User talk:Aude/Archive10

Sorry I was slow, but I just saw your question and I posted a reply. Let me know if you have some VersionIDs. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aude, I'm guessing the version selections will be made some time in the next 48 hours. If any are in bad shape, we can manually change the odd versionID afterwards. Walkerma (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you look at User talk:69.132.178.111 and his reply at my own User talk:Shakescene, you can see that Ben Popken now better understands the reaction he got to what he thought was an innocent attempt at helpfulness and seems receptive to any gentle, useful guidance anyone would like to offer. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for leaving him a message, explaining the problems with adding the links. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Never seem to have enough of it anymore...I am very appreciative that you have taken the time to make a few comments about the pallid sturgeon article and will address them before the weekend. IF pallid gets to FA, I will then be able to devote energy to collapse of the WTC article...and I still have a few more details to iron out on the Redwood NP article yet as well to keep it at FA level.--MONGO 05:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure that Pallid sturgeon will pass FA, though I do think reviewers are spread thin so the review process may take some time. Any help with the collapse article would be great. I'm also working on the Larry Silverstein article, which since it's a BLP, should be a priority. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure...I watchdogged that article for some time...I also see you have aided me at the Redwood article...much thanks. Back tomorrow.--MONGO 05:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Aude...your adjustments look pretty good. I am still pondering a few other issues with the article yet and await other comments from a few more contributors.--MONGO 04:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad that my edits look okay. I will take another look in the next few days. --Aude (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tanks...you have now become a fully fledged member of my cabal....

 

Eagle barnstar is terrific! Thanks! --Aude (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Aude. I should be able to look over the article in the next few days. Does that work for you? Best regards, mo ^talk 02:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no hurry. Whenever you get a chance to look at it would be fine. --Aude (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I noticed your good work on the Go (game) article. I'm trying to learn how to play, since adding the game on my iPhone. The Wikipedia article helped me understand the objective of the game and give me an idea of what I'm supposed to do. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the kudos. Go (game) is a well-written article. It helped me better understand the game as well. Unfortunately, I'm horrible at strategy games. :) mo ^talk 03:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would have given up with Go, if not for the helpful article explaining about the game. I'm still no good at it though. --Aude (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for the delay in getting started on the copy edit. I'm working on a previous copy edit request, which is taking longer than I anticipated. I won't be offended if you ask another editor to look over it. mo ^talk 03:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no hurry, though if you can recommend someone else to help, maybe that would make things easier for you since I know you are busy. Otherwise, no rush. --Aude (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may want to request a copy edit on the Guild of Copy Editors talk page. I'm behind on my current copy edit due to an ANI issue with which I had to deal this weekend. I'll check back with you when I'm finished with this one to find out whether or not the article still needs a copy edit. Thanks for your understanding, mo ^talk 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I recently started the article Douglass Summer House and would like to add a link from the /* Family life */ section of the Frederick Douglass article to it. I see this is a protected article. I suggest the following sentence be added to the end of the third para of this section: "The Douglass Summer House, built 1894-95, and located at Highland Beach, Maryland, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992." Thanks in advance for your consideration. Ted--Pubdog (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article is only semi-protected, which means that those not logged in (IP addresses) and new accounts cannot edit. You should be able to edit the article. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "always impressed with his work and dedication to Wikipedia" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice work. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. Though, not sure I'll have time to expand this enough for DYK. --Aude (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the Marble Madness FAC has become a bit stale and I was hoping you could further comment on the article. I replied to your first set of comments and was wondering if you had any other comments (good or bad) and suggestions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC))Reply

I think the article looks good now, and have commented as such on the FAC page. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you please delete this image?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:VP_Shopping_Mall.jpg

It's a duplicated image and it is not being used in other pages.

Thanks,

--190.90.106.226 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Aude (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!

--190.90.106.226 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is my first speedy deletion on wikipedia and I've asked a reconsideration of this. On the put back page was mentioned I should inform you as being the deletor of the article? This request for putting back is a bit new for me. Did I do the right steps or do I have to inform someone else? Hope you can help me out a bit. Kind regards, Outdepth (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you transclude GrahamColm to RFA? It's not ready, I haven't yet added my co-nom. See Casliber's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see. --Aude (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

[1] Just wanted to let you know I've (temporarily) removed your vote because the RfA is not yet transcluded. I'm sure it won't be long - if we just keep it on our watchlists, I'm sure we'll catch it pretty quickly. ;-) Risker (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

He accepted, so it needs to be transcluded now. --Aude (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

All right; I asked for 12 hours to finish my co-nom, but I'll do it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Take your time. No hurry. --Aude (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You just need to change the accept time, to make sure the nomination gets to run for the full amount of time. Though, maybe it's not a big deal if it doesn't run the full time. --Aude (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I added a hurried co-nom, although I was hoping to take the time tonight to get it perfect. Oh, well. Shall I re-transclude it now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can if you wish, but it's completely up to you. --Aude (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I sent you an e-mail, asking you the reason why you deleted the article "luis carlos campos". Would you be so kind to let me know? thanks.

