User talk:Pilatus

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 22:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if consensus you agree with has already been formed"[edit]

You write:

People seem to be following WP:VFD: "You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if consensus you agree with has already been formed." Pilatus 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sentiment; however three or four votes isn't really a consensus and it certainly isn't strong evidence that people are not participating because they agree with the opinions already expressed. There are well over 100 deletion listings in any one day and quite often a few of them are almost completely ignored. I tend to relist rather than closing such discussions, and they usually get more attention quite quickly. There are two main sources of bias in any VfD:

Comments and votes by people involved in editing the article;
Comments and votes by people who hang around VfD all day and do little else.

The more discussion and the more votes we get, the more confidence we can have that these two sources of bias do not strongly influence the result and that a consensus is achieved. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In situations like these the closing admin has to use his good judgement and taste to see if the discussion failed to attract participants just by chance or because the outcome is plain obvious.

Now next door, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway there is a slew of comments disputing your good taste. You might consider withdrawing from VfD is there is no consensus in your judgement. Pilatus 17:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the RfC? I think you'll find that the verdict is the reverse of what you think. It was an abject and utter failure.

No harm is done by extending a VfD discussion where only three people in addition to the nominator are involved or where (as very occasionally happens) I strongly suspect one or more of the few involved of being a sock. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd read the RFC you'd indeed see a host of people disagreeing with Tony, and him ignoring most of their comments. There certainly are a number of people disputing his good judgment. Unlike what he says, a RFC doesn't have a "verdict", it is simply a "request for comments". Tony's repetitive extending of VFDs that have an obvious consensus but only three or four votes seems to be another attempt to make a WP:POINT. R adiant _>|< 18:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion is very clear: "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there is no quorum for VFD." What to do with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Haffkine is obvious, and I can't see what you hope to achieve (except of course for WP:POINT) by extending the discussion. Pilatus 18:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical lists of streets[edit]

Hi! I don't see why "Alphabetical list of El Granada, California", "List of Hoboken streets", and others are not up for deletion, although specifically "Alphabetical list of Taunton, Massachusetts streets" is? UniReb
Well, I'm going ahead and putting such articles as "Alphabetical list of El Granada, California" and "List of Hoboken streets" up for deletion since they are not major world cities. UniReb

Thanks for going round and finding more of the same. I just stumbled across the Taunton list. Pilatus 19:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! If you know the right tags to put for some images you put up for deletion, then why don't you not try to put the correct tag on them than putting them on for deletion?! UniReb

Well, you know better where your images come from. If someone else has to do it it will be more work for him. Pilatus 19:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laodicean Church[edit]

Please don't think I was trying to be a smart alec with this article. My first instinct was to agree with your merge (the article was hopless anyway), then it just became something of a challange. Btw, splitting off the city stuff was a good move. --Doc (?) 13:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice now, doesn't it, and your article is too overwhelming for Seven churches of Asia. Good job! Pilatus 16:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Churches on VfD[edit]

Pilatus, you will see from my votes that I'm hardly an inclusionist. I abstain on schools because they are so contentious and nasty, but my gut reaction is 'each case on its merits'. Run of the mill schools should be merged. I'm a million miles from arguing 'keep all churches' - but I do think there is a 'delete all churches' mentaility developing. IMO, churches should be kept if 1) they have architectural significance - or are landmarks (although that's about buildings not congregations) 2)They have historic significance - notable clergy - scenes of controversy etc. 3)If there something contravertial/newsworthy relating to them 4)If they are atypical from 'your average church' in size/approach stc 5) If they have had particularly notable impact on their community 6)If they had notable influence wthin their denomination. I'd say Christian City Church, Oxford Falls meets 4, possibly 5, and certainly 6. 4 as 6,000 memebers is huge for a western church today - and few churches have recently set up schools and TV studios. 5 as grammar schools have sgnificant community impact. 6 as they have planted 35 churches elsewhere (that's pretty unusual). To have got John Howard to open their new complex is also highly unusual. You asked for evidence of the impact of the church beyond its membership - fair demand - but I think I have met it. (Whether Queenstown Baptist met my criteia is, I grant, more debatable.) --Doc (?) 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that particular megachurch. You see, the school and studio it part of the infrastructure. Then, as you say, they have 35 daughter churches, and the pastor seems a very charismatic figure. Pilatus 16:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Krop[edit]

I've added some substance to the article about the actual work Krop did. I suggest that a 24-year member (and leader) of a body with this level of responsibility is at least as notable as the mayor of a moderately-sized city, or as a short-term member of Congress. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 16:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to drop this barnstar here for your diligent work on VfD's

Take care, Molotov (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto roads[edit]

