| Revision as of 00:58, 13 November 2007 editSbharris (talk | contribs)38,989 edits →Ryoung122← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:03, 13 November 2007 edit undoMaxim (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Administrators40,757 editsm Reverted edits by Sbharris (talk) to last version by MaximNext edit → | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
| BTW, I don't yet have the links, but I have been informed by someone who is on Young's mailing list that he is campaigning hard to recruit meatpuppets. This effect of this is visible at the current AfDs, and I intend to monitor it. --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | BTW, I don't yet have the links, but I have been informed by someone who is on Young's mailing list that he is campaigning hard to recruit meatpuppets. This effect of this is visible at the current AfDs, and I intend to monitor it. --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I think I'm going after his socks, I'm also getting the help of a checkuser to weed it out. And I'll sprotect the AfD's. '''<font face="Arial">]</font>''' 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | :I think I'm going after his socks, I'm also getting the help of a checkuser to weed it out. And I'll sprotect the AfD's. '''<font face="Arial">]</font>''' 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::In case you haven't been reading, you put an indefinite block on a real person ({{user|StanPrimmer}}) who was accused of being a sockpuppet. He is in fact a newbie, who you not only bit, but mauled, either by mistake or for being a meatpuppet (which last I checked is not a blockable offence-- please read the sockpuppet page for more on why not). So fix it, please. And consider a bit the irony of your blocking Stan and Robert Young (a long-time contributor) after the above solicitation by Brown Haired Girl. When the entire point of meatpuppetry being bad is that it involves solicitation to get other people into somebody else's argument. Perhaps you could explain this exception for administrators? Because it sort of looks to me like you're acting like a meatpuppet, except you're doing real damage, not just agreeing with somebody else's outside opinion. ]]]] 00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted Image == | == Deleted Image == | ||
| regarding Image:Anniearniel.JPG that was just deleted for copyright issues, it is clear and proved beyond all doubt, the photograph was published well before 1923. I have a book in my hands from 1920 with the picture in it, and a newspaper article 4 years earlier with it too. All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. What is the problem? --Kenmenard1983 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ----repeated 12 november because of no response!!!!!!!!Who is Maxim's supervisor?? | regarding Image:Anniearniel.JPG that was just deleted for copyright issues, it is clear and proved beyond all doubt, the photograph was published well before 1923. I have a book in my hands from 1920 with the picture in it, and a newspaper article 4 years earlier with it too. All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. What is the problem? --Kenmenard1983 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ----repeated 12 november because of no response!!!!!!!!Who is Maxim's supervisor?? | ||
Revision as of 01:03, 13 November 2007
Deleted Image
Regarding your deletion of Image:Co logo express black 3p.gif, I believe that there was a fair-use rationale attached to the image. Could you give me some feedback onto why that fair-use rationale was inadequate? Thanks
Rover007TN 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- You must have a link to the article in which the image is used. Hence, I deleted it per this part of a policy. Maxim 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, well since it was being used in the Continental Connection article up until its deletion, and since the fair use rationale did apply to that article (although I did make a small oversight and not specifically reference the article in the rationale), is there a way we could reinstate the image, and have me add the 'Fair use in Continental Connection' phrase to the fair use rationale?
Rover007TN 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)- Deleting an image because of an easily correctable defect is disruptive. It would be simpler to just correct the defect. This was just such an obvious case. Rklawton 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, well since it was being used in the Continental Connection article up until its deletion, and since the fair use rationale did apply to that article (although I did make a small oversight and not specifically reference the article in the rationale), is there a way we could reinstate the image, and have me add the 'Fair use in Continental Connection' phrase to the fair use rationale?