Article doesn't meet our requirements for inclusion, per WP:BIO. If you disagree, we have the Wikipedia:Deletion review process. --Aude (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Happy Holidays! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all you help! :)--MONGO 15:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! --Aude (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice work. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Aude (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Best wishes, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Hapy New Year!--MONGO 15:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Best wishes for both of you in the new year. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw your message over here, and left you a response as well. Do you want to collaborate on this? Let me know what your plans are. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Help would be very much appreciated, as I'm not sure I will have time to prepare it each week (if the Signpost resumes that schedule). When I do put it together, I could use input to see if I missed anything or tweaks are needed. I plan to get something together tomorrow. --Aude (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great! Drop me a line once you have something for me to look at. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Long time no see. Hope you've been doing fine. I'm not a copyright expert, so I need your knowledge. Please take a look at this. I may be wrong. It would be grateful if you post an expert's opinion. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see two issues here. (1) I think there are way too many links in the article. I would remove all the links in the "External links" section, except for the two official links. (2) Regarding the video link, Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking is quite clear in saying "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." --Aude (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I found all the music sample links are dead. I'd remove them. Oda Mari (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aude. I'm not sure if you saw, but Washington, D.C. has been nominated for Today's Featured Article, and is likely going to be featured January 20, Inauguration Day. Since you're the only one who actually maintains the article besides myself, I would really appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the article. Just wanted to give you a head up. Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 18:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how much I'll be around that day, but will closely watch it when I can. And, some of the people who watch for vandalism pay extra attention to the featured article of the day. Hopefully, it won't be too bad. --Aude (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. Thanks for any help you can provide. I know there is stuff like vandalism which is easy to identify and reverse, but I'm more concerned with people inserting good faith info about Barack Obama, the inauguration itself, etc. I know the more senior editors have a better grasp of WP:TOPIC. Thanks again! -epicAdam^(talk) 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If there is a problem with people adding unsourced and/or off-topic material to the article, we do have the option of adding an edit notice for the page. You can see how that works if you go to the Barack Obama page, click edit, and you will see the same text that comes from here: MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Barack_Obama (saying "The community has placed this article on article probation as specified ..."). Edit notices can be more creative than that (e.g. User:Jimbo_Wales/Editnotice), or suited to whatever the need is. On the otherhand, I have had a number of "my" articles on the main page, with few problems. --Aude (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cool. It's good to have options like that, but hopefully it won't be necessary. I'm not so singularly concerned about that kind of stuff, just because anything can be undone. It's just that I wouldn't want readers, who may actually want to learn about the city, fed wrong information because somebody made changes that weren't caught by the standard vandalism patrol. Thanks again, epicAdam^(talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This guy is smashing up many articles to do with terrorism - basically erasing any references to 'Al Qaeda'. He doesn't seem to like them being cited anywhere...

Anyway, what he's doing doesn't look right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vexorg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centonup (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why the deletion?

You deleted my page about the sites eng-tips.com and tek-tips.com. I cited independent sources that referenecd the websites. They are some of the best known user forums in engineering and computing. But they have been deleted three times. I do not know how to start a page in Wikipedia without people deleting it. Can you advise on what I should have included to make it stick? Lgmagone (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quoting from our guidelines for companies and organizations:

This means that we need secondary, reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times) that have covered the company or the websites in some depth. Blogs and other such website sources are not regarded as reliable sources. Also, please take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines, which say that if the company/website is "notable, someone else will notice and write the article." --Aude (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain more fully your decision here? Perhaps I misunderstand the policy on disambiguation pages.

According to my understanding of the policy it is not necessary for an article to exist for it to be listed on a disambiguation page. It is merely necessary for an existing article, that is not a disambiguation page, to have a wikilink under that name. And this condition was satisfied in this case. According to my understanding the tagger lapsed from policy with their speedy deletion request.