Hi Pilatus. I noticed you nominated two Toronto roads for AfD, and you voted for another that I nominated. (BTW: I'm not sure if you're from Toronto or not - I'm guessing you're not.) After a brief discussion with another user, I decided to do some test AfDs for Toronto and Canada roads to determine where the bar should be set for road articles. That's why I picked an insignificant road (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Connor Drive) and one moderately significant road (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warden Avenue). I've already grouped Toronto-area roads based on these distinctions, and once these AfDs resolve, I'll nominate roads that are likely to be deleted anyway, and leave in place those that will likely be kept. You're more than welcome to nominate other Toronto roads if you'd like, but I just thought I'd let you know I'm working on this issue. Mindmatrix 23:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You are right, I live in Scotland. Those two roads that I nominated (Broadview Avenue and Steeles Avenue) looked like two less important roads in Toronto. The first one looks like a neighbourhood road, and the second one seems like a minor arterial that carries people out of the city. From people's reactions I got it wrong with Steeles Avenue, it's of greater importance than the article makes it out to be.

Until Wikipedia includes maps there will be one problem with city roads. If you read the article on the M4 motorway in Britain, you learn that it runs from London to South Wales via Reading, Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea to end in Camarthen. People know where London and Wales is and might have a rough idea about most of the cities in between. But neighbourhoods in cities are an entirely different issue. I mean, everyone can gauge the importance of culturally important places, such as Regent Street, Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road. Now the importance of city infrastructure is much more difficult to gauge.

That's it. I hope I don't come across as too trigger-happy on VfD. Pilatus 12:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Actually, nominating Steeles Avenue turned out to be a good thing, since we now have a clear demarcation between roads of varying significance. I've made a batch nomination for some Toronto-area roads based on my and your recent AfD nominations.

I agree that gauging the importance of roads is difficult; part of what I'm doing with my nominations is trying to establish just what constitutes a notable road worthy of a WP article. I think I've found that line for Toronto roads, and I hope other Wikipedians can take this information and apply it to road articles in their part of the world. Essentially, I'm trying to accumulate enough voting and consensus data to supercede a failed deletion policy for roads and streets. I think it's ambitious, but we need to start somewhere, so I took the initiative. Mindmatrix 01:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka's RfA[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Nandesuka 00:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I quite appreciated being called "a bloke with a clue." Somehow it sounds like a much more significant compliment than "good editor" or "nice chap". -R. fiend 19:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sinclair[edit]

Hi - the link you gave in the AfD doesn't mention him at all... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This link [1] should work better. The NY Times writes about him: ""What they're saying is their goal is to create a world that has no people like us in it," said Jim Sinclair, who did not speak until he was 12 and whose 1993 essay "Don't Mourn for Us" serves as a touchstone for a fledgling movement." That should establish his standing. Pilatus 18:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Autistic Movement is often loud (and sometimes wacky - did I say User:Wiki_brah?), then again that's understandable. A mother is quoted in the same article, and what she says is outright frightening: "I'm afraid of this movement," said Kit Weintraub, the mother of two autistic children in Madison, Wis. Ms. Weintraub's son, Nicholas, has benefited greatly from A.B.A., she said, and she is unapologetic about wanting to remove his remaining quirks, like his stilted manner of speaking and his wanting to be Mickey Mouse for Halloween when other 8-year-olds want to be Frodo from "The Lord of the Rings. I worry about when he gets into high school, somebody doesn't want to date him or be his friend," she said. "It's no fun being different." Pilatus 18:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). Went ahead and closed the AfD as there appears to be sufficient verification. Well, and the parent issue is understandable though - they don't want their kids to suffer "hardships". Of course the difference in interests between the two kids is a really bad example, since that has little to autism (the ignorance is more scary than the actual intention). The "stilted" manner of speaking though is "fixable" to a point where it can help a person in life. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up. --Doc (?) 19:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD: Binary Research Institute + Walter Cruttenden[edit]

I would like to thank you for being so damn persistent on Votes for Deletion. I doff my hat to anyone who can convince not one, not two, but three (I'm guessing skidoo will flip) people to change their votes. Good work! Oswax 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, props :). The DVD seems to fit keep criteria though, ironically. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should get my books out of storage and start writing articles instead of whacking moles over at AfD. Call me paranoid, but the Cruttenden-related articles looked too much like viral marketing to me; the sheer number of external links to things related to the BRI are suspicious, as is the fact that the anonymous author who put the material in still hasn't got an account. Pilatus 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public school (UK)[edit]

Request for comment re Talk:Public school (UK). There is strong resistance to acknowledging Scottish linguistic differences.--Mais oui! 08:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earthian's comments[edit]

(Earthian left these on the user page. I have moved them to talk and told him of his error. Oswax 14:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Pilatus wrote on my user page: If you don't like that your articles are edited by people that disagree with your views Wiki is the wrong medium for you. As a rule, Wikis make poor soapboxes. Consider something non-interactive, e.g. blogging. Pilatus 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is: Nice twisting of my words. What you wrote above is ridiculous. All I asked was that when you edit articles you take care to use proper spelling and grammar, especially when you mess up what others have written, and that you clean up what you mess up. Do you believe that Wikipedia wants articles that look like they were written by third graders? Earthian 14:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please come up with constructive edits, and note it's not just me who is asking that. Pilatus 00:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syug @ Votes for Deletion[edit]

