Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:43, 30 September 2009

User :Television Radio, His IP socks, and his filter (177)

It may be time to re-enable the filter, see contribs for 76.237.206.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 64.107.1.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 64.107.0.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's back strangling the grammar in the CTA articles again. WuhWuzDat 02:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wknight94 03:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Material

Hi. A fellow editor persists in deleting proper, properly sourced material, such as . I know that you are an experienced baseball editor and wikipedian; perhaps you can help out if the behavior persists?--Ethelh (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you.--Ethelh (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with most of your edits, but think these two deserve insertion, are appropriate, and would like to put back in ... OK with you?:

"It's not the strikeouts that's bothering me, it's just that I'm not having productive at bats," Davis said.

On July 12, Davis said he felt he was is ready to return to Texas.--Ethelh (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Those seemed like trivial cliche things that everyone in his position would say. Not really worth adding to an encyclopedia. Wikinews maybe, but not here. Wknight94 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I read them differently. The first quote -- you would expect the fellow to say he the opposite, that he is focusing on cutting down his strikeouts, which is what I would assume Texas management would be telling him. And the second one is interesting, that after he get sent down a mere 7 days later he is saying he is ready to return (which apparently his management doesn't agree with).--Ethelh (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprot at Whitey Ford

Hey, there. While looking into Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron liebman, I noticed you set an indefinite semiprot at Whitey Ford; any chance you'd be willing to set some expiry date, there? I'd hate it if we forgot about the protection sometime down the road. I notice this page has been protected, before, but otherwise I assume you're more familiar with the issue at hand. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well he's been at that article for over two years now, so I don't know what a good expiry would be. An abuse filter might be better for his favorite haunts. I'll look into that in the next few hours. Wknight94 23:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oof, I hadn't realized it was quite so bad. Whatever you think is best. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

Thanks for reminding me of the need for cleanup. --Orlady (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you interacted with Special:Contributions/208.83.212.19? --Orlady (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, and no one else will for a while. Looks popular among the banned user community from the previous edits. Nice catch! I didn't have that article on my watchlist. Now it's gone. Wknight94 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Good conclusions. I didn't go so far as to figure out who else was using that IP, and after being accused of being unkind to children (etc.) in a couple of AfDs, I had completely forgotten that the entire history of all those school articles was from that one source. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

EF 175 help

Need help with EF 175 via email. Mind emailing me so we can discuss? tedder (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in e-mail discussion with Tedder, and I think I know why it worked as it did. Baseball Bugs carrots 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

False positive - 177

Hi, could you take a look at this? It was reported on the false positives page, and looking at the changes, I don't see anything wrong with the edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is another IP sock of Television Radio (talk · contribs). I really haven't determined what is going on. He goes back and forth between a rash of non-consensus edits that he's repeated for months or more - and edits that actually appear to have validity. I might think it's a case of mistaken identity except that, in your example above, the same IP followed that up the next day by adding a link to the 177 abuse filter on my user page. If it's someone else sharing Television Radio's IPs, that person needs to create an account so we can separate the good edits from the bad. Wknight94 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like filter worked as intended, that WAS TV Radio. Notice the extreme overlinking of CTA. WuhWuzDat 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/153

Hi, I've disabled this filter because of the low number of hits. One hit per month doesn't seem to be worth the 1.5 ms (though one of our smaller filters). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And I assume you are going to re-enable it when he returns? Wknight94 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Or you could if you catch him first. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Userpage

The immense amount of pictures on your userpage really lagged my computer when I tried to open it. Would you please consider moving them over to a subpage? Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed a bit. Were you looking for pictures or something else? Wknight94 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Note regarding reverts

