Misplaced Pages

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Misplaced Pages up to date.

Congrats!

Congratulations on your shiny new buttons! Use them boldly and use them with pride! Kelly Martin (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mika Tan (Deleted image

Yes, I know it had to go, but it was a pity--a very nice image. :D Justin Eiler 08:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Article ban

Thanks for taking the action. I sincerely hope that more editors will pay their attention to the matter, and contribute their views and ideas. This is not the first time I explicitly request for it. :-\ — Instantnood 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative AMA proposal

Hey Guy, long time no see. Would you do me a favor and check out the alternative proposal I left on the AMA talk page? It'd be great to know what you think. Wally 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake

I'd just made some improvements to char siu, but I'd promptly reverted myself when I discovered . I thought I'd be automatically blocked from editing the articles on the restriction list, and I didn't recognise, at the time of the edits to char siu, that there's no such automatic block. I hope you'll take my apology into consideration, but I'll fully respect your ultimate decision. Thanks for your attention. — Instantnood 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that you've to do so in your position, and I do appreciate your efforts in helping Misplaced Pages to get the trouble settled. :-D — Instantnood 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A 2nd opinion

Wgfinley, with respect, I think your instant block for the above offense is a bit rough. Certainly IN's attitude seems ok - the edit was inadvertant and he cleaned it up of his own accord. I think that hitting him with a 24th block is a bit unneccessary - he knows to check the talk page now and having a block like this seems very punitive (but for what purpose?). My 2 cents. novacatz 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Additional ban

Thank you. Please take a look at my response at WP:AN/I. — Instantnood 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone| 04:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of cities in China

Thank you. As I've already said, it's more important to appeal to the community and request for their involvements. Merely banning wouldn't help much. :-\ — Instantnood 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbecue pork with rice

I noticed your ban of only Huaiwei from that article and went to take a look. In the last week, Huaiwei has only edited the talk page of that article. Based on only that, no matter what he's said on the talk page (which is tl;dr and full of the same crap as everything else), his actions on the article can't be inappropriate and worthy of a probationary ban.

However, if you look back even two weeks or three an incredible 40%!! of the edits are Instantnood reverting. If there is to be a ban on the page it shouldn't be one sided, but indeed, Huaiwei's non-action for the last week on the actual page shows restraint - even if he may have intended to revert, he hasn't.

The last week has been Instantnood and Alanmak. Instantnood has been playing the revert games just as equally with him as he does with Huaiwei across dozens of articles.

I'm not arguing for either of them to be banned, but the basis you've given for banning Huaiwei on that page doesn't hold up. SchmuckyTheCat 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Language mis-understanding

I think there may be a case of language mis-understanding between you and Huaiwei that is escalating the issue a little. When he says "your advocacy" he means "your client", Instantnood. Not "your advocacy" meaning the job you did/do. On these edits , I don't think he meant for you to take it personally. I'm going to ask him to assume you misunderstood his unclear language, just as I'd ask you to assume he didn't mean for you to take it personally.

He's trying to tell you that Instantnood is going to articles purposefully to make contentious edits and start fights. Which is true and well documented. On any days of his reverts, most are of recent vintage, but then he'll go back several months and reignite a revert war he previously lost. There does need to be a solution to that. Appeals to the community have failed, partly because Instantnood is just too prolific and blatantly partisan edits DO need to be countered. SchmuckyTheCat 10:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think you're being one-sided, except in that one article. If Huaiwei has stayed away from editing the article itself talk page comments just can't be considered disruptive.

And I've tried to stay out of it with Instantnood. I have reverted some of the more egregious problems where I know that nobody else is going to do it or after several days where nobody else has. In those cases I have been very specific on talk pages what I'm doing and the reason for doing it. I don't believe "the community" is enough to reign him in. He makes too many edits in a day, and he has a documented will to start edit fights in the first place.

I'd hope Huaiwei can learn to stay out of it a little bit more, document more, and wait a little longer before jumping in. I think he does see it the way that I do though, that relying strictly on the community at large isn't enough. Historically, Huaiwei also was the first to encounter Instantnood when he still edited as an IP address. There is a strong tradition there of 'nood making POV changes that Huaiwei sees first - and 'nood making the edits despite any concensus by others to the contrary. He does have a point that there isn't any check and balance to 'nood without him. SchmuckyTheCat 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Queensway

You banned 'nood from editing the Queensway dab page. I am making you aware of some edits I did to the pages related to that, and that Instantnood is reverting them.

