to use it or to modify it. Cropping the image was itself a copyright violation and does not give you a copyright on the cropped image. Since you are not Scott Adams, your claim of being the copyright owner was false. —teb728 t c 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Help Desk question

Hi TEB,

I'm writing in response to your comments here.

Yes, as of now I am only trying to accomplish this on my user page, not an article. However, I am attempting to create a proposal for a new home page for my language's Misplaced Pages. So ultimately the goal would be to apply it to a public page, but after administrative approval.

Anyway, can you help me do this? I'll reiterate that I'm trying to take a one-pixel wide image of a gradient and repeat it across the top of the page. I've seen something similar to this done, for example on the Italian Home Page, where it says Benvenuti su Misplaced Pages. I've looked at the source for this, which refers me to a template. In its source I found that it uses <div class="BGblue1"... to accomplish this gradient. But the div class refers to a common.css page, which links to the image with .BGblue1 { background-image: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/BGblue1.jpg"); background-position:top; background-repeat:repeat-x;}

So, I somewhat understand how the code and the common.css page works, but I can't edit the common.css page for my language. So I'm confused as to how I can use CSS to modify my user page.

Is there some way to create my own .css page, like people do with monobooks, and then reference that page in the HTML, rather than the common.css page?

I hope my request makes sense. Unfortunately I'm a beginner, not only with CSS, but Misplaced Pages editing as well. But I would really like to create a nice design to propose to the administrators of my language's Misplaced Pages.

Thanks in advance,

--Michiluzzu Scalisi (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for not replying sooner. One reason I put off replying is that you may know more than I do about js and css. But one thing I know that might help is that you can create a private override for monobook at User:Michiluzzu Scalisi/monobook.js and User:Michiluzzu Scalisi/monobook.css; I believe it also overrides common.css, etc. In case you are not aware, the jpg refers to Commons:File:BGblue1.jpg. —teb728 t c 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey TEB, thanks for your reply. I'm curious though, about this Monobook.css. All I can really find out about it, is that it can be used to change the skin, that is the style and layout of Misplaced Pages as you personally view it. So I'm not sure whether a Monobook.css can be used to actually reference CSS in a page that I create. I suppose I should just try it out, but I'd still like more information about it. Do you know, or do you know of someone who might?

Thanks again!

--Michiluzzu Scalisi (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) might be a good place. —teb728 t c 07:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ismael Mathay Sr. High School article

Hi TEB, I saw your comment on Palengkero's Talk Page, as it's on my watch list!

As you will see from what I wrote, I've been doing a bit of work on the article - and like you, I think that he'd be the best person to rewrite the sections which were removed due to copyright violations. I hope that he will constructively work on the article when he is unblocked.

You asked about the different schools - the last version where they are mentioned is The 06:07, 22 July 2009 version].

Your question was: What is the connection between the palengke school, the Toro Hills school, the Pugad Lawin school, and the “sprawling campus” of the IMSHS? Did the first three all merge to form IMSHS? Or what? Also what does GSIS stand for?

In that version:

• GSIS isn't explained (the only ones I can find educationally are the German Swiss International School - but that is located in Hong Kong; Good Shepherd International School (see Indian International Schools) and Graduate School of International Studies - but that isn't at High School level and is in America) - I can't even work out what it could be from searches online! The Philippines Department of Education lists GSIS Village ES].
• The palengke school is the same as the GSIS school - palengke means 'public market', and the original location of the school was by the palengke.
• The Toro Hills school/Pugad Lawin school: Toro Hills is an area near Quezon village. 'Pugad Lawin is a historic site from the Philippine Revolution. The Toro Hills school became Pugad Lawin High School.

All the above information is from that version (and previous versions) of the article - but the information in turn came from the website, I think (I'll check on Monday or Tuesday, when I next have time to edit). I must point out that I know nothing about the school itself, I'm only going by what little information I could glean online! It's why we really need Palengkero to help out - unless we can find other Philippinos who know about the school... and I don't even know where to put a message about that!

