Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kafziel/archive7

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Kafziel

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SmackBot (talk | contribs) at 05:28, 27 April 2010 (Subst unsigned template.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:28, 27 April 2010 by SmackBot (talk | contribs) (Subst unsigned template.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kafziel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Astro & Glyde Article

Hi, could you please provide me with a copy of my article, called Astro & Glyde, which was speedily deleted from wikipedia? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginson21 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly! If you activate an email account (under the "my preferences" tab), I will send it to you. Kafziel 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have activated my email account. Thanks.Higginson21 (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Hi, can you please send the article to my email? Thanks very much.Higginson21 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You don't seem to have your email enabled yet. See in the toolbox (on the left side of the screen) where it says, "E-mail this user"? That link is there because I have email enabled. It's not there when I go to your userpage. Go into "my preferences", and under the email options section make sure the "enable email from other users" box is checked. Be sure to save your changes! Once that's done, I should be able to send you the article. Kafziel 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry about that mistake! I've enabled the email from other users in my preferences, so it should now work. Thanks! Higginson21 (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! I've emailed a copy to your address. Kafziel 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 3 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 10 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

92.0.153.217/StetZach24

On my talkpage: "You obviously don't know who we are. Stop deleting our section on here.....or I will personally make sure you are banned :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StetZach24 (talk)"

Can you please tell what this means, because I don't remember him and is really starting to piss me off.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs)

Looks like he has been blocked indefinitely, so I wouldn't worry about it. Kafziel 19:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

barbers pole

hi there, i was reading to your post ref. barbers pole and thought that i would just ad a fact that i read only a few days ago. The barbers pole represents the polle that was at the end of the chair arm so that when the surgen barbers were extracting teeth etc, the person having the surgery done could grip this due to pain. The barbers red (blood) and white (clean) towels is correct but they were not hung over the poles it was added to the barber sign as advertising. the blue has always been thought of as veins but it was added by the americans as a patriotic sign. Hope this helps

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 17 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 24 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lorre

Hey, thanks for blocking that IP. I was dreading filling out the 3RR forms, it doesn't seem very straightforward to me. Yworo (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the IP editor is evading his block by switching IP addresses. His new address is 80.98.239.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Yworo (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Biological Functionalism

Hi Kafziel, can you please explain to me why my article requires more references? I am not saying that I disagree; I would just like some specific guidance as to which parts of the article are unclear, so that I can ameliorate it. Thanks!Higginson21 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed one reference because it was just a bibliography of a different work. There was nothing actually there to support the statement. Also, for an article like this, published books and peer-reviewed print journals are much better than PDFs from websites and papers from universities. Kafziel 17:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the advice! Higginson21 (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 31 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re application of guidance in proposed deletion of band article for purported lack of notability

Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at . It concerns the proposed deletion of the article on the band The Shells, for purported lack of notability. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), and have never had contact with you before, I recognize that you had a hand in crafting/discussing the language of the guidance, so you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion applying the guidance.--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Simcoe_map.jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Simcoe_map.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Misplaced Pages Research

Kafziel,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Misplaced Pages community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Misplaced Pages community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.


Take the survey


Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.


CMUResearcher (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Deleted article

I would like to request a copy of the deleted page EphBlog. David.Kane (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've emailed it to you. Kafziel 15:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton |  19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. Thanks for the heads-up! Kafziel 00:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wappinger

I must say, you were certainly right on it. And have a noteworthy pedigree (of hailing from Orange County, NY). Having been born in Wappinger Falls and lived two long stretches in LA I well understand the difference.

I've been gone from the Wappinger area for over half a century but periodically find myself at Misplaced Pages pages pertaining to its general environs, this time looking for a place to rock climb with a friend who lives in NYC. Not on the east bank of the Hudson, the west.

In any case, I'm sure you will agree that "Wappani" is not the generally accepted name for the Native American Indian tribe, and is not the dominant referent in the historical literature. Even a quick Google search of the terms "Wappinger" and "Indian" versus "Wappani" and "Indian" shows a landslide 4,490,000 hits for the former versus a mere 1,440 for the latter, including those in the second instance for cooking terms that feature the Japanese culinary term "Wappani" and a reference to "Indian" cuisine (based on the land of India).

I commend your acuity and lightning speed, but I believe the proper designator for the Tribe's Misplaced Pages page is Wappinger, and really do not wish to get in an edit war over it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen you've already undone the Wappinger redirects. Please let's not go down this road. You are an administrator, and are acting hastily and in the face of the burgen of historical usage. Please reconsider your path. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to discuss it (see the article's talk page) but the discussion should happen before the page gets moved from its original location. I recommend going through the process at Requested Moves to get a wider consensus. Kafziel 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but that is not the page's original location or name, as I understand it. It was Wappinger and wrongly became "Wappani" (in my opinion) after the fact. I was just restoring it, in concord with both contemporary common and historical usage. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wappani is the original location; I wrote the article. Anyway, no harm done - as I said on the talk page, I'm just a layman and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, so let's just see what everyone else thinks about it and go from there. Kafziel 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, it's always nice to see someone's actually reading the stuff I write. Even if we disagree on some of the points, it's good to know someone is paying attention! Kafziel 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement.

I had not realized you had written the original article. I immediately recognized your screen name as that of the editor who immediately followed up on some I'd made to an article on the last Wappinger Indian sachem, Daniel Ninham, several thousand edits ago when I first set up a Misplaced Pages account. An article, which by the way, refers to he and the tribe as "Wappinger", not "Wappani". You didn't change it there. ;)

Can't we just agree to allow a renaming of "Wappani" to "Wappinger" to reflect a two-plus century and current worldwide consensus for the accepted historical name for the tribe at issue, with the appropriate redirect from "Wappani" to "Wappinger" instead of vice-versa, which Misplaced Pages gagged on when I initially tried it? I know all about Misplaced Pages "consensus," but the world and the history books (and all manner of legitimate Native American history and geneaology sites, like so: http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/delaware/wappingerhist.htm ) have already developed one, "Wappinger".