I confess to not spending too much time regarding the Mike Lupica; after reviewing the diffs, I chose to block the user for disruptive editing. However, per the unblock request, I reviewed the edits further and found that there was an edit war between both you and the user on two separate occasions. The edits bordered POV but were not problematic enough to be reverted per WP:Vandalism or WP:BLP. I'm merely suggesting that you should careful when reverting in future. Thank you for your time. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that if you'll agree to keep an eye on that article. I've spent months or more fighting off people who use blogs and biased anonymously-substantiated reports by competing newspapers to foul Lupica's article. And I am not even a Lupica fan! I've never read any of his books or anything. I do know that he has been a prominent sportswriter since I was a child, but mudslingers here want to make me believe that one blow-up by one blow-hard talking to one blog, and getting himself fired, deserves an entire paragraph on Lupica's article! On the blow-hard's article, sure, but Lupica's?! Come on. And now an anonymous reporter on the web site of a free competing newspaper calling Lupica morally indignant over two years ago. How much of a reach is that?! And Lupica's isn't the only sports reporter's article being polluted with such nonsense. Look at almost any of them and you'll find something that will make you say, "wait, that's NPOV?" Wknight94 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

not at all important

Wha'? Sir D'Gloe of Orange? My eyelids are fracturing! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mets rule! Well, maybe not this year, but usually they do. Wknight94 19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_User:Barack_Obama.3F

What?! Why did you resolve this without dealing with the User I mentioned? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time just bring such things to WP:UAA, k? Wknight94 05:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I did report it to UAA, but since there was an appropriate discussion on ANI, I decided to add to the discussion. Your blowing me off without even so much as a mention was uncollegial, Let's try being a little friendlier, hm? And I did thank you above. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not being unfriendly, I didn't see your original comment through double edit conflicts. Then you undo my attempt to kill that ridiculous thread. We all need to try to clean up WP:ANI and redirecting things to appropriate places and heading off ridiculous threads like that one are key. Wknight94 05:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback reply

Chuthya (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

IP

I requested a check on that IP at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies. JV does not solely use open proxies; he has often edited from normal ISP-issued IPs, too. My guess is that this one is a normal ISP-issued account that he'll have access to for at least a couple of months. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-site checkuser agreed with you - but also said it was definitely JVolkblum. Wknight94 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it was Jvolkblum, based on behavior. --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Black socks

I made a checkuser request to see if an IP or IP range can be blocked, see here. Looks like GT maybe involved here. Momo san 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly. Wknight94 21:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened with the abuse filter on him, looks like it's been disabled for now. Momo san 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh that abuse filter would have been useless in this case. This is brand new crazy behavior so that filter would need to be re-tooled. Wknight94 21:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse etc

Thank you for re-protecting Pioneer Courthouse Square and its ilk. I think that is the right thing to do too. —EncMstr (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't want to play anymore. In reality, no one was being adversely affected by protection anyway. Wknight94 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

XEUser! / 66.30.164.2 / Boyhere

Thanks for finally taking care of this user! Now, is there a quick and easy way to rid Misplaced Pages of all of those new redirect-articles he created, or do we need to go through the RfD process for each one? -Sme3 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do any seem like obviously deleteable? I saw the one speedy request was declined by another admin. Wknight94 12:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Premature removal

Giving no edit summary is not approperiate, especially if you want to persist in revert-warring. Given that no adequate description was given to prematurely or suddenly delete the discussion (no indication was given that it was being archived), I am expressing disbelief that you are removing it without discussion or as much as an edit summary notification. I presume that this error will be corrected, or at least archived properly (lest you want me to archive it). seicer | talk | contribs 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There was an edit summary given here and it was ignored, so why bother? Take Jehochman's advice and e-mail him if you want more info. Wknight94 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dougweler

• I don't understand, I'm Galician Misplaced Pages contributor, at en.wikipedia I only put interwikis from gl. Have I change my name in gl.wikipedia too?. --Dougweler (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this bit of house cleaning. I saw that you blocked the IP. I had undone my reversion that sent the report as it appeared the IP was restoring original article content. I don't think the "editor" was here to be constructive, but I do apologize for being too quick with the button. I do try to be careful and I don't want my AIV reports to be unnecessary. Regards Tiderolls 06:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That was content added by a very similar IP and unsourced. I assume it's the same person and, given the blatant vandalism of its other edits, it was worthy of reverting as well - so I reverted your reverting of your revert. Wknight94 12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've often faced a similar set of circumstances. An editor will add "poo" to a BLP four times and then on the fifth edit will change the DOB by one day. I revert (99.9% of the time) and warn based on the same logic, i.e., one hundred percent vandalsim previously translates to no desire for constructive input. But there's always that nagging doubt that I might have just been baited into a revert that might not stand scrutiny. It's not paranoia if they're really after you....right? Thanks for the response and the quick action at AIV. See ya 'round Tiderolls 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Playing dumb

You just closed this, which is good. But seriously, was Ruslik "playing dumb" or not? Also my latest block by YellowMonkey, was completely uncalled for, and someone unblocked me early, could you tell me who that was? I am preparing an ArbCom case on this, and it would be useful information.