The talk page of Suck my balls
I specifically asked that an administrator not delete the talk page of suck my balls without leaving on my talk page a consideration of the proposal that that salted page should actually be a redirect to teabagging (compare eat shit --> coprophagia). Yes, the subject matter is the sort of thing that would attract vandals, but if you could unsalt the page so I could create that redirect, that would be good. Sometimes, I just feel that admins fail to listen, which is why I'm considering requesting adminship myself, as I've been around long enough and made nearly 8000 positive edits.--h i s r e s e a r c h 01:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maxim I really don't want to look like stalking you (I'm hitting my usertalk contribs), but you really should go through your deletions of that day, as I said there probably are more pages you shouldn't have deleted right away (or before at least addressing the concerns raised there). -- lucasbfr 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- The salted page template says: "Restoration can be discussed at the talk page or deletion review." Evidently that's not true, in this case. There's a paradox with the salted page template because these talk pages do meet the WP:CSD.--h i s r e s e a r c h 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
why did you delete VoiceCaptionIt
The article was completely factual and modeled after similar pages for Google, Sierra On-line, Microsoft, and dozens of other company pages. There was nothing advertised at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrybowerman (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest reading up on WP:SPAM. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Problems
I'm seeing you're having ALOT of problems with image deletions. Something up? Vampire Warrior 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- What? How on earth is Maxim having problems with image deletions? They seem to be working perfectly fine from where I sit. Daniel 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Compared to the number of deletions, I'd say Maxim's doing really well... I estimate about 2-3 comments per 1000 deletions. Siebrand 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagging Commons dupes
Hi Maxim. In about 1000 edits SieBot will be done tagging the round of duplicates on Commons. Once they have all been taken care of next week, I'll see if it is needed to do another round. At least now the en.wp admins will get the opportunity to use CommonsClash for its second intended purpuse: getting rid of naming conflicts between a local wiki and Commons. Ideally this list is empty :). Cheers! Siebrand 00:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Userpage
Hi. Why do you really not want a userpage? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do I have to want one? ;-) Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
File:77baloonscrew.jpg deletion from Match Game
If I had known about the rationale issue, I could have easily provided a TV screenshot rationale for this image. Although I didn't upload the image, I did have the talk page of Match Game watchlisted. If you had placed a notice on the talk page about the rationale problem, I could have provided a detailed and convincing rationale for an image which was quite useful in explaining the Match Game xx naming convention for the show.
I request that you restore the image so I can provide this rationale. In the future, a notice on the talk page of an article where an image is used would be appreciated, so editors can provide the required rationale. Such a notice may not be required by policy, but fair warning of an image removal to all editors interested in a particular article would be helpful and courteous. Thank you. Casey Abell 17:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest reading these guidelines. I don't tag the images, a bot does, it's not my responsibility to tag the images, and I merely delete the image with unaddressed concerns after 7 days. However, I'm restoring for 48 hours to allow to add a rationale; if it's proper, I won't delete it, if it's not I'll redelete it. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Smile
SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Thanks. :D Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of page
I belive you deleted the page User:Benno briton and Jojo da best's page. Can you please un-delete the page because we shared a page. Now our pages redirect to a deleted page. If you can't undelete the article please send me a mail of its contents.
Thank You.
My RfA
Where have I been incivil? On this talk page? I don't want to get into disagreements, but I don't think what I said here alone merited a "strong oppose" - I don't even think I was acting outwith civility at all here.--h i s r e s e a r c h 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- "admins fail to listen" appears to qualify. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Animal feed
I'm going to restore an article you deleted after its proposed deletion expired; I think I can address the issue that lead to its proposed deletion. If you object, let's talk. ike9898 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- On PROD's, I really don't mind. :-) You have my full permission. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Amir Abdul-Malik Ali
I noticed that you deleted the Amir Abdul-Malik Ali article. I didn't write the text and have no interest in it. But the text definitely comes from reliable sources that weren't added to the text. Nor was it possible to add any sources since the article was protected. I added a comment about this to Talk:Amir Abdul-Malik Ali and in WP:BLPN#Amir Abdul Malik, showing a few sources for some quotes in the article. So the article was not a BLP violation and shouldn't have been deleted for that reason. –panda 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I removed numerous things that I believed where BLP vios. Afterwards, I compared the revisions, and everything was essentially the same since it was created. I'd prefer if you restart as a fully sourced article. Thanks. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ryoung122
Hi Maxim, I dunno if you have noticed, but since you blocked Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) he has recruited at least one meatpuppet (StanPrimmer (talk · contribs)) and identified himself as the user of two anon IPs (see 131.96.70.143 (talk · contribs) and 131.96.70.164 (talk · contribs)). I see that he doesn't appear to have been autoblocked, so I was wondering if you could upgrade his block to an autoblock? Ta
BTW, I don't yet have the links, but I have been informed by someone who is on Young's mailing list that he is campaigning hard to recruit meatpuppets. This effect of this is visible at the current AfDs, and I intend to monitor it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'm going after his socks, I'm also getting the help of a checkuser to weed it out. And I'll sprotect the AfD's. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Image
regarding Image:Anniearniel.JPG that was just deleted for copyright issues, it is clear and proved beyond all doubt, the photograph was published well before 1923. I have a book in my hands from 1920 with the picture in it, and a newspaper article 4 years earlier with it too. All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. What is the problem? --Kenmenard1983 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ----repeated 12 november because of no response!!!!!!!!Who is Maxim's supervisor??
- Sorry, I get swamped with messages, and I'm not always on time... :-( For your question, simply slapping that it's PD isn't enough. You HAVE to state where it's from. Maxim 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)