If your decision was based on the earlier {{prod}} may I suggest it was based on a fundamental cultural misunderstanding. It is routine to encounter Afghans who have only a single name. Hamid Karzai's cabinet contained Abdullah Abdullah -- whose real name is just unadorned "Abdullah". About a quarter of the Guantanamo captives from Afghanistan had only a single name -- something that caused great confusion among those with the responsibility to maintain the records there, who came up with several inconsistent, ill-thought-out schemes to shoehorn men with one name into databases that required both a first name and a last name.

I would prefer that the wikipedia learn from the mistakes of others, and not make the mistake of shoehorning individuals to follow the European convention that everyone inherits a surname, when their name does not actually follow that convention.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not convinced that Abderrahman, the guest house manager, is notable enough to warrant the disambiguation page, rather than having the page redirect to the sultan's article . If anything, it might be possible to have a disambiguation page at Abderrahman (disambiguation), but keep Abderrahman redirecting to the article about the sultan and use a hatnote. Or you can take this up at redirects for discussion to get further input. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you created Use:Aude/Speedydeletions in the article space instead of off of your user page (typo)...unless I'm mistaken. Just an FYI. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for telling me. I have moved it and deleted the redirect page. --Aude (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aude, sorry to bother you; I just noticed that you deleted Poker Legends, but it looks like you didn't close the AfD. I would just make the edit myself, but I don't know if it's rude or anything to do that in place of the admin who actually made the decision. Just letting you know, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just closed it, though don't mind at all (and would find it helpful) if others take care of that when I speedy delete something. It's time consuming enough going through the speedy deletion backlog. --Aude (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Probably worth a temporary salt. Cheers DFS454 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The user has been blocked. --Aude (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi I have seen you are preparing for delition of this page. I wounder why?? this page is only a technical page about a upcomming movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.151.189 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

One of the key requirements for Wikipedia articles is verifiability. That means that we need reliable sources, such as newspaper articles, about the movie. Several third-party, independent sources are also required to establish notability, which is another guideline that Wikipedia uses to decide what to include in the encyclopedia and what not to include. I'm not convinced the article meets our inclusion criteria. --Aude (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I sorry but I'm a little suprised because there is an offical web site and articles that talks about it in the french salon du cinema 2009 website and a the Paris mome website [[2]]. plus I was part of the movie so I can tell it existe. we are still in the post production process that is the reason the project is considerised as not released yet. I don't understand was more would be requiered —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buriflex (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe when the film does get released and gets significant press coverage, then it may meet Wikipedia requirements for inclusion. Also, saying "I was part of the movie" does not meet our verifiability requirements and no original research policy. You should also read our conflict of interest guidelines. Anyway, you are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. --Aude (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you salt this one? It's been recreated 3 times today. Many thanks --DFS454 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Aude (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry to see that the offical articles comming from a big show in paris like "Salon du cinema de paris" isn't official enough for you. If the articles isn't accurate enough it should be modified not deleted. If you had just googled it you would have seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buriflex (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Aude. I am happy you have taken on speedy deletions, it always needs some more help. And I am quite aware that you are the senior admin to me, so please don't think this as a lecture. I just noticed a couple of pages you deleted and I think you need to be more careful when entering the deletion summary, otherwise people are going to be confused why you deleted their pages citing reasons/criteria that do not apply (for example: ...short strut to the brassy front was not a talk page, File talk:Papyrus.jpg mentions A1 but that's not patent nonsense (and it was not nonsense anyway), For(n)ever where I declined deletion before and which is not implausible, Game Universe contained only an external link and thus was A3 not G11...). We all make mistakes, so no hard feelings I hope, but I think some more care with the deletion summaries would be a good idea. Regards SoWhy 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I may have a different approach to AFD than you. Where possible, I try to leave notes on the user's talk page, especially for "non-notable" people, or when otherwise I think they might have a question why their article was deleted. Other times, it's a more clear case of deletion (and there is a large backlog), thus I go through them quicker with deference to the speedy deletion tagger, regarding the reason. --Aude (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you might have a different approach, but I do not think you should use incorrect criteria for deletion anyway, because when viewing the deletion log of a page, it should be easy to see why the pages were deleted (and of course you should not delete pages where another admin declined deletion already but I guess you missed that one). Unfortunately a number of speedy taggers make mistakes often, so you might want to be more careful with just using their tags as reasons for deletion. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do what I can to check the reasons, and will scrutinize them more. --Aude (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello aude i would just like to say that by articleevil teacher was not perfect but i was working on it. This was my first wikiedia entry and contry to what you said it was not absolute rubbish please could it be re added i can understand your want to delete inferior articles but this was not rubbish please.