I hope I didn't step on your toes by answering User:Syug's accusations about your 'conflict of interest' edits before you had chance to do so. I felt that it would be better if someone other than 'the accused' replied, for it is not the first time in these three debates you have personally been attacked. I do not know if Syug is User:Earthian or the anonymous IP that created the articles, but I read his contribution history and saw that he has only been editing for a few days, and mainly on pages related to psuedoscience. Oswax 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, thanks for the pint, but I ought to tell you I don't drink!)

Thanks. With support from other editors the case becomes more convincing.

I think that User:Syug is the original anonymous editor who started the "Binary Research" articles. Since he registered he also edited a fair number of other articles, on Indian mystics, mostly. Now, User:Earthian is an entirely different issue. He registered only three days ago and is far too familiar with edit summaries and other Wikipedia procedure to be a newbie. No idea whose sockpuppet he is, but he has been mostly been screeching "Bad Faith Edit" on AfD and is incapable to come up with constructive arguments or edits when challenged. He'll go away soon enough. Pilatus 00:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi tea[edit]

Please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogi tea. Currently your vote is keep with the rational that it is a popular brand of tea. I have created an article on this subject but at Yogi Tea. I believe the best option for Yogi tea is a redirect to Yogi Tea. Btw, do you know the relationship between Chai and Yogi teas (lowercase "t")? Specifically, is there a yogi tea blend separate from The Yogi Tea Company? --maclean25 23:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)...wow how did you know I was writing this?[reply]

You said on your talk page you were going to have a go at the subject, and good work it is! One would presume that the recipe existed before the Yogi Bhayan and that explained it following the teachings of ayurvedic medicine and popularized it. It works, the spices generate a pleasant heat in the stomach. Someone ought to look over the first paragraph, I can't believe that all ayurvedic teas contain ginger, cardamom and peppercorns, those are "warm" spices; if someone is suffering from excess heat in the body they ought to take something cooling, cumin, say. Pilatus 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com[edit]

Hi. Can I get your opinion of Tony's latest recreation and relisting of a valid VfD deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Thanks. - Tεx τ urε 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it's going to go away again. People really don't like WP:POINTS being made. Pilatus 19:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwood University[edit]

Thanks for the note - looks factual now which is a big step forward. Dlyons493 Talk 07:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caschera[edit]

You wrote (on my talk page: The article on the Caschera demonstrates one of the faults of Wikipedia - if things are sufficiently obscure they are kept even if they are not so. The disputed parts were written by the same anonymous person at Georgetown University that also brought us Nonnacris, Ancas Foreign Auto Parts, the Urbano crime family, and Pianopoli in its first incarnation.

AfD isn't really the way to deal with such material (it works well to decide what kind of material ought to be kept but is awful to deal with factual inaccuracy). Pilatus 02:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I don't claim to be knowledgable in such matters, i know jsut enough about roman histroy to understand what is being said, not nearly enough to verify the info. But at least one source was cited, specificly Mythical and legendary narrative in Ovid's Fasti by Paul Murgatroyd. Does that source support these claims? Have you checked it? is this a pluasibly reliable source, even? Can you say anything about that citation? DES ^(talk) 02:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we haven't got the book here, so I can't check. The author is a respected figure in the field of Augustan poetry. If the Caschera were discussed in the secondary literature, one would expect to find the name in the object of study, i.e. the Fasti themselves, yet they do not turn up there. Besides, Ovid was exiled in 8 AD to a city at the end of the known world and died there in 17 AD, and is is accepted that the Fasti were written near the end of the author's life. This doesn't preclude a first-century foundation being mentioned in the poem but makes it very, very unlikely. The refusal of the original anonymous author to come up with alternative sources doesn't increase my trust. Pilatus 03:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Of course, the legandfs could be older than the town they become associated with. Does the Fasti exist in more than one edition, or more than one translation? is ist possible that the online version fails to include this, but another version would? or is that wildly improbable? DES ^(talk) 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ceraphite[edit]

I think there has been enough documetation cited in the AfD discussion that some version of this article should be kept -- much of the materiel unearthed on the AfD should be cited in the articel, and the tennous and inconssitant nature of the scientific literature on the subject should be mentioned.