You can send me all the pictures of strip malls you can upload, indefinitely. If you'll just please use some common consensus (Hey, a play on words, how do you like it?) on this. Puuullleeaase? Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested, you can request help with consensus building at WP:RM. Or, if "Wappinger" is acceptable to you, I can just move it there since, in that case, it wouldn't be a controversial move.
I never said Wappinger was a bad name (which is why I left it in the Daniel Nimham article), it's just not what they originally called themselves. I'm okay with it. Kafziel 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm waiting on the strip mall pix...I really miss them from Southern California. Not!
It is a pleasure meeting a resonalble person on the other end of a Misplaced Pages difference of opinion. My lucky day. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaint on Admin Notice Board

This regards your blocking action regarding Dunderberg Mountain.
Thanks!

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're thanking me for, but you're welcome, I guess. Enjoy the derision. Kafziel 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Do I know you? You want to block me? Go ahead! FkpCascais (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel. Sorry for treating you this way. I was wrong. I don´t really know your historial of attitudes you had/have here, so I automatically assumed you were tendentious about the dipute I had with that user. I also think you were a little bit out of context regarding the dispute, where (I do aknoledge) did used some radical language to make a point. I hope you know that I don´t use to engage in any kind of disputes, since I work almost exclusevely on soccer players biographies and lists, trying to stay out of anything controversial or conflicting. Since you been to Kosovo, you know well the very oposite views Serbs and Kosovar Albanians have, so it is quite easy to get involved in a conflict. Promissing you I want use this kind of attitudes again (I´m not here to show any points to anyone) I apologise to you once again. Regards FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. I saw from your history that you do a lot of good work so I knew you were just caught up in the moment. Happy editing! Kafziel 08:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Many thanx for your understanding Kafziel. FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you Kafziel, but I really need some advice from some Admin. I did get involved in such arguments with User:Kedadi first, User:Anna Comnena only supported him, because of the nature of the edits he makes. The problem is that Kedadi makes edits substituting words in a Kosovo related articles. Like the Massacres that occured there, they are already written, but he replaces "killing of Albanians" with "mass murder" and things like that. Shouldn´t those articles be more closely watched? Because, I´m sure that if Serbian point of view was edited, like "killed KLA soldiers" there would be a pront response, and a small revolution... I´m not in denial of those atrocities, or anything, but exagerating the texts isn´t gonna help. What you recomend me to do? Nationalism may not be bad, but when it starts hurting onother side, the story is different... And also, there were some texts using the very "legal" word allegedly , that he removes. FkpCascais (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

GAR notice

Letting you know that I've placed Iron Mike on hold at GAR here. Also, I've removed the protection on your user talk page; you really shouldn't leave protections for longer than necessary, and two months and counting is excessive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Whatever" on both counts. I have more important things to do. Kafziel 18:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Little Sammy Davis

Hello! Your submission of Little Sammy Davis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Kafziel 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Little Sammy Davis

Updated DYK query On November 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Little Sammy Davis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and disruption

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Misplaced Pages some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: , , , , He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Hi Kafziel,

The IP user:76.102.194.113 is removing entire sections (blanking) and , changing numbers/dates, and not responding to messages. I inserted the numbers/dates and they correspond to citations. There are some edits which are innocuous but most are not good.

Richmondian (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the blanking is bad, but there wasn't any vandalism after the last warning. Just a couple of seemingly reasonable edits. Try engaging them in discussion instead of just using warning templates; it may be more useful than a block. Or it might not... so feel free to re-report (or come straight to me) if they start up again. Kafziel 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, just getting a little old. Even the edits that look OK may not be, they come without references. The numerical changes are especially troubling, that's the most likely place a micsheivous edit will sneak through. Could you possibly protect the page so that the editor will have a name?
I'm guessing he/she is either a student trying to stand up for his/her school or school staff (tone and the content addition about PE sounded more like a student). Could be a productive editor someday, maybe. Richmondian (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. Semi-protected for 1 week. Let's see how it goes. Kafziel 07:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richmondian (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncited

It is in a cite richmondian has shown me, it is he way it has been taken out of context that is not correct. Also I would say it is a bit excessive to line up these quotes in a way as to take anything controversail in an attempt to portray the man in a bad light. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the statement, as long as it cites a reliable source. I also don't think the quotes portray him in a bad light; he just sounds like Joe Clark. As long as there are reliable sources for them (preferably more than just one source) it should be fine. Kafziel 17:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this topic I have started a thread at the BLP noticeboard here . Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AIPCS

hey kafziel

thank for the input

i am trying to get the article in god shape, trouble is everything i read about it mentions two things:

  1. great, really great, test scores
  2. cult-of-personality principal with bizarre behavior.

i can try to trim it a little but i am really not digging for this stuff. this is what the school is known for.

Richmondian (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete/Undelete

This came up on my watchlist with respect to the page: User talk:Richmondian. I am curious as to why this might be done. Thanks Bielle (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I issued a stern warning which I decided wasn't necessary yet. I removed it from the history as a courtesy. Kafziel 07:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. An ability to self-correct is the one admin privileges I would like to have, but not enough to want otherwise to be an admin. :-P Bielle (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

McSorley's photo - communal table and classic mustard serving amongst typical mix of light and dark beers

Hi Kafziel,

Why are you messing with the McSorley's page and the photo's I have had up there for over 4 years? Vanity? The photo has people in it, so do many, many photo's all over wikipedia. The first photo of the outside of McSorley's has people in it, yet you are not removing that.

The photo in question, shows the communal nature and typical table setting at McSorley's. It blends in well with the outside front shot and the bartender (Brendan) carrying a large order of beers (I also posted that photo).

I have been a regular patron of McSorley's for over 25 years and know it's history well. In addition to the setting showing a typical gathering enjoying themselves at the Saloon, it now also shows a historical difference to a change just recently implemented.

Please note the famous McSorley's mustard being served in a beer mug. This has been done this way for decades. Just recently (over the last few months) a change has been made (possibly due to a board of health issue) to serve the mustard in covered containers. I do not know your particular interest in changing this one particular post that has been there for many years.