We probably would be able to find some more information about the schools. For example, the Phillipine Dept of Education has details on , and - however these all show as being the school Year 2004-2005 - and no further years after that.

I believe that with Palengkero's help and guidance, this article can become a more complete article, without violating copyright!

Thank you for your kind message to him (I'm assuming Palengkero is a male, but I don't think I've actually got a reason for that!).

Regards, PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was basically aware of your answers: I posted my questions more to hook Palengkero's interest than for information. I think you are right that he is male: A couple of reasons for thinking so is that he is stubborn (like you and me) and that "Palengekero" is probably a Spanish derivative meaning person from the palengke with a masculine ending. —teb728 t c 22:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Next week, I'll probably do some work on the article - especially the history. I'll read the info from the source, and then summarise/rewrite it. I'll also try to find sources for the information away from the Tripod pages. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Image of Mississippi license plage

TEB728 - I disagree with your decision to mark my license plate image File:Mississippi08plate.jpg for deletion because of "copyright" violation. I owned that license plate, and I scanned and uploaded the picture of that plate myself on my own PC. I have contributed several images of license plates in the past, and don't understand why you are singling out this one for deletion? Your reason for this deletion warrants further justification.Zul32 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Zul, My attention was drawn to this image by this archived question at Media Copyright Questions. On investigation I found that you had uploaded File:Mississippi08plate.jpg to Commons with a (mistakenly) false claim that you were the copyright owner. As an MCQ responder pointed out, the copyright on Mississippi plate design is owned by the state of Mississippi. As another responder pointed out, a photo of the plate might be used under non-free fair use. But since you had uploaded it to Commons, which does not allow non-free images, the licensing couldn’t be corrected; so the image had to be deleted.

By the way, since you have uploaded several other plates: Those which are just text should be tagged with Commons:Template:PD-text. Those which (like the Mississippi plate) include creative graphics should be moved to Misplaced Pages with a non-free tag. —teb728 t c 00:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Help desk assistance

I wasn't able to find it again, but thank you for answering my question so quickly. What did I remove? I still have to locate the issue, though I see your answer. Thanks for your assistance either way. Hstisgod (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

On this edit you removed the }} which closes the infobox template. —teb728 t c 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore...

Ignore that crap. I was probably trying to prove how much of a drama queen I am. Aditya 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

TEB, I just want to thank you for explaining so clearly what I was doing (or rather, what I wasn't doing), and for taking the trouble to post your explanation on the relevant user page. I suppose it's fairly easy to click copy, rather than cut, but I'll check more carefully in future. Haploidavey (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your great assistance in helping me with my signature! • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks

hi, thanks for the nice reply regarding rajat tokas photo, yes i understood completly what are u want to reach, thanks for explain,

yes he is afriend, but no direct way, he is best friend for my best friend whose own the site, the official site, so it will be easy to take a picture for him and post it, but there is one problem, now im in egypt and he is in india, so what about i can ask that comment friend to take a picture and tell him to post it himself here not me, to do not any confuse later, can I do that??

thanks you soo much once again, really appreciate ur nice reply--Sarah.gkhia (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. Any picture of him would have to be licensed under a free license like {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}, and that license should be indicated on the upload along with information on the source. If the uploader is not the photographer, or if the photo looks like it might have been taken by a professional photographer, or if it is something that is posted on his web site, they should send an email as described at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. —teb728 t c 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher and copyright issues

I'm confused about how you are guiding this user's uploads. First, rationales like those found in File:Salk Institute opens.jpg hardly pass muster, particularly since that photo isn't even used on the Salk Institute article. The rationales this editor is using would make almost every photo ever taken eligible for use on this site. Second, no sources are given for any of Wikiwatcher's uploads of work that they clearly did not take themselves. For instance, File:Schulberg-portrait.jpg is now being claimed in the public domain because it's copyright has supposedly expired. How do we know this, or is this just an assumption that is being made on the part of the editor since the photo is pre-1977? Where did they find the photo and how do we know it was published without a copyright notice? When artists create work, it is our responsibility to ensure that we don't simply decide they no longer own it so that we can have their photos on our articles, without some indication that we may do so. Without verifiability that the copyright on these images is not enforceable, we are essentially just taking the work of others and deciding to re-license it. No only could this cause legal issues, it is also an ethical problem. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate you pointing out how that is so. --WatchingWhales (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean about my guiding the user’s uploads. My interaction with him has been only to explain why his images are eligible for speedy deletion. On File:Salk Institute opens.jpg I left him a {{rfu}} tag and an explanation of why it was still replaceable despite his clarification of the reasons why it was being used. I expect that it will be deleted shortly—along with several other replaceable images (File:Mayerportrait.jpg, File:At Piano.jpg, and File:With Mayer and Garland.jpg).