I am seriously trying to improve the articles on Misplaced Pages - look at structured document, it's a pretty good draft, it was needed, and even in it's present, unreferenced, state it adds a good deal to Misplaced Pages; if I may say so. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't see where you unblocked early - it would show up here. Maybe he reconsidered the length of the block before actually doing it? As for Ruslik, I don't know - I didn't delve too far into the history after noticing that almost all of the diffs were more than two months old. I totally believe that you are trying to improve Misplaced Pages. What many people need to learn - and I had to learn myself - is to back away from the keyboard for a while when things get heated. The angrier one gets, the longer one should back away. Maybe they should take a whole day off if need be. I've taken weeks or months off at times to clear my head. When people respond too quickly, what gets typed into the computer can wind up being far more caustic than they even intended. I've re-read posts of mine and thought, "Wow, I sound like a dick!" Maybe that is a lesson you need to work on too - I couldn't say for sure since I only know you from the diffs Ruslik provided. Wknight94 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I must be mistaken, I thought the "you have been prevented from editing", or whatever, message stopped coming up earlier than the date it said it would, no matter - ArbCom here I come.

I hear what you say, and I have done exactly as you describe. I've looked over some of my comments and thought Hmm, a touch too much perhaps, but then I've looked over others comments which prompted my "disruptive editing" and thought... Let's just say I find myself agreeing with my past self nearly as much as he did at the time (if that isn't too convoluted!!). HarryAlffa (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But at the Talk:trans-Neptunian object#Trans-Neptunian & alternate Trans-Neptune page, I would really like your straightforward honest opinion. Is it a particularly difficult problem to analysis? I thought it was spectacularly obvious that you just can't use a ratio/percentage/comparative measurement to decide if an alternate term is "useful". You certainly can't present a small percentage as - "That's it settled then", which I think is a reasonable description of the argument presented by Ruslik. Even if you hadn't thought of it that way before (I know I hadn't) I thought I'd done a reasonable job of explaining why it is not sensible to use a comparator. Was Ruslik "playing dumb"? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh, you got me over to that talk page and there I see your comment, "I must confess that I knew Ruslik would have difficulty understanding the RfC, and I asked it that way to illustrate his capacity for scientific debate". That's a textbook example of what not to say around here. As to the issue itself, I'll gladly admit my ignorance to all things astronomy. And if that is what I think it is - an "expert astronomer" vs. "Google real world amateur astronomy buffs" argument, then I have to stay out of it lest my allergies to such arguments flare up. Painful rashes and all - I'm sure you understand. Wknight94 15:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That was one of the things I thought, "perhaps too much?", and I won't give reasons why I did go with the sentence here. Leaving that to one side, I think it is a generalised problem; it doesn't make sense to use a comparator as an indicator of alternate use. Unless I've become a genius, and I haven't noticed (both highly unlikely), I think; if I can understand this, then so can most people. But seriously, perhaps I'm in need of calibration - I usually mix with some very, very smart people, and I'm no slouch in the thinking department myself (forgive my immodesty). Am I mistaken in my belief that most people can see the logical fallacy? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User liberty hotel

I understand liberty hotel was just blocked, but I'm kinda doubting he is trying to advertise a lone hotel in Boston, but I may be wrong.(Zaxby (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Why not? It makes money, right? If not, why did he put it on his user page and not in article space? Wknight94 10:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew

Got an image :) Wizardman 02:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! How did that not come up in searches before if it was uploaded in 2007? Weird... Wknight94 03:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was copywritten originally; I asked the guy to change the license and he did. Wizardman 13:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis 06:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter 183

Hi. I've reactivated this filter. It was working very well for us and I see no reason to disable it. If you have further concerns, would you mind consulting us at WT:WPAFC? Many thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. Wknight94 14:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Filter 17

