Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Katelynkostlich (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 12 July 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 : July 2005 ~ March 2007 Archive 2 : April 2007 ~ June 2007

BushProtest.jpg

I uploaded below image which I found in flickr, I know flickr images can be uploaded to wikipedia provided they are attributed, but I am not sure which licensing tag is appropriate. Could you kindly check and fix this NëŧΜǒńğer 17:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:BushProtest.jpg

I don't think that all Flickr images can be uploaded to Misplaced Pages. Although many (maybe even most) images on Flickr are posted under a Creative Commons license, allowing them to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, this particular one seems to be copyrighted (look under the "Additional information" section on the right side of the screen here). Compare that with, for instance, this photo licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License and this one licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. (Note: both of those images are already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.)

So, I don't think the Bush protest images qualifies as "fair use" per Misplaced Pages's non-free content requirements unless the event depicted in the image is somehow historically significant or is specifically discussed in the article's text (both of which seem unlikely). Image copyright is not my strongest suit, but I'm fairly confident about this one. You may want to double-check at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. I hope that helps. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out.. the same image can be found here under creative commons. NëŧΜǒńğer 10:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate license for that one would be {{Cc-by-2.0}} and it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, Black Falcon 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Although ... the image states "I did not capture this one!!!", so the copyright may actually belong to someone else. Hmm ... that's something you'd be better off asking at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. -- Black Falcon 15:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Student

Thanks for dealing with it. I ran into that template reverting some silly page creations by a friend of the template's creator (I assume). Since I don't have much template experience I figured I'd nominate it for TfD and see where it went. I'll tag similar ones for speedy deletion in the future. Cheers! Flyguy649_contribs 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush's pretzel

Link to the discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (2nd nomination)

I am considering requesting a DRV on the AfD that you closed. By my count, there were 18 deletes, and 15 keeps, but at least 8 of the keeps were the direct result of last-minute canvassing by the author of the article. If we take the canvassing into account, it seems that there was a clear consensus (18-7) to delete. I don't wish to disparage you as the closer, but I think you made a mistake here. Do you have any thoughts you wish to add before I decide how to proceed? - Crockspot 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since AfD is not a vote and as there was not overwhelming support for one outcome or another, I mostly considered the arguments presented and gave little weight to the distribution of deletes and keeps. (To be honest, I only noticed that they were roughly equal in number and did not specifically count them prior to my close.) Even if I had considered numbers, the two sides were roughly equal, once comments like "for god's sake" (delete) and "one thing he almost got right" (keep) are discounted.

In terms of the strength of arguments, I do not think a consensus emerged. The primary argument for deletion (and I'm lumping together different variants of it) was that the event is insignificant outside the life of George W. Bush and, while newsworthy, is not encyclopedic. Those arguing to keep the article disputed this point and referred to the fact that the incident continues to receive coverage 5 years later, thus making it more than a mere one-time news story.

There is no easy way to reconcile these conflicting positions (and I realise that I'm merging several specific arguments into two general ones) or to determine which is better while trying, at the same time, not to be influenced by one's personal opinions. Both positions are grounded in policy, albeit different interpretations of it.

I considered the canvassing but ultimately did not let it affect my decision (note that of the 8 people canvassed, 3 did not participate). If it had been obvious that the canvassed editors came only to vote by posting comments like "per nom", "it's interesting", and the like, I would have discounted them. Most of the comments in this case were not like that and indeed attempted to justify the article's retention via current policies and guidelines (primarily Misplaced Pages:Notability and WP:NOT).

So, in short, I think my closure was appropriate given the circumstances. You may certainly seek a formal review, but you may also want to consider the option of attempting to create consensus for a merge to an appropriate target. I also ask that you consider the following quote from Misplaced Pages:Consensus

Misplaced Pages's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than position B.

Cheers, Black Falcon 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure how I will go with it, need to think on it a bit, but I'll let you know if I take it to DRV. - Crockspot 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Bula Black Falcon

thanks for the heads up I got a bit over zealous without knowing the appropriate place to place the wiki fiji project tags won't make the same mistake twice. have a good day.

Vinaka Maikeli MB 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done

put the Tag on the template, man I keep putting my foot in my mouth...anyway thanks again for the heads up, what was trying to do was create the side box on the user page somehow I made the template and then I tried to delete it and it stayed so then I played around with the format but I ended up just copying the info to my user page once I had sorted out my user page I did not know how to remove the template, anyway problem solved have a good day.

Vinaka MB MB 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson_2

I would ask that you withdraw this Request for the time being. Jeffrey has expressed a willingness to make more meaningful replies and a look at this talkpage shows a definite change in his altitude. Nick 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps point me to where/how he has done that? I would be happy to withdraw the RfC (after all, I secretly admired his deletion of the BJADON subpages), but his recent contributions do not seem to suggest that he has any intention of doing things differently. See, e.g., . Thanks, Black Falcon 00:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see Jeffrey using his talk page now, rather than deleting comments straight away. Isn't he now using his talk page as intended ? Nick 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... well, sort of, though that doesn't address all of the points raised in the RfC. I would like to drop the case if he agrees to one of three outcomes listed in the "Desired outcomes" section of the RfC. Listed in decreasing order of preference:

1. Agree to adhere to the civility and speedy deletion policies and actually do so. Continue as an admin.
2. Take a voluntary break from administrative actions. Continue as an editor.
3. Voluntarily resign his adminship. Continue as an editor.