Possibly we should meet up at McSorley's to discuss. I am there frequently and would be more than happy to educate you on many of the other finer nuances of this fine establishement.

Please restore the page.

Regards,

Matt Chavez

Our Image use policy states that photos should not focus on individuals in any way that distracts from the actual subject. If you want to illustrate mustard in a beer mug, take a picture of mustard in a beer mug. If you want to show communal spirit of the bar, you can use a public domain photo from the early 1900s. This is an encyclopedia, not a web page for McSorley's or a free web host for personal photos. You removed someone else's group photo which was exactly the same as yours, presumably for the same reason I am now removing yours (and I have also listed that one for deletion). It's blatant self-promotion, and the fact that it's been sitting on the page for years doesn't mean it it's encyclopedic. We're working on getting rid of lots of things like this - right now happens to be your turn. If you have other photos to list, feel free to do so.
On a lighter note, I'll be in NY in April (for the annual pub crawl I organize) and would be happy to meet up at McSorley's. In the meantime, if you're ever in LA, I'll buy you a drink at Barney's Beanery. Kafziel 02:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

You really made my day with this! Not only was the vacation well and truly earned, but I've never seen the message delivered in such an...amusing...manner. I really hope this starts a trend  : ) Doc Tropics 02:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I couldn't agree more about the template being a lighter sounding mood. Kafziel should probably make two that say
    • Because of the edits you made today, you've won yourself a 3-week (or any number and measurement) vacation from Misplaced Pages! Isn't that exciting?(Lorem...)
    • Because of the edits you made today, you've won yourself a short vacation from Misplaced Pages! Isn't that exciting? (Lorem...)
  • That would certainly be a little comic relief from the traditional ones, and hopefully deteriorate vandalism.

...mechamind90... 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User: 72.55.18.62

I reported this user to AIV, but I noticed you removed them. The reason I put them there was (as demonstrated by their edit history, they have vandalised several pages; one of these happened to be the sandbox. They were blocked in April for six months, and appear to be continuing after this has expired. Jhbuk (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this IP only made two edits today. One was to blank their own talk page (not vandalism) and one to the sandbox (not vandalism). It's not a single person, it's a school; the editors today are not the same editors from last April. If they are actively vandalizing a page, you can let me know or report them at AIV again. Kafziel 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, and I'll bear it in mind, but the IP appears to have been blocked by someone else anyway. Jhbuk (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep - a little bit of active vandalism was all it took. Thanks for getting him on the radar. Kafziel 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Forest Lawn

Thanks for contributing the pictures of Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Glendale. Good work.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It seemed like a nice day for a drive... and for skirting a few park rules about trespassing and photography. ;) Kafziel 03:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, rules. BTW, The Loved One, set at a fictional Forest Lawn, is a delightful short novel and later became a hilarious movie.   Will Beback  talk  13:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Query

Does this related to article mainspace, talk pages, initiating wikipedia-process actions, etc? Could use a minor clarification. ;) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this , thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Would be worthwhile to add the part about wikipedia process pages; I have seen other topic banned editors continue to engage in disruption on the topic by filing things at these sorts of pages, even while banned from the actual talk pages... Cirt (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just add "broadly construed" and it covers any weaseling around the edges. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban without evidence of wrongdoing

Do the rules permit an admin to topic-ban a contributor merely because 2 or 3 users accuse him of a rules violation? Or is evidence such as edit diffs required?

Just asking, not planning on evading the ban. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like is given at User talk:KillerChihuahua#Disruption by Ed Poor at his conflict of interest? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The evidence of your CoI and PoV pushing was pretty obvious even to a mugwump such as myself, Ed. This sort of disingenuous posturing doesn't help your case. Crafty (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I believe my action is supported by prior complaints and the fact that you're on indefinite probation. If you feel it's time for another trip to the ArbCom, to review this and address other issues, I suppose someone will be willing to get that started. But I don't think it would go well for you. Kafziel 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you explanation. What I hear you saying is the topic ban is (1) because three people comlained and (2) because I am on probation, rather than (3) because of any specific evidence of wrongdoing. That seems reasonable to me, and if I were (still) an admin and didn't have time to look into it, I'd probably do the same thing myself. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, what I'm saying is that those complaints added to prior problems (because I did have time to look into it) means it should be obvious. I'm trying to be nice here, Ed - I've always respected you as an editor and I think it would be unfortunate to lose you, so I'm hoping a topic ban in this case will be sufficient. Kafziel 20:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NATHANIEL WHITE INFO

HELLO, I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHERE YOU GOT THE INFORMATION FOR NATHANIEL WHITE, THE SERIAL KILLER SENTENCED TO 150 YEARS FOR THE MURDERS OF 6 NEW YORK WOMEN. I AM THE NEICE OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS. I JUST WANTED TO READ A LITTLE MORE INTO IT. I WAS ONLY 7 WHEN IT HAPPEND, I NEVER ASKED MY PARENTS OR GRAND PARENTS, I REMEMBER VERY LITTLE, BUT LIKE I SAID I WAS ONLY 7, I AM 24 NOW, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SHARE YOUR RESOURCES. THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.56.33 (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My condolences, all these years later.
Most of the sources used are listed in the References section. The Times Herald Record covered the story very closely and there is still a great deal of information in their archives, so that was a big one. White's department ID number (DIN) is 93A4050 and some information about his location and sentence is available from the Department of corrections. I took the photo in the article myself; the house is visible on the side of Rt 17 between Goshen and Chester. Map
I hope that helps. Kafziel 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TheDiamonds.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheDiamonds.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

McSorley's

How is the photo that is up any different from mine? Same thing, less people.

