Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 8 May 2007

	This user is under the microscope of the cabal. For more information, try joining some mailing lists.	Drama portal
F	This user has been rated as F-Class on the project's quality scale.

<> anyone knows how to get the "noteability" flag removed from a page?
<CharlotteWebb> , see the link that says "edit this page"
<> CharlotteWebb: thanks! that worked

War on idiocy:

1. "Notability": is not and never has been policy .
2. "Consensus": please learn to spell it before claiming one exists .
3. "Merge and delete": is not a valid result of an AFD debate .

	Archives 001 • 002 • 003 • 004 • 005 • 006 • 007 • 008 • 009

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuns

Hi CharlotteWebb, I reviewed the page on fair use concerning publicity photos, and found this:

Most photos that are found on the Internet are not publicity photos. Publicity photos found on the Internet typically have the following characteristics:

• They are found in a section of a web site called "media kit", "press kit", "press", or something similar
• The images are available in high-resolution TIFF versions (upload a low-resolution JPEG version to Misplaced Pages though)
• There is text on the site asking that the photographer be credited and/or there is licence text permitting reproduction for certain purposes (usually using them to sell products is prohibited).

Given that the photo appeared as part of an ACNS press release, with instructions on how to credit it, does this not constitute fair use? I can't find any fairer use images of individuals in Anglican orders, but I can keep looking. Thanks! fishhead64 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since re-examining the page in question, I see that it has been altered from its original, and the fair use rationale no longer applies. I'll remove the file. My apologies. fishhead64 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Amor de cosmos 2.jpg

Hey, thanks for hunting down the source information for Image:Amor de cosmos 2.jpg! I appreciate it. —Remember the dot 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't very difficult . — CharlotteWebb 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pixel again

Hello, CharlotteWebb! I noticed your great job on blocking the user Pixel indefinitely for violating Misplaced Pages's rules, some time ago. Unfortunately, at that time, he was also vandalizing the Minesweeper article, insisting on putting images of a specific software, instead of generic images. Besides, the long discussion that went there about images is already settled, in favor of the generic ones. Well, it seems this guy is attacking again, and he seems to be using the sockpuppets 87.65.196.28 and 87.64.23.191. I suspect this, because of the bad english he has been showing since he first appeared, and because of the interest in making edits on articles with similar subjects to his edits in the past. I would like to ask you if you could please add those IPs to the list of his suspected sockpuppets and possibly ban them also. I know this user shows too much endurance in making repetitive edits to keep his own edits in articles, which, in the case of his obsession about showing images of a particular software in the Minesweeper article, si pretty bad. Thank you a lot in advance! RodrigoCamargo 14:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that screenshots of free minesweeper software should always be preferred. Please remove any non-free ones from the article, nominate them for deletion, and tag the sockpuppets accordingly. — CharlotteWebb 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas → Las Vegas (disambiguation)

Guess what - it got kicked to another venue... My fault for not seeing it was best done as a request move if the first place I guess. Anyway, you may wish to express an opinion (again) at Talk:Las Vegas (disambiguation). WjBscribe 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6 is calling your name. — CharlotteWebb 10:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:$1

One of your subpages is in a Category:$1 that is now nominated for deletion. Even more awkwardly, the category was created by the addition of the cfd template. This looks like it is an unintentional accident with the code and not a deliberate attempt to create a category. Could you please comment at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 3 or possibly rewrite the code? Dr. Submillimeter 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"$1" is a placeholder to be replaced by an actual category name when the script runs. I did not know it was possible to "categorize" a monobook.js. There is no indication of this when viewing the js page, so I am puzzled about what extreme lengths somebody must have gone to in finding this error in order to confront me about it. Let me be clear: I did not create the category , I do not know why it was created, and I had little reason to think I might be accidentally populating it , and I have no interest in keeping it. — CharlotteWebb 10:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarfiy my position: I realize that you did not create the category page itself. Also, I suspect the category was found by someone viewing an alphabetical list of categories; you probably are not being stalked. Anyway, the situation has been resolved. Sorry to cause you distress, and thank you for your time. Dr. Submillimeter 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the current tags timestamped

I had suggested this too (and at the Pump), but couldn't get any traction on it. I figured I wasn't asking at the right place. The change will certainly make life easier! -- Kendrick7 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks very much for your help in reverting the deletions on the Dargur page, but you may want to check before you rv too hastily! Thanks anyhow for your help, and happy editing! Whiskey in the Jar 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how that wasn't an edit conflict. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh

I have seen so many RfAs consisting of "Oppose! He's an evil, inclusionist troll out to wreck Misplaced Pages's credibility by retaining awful articles!". Equally common is: "Oppose! He's an evil deletionist who's part of an devilish cabalistic plot to leave Misplaced Pages with no articles at all!!".

They're both equally common and equally wrongheaded. One of RfA's more frustrating aspects, I suppose. Cheers, Moreschi 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So naturally you claim to be actually be at an unspecific point in the middle, right? — CharlotteWebb 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid opposing someone's RfA on the grounds of their views on deletion, as I don't think it's relevant. Despite being on the opposite side of almost every deletion debate to badlydrawnjeff, I supported his RfA because I felt I had to trust him to properly differentiate between his private views as an editor as his duty as an admin to judge consensus. AGF, etc. Had he been requesting full adminship I would have supported him for that, as well. I freely admit I'm more deletionist than not but I trust myself to ignore my private feelings on things like television episodes and to obey and carry out the consensus of the community. Admins are more like butlers than masters. Cheers, Moreschi 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

At the same time you would hopefully not carry out a decision that you feel is not in the project's better interest. — CharlotteWebb 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if a cabal of ten (say) get together at AfD X to blindly ignore WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc you in turn ignore them as closing admin, because the microconsensus of AfD is irrelevant to the macroconsensus of our policies and guidelines. When it comes to matters that are more a matter of personal taste and editorial judgment - like I, as far as I can see, these TV episodes - you have to pay more respect to the consensus of those who have expressed an opinion at the AfD. It's a great mistake people make in assuming that every dispute eventually boils down to a clear-cut "right or wrong" expression of policy. Admittedly, the great majority do, but not all. Having said that, a number of individual "interpretations" of policy are so whacky you just have to ignore them as well. Moreschi 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy CharlotteWebb's Day!

CharlotteWebb has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as CharlotteWebb's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Charlotte! Love, Phaedriel 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.