I also honestly do not know if my withdrawal would make any difference as 2 others have already certified the request. I have little involvement with RfC (not in small part due to my dislike of how bureaucratic it is), so your comments would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Jeffrey isn't editing, he's just occasionally deleting a few images that shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. I've little experience of RfC either is I tend to think it's just a source of drama and tension for these sorts of matters, so I've no idea if it can be withdrawn now. Nick 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would actually say that he's relatively active with image deletions (about 400 since June 23), but that's a relatively unimportant point in the grand scheme of things. The thing is ... I've known for some time that Jeffrey is a little rough around the edges (I even secretly cheered him on when he deleted BJAODN), but the shift in behaviour around June 23 is quite dramatic, I think.

So, at the moment, I'm not sure how to proceed. Should I withdraw? Can I withdraw? Even if I withdraw, will someone simply refile the RfC? Part of me wants to place a note at the RfC page stating that I'd like to withdraw the case as soon as Jeffrey agrees to one of the "desired outcomes" or indicates that he will reconsider his behaviour, but I'm worried it may come off as a patronising ultimatum.

So, again, I'm not sure what to do at this point, though in the absence of any indication by Jeffrey that he will honestly consider the concerns raised on his talk page and at ANI, I'm leaning toward requesting broader community input on the matter at the RfC. -- Black Falcon 00:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages non-brave administrator

There is something malformed about your starting discussion for Category:Misplaced Pages non-brave administrator on UCfD. I do not understand it. My comment there is actually wrong. Clicking on the edit brings up the template you used and that is protected. --Bduke 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The problem was that I forgot to "subst" the template; I have since substed it and you should be able to edit the section. -- Black Falcon 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Easily done. Thanks. --Bduke 02:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to UCFD comment

Regarding my comment at WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedian home movie makers (permalink):

I'd like to point out, partly as a warning against using it, a flawed argument in your nomination. "...having an interest in making movies is not the same as having an interest in editing articles about filmmaking." Well, last I checked I didn't see any categories named "Wikipedians interested in editing articles about music/math/haiku/etc". It's assumed that many Misplaced Pages editors actually edit in their areas of real-life interest. I respect your large efforts at UCFD, Black Falcon, and there is no doubt in my mind you nominated this category in good faith. Please take care not to include poor rationales in your nominations—they detract from the valid points. If you don't have enough good reasons to cite in the deletion nomination, consider not nominating that category. Look at it another way: there are probably many user cats more deserving of deletion and by seeking out those low hanging categories you can accomplish more with your limited time, because the deletion rationales for those will require less defence. BigNate37_(T) 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to your comment at the discussion. I disagree with your evaluation that my argument is flawed and have provided an explanation there. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress trivia

I agree with you that the List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses should be created with some of the content in the page, but that leaves just trivia on the page. Per WP:FIVE, WP is not a "trivia collection", which I understand to mean that trivia cant stand by itself. Do you think another AFD would be warranted in 1-2 weeks if the list is moved and the page consists solely of trivia? Corpx 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the three arguments was that some or much of the content is not trivial, but is instead relevant information that is simply poorly organised. See, for instance, Sjakkalle's comment that "much of the information here is indeed valid", including information about "crew accomodations" and "some of the technical aspects" (such as fuel load). I think the ideal solution (and the one that seems to do the most to satisfy the "delete" and "merge" concerns raised at the AfD) would be to split off a List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses, trim the remaining content, and selectively merge it back into the main article. Of course, the preserved content should not be dumped back into the "Popular culture" section (most of it isn't even popular culture), but rather integrated in the main text.

Since that is a relatively complex merge, it will probably require involvement from those editors most informed about and involved with the subject. For instance, I'm pretty sure that it's not necessary to note the 1963 B-52C crash in Maine in the main article (perhaps the crash deserves its own article?). However, I cannot say whether information about ejection seats, on-board accomodations, landing gear, and so on is relevant.

To be honest, I do not think renominating the article after the list of surviving B-52s is moved is warranted for two reasons. First, unless an identical list exists in the history of B-52 Stratofortress, the B-52 Stratofortress trivia article may not be deleted per the GFDL. Second, those who supported the split did not suggest redirecting or deleting the article thereafter. I think a "split off, trim, and merge back" approach is the most productive, but it will almost surely require the involvement of one or more editors knowledgeable about aviation articles. I think a discussion at Talk:B-52 Stratofortress would be more likely to result in getting rid of the article than another AfD. -- Black Falcon 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cliff and Nina AFD

Link to the discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt

I am confused by the no consensus closure. If you're discounting the notability by association arguments then there's basically nothing left but deletion !votes per WP:PLOT. Otto4711 12:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I will try to explain the reason for my closure. The discussion saw comment by six editors: you, Shalom, Flyer22, 140.254.225.30, SFGiants, and Giggy.