As for File:Schulberg-portrait.jpg, the {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag is plausible: A work that was copyrighted in the US between 1923 and 1963, has to have its copyright renewed 28 years later. (And although he doesn’t understand Misplaced Pages image policy yet, I see no indication of his making false claims.) If you want to explore the matter further: If the photo was originally published in Dartmouth College, "Budd Schulberg Papers" in 1954, you can check the copyright renewals for 1982 and 1983 to see if the copyright was renewed. I think the renewal records are online, but I don’t know where.

As for File:Berlin-Jolson27.JPG, he has now provided sort of a non-free use rationale including a strange statement, “Investigating image source it appears most likely to be {{PD-Pre1964}}” The PD claim is plausible for the same reason as the Schulberg, and if you want to investigate its correctness, you would do it in the same way. If the PD claim is not correct, the image is replaceable.

I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the burden of proof that the images are ineligible for copyright falls on the uploader, not the person questioning its eligibility. Otherwise, we could have thousand of images uploaded while someone sits back and says, "Figure out which ones are PD". That it's "plausible" an image has lost its copyright isn't the standard we use - as long as the image fails to show the veracity of its claim that it's Public Domain, it should be deleted. --WatchingWhales (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the issue back to WP:MCQ. PD issues are too complicated for me. —teb728 t c 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Uploader can verify?

It was based on the comments here. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I am happy to trust him. I consulted another editor I trust to know about the issue (MBisanz), and he seemed to agree with trusting Wikiwatcher1. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He strikes me as honest, and in your linked discussion above he seems to understand PD. —teb728 t c 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical Dude

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Skeptical Dude. Doing so is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOTVAND. Whatever the merits of your argument otherwise, incorrectly accusing others of vandalism, and missing out several levels of warning, severly weakens your credibility. Please strike your accusation and engage in discussion on the article talk page. Verbal chat 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the first place please read WP:DTTR. Although I think there are some circumstances where it is appropriate to template regulars, this is not one of them. (You did notice my comments in the section above the vandalism warning, didn’t you?) The fact that I initially agreed with you that the troll’s first edit might be taken in good faith shows that I understand WP:NOTVAND. And the comments I made simultaneously with my vandalism warning show that that I was by then convinced that his edits were in bad faith. Please strike the templated part of your post; no part of it is appropriate to the situation.

Turning now to the untemplated part of your post.

• Please see WP:NOTVAND yourself. None of the categories described there are applicable to this case. If perhaps you were thinking “Disruptive editing or stubbornness,” read the description: it is about mistaken disruption. Disruptive editing or stubbornness is vandalism if it is done in bad faith. You seem to be the only one still able to assume good faith for this troll’s edits: BilCat recognized his bad faith right away; it took me a little longer; now see garik’s posts here.
• I did not skip any level: The troll received a vandalism1 warning from ClueBot on 4 July and a vandalism2 warning from BilCat on 13 August. Inasmuch as the troll’s 16 August edit left me convinced that BilCat was correct, the next level was vandalism3.
• Attempting discussion with this troll on the article talk page is pointless. See the attempts here.
• Perhaps you misunderstood my post beginning, “Just in case you actually are as ignorant as you portray yourself here, let me explain.” I admit that was very badly expressed. Although it seems to imply that I thought there was an outside chance the troll was merely ignorant, what I meant was, “You should realize that your vandalism makes you seem so stupid that you don’t understand…” I was trying to shame him into stopping the vandalism. If you like I will make that change. —teb728 t c 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, and here is my advice to you: Stop making incorrect accusations of vandalism. You also need to have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF regarding your "troll" accusations. Verbal chat 07:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory article