Note that wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary referece work, so citations of seconary works are perfectly adaquete to support an article. Indeed, articles supported solely by primary sources, with no secondary sources, are sometimes deleted as original research. DES ^(talk) 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the editorial work here is weighing the evidence – not all sources are equally credible, and sometimes new evidence is presented that makes older work obsolete. We have no evidence from reliable primary sources (ACS journals) that a substance with the properties of ceraphite ever existed. It does appear twice in less well-regarded journals (Wear and Carbon). As for secondary sources, there is a Hazmat handbook (unreliable, firemen are no chemists!) and a review on carbon allotropes (very comprehensive). We should follow the most reliable reference here. Pilatus 20:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamaki[edit]

I have turned this into a disambiguation page including two places contained in the Times Atlas including the resort at Zakynthos which I have created a Greek geo stub for. There is also a red link for a small town or village in Thessalia. On the discussion page, I outline a strategy for sorting out What Links Here.

I would be grateful if you had a look at the disambiguation page and the stub on the Zakynthos resort. Capitalistroadster 11:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, doesn't it? Pilatus 14:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-You for your help[edit]

Thank-You for your help on the new page Hot filament ionization gauge ; I thought it was most needed. Regards Scott 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on Mills malls AFD[edit]

Please see the group AFD for all the Mills Malls at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various "Mills". So far only mall enthusiasts have voted...

Thanks Blackcats 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the wub's RfA[edit]

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myma Seldon[edit]

Hi!
Would you please revisit this debate and reconsider your vote? I think my comments and updates to the article (including her CV on the AFD) warrant a new look. She's not just a radio presenter but also a tv presenter on several TV channels. Not just one show. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We tend not to include the biography of every single college professor, only those of accomplished players in the field. WP:BIO specifically mentions "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers".

Now Myma presents a daytime radio show on KMFM, a regional radio station and appears on Avago TV, a game show channel. These aren't exactly high-profile programs.

The show she presents on Sky Sports is slightly higher profile, but it's the sports that take precedence on that channel, not the presenter. (Note: her name didn't show up on the Sky Sports website!)

All her other appearences were similar, nothing outstanding, and the article lookes much like a glorified CV. She should go away. Pilatus 01:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Qua[edit]

Thank you for the copy edit on Lam Qua and also for changing the date. The correct dates are 1836-1855 per [2] Joaquin Murietta 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk · contribs)

The College of Wooster Greeks debate reopened[edit]

Since you participated in this AFD debate, you might like to know that it has been reopened following discussion at WP:DRV. The new debate is at here. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. If User:Snowspinner thinks that AfD is broken he should argue his point and not jump up and down on the poor thing by closing debates early. As for the vote, I let it stand, my policy is not to keep individual fraternity chapters. That includes catalogues of fraternity chapters an universities. Pilatus 04:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck France[edit]

There is an ongoing debate on Wikipedia:Deletion review as to whether or not this should be undeleted and redeleted if you would like to dispute the deletion. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Didn't notice that a previous incarnation had been deleted already. Pilatus 16:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Handle-o-Meter[edit]

Why in the world did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handle-o-Meter as if it were a category for deletion? Was it simply an accident or is there a clever scheme going on that I'm not aware of? — JIP | Talk 19:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brainfart of mine – the "Categories for Deletion" instructions are one paragraph below the "Articles for Deletion" instructions and I ended up following those. (The colours did look slightly different!) Thanks for pointing it out. Pilatus 19:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn's Place[edit]

I've removed this until such a time as you make a proper afd nomination. You can't just throw three unrelated pages into the bag like that and expect it to stick. All these pages clearly need to go, but this isn't the way to do it. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are related in that they are low-traffic websites. It's sensible to put them in a big bag when one picks them up on New Page Patrol to reduce the load on AfD. The poor beast is overburdened as it is. Besides, no one (not even you) expect them to pass AfD, so why complain? Pilatus 16:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr... because now what happens if two of them get expanded, one remains a stub, there are six ambigious "delete" recomendations, three of "keep per expansion" without saying which one, etc etc? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles for an example. There was also some discussion here and here. It really is better to make three entries, even though it increases traffic on the page. Sorry that I was abrupt, but I'd been cleaning up after the "war on blogs" and was getting cranky about nominations in general. No hard feelings?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-)

Wah! I remember the disaster with the Fake Colour articles! People voted that some colours ought to be kept, and the closing admin didn't have a lucky touch and deleted the lot of them. It went downhill from there. Actually I decided to nominate the three websites together after the GNAA were flooding AfD with their "war on blogs". There is no way that any of the articles will be kept; the websites are just too insignificant, and random websites and bands just don't attract votes, the outcome is so clear. Pilatus 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see my comments in new section below (didn't see this before I posted). Basically, I think we're trying to say that unrelated "big bags" really don't save time on AfD. No hard feelings here, either, but it does make things more difficult if one is trying to be fair. MCB 19:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some AFD votes[edit]

Hello! If you haven't already, we need some more votes on these AFDS:

Basically more clone lists. Antidote 05:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Combined AfDs for low-traffic websites[edit]