I went through the HK related ones and performed a merge. The Queensway, Hong Kong article consisted of a one sentence stub. That road is part of a larger road Queen's Road, so I moved the sentence there and made sure the location of that section of the road was clear. I then redirected the other article, and fixed redirects in other articles. I was very clear in all edit summaries.

Instantnood is systematically undoing those edits. I am going to revert him, and I'm letting you know before doing so if you wish to pay attention for edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Also, I would caution you from getting in a revert war with Alanmak on Queensway," I'm not even editing that article with Alanmak, did you mean somewhere else? He and I often agree - at least where we edit in common, so this would surprise me. SchmuckyTheCat 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As expected.

• revert, no edit summary. no talk.
• , revert, recycled edit summary, no talk. SchmuckyTheCat 08:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

List_of_airlines

Would you have a look at the behaviour of Instantnood + Huaiwei on the above page to see if it warrants action. I think they are warring again. novacatz 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

oops - another one Lists_of_country-related_topics looks like it is their next target. The edit summary history reads pretty funny already...... novacatz 06:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi there, I noticed you unprotected BBQ pork with rice but did not update the list of . Would you kindly do so in the future. novacatz 07:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Transportation in China

Hello, Wgfinley. Thank you for your effort on solving the edit dispute. I was not intending to accuse you of making comments on whether that was the right version. The comment that I made about "some anti-China Wikipedians are pushing their POV" is not pointing to you. I pointed that out in the edit summary, just because some Wikipedians from Hong Kong have been demonstrating their high degree of anti-China sentiments in their edits, and have been trying their best to separate Hong Kong from all articles about China. In some situations, I agree that Hong Kong should have a separate article from the same topic for China. But this practice is not really necessary in ALL situation. Again, Thank you for your effort on solving the edit dispute. - Alanmak 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't making any comments on whether that was the right version, all I know is that Instantnood was stirring up an old debate with that edit. I reverted the edit and banned him from editing that category. What is done from there is up to people who are not on probation. --Wgfinley 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration Notice

I am contemplating joining you to the arbcom case as well, considering your open display of vested interests in the disputes at hand, and your unwillingness in accepting your biasness in handling this dispute.--Huaiwei 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Far be it for me to stop you from appearing ridiculous. --Wgfinley 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

Hi there -- I saw that you were listed as a medcabal member; as a fellow medcabalist, I thought I'd drop you a line to say that there are a number of new cases that have been added recently and there seem to be too many for the "regulars" to handle. I suggest giving it a shot! (If you forgot you signed up for the cabal, and want off, sorry to bother you!) Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA

I hope you understand that I truley think that AMA is sorely in need of repair. If you are, in fact, interested in doing that repair, then my actions today have been mostly wasted, as I would strongly support someone who wants to solve the wikilawyering problem and has a history with the institution over someone who just wants to solve the problem. I just can't tell what you think on the issue, however. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Medcab

Hello. As a co-founder of the mediation cabal, I need your help. Please contact me per irc ASAP. Kim Bruning 00:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Blocked unnecessarily.

Hi! I am a fairly new contributer to Misplaced Pages. However, I do not understand why I am being blocked again (not the first time) when I did not vandalise any pages! My IP address changes sometimes and my current IP address is 165.21.154.112. It seems that this address is being blocked until 31 January 2006 20:26. This address is also shared by Huaiwei. I feel that it is unfair that I am being blocked together with this user. I hope that you will rectify this problem soon. I hope to hear from you as soon as possible. This is not the first time!One with Her 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Protecting the Kelly Martin election talk page

Hello, please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel that your action in protecting this page is not only unnecessary and somewhat heavyhanded, but also inappropriate. As I understand, talk pages should only be protected in the case of extreme vandalism. It could be said that the most recent comments were a bit off-topic, and that perhaps it was acceptable to delete them (although, personally, I disagree strongly with that alone), but protecting the page seems to be going a bit too far, as you effectively silence any discussion regarding the topic at all, including possible opposition to your own actions. It does not really matter that the election is over; relevant discussion has no time limit that I'm aware of. Please note that my only involvement on the talk page is regarding a wholly unrelated topic a long while back when the election was ongoing. My concern is based on a desire for fairness. Cheers. -- Hinotori 08:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel war?