Any article requires several independent, reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times), so that we can verify and establish notability. Feel free to read our guide to writing your first article. --Aude (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Aude,

Thanks for having the talk page to discuss article inclusion/removal. Recently I created my first Wikipedia entry about a company called ioSafe. You deleted the article after I added a ((hang on)) tag and also created a talk page to improve the quality and content of the article. Now the talk page has been deleted since the original page was deleted.

I want to create the best possible article and have revised the original article to include several independent references, nationally recognized research, data and statistics to better verify and establish the information as valid. I would like your feedback on what I should do next... Is it best to re-create the page with additional content and resources? Thanks for your assistance Harddrives (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the ioSafe article. There appear to be some independent references. If you remove (or revamp) the "Disaster Recovery Statistics" section, I think the article would have a more proper, less promotional tone. And, claims like "First to market a 1.5 TB disaster protected external hard drive, ioSafe Solo" require an inline reference, which is done by placing the source between <ref>Source</ref> tags. Please let me know if you have any more questions. --Aude (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your prompt response and feedback. Appreciate the restoration of the article. I have placed the Source tags into the article per your suggestion and edited the "Disaster Recovery Statistics" content to be more objective. I will gladly edit any additional content and continue to add additional resources. Harddrives (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article is looking better, and the references tags help a lot. --Aude (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Aude,

I was contacted by a friend who was trying her first Wikipedia article for the company Vissumo. She was unsuccessful in getting it posted. I offered to help (though I've only edited a few points in articles in the past) and was blocked by you. If we are doing something wrong please let me know. I believe the four references she listed for the article are legit, but maybe there is some other level of verification she and I do not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G3g3g3g3 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Our inclusion criteria requires articles to have multiple independent, third-party reliable sources, and those sources should provide substantial depth of coverage. I'm not convinced that the references listed do that. Can you provide more references, especially ones that are reliable/reputable and give in-depth coverage of the company? --Aude (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I poked around online and found another good article that, in addition to the four links provided before (including three very reputable engineering magazines), should suffice the 'multiple' and 'reliable' challenge. Let me know what you think... http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&AD=1&ArticleID=17154 —Preceding unsigned comment added by G3g3g3g3 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I have restored the article at Vissumo. One of the issues with finding sources seems to be that the company has a new name, whereas source refer to the old name. Anyway, what the article needs are inline citations, inserted into the text with <ref>Source</ref> reference tags. --Aude (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your direction and input. We'll keep working to improve the page and the citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G3g3g3g3 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the Scott R. Walterschied page? Wikipedia does not recognize the people that run Hollywood behind the scenes?--Producer005 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Please read the previous deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Walterschied_(2nd_nomination)). The article is not to be recreated, unless at some point in the future he becomes significantly more notable with numerous independent, third-party, reliable sources that cover him in depth. --Aude (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why would you delte the page of Scott Walterschied who is a substantive force in Hollywood when you have pages of Hollywood insiders that are irrelevant in the industry. It's like taking down a Barack Obama page and replacing it with a Rush Limbaugh page. Makes no sense. You should have knowledge of the industry before doing something like that--Mgraser001 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just to add we have written many article on Scott Walterschied in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter has done the same. I trust you find these news publications as credible.--Mgraser001 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi again! Could you please take a look at Talk:Nori#Possible plagiarism. I think it's possible plagiarism too. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm quite sure the image in the article is okay. It appears that the website copied the image from Wikipedia to their site. (and that's generally okay, per our licensing or some images are licensed under Creative Commons). The one issue I would have with the site is they did not give credit to User:Lyzzy, and they should have and they should note the image licensing.

• See that the image was uploaded here in April 2006. Then, you can look on the Internet Archive to see how long the image and webpage have been up. The earliest date for the sushi website is February 2008. [3]

• Another indication to look at who uploaded the image. Was in uploaded by a long-time, trusted user that has good knowledge of copyrights? or was it uploaded by a newbie? In this case, User:Lyzzy uploaded the image. She is an admin on the German Wikipedia [4] and an OTRS member. The chances that someone like that would upload copyright violations is extremely low. If a newbie uploaded, it may still be okay, but needs more scrutiny.

• An additional clue is to look at the image resolution. The image on Wikipedia is 1024 × 812 pixels, whereas the one on the website is much smaller.