CollinsShawn (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Kafziel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 7 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Billy Kimball - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Stupid bot. Kafziel 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

From Talk:Main Page

I find it extraordinarily troubling to see an administrator encouraging the assumption of bad faith. —David Levy 08:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to be troubled, because I'm not assuming anything. Everything I said there is demonstrably true. I can see how it might be troubling to see an admin speak so plainly and honestly with an anonymous editor, but there's certainly no assumption going on. Kafziel 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You're instructing an editor to assume that "the Main Page regulars" routinely engage in egregious misconduct. Please cite evidence to corroborate this far-reaching allegation. —David Levy 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm instructing an editor to be realistic. When anonymous editors make comments here about not liking the content, they routinely get the brush-off. This discussion is a perfect example: it's been four days, the issue was argued around in circles, became a train wreck of digressions, and - as I said would happen - the argument went on for so long that the article isn't even on the main page anymore. At one point, the anon asked what the standards are for inclusion, and you directed him to WP:CONSENSUS. Um, no... the actual standards—like 'em or not— are set forth at WP:ITN. And you know that. You've argued about the validity of the ITN guideline, you've argued about the definition of consensus (pretty BITEingly, to boot, especially considering how controversial the whole subject of determining consensus has always been), and now you're trying to turn it into an argument about AGF. If you really need diffs of regulars citing guidelines when it suits them, discounting them when it doesn't, calling other editors dicks, and generally blowing off anonymous users, I can do that. But I don't think it's necessary. And it's certainly not relevant to the issue of whether devil's facial tumor disease was newsworthy. Kafziel 19:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
1. You've taken this discussion far beyond the subject of whether the item warranted inclusion. As noted above, you've alleged that "the Main Page regulars" (without qualification) routinely engage in egregious misconduct. Yes, I'm asking you to cite evidence to back this very serious allegation. And please keep in mind that you'll need to include "the Main Page regulars" (without qualification), not merely a handful of isolated diffs. (There is no dispute that such edits have occurred, but you're asserting that this is the norm.)
You can omit evidence of users linking to WP:DICK, as I agree that this is an all-too-common occurrence (of which I share your disapproval).
2. Apart from the aforementioned isolated instances, your assertion regarding the treatment of IP editors is off-base. You're construing correlation as causation; editors without accounts simply are more likely to be unacquainted with our practices (and therefore more likely to post complaints about things that we won't change).
I'll also note that I've consistently and passionately argued against classist treatment of editors throughout my time at Misplaced Pages.
3. The editor in question did not " what the standards are for inclusion"; he/she asked about one very specific element: "What are your (or ITN's) criteria for something being 'of general interest'"? And the answer is that we discuss proposals and arrive (or don't arrive) at consensus.
4. When an editor (logged in or not) states that he/she has read Misplaced Pages:Consensus and nonetheless believes that consensus is gauged by counting votes and that the existence of a dispute (i.e. lack of unanimity) inherently indicates the nonexistence of consensus, I know of know better advice than to re-read the policy and try to understand what it isn't about.
5. The item aged off of the main page because no otherwise uninvolved administrator determined that its presence lacked consensus. Obviously, we disagree on the appropriateness of this outcome. As noted above, neither of us is in a position to objectively evaluate it. But if the item had been pulled, I would have regarded this as the result of a good-faith difference of opinion, not a manipulative scheme. —David Levy 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
1. I think it might be a shorter list if you can show me some diffs where anonymous users criticized the main page (apart from pointing out clear-cut factual errors) and someone actually did what they asked. I'll admit, I over-generalized on both sides: Obviously, the majority of anonymous and new users on Talk:Main Page are just there to vandalize. And not all main page regulars are abusive; Modest Genius comes to mind as one of the best ones. Maybe the problem is with the admins? I haven't done enough research to say for sure. At any rate, it's a pretty hostile world for an anonymous opinion. The archives are long and tough to navigate, but give me some time and I'll get you some diffs.
2. If that's the case, then my advice to the anon was no less correct. He was unlikely to be taken seriously from the start, and ill-equipped to counter regular editors who are able to wiki-lawyer their way through any disagreement.
3. Your answer was not that we discuss individual proposals at ITN and arrive at consensus; your answer was simply a link to WP:CONSENSUS. Not a link to the guideline—which does (briefly) discuss the significance standard—or to the discussions themselves at ITN/C. Had your reply actually been in sentence form, it might have helped.
4. Much like #3, the better advice would have been to explain it yourself. I think this might have confused the issue even more, since I never said anything about consensus being numerical. In fact, the anon(s) and I were in the minority as far as count goes, but we were making valid arguments based on the guideline (a guideline which you declared invalid after the fact, but a guideline nonetheless). All in all, quite a confusing situation for a new user, and certainly not one likely to be resolved by re-linking to the consensus policy.
5. The process is skewed because, once the content is on the main page, it defaults to "keep". As I said, only a weak consensus is formed at ITN/C (largely based on silence, and the ignorance of those not in-the-know about how our process works). A much wider consensus can be reached when those other users voice their disapproval on Talk:Main Page after the change is made highly visible, but those attempts at a new consensus are always shouted down. Usually by editors citing prior consensus (which should never be grounds for putting a stop to consensus building, but here it is). The standard consensus-by-editing doesn't work here, since only admins can edit the content. So it really boils down to "participate in the original discussion or forever hold your peace". Kafziel 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
1. I haven't the time to seek out diffs, and I doubt that I would find many if I did. My perception is that most such requests are declined, irrespective of whether they come from unregistered users or registered users. Whether this is good or bad is debatable, but I don't believe that unregistered users usually are discriminated against (which is not to say that they never are).