I noticed the issue on WP:AN where some people expressed concern with how this was done. Thus, there has been consideration. While those comments are indeed inappropriate or at least pointless, it only aggravates the situation to remove them. With the possible exception of WP:RPA, we should not remove comments from talk pages, especially if they're at least tangentially related. If people want to talk about it, they will. Radiant_>|< 13:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Lame is not an attack, but refers to Lame Edit Wars, of which Kelly's RFC talk is now an example. Consideration refers to the fact that I thought about the issue and weighed the possibilities before acting, which I'm sure you did too, and since we're both considering the issue this is not a wheel war. I generally assume admins read the admin noticeboard, and I generally find it more convenient to discuss issues in a central place than in several places. Radiant_>|< 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Again!

Hello again! I am being blocked again unnecessarily. This time my IP addresss is 165.21.154.113. I believe I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. Thank You!One with Her 14:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image for deletion

Thanks for the notification. I have replaced it with these two images Image:Noordin Mohammed Top.jpg and Image:Azahari Husin.jpg. These came from a government source for finding wanted people. (Actually the Indonesian government distributed thousands of copies over Jakarta and Bali.) These should qualify for fairuse if not public domain. The ifd-tagged Image:Azahari Husin and Noordin Mohammed Top.jpg can be deleted, I guess. --Vsion 08:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please stop it. Whose copyright interests are you protecting? --Vsion 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Has the policy changed recently regarding fairuse? I'm not aware of it, can you provide me a pointer? Also .... good luck with all the fairuse images in Category:Fair use in... images --Vsion 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, is there a change in policy I'm not aware of? --Vsion 08:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, just to let you know. I brought up this issue before in Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use. You can find that discussion at . If you feel that a clarification is necessary, I would suggest you bring this up in Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use again. --Vsion 08:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ViP additions

I notice you are adding notes to ViP noting you have blocked. Since this is a page for assisting users unable to block could you consider adding directly to archive or something, as I am currently moving a few there uncommented. Thanks! Ian_ID:540053 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it to also be that. But I think we are trying to prevent a backlog, and that the archive is used for such purposes, thanks! Ian_ID:540053 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm

I'm looking at User:Hipocrite/AMAs, and pondering.

Kim Bruning 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Again!

Hello! I am being blocked again unnecessarily. This time my IP address is 165.21.154.117. I believe I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. By the way, thank you for helping me out on two previous occasions regarding the same problem.One with Her 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Yeah, I think it needs to be in there somewhere, purely because of the risk of idiots doing whatever they like and then screaming 'IAR! IAR!'. Definitely agree that the shorter version is so much better. --Nick Boalch 19:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case against Instantnood

Are there any repercussions for me if I make a third party comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3? I've been following the saga of Instantnood and Huaiwei for a while and I would like to say a couple of things. enochlau (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Again

Hello! I am being blocked again. This time my IP address is 165.21.154.113. I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. Thank You. One with Her 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DeMolay logo

Are you sure we can use it? The download page explicitly stated "no commercial use", and my emails to the DeMolay webmaster were ignored.--SarekOfVulcan 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. Don't suppose you'd like to replace it with the downloadable emblem instead of the logo? :-)--SarekOfVulcan 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Broken link in Instantnood RFAr

Hi, FYI - in your evidence section there is a broken link for this section --

Huaiweii goes to the July way-back machine to revisit another "mainland China" to "PRC" debate in this 11 Dec edit

the supplied link doesn't work on my browser (Firefox 1.5) -- perhaps you should have a look? Thanks, novacatz 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This was caused by the category being deleted per a CfD. I restored the category to preserve the evidence there until the case is concluded, the link will work now. --Wgfinley 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood

Case #1

Not that I am bothered about "wikistalking" your former client as you claimed, but a recent edit appearing on my watchlist is certainly rather disturbing. In Universitas 21, he has again ignited an old debate and continued to do revert edits , fresh out of a 7-day ban. I am not going to check through the rest of his editing history, but I would just like to know if you have anything to say about this behavior, and if you are going to consider acting on it?--Huaiwei 08:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On a narrow reading of the probation order at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Remedies, a ban should not be imposed on Instantnood regarding Universitas 21, because it is not an article-related to China. However much I personally disagree with the edit, I would just like to say I think would be inappropriate for an admin to ban/block over this edit. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The ban was extended to any article. SchmuckyTheCat 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see that. Thanks for the link, I revoke my previous statement. enochlau (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article itself may not be perculiar to China, but the edit warring in question clearly is, even before the Arbcom has been extended to all edits.--Huaiwei 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Case #2

I would like to put it on the record, that User:Instantnood has reverted List of economics consultancies and think tanks, with no valid explaination and no entry in its discussion page. This was done despite clear instructions against such disruptive behavior as per the relevant Arbcom cases.--Huaiwei 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Case #3

Reverts by instantnood in and leaves me wondering if he is serious about heeding your call to cease revert warring.--Huaiwei 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Meta-templates

In reference to this edit... there aren't any guidelines for meta-template usage. There was a page which claimed that meta-templates should be avoided because they cause significant server load problems, but the lead developer has declared that to be inaccurate. --CBD _☎ 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Return of Instantnood

• Stanley
• Queen's Road
• Queensway, Hong Kong
• Category:Cinema of Hong Kong
• Category:Macau newspapers
• Category:Hong Kong newspapers

So, he returns and systematically returns to revert warring. I'm not going to go through the rest of the days edits, I'm sure this revert fest will continue for hours and half a dozen more will be made just while I write this. He's got a weeks worth to catch up on after all.

The newspaper ones are particularly galling. They category was renamed on CfD to be more inclusive, he is:

1. blindly reverting to text that points at the old category, ignoring that it was renamed. Proof positive he's just reverting without paying attention.
2. somehow claiming that my creation of a separate sub-category for Shanghai is a conspiracy against Hong Kong

even ignoring the paranoid delusion of my conspiring, hello, WP:FAITH??

1. making edits that have no basis on reality (Hong Kong is part of the PRC, fact check all you want), because he thinks some bureaucratic Misplaced Pages process was overlooked.

SchmuckyTheCat 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood block

I understand that in all due procedures, your 2 week block of Instantnood was correct. However, I do not believe that it is the best way forward. Firstly, it inhibits the ability of the arbitration committee to do its job if Instantnood cannot participate; of course, time is not a factor and the ArbCom can wait, but it is best if this is resolved quickly. Secondly, Instantnood makes some good edits; without him, we lose many good edits on Hong Kong related articles. I would like to suggest that we place Instantnood under Misplaced Pages:Mentorship with you or I (or both) as mentors. If he agrees to it, I suggest the following terms:

• He is only allowed to edit when a mentor is logged on and available - that'll require some coordination. This is necessary to make sure nothing he does sparks an edit war.
• Mentors will try and scrutinise every edit as soon as humanly and practically possible. If he does something which is objectionable and without concensus on the accompanying talk page, revert it immediately and tell him what's wrong with it and how to go about it properly. Instantnood must agree to accept our opinions on these matters.
• Only if he repeats what we told him not to do will we block him, because evidently then mentorship is not working.

Through supervised community interaction, I think Instantnood can learn how to participate constructively on Misplaced Pages. Blocking him for two weeks is only going to exacerbate whatever problems there are by making him want more to make those bad edits. Mentorship can do wonders, as you can see from those currently being mentored, and I think it is worth a try. Regards, enochlau (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole block

Could you please cite the edit(s) that constitute(s) "blatant user page harassment"? Thanks! —David Levy 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this is not Locke Cole's second block in 24 hours. The user's last block was two months ago (3 December). —David Levy 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage looking at the background on this, that's what I put in his block but this is actually garbage that has been going on all day in this little row. First of all, he's reverted another user's page 3 times in 24 hours, if there's an issue with him violating policy he can notify an admin, not take it into his own hands. That really isn't the point though because why he's there is not to enforce Fair Use rules, it's to harass Neto.

The whole reason why he is there reverting Neto's page has to do with the edit warring on:

• Template:Infobox
• AUM

And elsewhere. Additionally Neto has provided some pretty clear eveidence that Locke is wikistalking him on AN/I.