Could you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/False positives#Hourai Rabbit, since you're experienced with the runshit vandal? Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ty Cobb

Hi-de-hay. Guess what? I believe Ron has crawled out from whatever rock he was under, as witness here. Just FYI. Happy nearly end-of-summer, btw. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard telling, but there's a continual debate over .366 vs. .367 and 4189 vs. 4191, which I have gotten tired of dealing with. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the IPs don't match at all, do they? AOL and one from Canada? Who knows... Wknight94 16:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I put a note on the article's talk page, to let the masses know of the wonder of Ron. I feel like I'm the Historian of Stupid sometimes, ya know. The Archivist of As... I'll stop there.  :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of that Gershwin song: "'S Ronderful". Ugh. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Islands

It's that season again: a new IP from a familiar ISP. --Orlady (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Leonese language

I want to thank you for protecting Leonese language article. I'm a member of Wikiproject Languages and there is a trouble with an user. He's called Karkeixa and reverts and reverts at least ten times in the last days. I think he has a behaviour against the three revert rule, and the only he makes is telleing he doesn't speak english, spaming web pages, destroying referenced paragaphs, and he acuses eveyone without respeting nor the etiquette neither the good faith policies. I think he could be calified as a vandal, and actues in that sense in a lot of wikis in the lst day, where he just destroy references and promote webs. I have contrasted that he reverts in all the wikis he can, at least 50!!!, promoting spam. Could you please verify that he's a vandal? Thank you.--Auslli (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Eldrewitsch. Wknight94 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from above

Sorry about moving my talk page to general[REDACTED] space again! I thought I had done things as you outlined for me in an earlier communication, but I obviously did it wrong! I think I have the idea now.... Best, Mark Wick --Mrwick1 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Message received about uploading images. I will not upload any more pending resolution of questions that I have, and further tutelage. The first question-- is there a relatively straightforward "chain of command" for getting permission from possible copyright holders to use images on Misplaced Pages? In hard-copy publications, for example, there is usually a form that is filled out by the original author and/or publisher giving such permission. I have to say that the instructions for this process on Misplaced Pages seem very arcane to me and I have obviously not grasped them. Can you help me with this?

Thanks as always for your input,

Mark Wick --Mrwick1 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the first complete and understandable explication I've gotten on Misplaced Pages's image-use policies! I NOW have a clear idea of what to do and what not to do... And, I'm suspecting that law school was somewhere in your background.

Warm regards, Mark Wick

--Mrwick1 (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Old habits die hard... I moved the piece I was working on into my user-page space. If you would be so kind as to check it, I think it's ready to move out into general viewing space.

Thanks! Mark W. --Mrwick1 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

When?

When am I going to be unblocked?--66.30.164.2 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)User:XEuser!/User:66.30.164.2

admin question

Regarding this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/A new name 2008 - Is it possible for a user's previous name to be changed to something else, i.e. something "anonymous-sounding", without the general public knowing what the old name was, and hence allowing scrutiny of his edits? Although to those who know him, that might give something away anyway. Baseball Bugs carrots 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, it's possible. Happens quite a bit I imagine. I'm even aware of a few people who left behind long block logs and assumed new identities. Now is it good when that happens? Depends on the prior identity. Like you said, people are not supposed to avoid community scrutiny by changing accounts. But if someone doesn't really have much to negatively scrutinize, there's probably not too much harm. Wknight94 21:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The apparent issue is that the admin candidate's prior identity had too much personal info, a problem compounded by his somehow having entrusted the now-banned sock user "Pastor" Theo with even more personal info. I just think an admin candidate should be above-board about his prior identity. But maybe I'm wrong. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Need your admin attention at Commons

For example, see this image. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. I am consulting with the cabal. Stay tuned. Wknight94 14:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I blocked the user here, and I removed the images from the article. Meanwhile, Ward Elementary meets the usual criteria for being kept (because the school won a blue ribbon school award), and I've verified the content at various times. I'm inclined to restore it. Would you have a problem with that? --Orlady (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. It's on my watchlist now. Wknight94 14:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Restored. FTR, there's a lot of history associated with these schools. I have several on my watchlist. ----