Now that you've acknowledged that you over-generalized, you needn't cite any diffs either. I fully realize that abuses sometimes occur. As someone who has been involved in heated debates in which I've argued against preferential treatment for registered users (over unregistered users) and sysops (over non-sysops), I truly hope that you don't count me among the abusive administrators.
2. My point is that unregistered users are less likely to have their requests acted upon because of the typical nature of said requests, not because they're unregistered.
3. The nomination process was pointed out by Tone (complete with a link) and acknowledged by 24.163.24.248 days earlier. You're criticising me for not pointing it out again?
I understood the user to be following up by inquiring about a specific element of this process, for which Misplaced Pages:Consensus was an appropriate response. Perhaps I misunderstood, but my reply was sincere (and I'm disheartened by your suggestion to the contrary).
And incidentally, I don't understand how "Please see Misplaced Pages:Consensus." is not a sentence.
4. I don't regard my explanatory abilities as superior to that policy. I did my honest best to help, and I can do no more than that.
5. I agree that the process is in need of improvement, though I personally perceive it as skewed toward the inclusion of certain items and the exclusion of others. —David Levy 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If several editors agree that something is ITN-worthy during the nomination process, and no one protests its inclusion during the nomination process, then that creates some kind of binding resolution? Because as far as I can tell, that's the line of thinking you're taking, and since Misplaced Pages content is dynamic and subject to minute-by-minute revision, I don't see how any Wikipedian could stand by that kind of policy. Do what you will with that, I'm not hellbent on getting my way on this silly issue, I'm just trying to shine some light on the kind of behavior to which Kafziel has been alluding. I'll admit that, to some degree, I've invited this kind of reaction against my request when I began my complaint by insulting (part-jokingly, mostly-not-jokingly) the regular editors who run Misplaced Pages's day-to-day operations, but for you to apparently stick up for some obscure news article like it's your only child is sort of comical (as is the general self-importance with which many regular editors regard themselves and their online pet-projects). It's pretty obvious you're agitated by what Kafziel is saying because it strikes a nerve, and he's willing to admit to something you'd rather not. Anyway, I've said my piece, and I'll leave it at that. Some of us have better things to do than spend countless hours squabbling with online personas in trivial cyber-turf spats. Best of luck to you, Kafziel, but if I were a betting man, I'd say you're destined for martyrdom on this issue, and probably not much more. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the problems are malicious; I think they're caused by the same complacency that comes with spending too much time on any project. That's my first rule. Whether it's the Main Page or Requests for Adminship, regular editors tend to become too self-important, too quick to dismiss outside opinions, too certain that they know it all, and generally embittered and unapproachable. That's why I don't spend too much time at any one thing. A little time at 3RR, a little time at AIV, a few discussions at the Main Page, an issue or two at AN/I, an AFD close here and there... it keeps you fresh. Ideally, the bulk of our time should be spent creating the encyclopedia, not just arguing over procedure.
I think the best possible outcome for all of this is that maybe a few regular editors will take a more proactive role in making sure rules like WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE are followed a little more closely. Judging from one of the latest discussions at Talk:Main Page, we've at least got some discussion moving on how things in ITN might be improved. If it helps improve the section (or just encourages some regulars to give the occasional anonymous editor the benefit of the doubt) then I'd say it's a not a bad start. Kafziel 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm baffled as to how you've interpreted that as "the line of thinking taking," given my repeated statement that I would have respected an impartial administrator's decision to remove the entry on the basis that its inclusion lacked consensus (something that you and I—as biased debate participants—are in no position to objectively evaluate).
I've been on both ends of such a scenario; I've removed content for which consensus eroded, and I've had content that I supported or added removed because consensus eroded. I've even removed content that I supported or added when it became clear to me that it lacked consensus.
you to apparently stick up for some obscure news article like it's your only child is sort of comical...
I've merely disagreed with your assessment of the item. You appear to be stating that anything other than agreeing with you is silly. You also appear to be under the misconception that Misplaced Pages contains "news articles." Do you perhaps have our mission confused with that of Wikinews? To be clear, I don't mean this as an insult.
It's pretty obvious you're agitated by what Kafziel is saying because it strikes a nerve, and he's willing to admit to something you'd rather not.
Huh? I've acknowledged that the process is flawed and should be improved. You appear to be perceiving disagreement that doesn't exist. —David Levy 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Highlifepony.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Highlifepony.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree File:Zonkers3.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zonkers3.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Kafziel - it's poor form to reverse this without discussion with me especially as you seem to be fighting against at least two others to keep your image. As for why I deleted this one ? Stupid mistake while clearing up PUI debates where I appear to have clicked on the wrong link. Looking now it seems clear that the image is not free but now has both their and your copyright mashed up together. Why not add a non-free licence, a rationale for use, and solve the problem ? Peripitus (Talk) 10:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Because nobody can show me the policy that says I have to. It's not clear at all that the image isn't free, and copyright paranoia is a slippery slope. Doesn't matter how many editors disagree with me - what matters is who's right. All I asked was for someone to show me the policy - on Misplaced Pages, not on Commons - and after 3 weeks, nobody has. Kafziel 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
For my part, though, I do apologize for my haste in undoing your action. Kafziel 16:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Roseville pinecone.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Roseville pinecone.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
To be specifc, do you have you have date for the ceramic piece shown? This is so it doesn't get deleted by Commons being over-careful :).