Finally, this is his 2nd block in 24 hours (was blocked yesterday for violating 3RR, edit warring) and before that was blocked for harassment. He's earned a timeout I think.

--Wgfinley 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Most of Locke Cole's edits to Netoholic's user page were entirely appropriate.

2. I'm aware of the dispute between these two users, but Netoholic is as much to blame (if not more so).

3. Monitoring (and following up on) another user's edits is a perfectly permissible act. Actual harassment is not, and I eagerly await the pertinent diff links.

4. As I said, you're mistaken about the last block (which was on 3 December). —David Levy 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is abundant discussion on this at AN/I which is where any administrator should check in about pending issues on blocks and whatnot. I don't want to repost things that are posted on AN/I thoroughly discussing this so maybe you should go visit? --Wgfinley 07:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm in the process of typing a reply there. —David Levy 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Before defining "valid defenses" of wikistalking you might want to go and put it into a historical context. First, it is a clearly defined section of the harassment policy. Second, there's a an Arbcom decision that makes it very clear. In looking at Locke's edits and reverts of Neto on various articles it is quite clear there is some intent to cause a disruption. Disruption is the key between following someone around who's making the same mistake and wikistalking. If you looked at Locke's contributions all day you would see a pretty clear intent to engage in wikistalking.

I'm not saying that Neto is right in all of this and I'm dealing with that, however, I have found Neto's mode of discourse to remain polite if insistent on his position where the discourse of Locke has been anything but. Then, making an issue of an image that has been on Neto's page for months (I have seen it before and it predates the Foundation decisions of fair use images outside of article space) after fighting with him all day on articles couldn't be a clearer case of wikistalking. You'll also find that Skyring erected an elaborate defense justifying his reasons for following another user around, it sounds remarkably similar -- the Arbcom unanimously rejected his argument. --Wgfinley 08:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, when did I use the quoted phrase "valid defenses"?

Secondly, please refer me to the edits (on the part of Locke Cole) that unfairly targeted Netoholic. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I would sincerely appreciate some diff links.

Thirdly, "making an issue" is not a fair description, given the fact that two different admins removed the fair use images a total of three times last month (and one of them posted two explanatory messages on Netoholic's talk page). I assume that Locke noticed this (and rightfully followed up). —David Levy 08:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See the forest through the trees

Here, it's as simple as this. He and Neto have been at it all day today on Template:Infobox and AUM. I'm not providing diffs, go to the histories at either one and it's very plain, Then, after all this warring, he removes the image not once, not twice, but three times from Neto's page. The issue is not whether the image should be there, that's plain, it doesn't. What the issue is that he was not there to do Misplaced Pages a service, he was there because he's been warring with Neto all day and wanted to make sure he got another shot in somewhere else. Finally, I reviewed the requests to have Neto remove it and frankly, didn't find them to be polite nor did I find a request for him to remove it himself. Astonishingly I put a polite request on his talk page and the image hasn't shown back up. Works wonders. To summarize, even if Neto is wrong nothing justifies the edit warring on his user page, there are other avenues available. --Wgfinley 08:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I've requested diff links because I want to know if there are specific edits (unrelated to the main dispute) of which I'm unaware. In other words, did the main dispute spill over to other pages, or did Locke Cole randomly revert Netoholic's edits as a means of harassing him?

2. Please explain how this exchange (from last month) is less polite or less thorough than yours. You've claimed that Netoholic merely wanted an explanation, but it's clear that he already had received several (and simply ignored them).

3. Why are you condemning Locke's repeated removal of the images (per policy) and excusing Netoholic's repeated reinsertion of the images (in deliberate breach of policy)? It takes more than one user to edit war, and Netoholic was in the wrong.

You seem rather certain that Locke was acting purely out of spite. That certainly is possible, but I see no strong evidence to support such a contention. I see an editor who realized that another editor was displaying a pattern of inappropriate conduct, and decided to investigate the user's other edits. Upon doing so, last month's fair use image issue came to light.

Why do I view the situation in this manner? Because I've assumed good faith where such an assumption is warranted. You, conversely, have opted to disregard compelling evidence of bad faith on the part of Netoholic. —David Levy 09:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Locke; pleas see WP:ANI. >Radiant< 10:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

MedCab Request

Thanks for reviewing the request and for offering to help. You're right, though, that it is really a matter of POV-pushing that the RfC will be better able to resolve. So, I'd be happy to cancel the mediation request. How can I do so? The Rod 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by having several IP addresses.