You have marked the PNNL article as sounding like an advertisement. However, the article is a factual statement of the Laboratory's capabilities, mission, purpose, and charter from the U.S. Department of Energy. Your edits to the article have significantly and negatively impacted this article. We are not advertising for business. We are, as stated in the article, part of the U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory system. It is our mission and capabilities that set us apart from the other laboratories, thus this information is crucial to the article. Shanilea (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In the first place, it was another editor, not me, who marked the article as reading like an advertisement, but I agree with him. Still another editor said on the article talk page that the article struck him as “a bit propagandistic.” The fact that the article read like an advertisement does not mean that it is not factually accurate; ideally all advertising is factually accurate. But much of the text that you added reads more like a public relations release than a neutral encyclopedia article. For example, “PNNL delivers leadership and advancements…”

I notice that you speak of PNNL as “we,” and you speak of “our mission.” This suggests to me that you work for PNNL or Battelle (perhaps in the public relations department?). If so, you need to read Misplaced Pages’s guideline on conflict of interest. Many people think that people should not edit article where they have conflict of interest at all. I would not go that far: surely you are welcome to correct factual errors (like budget and staff). But you need to be very careful of editing to make PNNL look good (or avoid making it look bad). —teb728 t c 20:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much...

for helping me out with my question :)

It is much appreciated.

RyanGFilm (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png

Thank you for your very competent help with this matter. I did not know exactly what to do but it looks as though I asked the question in the right place.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Teddy Stauffer

Considering that edit was some months back and I never just guess when it comes to a subject's information, I imagine I got the info regarding his birth name via IMDb because the article has no references to go on. Pinkadelica 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the correction at Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Ongoing_bias. I thought sure OP had said the page had been deleted multiple times, but looking back, I must have dreamed it.--SPhilbrickT 12:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

UCLA userbox

TEB: I've noticed you've reverted use of the UCLA logo in {{User ucla}}. I'm not sure how much you're aware of the ongoing wiki adminsitrator review of the userbox topic, but {{PD-textlogo}} images have been approved for use in userboxes as a result of discussions here and here. The basic rationale is that trademarked by uncopyrightable logos (text/font combinations without pictoral elements) are public domain and need no rights rationale for multiple-page use. I can explain more if you're interested. I've reverted back the UCLA userbox based on this. Let me know if you have a more specific objection. BillTunell (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite aware of this NFCR discussion and that there is a user who mistakenly insists there that the Bruins logo is a PD-textlogo. His basic mistake seems to be that he assumes dogmatically that artwork that involves letters is uncopyrightable—no matter how much originality it has. As the other editors have pointed out there, the Bruins logo contains several elements that cross the theshhold of originality. There is, to say the least, no consensus that it is a PD-textlogo.

Hypothetically, if it were in the public domain, it could be used in a template, as you say. But since it is a trademark, its is governed by trademark law, no just copyright law. Notice that my edit summary on the userbox based the edit on the fact that the use was a trademark violation. More specifically UCLA reserves the Bruins logo exclusively for use in UCLA athletics.

The UCLA logo for general purposes is File:UCLA Logo.svg. I will replace the Bruins logo with that in the userbox; not only is that clearly a textlogo; the use would not be a trademark violation. —teb728 t c 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't change the userbox, since there is a lack of consensus about whether the UCLA-script logo is copyrightable. But I would dispute that assumption, and I would also point out that a trademark claim does not create a limitation on public-domain use. People are allowed to directly use (even sell) others' marks as long as they are not copyrights (and they do not misattribute a source of goods or services). This occurs all the time with things such as college/university marks, the Coca-Cola logo, etc.. So the fact that a univserity logo is trademarked does not limit its dissemination in the public domain. Anyway, I'll leave the UCLA userbox alone. BillTunell (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill, this isn't a slam on you, but you have a few facts wrong here. The fact that the image is trademarked does put limits on its use. It cannot be used in such a manner that would imply sponsorship or endorsement. It cannot be used for initial profit (i.e. commercial sale, but selling your old "UCLA" sweatshirt at a garage sale is appropriate). The same kind of restrictions apply to patents, which are, by definition, PD; you cannot make that patented item and sell it, but you can create it and use it for yourself. Even the Coca-Cola image, which is PD, is still indefinitely protected by trademark. — BQZip01 —  20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill, since you mention the Coca-Cola logo, let me use it as an example of trademark problems: If a user created a userbox saying, “This user enjoys Coca-Cola,” he probably could use the Coca-Cola logo, for it is unambiguously in the public domain. If, however, the userbox said “This user enjoys carbonated soft drinks,” using the Coca-Cola logo would be trademark dilution.