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. Circa 1935, I suppose. I really don't care what Commons likes - all I go by is what's required here. If that means it can't be moved to the Commons, that's fine by me. Kafziel 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, Licensing on Ceramic designs get complicated, It would be better if it's a design post 1922, to license it as 'fair use' giving as much information as possible. You can indicate your photo is relased under GFDL/CC-BY-SA seperately. I've amended the image description/licensing for this one in the preffered manner.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not a sculpture; it's a utilitarian article. It's a nice useful piece, but it's still primarily and inseparably utilitarian. Kafziel 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Roseville pinecone.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roseville pinecone.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Better source request for File:Followme.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Followme.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:SOTM.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:SOTM.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Spatulas.jpg

File:Spatulas.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Spatulas.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your advice, however for the same reason, and thus avoid a possible edit war, I prefer to get away for a while from the article, until the waters will be more calm.

PD: To upload my photos, to put in my user page with that license should I upload?. Thanks before hand. Ccrazymann (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Often you'll find that, after you've stepped away for a few months, the dispute just doesn't seem so important anymore.
As far as pictures go, if they are photos you took, and if you are willing to release them for anyone to use on any site for any purpose, you can upload them as Creative Commons with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or as public domain with {{pd-author}}. Just keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a free web host. Uploading a personal photo or two is okay, but our main focus should always be improving the content of the encyclopedia. Kafziel 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. A greeting for you. Ccrazymann (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

67.82.58.194

I don't understand this block. The guy who made the edits wants to create a new account, and I can't see any reason not to. How was he evading a block? Did he have other accounts? Fred Talk 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was already blocked for vandalism under a different IP and was evading the block to continue vandalizing the same pages. Kafziel 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
All I see is clumsy newbie editing. I'll create an account for him and tell you its identity. He has a sort of explanation about the Mungo business, but I'll counsel him on it. Fred Talk 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. The block is 25 minutes from expiring, anyway. Kafziel 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


About article Battle of Tali-Ihantala

You blocked article Battle of Tali-Ihantala for 24 hours yesterday. It was good thing because article was "vandalised" many times during last couple of days. The problem in the block you have made is, that the article was in vandalised condition when you blocked it :D Vandalism of article began some days ago when brand new wikipedia user Koskenkorva decided to change the article according to his/her very own opinions and beliefs. Problem is that he/she makes changes to article without giving any sources supporting the edits. He/she gives some sources, but none of them have thus far had nothing to do with changes he/she tryes to make to article. You have already given one warning and one personal 24 h block to Koskenkorva, but still he/she keeps on changing articles to look better in hes/her eyes. Koskenkorva have made changes only to articles Battle of Tali-Ihantala and Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. On discussion pages of these two articles, there have been lots of discussion about the things Koskenkorva is trying to change, and almost everyone else are against these. Still Koskenkorva keeps on editing articles. Only goal seems to be to make articles look better from Russian/Soviet point of view. Is this acceptable in Misplaced Pages?62.216.127.93 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

First, let me clarify that the article was only semi-protected. Only anonymous and new users were locked out; any established Misplaced Pages editor was able to edit it. So almost anyone who felt the article needed to be changed was free to do so. If you'd like to be able to edit semi-protected articles, I encourage you to create an account and log in.
Second, when administrators protect articles, we are not generally permitted to protect the version we prefer. In the case of an edit war such as this, there is always someone who claims we protected the wrong version. In this case, the changes Koskenkorva made were not vandalism. For an explanation of what is and is not vandalism, see this page.
Finally, we block users for disrupting the encyclopedia, not for having a point of view. If Koskenkorva is able to discuss his opinions politely and without edit warring, he is welcome to continue editing. Misplaced Pages is built through cooperation, not through exclusion. Kafziel 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers and "encouragement"! I made that account as you can see:D Still, I have something more to ask about this case.
I understand that in this kind of "edit war" somebody always claims that current version of article is the wrong one. In Battle of Tali-Ihantala the article told 5,5 years that the battle ended in Finnish victory, until couple days ago user Koskenkorva started "edit war" to change it as it is now. He/she changed only the "result" and gave pretty nonsence sources and explanations for it, but didn't modify rest of article to support his/her edits. Rest of the article (all information of article) still supports the old version. Every single source about Tali-Ihantala battle supports the old wikipedia version. I cant find for example from Internet anything which doesn't support it(can you find?).
I am not only one why opposes Koskenkorva's edits. For example users Whiskey, Cinik and Kurt Leyman and couple unsigned id-users have deleted his/her edits during last couple of days. And what about discussions with Koskenkorva and his/her comments then? Koskenkorva have declared that he/she "will never accept" other version than his/her own in Tali-Ihantala article (see talk on his/her own discussion page) and he/she have stated that all but Soviet researchs (I havent seen any of those yet) and texts about Tali-Ihantala are complete bullshit. According Koskenkorva, for example the modern Finnish writing of history and finnish researchs are just revisionism and national propaganda, while Cold war era writing of history in Soviet Union is correct and perfectly acceptable. So, what are chances the get this kind of user stop editing the article as he/she sees to fit. Not very high if you ask me. What could be best solution to solve this kind of problem?Esgorde (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you've created an account - welcome! I have warned Koskenkorva that if he continues edit warring at Tali-Ihantala I will block him again immediately. He is still allowed to continue the discussion, and he is allowed to edit the article as long as he abides by our guidelines. Usually that is enough to get everyone working together, but I'll keep an eye on things.
It may be that a compromise is in order: Perhaps a paragraph in the body of the article to state the Soviet point of view as a stalemate and their reasoning. But I don't know anything at all about the battle, and I think there are enough other editors there to be able to respond to his objections and help make the decision. Kafziel 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Forts Clinton and Montgomery - Lt. Col. Campbell

Dear Sir,

I am the person you blocked. Rather than try to go back into your page and input some further information I figure it would be better to contact you this way.

I have been searching for further information on Lt. Colonel Mungo (yes that is his name) Campbell of the 52nd Regiment of Foot - British Army - killed during the final assult on Ft. Montgomery.

This past week we finally located his burial place in lower Manhattan - please note that his name does not appear in the head-stone directory compiled in the mid 19th Century (because so many older gravestones were missing), but does appear in the burial records.

As to the name Mungo - on page 43 of the list of Officers serving in America during the Rebellion he is listed: http://www.archive.org/stream/britishofficerss1897ford#page/42/mode/2up

There were over 100 other Campbells serving in the Army at that time - hence my desire to list first names.

Given your compilation of military material of this time period, I thought you should have access to this document because it digests down so much primary source information.

I had previously tweaked other historical articles of interest, but never ran into a block nor knew something like this existed. Unfortunately while trying to list his burial location while on my work computer (slow day) I damaged a heading and was unsuccessful in correcting. My goal was to have "Mungo Campbell's" full name available so that anyone else with any information might be able to create a link/reference.

I have not created an "official" account with Misplaced Pages and in light of this experience may not - given that I seem a bit challenged in re. to formatting and the process in general.

My apologies for what you took to be acts of vandalism.