Hello! Very sorry for troubling you but I have a problem which other admins can't fix. My IP address is being blocked again and to make matters worse, I seem to be having 3 different IP addresses. These are the figures:

My IP address is 165.21.154.117: IP address is 165.21.154.109: IP address is 165.21.154.111: The reason given for this block is stated: You were blocked by Wgfinley. Reason given:Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Huaiwei". The reason given for Huaiwei's block is: "Continued edit warring and disruption in violation of parole after prior blocks".

I feel the best place for me to go to is you. I hope you can fix this problem as soon as possible. And thank you for the help with the same problem before. (I hope Huaiwei stops this edit warring. The blocks you gave to this user is affecting me as well.) Siva1979 11:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image deleteion

Do you have any reason for deleting Image:Lexie karlsen.jpg and Image:Adele Stevens.jpg. I believed Alsayid made a good faith effort to solve the issues with the images, but he says you deleted them anyway, which is not a good thing as they were your nominations and stirred up some controversy. If you still had issues with the images, you probably should have run them through the IFD process again. -Thanks, Nv8200p talk 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your rationale was added only after you deleted them. There is no clear copyright violation, and the images were kept after you put them up for IFD on the 31st of January. You did not make a compelling case to remove them during the IFD process, and when the decision was made to keep, you deleted the images anyway. This is not acceptable. --Alsayid 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The terms and conditions of all the websites we get fair use images from say preety much the same thing as you posted in the discussion pages for these images, that is why fair use is a defense. -Nv8200p talk 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no defense by just saying "fair use" -- the rationale must be provided to use unlicensed images. In the case of the Stuff image we're explicitly violating the license. both of them fail all of the fair use tests:

1. Transformative factor -- the images do nothing for the article except show who the person is. It is not a transformation of the work in any way, it's blatant stealing of the image.
2. Nature of the work -- these are both professional commercial images that are marketed and sold by the owners of the copyright and the creators (photographers) of the works. They are creative works by professional photographer artists.
3. Amount & Substantiality of the Portion Taken -- we're taking the entirety of both the images. Reducing the size of the images does not automatically bypass the de minimis defense, the images are clearly identifiable and clearly identifiable as professional commercial images (Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).
4. Effect on the market -- While Misplaced Pages is a nonprofit we still license our content for commercial use, this deprives the copyright owners from profiting from such commercial use and therefore impairs their ability to profit from the use of the image.

The Stuff image is a blatant and obvious copyvio and didn't need further explanation but I provided it when asked. The Danni image is in violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on use of "with permission" images no longer being accepted. I put these in IFD as a courtesy to provide a defense for keeping hem, the defense is nonexistent so I deleted them. --Wgfinley 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

First, the Adele Stevens image did not use the Permission template, it used the accepted CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat template. Please note the difference.

Second, you can't decide on your own that a given fair use rationale (such as for the Lexie Karlsen image) was not satisfactory. The image survived the IFD process, and the reasons given were deemed satisfactory.

Finally, images are never placed on IFD as a mere courtesy. Listing images you think should be deleted on IFD is policy, with good reason, and the proper procedures should be respected. Just because you are a moderator does not give you the right to decide unilaterally that an image should be deleted without notice, or that an IFD decision to keep an image should be ignored. Make your argument against an image when it is up for review at IFD, don't assume your opinion needs no explanation, and pay attention to the Instructions for administrators. Don't just go in behind everyone and quietly delete images several days or a month after they were kept when you disagree. I think this much should be clear now, as has been pointed out to you by other administrators, but if it still isn't, I believe we'll need to take the next step in trying to settle the issue. --Alsayid 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion out of process and false fair use claims

Listen, I appreciate you wanting to remove photos that are falsely labeled fair use, but you recently not only removed Image:Angel Long.jpg from Angel Long claiming that it didn't fall under fair use guidelines while ignoring the discussion on the talk page of the Fair use article itself that specifically dealt with this. Furthermore, you deleted the image itself outright without going through IFD, which, when you did try, that image and several others were specifically kept because they DID meet fair use guidelines.