Thanks for your message. While I agree with the nominations as such, I don't think combining unrelated articles in AfD is helpful or saves any time. Those who are voting there should be doing due diligence individually, and should be making individual determinations as to whether each one meets, or fails to meet, the asserted criteria for deletion. Combining them makes it difficult to treat them separately, and makes it difficult and confusing for the closing admin to count and examine the votes for each, if they differ. AfD is already complex and time-consuming; please don't add to that by using nonstandard nominations. MCB 19:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apex tickets[edit]

Two lines, unwikified, no title in bold, no stub tag, no categories, simple dictionary definition: delete. If someone wants to create an actual article, be my guest. Neutrality^talk 03:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so trigger-happy! That particular nano-entry had been around for less than 15 minutes. My experience is that such material ends up on peoples' watchlists and more often than not expands on the next few days. If it hasn't improved by day 3 you can always kill it.

What policy is this? Sensible (if trite) material gets deleted, and obvious trash gets six days at AfD? Pilatus 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sativa[edit]

Per your comment on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#October_23 in the matter of sativa, Keenan Pepper and I have changed it into a (pretty full) disambig. In the light of this, you may wish to consider your delete vote. Also, if you know of any more notable sativas or sativums that we've missed (I did a fairly thorough site-specific google) please do add them to the disambig. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics Arb[edit]

Yout comment at Deletion is aggressive does not appear to respond to the existing statements. Perhaps the context has changed? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to my comment added 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC), that was a response to Tony's comment added 06:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC).

In the version from 15:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC) that comment of his is missing, it disappeared in his swarm of edits just preceding that revision where he "remove[s] all forum-style chatter" by himself, as he puts it in the edit comment. He should really strike through his comments if he wishes to see them removed as he should in his most recent group of edits between 07:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC) and 08:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC). Pilatus 11:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkes-Barre Township redirect?[edit]

I was wondering why you redirected Wilkes-Barre Township to Wilkes-Barre? The township is a separate entity from the city. -- Name Not Needed 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake on my part. I thought that Wilkes-Barre Township was the official name of the town of Wilkes-Barre. The article on the township was a Rambot stub and the entry on the town a full article with Rambot data, so I thought a redirect would be in order. Turns out that even the Rambot census data is different. Ouch. Pilatus 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SQWM[edit]

Why is speed queen washing machine vadalism? I've looked it up and it does not qualify as vandalism. This is a band that I like and I think that more people would as well, also I'd like to know what other people can say about the band. Daviddec 03:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your page moves[edit]

I don't know i you noticed, but I blocked you indefinitely for a few minutes after I aw you move a page of a the sandbox to an "on wheels" title. I unblocked when I realized that you are a real user, but be more careful when you are testing moves, as I assume you were doing. `Academic Challenger

The album that was produced by Snoop Dogg[edit]

Please don't label this for deletion again. It's about an album produced by a major player in rap. Deleting it is utterly beyond belief. Feel free to merge with Snoop Dogg. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an article. From what I can see, it is a re-issue of material that has appeared elsewhere as User:Lajbi argues on its AfD page. Until such time as it becomes a proper article (i.e. is provided with an introductory paragraph) it should no be here. Pilatus 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Tony, I remember that two or three weeks ago there was a sch**l on AfD, whose entry consisted of nothing but an infobox. Whatever happened to that one? Pilatus 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!![edit]

**MERRY CHRISTMAS**, Pilatus! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism in the political spectrum article[edit]

Hi there, I just noticed that you put the word "fascism" back into the Political_spectrum#Left_and_Right section of the "Political Spectrum" article and placed it on the right, where it had been until an anonymous editor moved it to the left. The reason I removed it altogether was that in its early days its German incarnation National Socialism made quite a few pronouncements in favour of collectivism, especially agrarian collectivism. Actual policy, once the movement was in power, was the opposite, of course. (I'm not familiar with Mussolini's Italian fascism at all). The fact that nowadays the word "fascism" is used as a derogative synonym for any totalitarian ideology doesn't help either.

I'm not going to revert anything or move anything around, it's just that the issue isn't straightforward. Pilatus 01:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Italian fascism had far more currents from the left than did Nazism: Mussolini himself was an ex-socialist, and pre-WWI the connotation of fasci was definitely leftist. But, in practice, fascism rapidly became an ideology of the right (I gather that you don't dispute this). There are a small number of Wikipedians (mostly libertarians) who keep disputing this, citing (and, more often, mis-citing) mostly Hayek and von Mises. This has been hashed through so many times on talk pages as to border on the absurd.