Similarly, if Misplaced Pages allowed group accounts, and if a userbox said, “This group of users is a UCLA athletic team,” the userbox might use the Bruins logo (if hypothetically the logo were PD). But in a userbox that says, “This user attends or attended UCLA” it would be a trademark dilution, for UCLA reserves the Bruins logo for “athletics, recreation, spirit groups, support groups and student groups.” (See p 14 of this manual.) —teb728 t c 02:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above except some of the commercial-related comments. It is legal to direclty sell a non-copyrightable mark, provided that you do not misattribute the source. People do this all the time in the context of college and univesity marks (i.e., print "OU" or "ND" hats and sell them without university permission). Colleges don't like it, and have responded via the CLC to limit market power of such knock-off artists. But it happens and is legal -- again, provided wee're talking about a non-copyrightable mark. BillTunell (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification

If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 MTV VMAs

I have a few problems with your add: "Unlike normal VMAs the rules did not entitle the winner to a Moonman, and mtv.com gave no recognition to the award or the winner." Rather than revert, I thought I should chat with you about them.

First, the phrase "normal".

Second, you supply no evidence as to what the rules of all the other VMAs entitle the winner to.

Third, you supply no evidence that mtv.com gave no recognition to the award or the winner.

Fourth, as you I believe know, MTV did supply recognition through its co-sponser, and through videos, and through coverage on MTV and MTV2, etc. So that sentence is both POV and markedly misleading.

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. By “normal” I meant only to contrast the local awards with other VMAs that I am aware of. I did not mean to suggest that the local awards were “abnormal.” Would you like to propose a substitute? “Ordinary” maybe? 2. You do acknowledge that most if not all other VMA winners get Moonmen, don’t you? In our discussion on the article talk page Andresg770 emphasized they did, and you didn’t object. Would you like to propose a substitute?—something that says ordinary VMA winners receive Moonmen, but the local award winners did not. 3. I did provide links to mtv.com searches which show no 2009 hits for "Best Breakout" and no hits for "MeTalkPretty". Unfortunately the MediaWiki software garbled them. Thank you for pointing this out; I will get them to work. 4. According to OurStage, the co-sponsor was not MTV but rather their parent MTV Networks. I am not aware of any videos supplied by MTV. (Indeed another thing that distinguishes the local awards from ordinary VMAs is that they are not based on videos.) I am not aware of any coverage on MTV as opposed to MTV2 and MTV Tr3s. What I am aware of is that neither the MTV winners page nor any place else on mtv.com mentions the local awards. —teb728 t c 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any interest in adminship?

I've seen you around a lot at WP:MCQ and some at WP:HELP. You clearly know what you're doing, and a glance through your talk page archive shows that you have a record being calm, rational, and friendly to new users. As far as I can tell, you've never either stood for adminship or declined to do so after being asked, so I'll become the first: any interest in being nominated? Steve Smith (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, but I have been unusually busy last few days. I am drafting a reply on my PC and hope to post it soon. —teb728 t c 08:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a pest, but how's that reply coming along? No hurry from my end, just wanted to remind you that the offer stands, if you're interested. Steve Smith (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still planning to reply. I've been on a l o n g wikibreak for the past year+ -- partly due to a flakey computer and partly due to other projects. —teb728 t c 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)