If you felt that the image was not appropriately used, what you SHOULD have done, was either add a small part to the article referencing the fact that video (or software, I forget what it was exactly) was something she did, and then it would clearly fit the fair use policy with no ambiguity whatsoever or take the image to the deletion process and see if others agreed with you. You can't simply take it upon yourself to make a decision and go ahead and do it even knowing that you are opposed on it. We've had extensive discussions on the use of video covers for porn stars, and since the videos are a substantial part of the information in the article, it's clear that they can and do fit. It's what they do, unlike, say, a photo of Ronald Reagan on a magazine cover.

Furthermore, on your talk page you crow about the fact that you tried to get permission from the copyright owners of some images... all well and good, but you didn;t bother in these cases, and it's all but certain that they would agree (it's free publicity for them, the covers are used in promotional catalogs and everywhere specifically so people see them).

Quite simply, your actions here are not at all within line with fair use laws or accepted Misplaced Pages protocol. I have had classes on communication law specifically dealing with these topics and you are apparently out of your element. But you don't just prevail in a dispute by taking it upon yourself to use admin powers to do what you want to do without gaining consensus.

I would suggest that you immediately undelete Image:Angel Long.jpg because that image was NOT deleted when it was put up for deletion and you are clearly going against the process. I believe you were the one who nominated tons of similar images at the same time, and you deleted any of those which did not get deleted as part of the process, it would behoove yoiu to restore them immediately. I would also suggest you start following Misplaced Pages policy and not take it upon yourself to play maverick, no matter how well-intentioned you think you are. DreamGuy 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, while I hazard to dignify an insult-laden statement with a reply, here goes. What I did with AP has nothing to do with these images. I frankly don't see the corrolation between Pulitzer winning photos and those of "babes". What I do respect is each photographer's right to make a living off of those images and have no snobbishness there. First, the permission process for those images predates the current one, the AP photos wouldn't be there under the current process save a fair use defense. We're using the permission and compliance with their citation requests to avoid a lawsuit with AP which they have threatened. Jimmy thinks we have a fair use claim, Foundation legal thinks they could make an argument but no on really would know until it went to court.

So, getting permission is right out (the fact that someone wants to use the wrong image tag is immaterial). Unlicensed images that are to be used under fair use need their rationale explained and I saw no rationale other than "it's small" and, as I pointed out, de minimis is not a defense in and of itself. If you still object to the deletion then, by all means, take it to Requested copyright examinations.

Finally, I'm unable to add a section to the article about the DVD cover that was used, sadly, I haven't seen this immense cinematic contribution. --Wgfinley 05:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Very strange... You respond here, and also copy my post tomy talk page and respond with different text there, and then go ahead and respond a second time with more text... Why have three different conversations at once?

I *do* respect photographer's rights to make a living off their work, but the images in question are used for promotional purposes for people who WANT them to be used. That's what they were ALREADY paid for. Getting permission certainly is NOT "right out" and in fact is completely unnecessary in these cases anyway.

As I said, I have had the classes and read the books about this issue, and have been active on policy pages discussing fair use and copyright, explaining things to people. This is not a case of some guy just wanting to come up with any excuse for some image I uploaded, because I did not upload these images, I just started watching when you added a hige long obnoxious string of images to IFD for which your claims of why they needed to be deleted were completely spurious. I only added the article in question to my watchlist because I knew you had a history of making radical edits and image removals to try to fit your rather wacky view of how fair use works. Instead of puffing up your chest and claiming that you are right regardless of what policy and other editors and admins say, you should start paying attention. Encyclopedias are supposed to be educational, and you might actually learn something if you were willing to.

Adding a section about the DVD is EASY. You see the DVD cover there. It has the name on it. You can add a line saying that she was in that DVD, among others, DONE, no more possible Fair Use problems, even by your more strict definition of the rules.

Furthermore, you can't say that *I* should have to go through hoops to protedst your action when you unilaterally decided to take it upon yourself to delete images that PASSED all IFD criteria already.