I'm as firm as anyone that, wherever relevant, we should retain information about Fascist and Nazi co-optation of left rhetoric and even the occasional left policy, and the relevant articles all mention that there are a handful of dissenters to the placement of fascism on the far right, but I don't believe in having tails wag dogs. To my mind, the attitude that places fascism on the left is like that of the Protestants who claim that the Catholic Church is pagan rather than Christian, for rather parallel reasons. I agree that it is not a simple matter, but it is ultimately a clear one. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. How about saying "Fascist ideologies" or just "Fascism", to make clear we are talking about Mussolini and Hitler? Pilatus 01:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! Turns out I fell for the trollbait. The last version before the libertarian troll hit the article did have "Fascism". Pilatus 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent activities[edit]

I've got some problems with some of your recent edits.

Twice placed a deletion tag on Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes without any defensible justification. [3] [4]

On my creation of this article as a merge target for some article listed for deletion, you stated on WP:AN/I: "It's Tony against AfD in single combat again. It's that time of the year." [5]. That is not only clearly false, it's a clear and very serious personal attack.

On the mass AfD, you said "Tony, we are tired of your campaign against WP:V!" [6] . You made a similar statement on [[WP:AN/I]: "Tony, I'm as tired as everyone else is of your campaign against WP:V" [7] While we obviously have a diference of opinion about the verifiability policy, to state as a fact that I oppose verifiability and, moreover, am campaigning against it, is a very serious personal attack.

Please stop engaging in these extreme personal attacks. On the speedies, I'll accept that you may be unfamiliar with the way in which deletion debates proceed, how merging is a useful way of concentrating material that doesn't otherwise merit an article, and how speedy deletion is not to be performed except under specific tightly constrained criteria. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, your unilateral actions on AfD and DRV have drawn criticism for a long time now and by many editors. I won't break out the diffs now, but my advice is to step back for a little.

As far as the mass nomination of Snoop Dogg tapes goes, consensus is that the material is unsuitable altogether in any form because of its ephemeral nature; merging it into one single article doesn't improve the subject matter. Recasting it into a sonnet won't help, either.

Your interpretation of WP:V is unusual, to say the least. Recently, you insisted that Treigloffobia be restored, although both AfD and DRV had rejected it, and there was no proof that it was attested anywhere, except as someone's private joke. The Thomasine Church was rejected by both AfD and DRV as nothing beyond someone's website, yet you insisted that it be restored into the page history. Such behaviour by a respected and vocal admin is emasculating WP:V; if anything we need to be more stringent with verifiability after the Seigenthaler hoax. Pilatus 19:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of jews...[edit]

I thought you were joking about the list of jews. Nope. It is real. Isreal. Israel. In Category:Chess players, I noticed that there is even a special jew-group there. Oh well, at least the list of female surgeons is much more manageable. -- Fplay 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Wasn't me! Who came up with such nonsense? A category of sportsmen by country makes sense, like French footballers or Israeli chess players, but this? Pilatus 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N McLeod[edit]

I found N McLeod - see Talk:N McLeod. Tearlach 05:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry[edit]

In voting against my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee, you stated that I "didn't engage in discussion about the issue." I would like to know where you attempted to engage me in discussion about this issue. My talk page is and always has been open. I did not engage in extensive discussion of the issue on the RfC because discussion is specifically prohibited on RfCs, and because it is poor form for the subject of an RfC to respond extensively. In short, you seem to be criticizing me for following policy related to RfCs. If there is something you feel I have not adequately discussed with you, please feel free to do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

(copied from my talk page DES ^(talk) 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)) Hi there, could you please look at this. Thanks. Pilatus 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite clear what you want me to review. i think the analogy adds little. First of all obscenity alw and copyright law are based on different principles adn use different standars. Secondly it is most unlikely that even a gallery of penus images would be held unprotected under current US law. It is true that often use of "fair use images" outside article space has not complied with fair sue limitations -- for that matter it has all too often not complied inside articel space. It is also true that the most common justifications we use are less likely to apply in userspace. -- Tempaltes, particularly nav tempaltes, are to my mind a differnt case -- for example the use of a logo on {{SEPTA}} seems to me perfectly defensible under copyright law, and I would change our policy to permit that kind of use. DES (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 14:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Reich images[edit]

I see what you mean. I am not sure about the legal copyright status of 3rd Reich propaganda images. In any case, when re-tagging this sort of historical image, especially in low resolution, you may opt for a fairuse tag at least right away. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is probably fine with historical imagery, especially if it's low-resolution. Not sure if the fair use defense would pull in an article like Ahnenerbe, which has got half a dozen images of Nazi mystics in various poses. Examples like this need reviewing. Pilatus 15:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any help deciding how to tag them, without entering "fairuse/fairusein" territory would be a great help. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a blanket category that can be used instead. Pictures of the more prominent war criminals can probably be replaced with images taken at the Nuremberg Trials, those are US-government-PD. For irreplacable images of historical events (like Image:AlHusayniHitler.jpg, the Grand Mufti meeting Hitler), fair use is probably fine. The Ahnenerbe article does need re-working; almost a dozen funny pictures of Nazi wonks playing Indiana Jones in Tibet isn't fair use any longer. I'm convinced that the German Historical Museum has a stack of material; maybe they will license some of it under the GFDL if asked. Did I mention that the folks at .de.wikipedia keep making fun of us here because of our seeming inability to deal with copyright? While we obviously welcome corrections on German copyright law here, it must be more important tha German Wikipedia gets it right. is a real gem!!1eleven!! Pilatus 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that you restored the copyrighted image Image:Prien-hitler-schmidt.jpg in the article on Günther Prien and claimed fair use. Per WP:FUC we can't claim fair use when a free image (here Image:121k.jpg) is available. Sure, this picture is "less nice", but it is free, and we are not above the law. Pilatus 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (from User:Sherurcij's talk page)