• You initially based your nomination on WP:PLOT; after the addition of the "Cultural impact" section, your argument focused more on notability.
• Shalom supported deleting the article per your original reasoning (WP:PLOT).
• Flyer22 opposed deletion by first challenging the WP:PLOT argument by adding the "Cultural impact" section and subsequently arguing that notability is met through the sources.
• 140.254.225.30 argued to keep "because article looks good and editor(s) are attempting to improve it".
• SFGiants suggested redirecting, but provided no reason as to why (in the absence of any other information, I assumed it was "per nom").
• Giggy recommended keeping based on a 'notability by association' argument. This is generally a weak argument to make and has no formal basis in policy; the fact that it was made without some type of detailed justification led me to discount it.

So, discounting the "looks good" and 'notability by association' arguments, the discussion involved (initially) WP:PLOT and (subsequently) notability. The WP:PLOT argument was largely addressed by the addition of the "Cultural impact" section. The cultural impact of the fictional couple may not be notable, but that's a different issue from simply being a plot summary.

The discussion regarding notability was essentially a debate between you and Flyer22 and revolved around whether the coverage was trivial. That was the focal point of the discussion but it unfortunately did not receive adequate comment. I initially thought of relisting the nomination to solicit more comments, but felt that would not be productive given all of the unrelated and/or repetitive "white noise". I would suggest renominating the article after first giving Flyer22 some time to work on it (and perhaps even notifying him of your intention to renominate the article unless it improves further).

I hope this clarifies the closure. Cheers, Black Falcon 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, Black Falcon, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, Black Falcon, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

UCFD fix

Thanks for fixing that typo on UCFD. I was trying to fix it when you fixed it; I do scan through to look for that sort of thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was just checking the status of my nomination (the "blue screens of death" category) and noticed it. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of template on WP:NPOV

Just wondering if you read the relevant section on the talk page or not before removing the template (I didn't see you comment there or anything). Richard001 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will comment there shortly. -- Black Falcon 06:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, though I'm still not fully convinced as the systematic bias category is actually located within the NPOV category. Are you sure it's not a part of NPOV considerations? Richard001 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my somewhat long-winded reply here. -- Black Falcon 07:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sdk 813 and Da8 kd2

Re your message: Sorry to spoil you fun. =) I was looking through Recent Changes in the userspace and saw you were reverting a bunch of stuff, so I went and took a look. Once I recognized SummerThunder ("Hey, didn't I block that account?"), I jumped in and deleted all the random Category pages and blocked the accounts. I also protected all of the various sockpuppet tagged userpages as he always edits his old accounts. One of these days, I hope that guy gives up. Wishful thinking, probably. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wikipedians with IBS

Dunno why it was, I made a null edit to the person's userpage and it purged the category. All clear for deletion now. And thanks for the heads up on the other note. ^demon 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

At first you made the comment

Rfwoolf, Guy's personal attack does not justify your name-calling ("cronies"). Please refrain from such comments. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

At first I saw this as a sarcastic rebuttle, rather unfair, to let Guy's comment slide and pick me out for something that's a bit of a stretch. However I have seen your comment to Guy on the talk page, however buried, and would like to thank you. My concerns of your bias are now relieved. Rfwoolf 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at your talk page. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SPA bot idea

I ran across your idea for a bot on the bot request page. I don't know much about bots, but I think this is a great idea, even for pretty old articles. I don't think it's unusual that there's an older article that nobody stumbled on yet but is clearly spam or whatever. I don't know about the timing of checking them all, but I think it would be worth it. I would like to see this done, just to get a sense of how many of these there are. If this gets made, drop me a line to check out what the results are. Rigadoun (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:JzG

Hi,

Just thought I'd give you a bit of praise for the way you tried to calm the flames on User talk:JzG - a perfect example of being both an admin and civil! I was merely reading the raging debate and realised that your comments seemed to be the only ones without a hidden agenda and without taking sides.

Didn't seem like anybody else was going to say it, so there - I have. Well done! Two small edits that tried to have a large effect, largely over looked by two sides of a debate that was obviously going nowhere fast.

Best wishes,

–MDCollins (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Can you believe it, the only admin with the balls to tell another admin that he's violating WP:NPA. Quite sad really. Actually come to think of it, it's very very disturbing. Even look at the Noticeboard and see how all the admins were pussyfooting around it. Keep on keeping on! Rfwoolf

How am I supposed to upload photos taken of myself when a photographer has their logo on the photo? I have rights to these photos and I am the one appearing in them!

I need help. I am a model trying to submit myself to wiki. A lot of my photographs have the photographer's logo on them. I am the model in these photos and have rights to these photos. I don't understand what I need to do in order to submit my photos. Could you help me with this please? Thank you.