You need to stop your behavior and start paying attention to other people who understand policy and applicable laws better than you do. DreamGuy 18:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and admins

It is not acceptable to speedy-delete images except under the clear criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe that an image is wrongly labelled or has been wrongly up-loaded, then it needs to be put through the correct relevant process. As images can't be undeleted this is even more important than the out-of-process deletion of articles. Please go through the correct channels in future. Admins have mops and buckets, not gavels and black caps, much less scaffolds and axes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're deleting fair use that isn't? Typically a jolly good show, but for wiki-political-type reasons (ICK!) , could you drop me a line? Kim Bruning 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is not an attack on your behaviour. Actual legally required policy on this is said to be "if in doubt, zap it", contrary to common wiki-wisdom. However, unfortunately I am not getting any backup on this. So possibly we shouldn't do it. Kim Bruning 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's deleting anything and everything HE declares as not fair use, despite what people who actually understand the law try to tell him. I'm all for getting rid of false fair use claims, but that's not what he's doing. He's removing perfectly acceptable images that can be and were being used in articles perfectly legally. You people need to stop playing cowboy and start basing your decisions on fair and competent understandings of applicable policies.

If your argument is that the policies are wrong, work on CHANGING the policies, don't just ignore them to do whatever you want to do. Procedures are there for a reason, and one of those reasons is so people with more ego than wisdom don't go running around screwing things up on a whim. DreamGuy 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the foundation interprets the policies differently than we do. Fru fru fru fru frustrating! Kim Bruning 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ping!

IRC! :-) Kim Bruning 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to drop you a line to remind you that other people see the hard work you do here. Although some people will treat you harshly because your priorities are not the same as theirs, there are many others who respect and appreciate your efforts even if we are sometimes too lost in our own concerns to step up and remind people that we agree with you. ... and thank you for taking the time to write reasoned arguments to unreasonably people, it can be frustrating when it appears to be just the same circular argument but there are countless other people watching. I'm sure some have been enlightened. --Gmaxwell 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Short version: We missed you! :-) Kim Bruning 13:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar award

I feel that you deserve this second barnstar for ALL the hard work you have been doing in Misplaced Pages. Although sometimes your decisions were unpopular among fellow Wikipedians, I feel that you have always acted in good faith for Misplaced Pages. Congratulations and do not let the actions of some Wikipediands make you feel disheartened. Siva1979 05:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your response on my Talk page. A few people seem to have jumped on this issue as a peg on which to hang other agendas; I'm more than happy to accept your courteous explanation of the situation, and hope that the whole business now dies away. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a cabalist now!

Hello again! After I had thought it very well, I had joined into the Mediation Cabal as aspiring cabalist. I'll try to do my best and see if to be part of it brings out to be more productive as to be in the AMA. Have you any suggestion (excepting those already put on the Suggestions page) for me? --Neigel von Teighen 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

About Huaiwei's block (Formal letter)

Dear sir.It has come to my knowledge that you have blocked Huaiwei over edit wars.However, this is his testimonial that he gave me.(On MSN Messenger, as of 10:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Huaiwei stated:

• Arbcom rulings were only related to his disputes over China-related content with Instantnood.
• It has nothing to do with how he conducts myself with others or on other topics. He find it ridiculous to be banned over even the most legitimage edits just because he chose to write long commmentaries in the edit summary.

I hope you can look into this matter and consider the block.Thank you. Tdxiang10:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Supreme court

Thanks for stepping in. I cannot quite understand they refuse to surrender all our edits related to the dispute that we've made to that article, and let the uninvolved third parties to decide. — Instantnood 16:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of airlines

I'm afraid that's not the case. What should be said have been said, but the reverts simply keep happening - a natural consequence when some people never give up to satisfy their point of view. — Instantnood 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Clock tower

Thank you. But please let me know if there's anything we can do to solve the matter, instead of delaying it and creating more unnecessary troubles. — Instantnood 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Singapore Science Centre

I am not the only person contesting the claim, no proof from (a) recognised institution(s) has yet been provided to justify the claim. Further, I've only made one revert there .. may I know in what way is it blatant and obvious edit warring? Thanks. — Instantnood 18:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: More Category Bans

Thanks again. But I don't think that would actually help anything. They simply wants their very own point of view prevails. Things would keep happening anyways if you cannot make them stop themselves, and understand and recognise the reality. — Instantnood 18:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lists of country-related topics

May I ask if this ban is gonna help anything? Thanks. — Instantnood 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)