The exact FUC quote is No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information, so while a profile shot of Prien standing on the deck of the U-boat would be giving the same information, Prien eating dinner with Adolf Hitler is definitely not the same image. That would be like claiming that we cannot use the footage of JFK being assassinated, because there are public domain images of Kennedy's face. Images released by the Reich (which would be almost all the ones I tagged, although I admit doubts about the Gustav Riek image) do not list a specific photographer, just like many of today's US Army images from Iraq don't list a photographer, they just say "Released by the Department of Defence" or whatever. The source listing is meant to demonstrate that they are held in copyright by the Reich/modern Germany, but beyond changing "Source" to "Source and Copyright", there's really not much more we can do with these historical photos Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue here that for a biographical article on the subject a headshot is needed (which we have, and free). We can't claim that we need another non-free picture because we already have what we need.

Now image attribution is a different issue. If the DOD says "released by the DOD", that is fine, because copyright of the image lies with the DOD, and as US-government-commissioned the image is free to use. This attribution is all that we need. Now these Nazi pictures, the copyright is owned by someone, and saying "copyright possibly with the German government, maybe with the photographer but I don't really know" isn't a proper attribution. Where do the images come from? If they are scanned in from a book the book will have a references section. If they come from somewhere on the web - well, we can't re-issue stuff someone else found somewhere. Pilatus 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also poor scholarly practice to have images without a proper paper trail. What happened to WP:V? I'm going to tag all unsourced {{GermanGov}} imagery as unsourced, so someone else at WP:PUI can do image sleuthing and source the stuff properly. Pilatus 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright initially belonged to the Reich, and today belongs to the German Government. That *is* a source just as much as "Source: DoD", stop tagging them unsourced Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it with the government or with the photographer? Hitler's personal photographer made a fortune through the rights to the portraits that he took. Where does the image come from originally? Where is the paper trail so we can make sure the person on the image is really the person the uploader claims it to be? Since you uploaded the files you must know where you found them so do help us out with thorough, proper sourcing! Pilatus 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the image of Heissmeer's family and Gustav Riek, all the others are definitely lie with the German government - there is no "paper trail" and one is not required. If you have valid concerns about whether a photograph is indeed of the subject, then please raise them on the image's talk page. But go find a random DoD photograph, there's no "paper trail" telling us which soldier took the image, or on what day, that's unfortunately how the world works. If you are able to find absolute particulars about an image, you are of course welcome and encouraged to add it to the image page, but don't tag things for deletion when a source and FU rationale is given. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you even back up the claim that copyright is with the German government? For example, we have Image:Ahnenerbe-Tibet.jpg, which looks as if it was taken from one of the German Nanga Parbat expeditions? There, the copyright may well be with the photographer. Besides, which expedition is it, the 1934 expedition or the 1939 attempt? As soon as we start asking those questions, the fair use defense begins to look thin, fair use may credibly be claimed to illustrate the expedition but not to "give colour" to the Ahnenerbe article. Besides, to claim fair use we must credit the copyright owner properly, and can't do this without proper sourcing. Once again: where do those images come from? Pilatus 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any evidence that the photo copyright/source I provide are false? A photograph of an SS-Ahnenerbe mission under the banner of Nazi Germany...there were no professional photographers brought along on the mission, thus any photo taken was taken by the SS, thus the copyright lies with their parent, the German government. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to WP:V? 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it. You know where you got the material from, so come up with the source in the interest of the project. Pilatus 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do provide a reputable source, saying that it is an image released by the Third Reich doesn't seem at all fallacious to me, and if it does to you, then yes, challenge it on the talk page. But don't just mass-list images for deletion because you believe I've maliciously reversed the images of Bohm and Riek, unless you have some reason to believe that. I've uploaded hundreds of photos, especially with Nazi-era photos they're often eMailed to me from Europeans who have saved clippings and such. You've gone from complaining about copyright holders being unclear, to now claiming that the images might be doctored images or unverifiable. If you don't believe my image of Hans Florstedt is really him, you're welcome to do ten seconds of research yourself to doublecheck...if you find out he's actually a large negro, then by all means report me for uploading a false image. The source can't be any clearer than "Third Reich", what do you want "This image was taken by Private Schelk of the 216th Army in Caan on August 4th 1944, and was subsequently released on September 6th where it was widely desiminated to newspapers" ? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherurcij, the copyright holders are unclear until the image is properly sourced - part of the reason why we ask for stuff to be sourced properly is to trace the copyright holder. Also, it's not quite clear what some of the Ahnenerbe-related stuff that you uploaded actually is. Image:Ahnenerbe-Tibet.jpg can't possibly on Annapurna, that peak was climbed only after the War. And who are the two guys in Image:Tibetahnenerbe1.jpg? "Adding character" to an encyclopedia article isn't a fair use defense. C'mon, you know where you got the stuff from,

please let us know!

