Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 1 September 2006

Archives
January 2006 – August 2006

AfD Google hoaxes

No offense was intended, and I appologise if any was taken. However, I was under the impression that 'merge' was a suitable result of an AfD, rather than a reason for an AfD - the AfD page is unclear about this, perhaps, but does state that AfD is for proposing deletions. Given the vast number of AfDs that occur, limited AfDs to requests for deletion only makes some sense. I'm also sure I've seen merge-request AfDs closed early for being the wrong process, but I'm probably wrong. Merging, I feel, is something one can be bold about if no discussion errupts after posting on both the associated talk pages. You may have some point, however, in that currently there is no dedicated forum as such for controversial merges. I'll dig through policy later to see if I can find a clear-cut answer to this. LinaMishima 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Karolyne_Smith

And you're absolutely right; it was sloppy work on my part, and I regret it. That's why it was "almost a year old" -- I was a newbie admin, and I was still getting used to closing AfDs. I had seen other admins close AfDs in a similar fashion (by counting votes; there was a lot less concern over that in '05 as there has been in recent months), so I, in essence, learned from the wrong people. I've known for quite some time that AfD is a discussion and not a vote, so I'll have to admit that I'm also a bit put off at how you now appear to have a bad opinion of me just because you managed to exploit a mistake I made when I was new. But if the matter is that important to you, then no, I do not treat AfD as a vote and have not for a while. In fact, I don't even touch those pages that much anymore, so if you find my previous statement unconvincing then at least you can take comfort knowing that I rarely close discussions anymore.

And although you've said you're not concerned with the current status of the article, feel free to take it to WP:DRV if you change your mind. Robert 12:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone. I didn't actually take offense but I guess I was a bit cranky before I even sat down to read the message and it rubbed off a bit in my response. I do appreciate your comment very much, as it'll help me remember not to slack off in reading AfD discussions should I ever begin to slip into the habit again. Thank you, and I hope I haven't deterred you or anyone else from giving me more constructive criticism in the future. Robert 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge between WP:CIV and WP:EQ

Hello, I was hoping you could go to the WP:CIV talk page and explain your reasoning behind the proposed merge. I know you did not put that there first but simply returned it, however the original poster has made to response to my quries and I did not want to remove it without asking you first. Without some sort of arguement the tag will most likely be removed. HighInBC 15:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Photoshopping

You'll find the most obvious spot-heals in Image:Womaninspandex.jpg. Compare that to the "facial" photograph and the touch-ups should be obvious. There are others, as well, but that's the most readily noticeable. Nandesuka 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RfA/Consumed Crustacean

Would you look at that, it succeeded. Thanks for the support. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump Response

Thank you for responsding to my question regarding similar usernames at the Village Pump. --TommyBoy 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Money

This one is very, very difficult to research. Like you, I spent a good deal of time trying in vain to determine the copyright statuses of money. All that I was able to tell is this:

• The design of U.S. currency is definitely public domain. There are lots of separate regulations that limit how you can use these designs (such as anti-counterfeiting laws), but these are not copyright issues.
• The designs of the various Euro notes and coins are all copyrighted, and there's even a © notice right there on the notes. But there's never been any case law of anyone challenging, pursuing, or upholding this copyright. The EU's attitude seems to be that if someone is counterfeiting, then they'll go after them with anti-counterfeiting laws, but if someone is displaying the notes for informational purposes, they don't care. Still, since it's a copyrighted work, we have to make a fair use rationalle for Euros.
• If the design of the currency was made before 1923, then it's PD in the U.S., just like all images.

Other than that, I don't know. So this Aruba coin you uploaded? No idea. And I'll bet the Aruba government doesn't know either. I'll bet it's never come up in Aruba's courts.

And if you think this is fun, try postage stamps and flags!

All the best, – Quadell 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

rv Courtney Akins

Good move. You beat me to it. Please watch her. I presume you saw the an/i discussion -- Tyrenius 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Drini and the CVU deletion

You, like so many other Wikipedians, seem to have felt that Drini's actions in the CVU deletion proccess were wholly inappropriate and did not follow policy. As a result, I'm forming an ad-hoc group of sorts composed of people interested in removing Drini. If you'd like to be involved, just drop me a note. ShortJason 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)