Tom Vilardi tom_vilardi@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.58.194 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The block was more to stop the edit war but the user who reported you called it vandalism and my message reflected that. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
On the contrary, I'd say you should create an account. We have a project dedicated to military history here and we can always use new members. And it's okay to make formatting mistakes; there's nothing anyone can do to Misplaced Pages that can't be fixed. A new account will give you a fresh start, will make the community more likely to trust your edits, and will let you take the credit you deserve for the edits you make. Kafziel 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

An editor you may be familiar with has been accused of sockpuppetry. If you have anything to add and are so inclined, the case is located here. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lulz

I never would have predicted that my Main Page comment would devolve into this. howcheng {chat} 04:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Been there. Kafziel 07:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Chilean girls

Hello Kafziel, the article about White Latin American shows renowned people, and there's an user that is constantly adding a group of girls that are part of a team that nobody knows, we need to show well-known people, and those girls are not. You gave him an advice on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to understand.--Danoasis (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


HEllo

Example: Most people believe in ghosts.

Nowhere does it say that photos need citations. I'm not going to put citations by the names of the people in the info box and make it look sloppy; especially since no other "peoples" page has citations by the names. Why need citations by the names anyways? I'm not arguing with you.

I didn't know telling the truth was an insult now. But to save the drama I'll change it. Good day.

Anyone can dispute content (including photos) and remove it if it is not verifiable through a reliable source. That's our verifiability policy. If a photo is not disputed (such as, for instance, a photo of an elephant on the elephant article) then it's not necessary to cite a source. But if a photo is disputed, such as the one of Shakira, you can be asked to cite a reliable source. You can't just take a vote on the talk page and overrule the person asking.
That is, however, a separate issue from the one at hand. Even if it's verifiable that those girls are part of the Chilean soccer team (which, by the way, is not the same as saying they are Chileans), consensus may not support their inclusion in that article. That will only be determined by civil discussion on the talk page or, failing that, by dispute resolution. Kafziel 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Secret Killer Talk Page RE:

That is true but at this point nobody was making a stink about any of the photos really except for that Chilean(but of course now a big deal is being made again) one ,which i was not involved in as i said above a consensus by regular editors was made to only include pics that are sourced e.g unsourced pics would be swiftly removed, again you do not need a source to add a picture or any content but it can be challenged and removed of course than the person who wants content back would have to provide WP:PROVEIT,Nobody was over riding anything i was giving my personal opinon on why i was not removing the unsourced pics i.e i did not want to keep nickle and dimeing people adding pics as nobody else was either , i think you may have misunderstood what i was conveying--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, you're not "not removing" the unsourced pics; they're already removed. So "not removing" them would entail somebody adding them again first. So you are advocating overriding objections and re-adding unsourced material. But that's not the real reason for the dispute anyway: The dispute is about whether they are notable enough to warrant using them as the example of an entire race of people (or notable at all, for that matter). Policy can't answer that; it's a matter for discussion. Kafziel 10:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:White Latin American

Thanks, Kafziel. I meant it: you're trying to help, and I know it.

But you've made a couple of faux pas already. I don't appreciate your tone in the message over at Talk:White Latin American, and I don't appreciate what you just said about a couple of blocks I got three years ago when I had scant editing experience, was being opposed by one of WP's dumbest people, and I turned out to be right in my position anyway.

But I repeat. Everything's cool. What you could to help for now is not write anything more on my talk page, please. SamEV (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:White Latin American

Thanks, Kafziel. I meant it: you're trying to help, and I know it.

But you've made a couple of faux pas already. I don't appreciate your tone in the message over at Talk:White Latin American, and I don't appreciate what you just said about a couple of blocks I got three years ago when I had scant editing experience, was being opposed by one of WP's dumbest people, and I turned out to be right in my position anyway.

But I repeat, everything's cool. What you could to help for now is not write anything more on my talk page, please. SamEV (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to appreciate my tone; warnings are rarely appreciated, and I'm used to that. This is not my first rodeo. As long as you get the message, and don't get dragged further into that edit war, everything is fine. Kafziel 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jokes at WP:ERRORS

Well, my personal view is that using WP:ERRORS for jokes is wholly inappropriate, because a number of people (including me) have that page watchlisted on the basis that we can help fix problems as a matter of urgency on the main page of one of the most popular websites on the world. If you mess around there, then it gets in the way of real complaints. I would have thought that an admin would have realised that. Regards, Bencherlite 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly, would it get in the way of real complaints? Kafziel 18:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In two ways: (1) the more people post irrelevancies there, the harder it gets to sort out the urgent from the off-topic from reading the page; (2) the reaction time of people watchlisting the page is bound to slow down if they think that the latest posting is as likely to be a joke as it is to be an urgent message. The more sparingly WP:ERRORS appears in watchlists, the more it is likely to be treated as a priority when it does. Bencherlite 18:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
1) Nonsense. Volumes of extraneous information is posted at ANI, AIV, etc. We manage just fine. You wouldn't get bent out of shape about someone posting what they thought was an error and turning out to be wrong, would you? It has exactly the same impact on the process (which is to say, none at all). Mine had less, in fact, because it didn't take anyone's time to research anything. 2) If you become too jaded to take ERRORS seriously just because it bumped to the top of your watchlist one time too many, there are plenty of others who will take up your slack.
It was a harmless joke, and you're obviously taking yourself much too seriously.Kafziel 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
1) Someone, often a newbie or anon, posting an error in good faith is one thing. Someone starting a new joke thread at ANI or AIV would, I think, be told to go elsewhere. 2) Let's not test reaction times, the errors page isn't exactly the most-watched of venues despite the fact it is linked with the main page. WP:ERRORS has 389 watchers (spread across all time zones, remember), WP:AIV has 3090, WP:ANI has 4433. Bencherlite 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In terms of watchlist activity and time spent responding, someone posting an error in good faith is not one iota different than someone posting a joke. Don't make it more than it was: It wasn't a dangerous precedent, it wasn't the start of a pattern, and it's not part of my usual routine (as I believe I made clear in the original post at WP:ERRORS). It was a very rare, apropos joke from someone who has earned it. If you don't get the joke, that's okay. But if you want to play the martyr, I'm not buying it. You've spent more time arguing here than anyone ever would have spent looking at the joke. Nobody appreciates anything we do on an individual level, and we're doing it all gratis, so why not have the occasional, ever-so-harmless laugh while we work? Come on. Kafziel 20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In terms of time taken, no. But the motivation is rather different. Someone posts a joke at ERRORS, I see a watchlist change with an edit summary "mistake" and react. My time has been wasted deliberately by someone messing around. That edit didn't need to be made at all. If someone posts a good faith mistake, my time has not been wasted deliberately and I can try to explain the situation and hopefully get a positive resolution for the complainer. I'm surprised that you feel you've somehow earned the right to goof around with 4chan jokes at ERRORS. Did you earn that right by all the times you responded to error reports there in the past? No, thought not. I'm just relieved to hear you won't be repeating your attempt at humour there in future. Just keep the jokes where jokes are expected. Regards, and happy editing. Bencherlite 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to inject a little levity around here, so long as it's not disruptive - which this was very much not. Absolutely nothing was harmed in any way, nor would it have been if you had left it up. And, even though I don't do it on a regular basis, if you think I haven't made corrections based on reports at ERRORS, you are very much mistaken. But if it will make you feel better, I'll take today's portion of my admin salary and donate it to charity. Kafziel 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Can't say fairer than that. I'll not only match your donation, I'll raise it over 9,000 times... Bencherlite 21:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha. That's the spirit! :D Kafziel 21:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I do get a few meme references, not many though (as I demonstrated earlier!); and I wouldn't have got the "over 9,000" one if I hadn't seen Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:CharlotteWebb/dubious statistics the other day when closing an MfD that I'd seen mentioned on someone's talk page, which was still on my watchlist after a discussion about a FA, which I'd seen because (continued page 94)... the serendipitous joys of Misplaced Pages, eh? Cheers, Bencherlite 21:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Garfunkel and Oates