Any chance you're verified 1838 Peter Augustus Jay House and Peter Augustus Jay and Boston Post Road Historic District (New York) and Minard Lafever and Blessed Sacrament-St. Gabriel High School? They seem to have a few things in common as well. Wknight94 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The school stub checks out as OK. The others are far more complicated. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I find myself impressed by the camera data and authorship claim on this image and the mysterious descriptions on this image and this image (how does a person photograph something that's missing? and why are these "original photos" screened for print publication?). Also, it's interesting to see the diverse variety of camera dates on photos of the mansion. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Covad? --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't say that I am. And yes, some of those images raised an eyebrow. Wknight94 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

70.171.239.21‎

Thank you for taking care of that. It has been alleged that the IP is the underlying IP for User:Taxa. If that's the case, will the block of the IP also block Taxa? Baseball Bugs carrots 13:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, no. Should it? I'm not familiar with Taxa and I don't see that s/he's ever been blocked. Wknight94 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to do so and see if Taxa disappears. There's a debate about Taxa and various alleged trolling sockpuppets on ANI right now. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Londo06

Hi. You were helpful in removing a serial sockpuppeteer User:Londo06 last year. Now he's back as User:Lando09. I was wondering if you knew what to do about this: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Londo06/Archive. I'm at a loss.--Jeff79 (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you suspect more socking? Wknight94 02:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently because the previous account is dormant it's not two at once, so essentially not sockpuppetry. But still it's deceptive and disruptive so I figured there must be some way to put a stop to it.--Jeff79 (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

HMS King Edward VII in 1907 image

I received your note on my talk page regarding the HMS King Edward VII image (File:HMS King Edward VII (1903) in early 1907.jpg). As you can see at the image page, the claim copyright tag says that an image created by an author who died 70 years ago or is more than 70 years old if the author us unknown is not longer under copyright. The image is unattributed -- it almost certainly is a Royal Navy photo, but that appearently is unrecorded -- therefore the author is unknown, and the photo is 102 years old. Therefore it no longer is under copyright per U.K. law. As for where it was scanned from, it was scanned from a book, specifically from British Battleships 1889-1904 by R. A. Burt, Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1988. ISBN 0870210610. At that time the photo was unattributed and already 71 years old, and therefore already in the public domain per U.K. law; the Burt book provides no attribution of any kind for the photo, which would be odd for a photo used by permission or under copyright elsewhere. I see no justification for removing the photo on the basis of it being a copyright violation. I have added the source nformation to the file. Mdnavman (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)mdnavman

HMS Vengeance image

In your response about the HMS King Edward VII image, you also asked about the HMS Vengeance image. That image comes from exactly the same source and, given the photo's age, has exactly the same logic to it regarding the copyright tag. In fact, if you are combing through image files I uploaded a year ago (when I was a less sophisticated Misplaced Pages contributor than I am now, so I may have not included enough source information here and there) that are photos of Royal Navy predreadnought battleships -- all linked to the predreadnought articles from the Royal Sovereign-class and its individual ship articles through various other classes and their ship articles right up to and through the Lord Nelson-class battleships and its individual ship articles -- they all come from that source and have the same non-copyright reasoning (and tag). Let me know about any questions you have or any actions you might think I need to take, and I'll do so -- but please don't make the deadlines too tight, as I only do this as a hobby and have a lot of non-Misplaced Pages priorities to deal with as well! It's best to reach me at my talk page, as I am not well-versed in using talk pages and finding comments elsewehere. Thanks! Mdnavman (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)mdnavman

Request for removing protection of Template:Domestic cat

There have been several requests for changes made on the Template talk that have not been addressed for several months. Beyond those requests, I'd like to make some structural changes to improve the layout. I don't feel that the template is in too much danger of vandalism as it appears that the accounts of the main vandals have been blocked. I think it's time to remove protection, or at least down-grade it to "semi-protected". --Kpstewart (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure. It's done. Not sure why I did that actually... Wknight94 02:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/User:Linas and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, linas (talk)

After your rejection for mediation, I have filed a formal complaint with the arbitration committee. I am now asking you to voluntarily relinquish your admin powers, and to voluntarily take an indefinite leave of absence from editing Misplaced Pages, in recognition for for your actions. I have filed a formal complaint here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attack by multiple admins upon User:Linas linas (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)