On a quasi-related note, since you mention paper trails, you may be interested in an eMail I got from a Wikiedian earlier this week

I wrote my suspicions that the CIA-released photo of Abu Khabab Al-Masri, was actually a pre-injury photo of Abu Hamza Al-Masri - This weekend the CIA acknowledged that their website had been using the wrong picture for the last year and a half.,

Just thought it was worth a mention. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually why thorough sourcing is indispensable. Now everyone who can trace back their picture to the wrong picture from the CIA can correct the mistake fast. On the other hand, those that merely state "Source CIA" continue to spread misinformation. Pilatus 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New order of druids[edit]

Up for AfD reviw today.Obina 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Never mind you were nom heehee- I was looking for list who reviewd last afd who not voted. happy editing.Obina 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No talk page spamming either way, please! It's not nice. Pilatus 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt[edit]

You have tagged the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TvMC_Panoramic.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctorbruno

That photo was taken by my friend and there are no copyright problems involved.

How to add "Photo taken by Dr.Arumuga Pandian @ Mohan" to that image

Doctor Bruno 05:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! Untagged images are a headache, as is the whole image copyright issue here. Please remember to tag you images!

Merge[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about this. I'm afraid that, though I can see why you suggested it, I had to oppose the move. I've given my reasons at the main discussion, but in brief, the distinction is one that's commonly used in philosophy, and I think that it would be odd to lump together philosophers who are usually distinguished in histories of philosophy.

Some further suub-categorisation might be desirable, though I've also sketched my doubts about that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James F. Howard, Jr.[edit]

Those journals [Neuron, Brain, J. Phys, Nature, Science, PNAS] are indeed strong journals. However, none of them even will even consider a paper that has to do with clinical neurology. With the occasional and eccentric exception of "Brain," they publish basic neuroscience. Dr Howard is a physician and publishes in medical research journals. Is your "delete" vote predicated on the fact that you consider clinical neurology research to be somehow less notable than basic neuroscience research? That would be odd. Ikkyu2 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually yes. Medical research is kind of an odd thing and often more concerned with "helping patients" than with "doing science". Why don't we continue the discussion on my talk page? Pilatus 12:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ikkyu, let me explain: clinical medical research is often an application of methods developed by people from other fields in clinical practice. (Disclaimer: I'm a chemist and my wife a biophysicist, that might explain some prejudice.) Rarely one sees a new method developed by a clinician. "Helping patients" isn't meant to be patronizing, it's after all the job of a physician and includes introducing and evaluating diagnostic and treatment methods, and dealing with patients. Pilatus 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biophysics isn't really science; it's just a merger of analytical techniques developed by physicists and the field of study developed by biologists. Chemistry isn't really science; it's just the empiricism of alchemy laid over a theoretical framework that derives from quantum mechanics.

Now, on a more serious note: You may not mean to be patronizing, and in fact you don't come off as patronizing: you come off like a very ignorant person trying to be patronizing. The fact that you brought this up in a debate about notability is remarkable. Medicine is an applied science, like engineering; it is the application of scientific theory to human life. Some investigators devote their considerable talents to building a career out of improving the practice of medicine; to assert their contributions are therefore obviously non-notable a priori is simply absurd.

I doubt there is any benefit to be had by continuing this "discussion," as I have written you off as one of the myriad trolls on the internet who gets a kick out of harassing physicians; you can read my essay on my talk page for a more detailed description of what I think of you and your kind. If you decide you would like to reply on my talk page, your best beginning will be with a clear explanation of exactly how I have misunderstood you. Otherwise I will ignore you. Ikkyu2 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Quarl[edit]

Hi Pilatus, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 12:17Z

Long talk page[edit]

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kijiji logo.gif listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kijiji logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. KWH 02:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Handle-o-meter.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Handle-o-meter.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 10:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kijiji[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kijiji, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kijiji. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MrTompkinsinPaperback.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MrTompkinsinPaperback.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:NanoCartriangle.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:NanoCartriangle.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Alpherbethegamov.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Alpherbethegamov.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hoax[edit]

Template:Hoax has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hoax[edit]

Template:Hoax has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Barclaychurch.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alpherbethegamov.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alpherbethegamov.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]