Good point on the need to expand the article. I've removed the tag.

I don't believe the refimprove (or expand tags for that matter) require discussion. If they do so, could you point to some guideline or essay stating so? In the meantime, I hope you're not offended by reminding you to focus on content rather than editors, and please "focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users" per WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a tag is to draw attention to the article by those capable of improving it. Without discussion, how would anyone know how to improve the article? Without a related talk page section, the tag just serves to say "Somebody doesn't like this article and is determined to have some kind of banner at the top." It's a tactic as old as the banners themselves.
There are currently in-line citations for almost every sentence in the article, with the exception of sentences which cite their own sources; if those are the sentences you'd like to see in-line citations for (which, by the way, are not required either) just use a fact tag so the editors who want to improve the article know what you'd like to see. Kafziel 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"Without a related talk page section, the tag just serves to say 'Somebody doesn't like this article and is determined to have some kind of banner at the top.' It's a tactic as old as the banners themselves." I've already linked and quoted WP:BATTLE. Wasn't that enough for you?
"There are currently in-line citations" Good point. While the quality of the references leaves a great deal to be desired, it's probably the best we can do until they get more press coverage. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
BATTLE does not mean nobody can ever talk to anyone about what they're doing. It has been you, and you alone, adding various tags over all these months, so it merited a specific mention. It wasn't some personal attack out of left field; it was at the heart of the matter. And frank discussion obviously served us both well in this case, so don't take it personally. Good outcome. Kafziel 21:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"BATTLE does not mean nobody can ever talk to anyone about what they're doing." Agreed. Of course, no one is claiming anything so absurd, right?
"It wasn't some personal attack out of left field; it was at the heart of the matter." More justification for your BATTLE violations?!! Take a break. Come back when you can be civil. --Ronz (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you got hung up on WP:BATTLE, but it simply doesn't apply here. I spoke with you about your actions at the article and your improper use of numerous templates, you saw your error, and you corrected it. I didn't accuse you of any malicious intent—I told you that templates without talk serve no purpose (fact), that they serve only to highlight someone's general dissatisfaction with the article (fact), and that it is a very old tactic (fact). I didn't say you were guilty of it yourself; if I thought the additions were in bad faith, I wouldn't have bothered talking to you about it in the first place. I was telling you that it didn't look good, under the assumption that you, an editor in good standing, would do the right thing (which you did). As far as I'm concerned, that's sufficient.
If you really feel you've been slighted in some way, you are free to take it up the chain. Otherwise, just move on. Kafziel 04:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure how you got hung up on WP:BATTLE" Simply read what you wrote, and compare it to the quote from BATTLE that I've provided you above. I didn't think you'd try to justify your comments, some of which are simply absurd like the one mentioned above, as well as how you started this off with "if you're not willing to improve it or even to suggest changes on the talk page, a tag isn't useful." Ever read WP:OWN? How about WP:AGF? --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I have. I've been an administrator for a few years now, so you can rest assured I have a passing familiarity with basic policy. Simply linking to it doesn't mean it applies. As far as the article goes: If you're not willing to improve it or even suggest changes on the talk page, a tag isn't useful. That's a fact. You chose to remove it rather than list your grievances on the talk page, as is your right, and that's a-okay with me. I was by no means out of line asking you to expand upon your complaint, given your insistence of keeping a tag on the page.
The level of harassment and personal attacks I'm willing to take varies by editor, and while I'll admit you haven't gone quite as far as some, you've gone far enough. If you think you have a leg to stand on, by all means bring it to dispute resolution. I'm not worried in the least. Otherwise, we're done here. Kafziel 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"The level of harassment and personal attacks I'm willing to take varies by editor" Sorry if you feel anything I've written is harassment or personal attacks. I'm happy to refactor anything I've written. I've struckout what I assume has caused this reaction from you. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bygones, seriously.
I've been busy in real life the last few days, and the G&O article is kind of low on my Misplaced Pages radar, but I'll try to address your points about refs and content in the next few days. Kafziel 00:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd hope editors who make accusations against other editors, especially accusations of being unwilling to discuss concerns, would be willing to discuss those accusations. I'm not demanding it though.

I'll tag articles as I see fit, and restore those tags as I see fit. I find your concerns about tagging articles to be at odds with basic Misplaced Pages policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Then. Take. It. Up. The. Chain.
If you don't want to do that, stop trolling here. Kafziel 16:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JimBeamLabel.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JimBeamLabel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)