Hope this helps. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot. I didn't think of that they copied from Wiki! As for the YouTube link I asked for your advice above, User:Nolatime still thinks there is no problem about that link. I don't know what to do. Please take a look at this and this. Seemingly my English is not good enough to convince the user. Thank you always. Oda Mari (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the post on the Billie Holiday talk page. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Left on my userpage, copied from there as you were the deleting admin. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I challenge the deletion of my article originally titled 'Hotel Jardim Atlantico Madeira' because the Hotel is of scientific and other interest. It was the first in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) to be awarded the European Eco-label certification the highest environmental Certification available from the European Union. If the regulators of Wikipedia block articles about scientific/environmental awards to businesses this is discrimination against businesses and preventing dissemination of information about businesses that are world-leaders in environmental protection and practices.This is a significant case study for all those studying or who wish to learn about businesses in particular hotels that are world leaders in environmental protection and practices.

Paul Abbiati, wikipedia contributor resident in Madeira

Abbiati (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Replied on the user's talk page. --Aude (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to bring your attention to that there is a discussion going on regarding this article with myself and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DFS454 The article was tagged with a Hang On and was not subject to a speedy deletion. Please advice. --Drewie123 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you can provide me links to several news stories or other reliable sources that establish the significance of the topic, then I will consider restoring the article. Note that blogs and other such sources are not regarded as reliable. --Aude (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I keep tabs on the On thin ice article and saw that there has been a bit of fishy activity going on at it that I don't fully understand. I'm asking you about it because you were the last person to revert the vandalistic edits of User:Buriflex on the article. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I have some questions about what is happening. Did he put the article up for speedy deletion? If so, how can I tell next time (looking at the history doesn't make it too clear until you declined it)? Also, why hasn't this guy been warned for vandalism since his basically blanking the article had to be reverted 2 times on the 19th along with declining the speedy deletion? I just want a bit of advice if you can help! SMSpivey (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

See #le voyage d'inuk above on my talk page. "On thin ice" is another name for the film, which is net yet released. There is discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Voyage D'Inuk, which seems to have no consensus right now. If the article is kept, then I suppose a hatnote disambiguation link could go on the top of the page or another way of disambiguating the pages. --Aude (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I was certainly confused. SMSpivey (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Portal:Sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. B (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

about Jimbo's talk page. Interesting times.--ragesoss (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made the change you suggested, but I'd very much like to see the {{Imagequote}} template work properly. I'm curious to know if other pages using it also give you problems. Which browser are you using? (I looked at it with IE, Netscape, and Firefox on my Windows XP machine here at school, with no problems. And I use FireFox on my Mac at home, with no problems.) Do you have CSS or JavaScript turned off or some such? Scartol • Tok 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm playing around with the settings on my alternative account, changing the skin to modern (still okay), then adding my css styles (still okay), and adding my JavaScript (also okay). Then, I changed my image size preferences (to 300px) and the imagequote broke, in that it does not indent at all on this version [5] of the article. At 250px, it also does not indent. This problem also appears with monobook (w/o my css and js customizations). See screenshot to the right. Aude2 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm using Firefox (and Safari on my iPhone) on Windows XP. I'm trying now with Internet Explorer. Aude2 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The blockquote also doesn't indent on Internet Explorer, though the font size is slightly smaller. I could make a copy of the template and play around with the css settings. I think instead of using the "blockquote" html tag, it should use either the "div" tag or ordinary wiki table markup. Aude2 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{Imagequote2}} template appears to work okay with the left-aligned image, though the font-size is no different than ordinary text. See User:Aude2/Sandbox. If you want to use that, along with the original image, that would be okay. Just be sure to clearly label the image with a good caption. I do think the new image chosen is more clearly recognizable as Hitler, with the mustache and the swastika. Aude2 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You requested CheckUser on this case, but failed to specify the relevant code letter to justify running a CheckUser. Before a clerk can endorse the case for a CheckUser to process, you need to justify it. Many thanks Mayalld (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

--Dravecky (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Hostsfile-entry.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to say, that I'm disappointed that you, as an administrator, would have originally created an image like this that is clearly pushing a bias and adding it to the Hosts file where it wasn't needed. I'm even more disappointed that you restored it. While the original anonymous user was more than a bit rude in the language they used while removing it, they were very clearly right on the facts. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe the image is useful in explaining about the topic. Through asking at the reference desk, I found out that Spybot - Search & Destroy populated my hosts file. Maybe the caption can be modified to explain that. I don't understand how Spybot chooses what to list in the hosts file, but I assume Spybot found adware or something. --Aude (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aude, I think you might be able to help on the talk page of the WTC collapse article. I'm curious to know whether the error can/will be fixed.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will take a look sometime over the weekend. Though, I'm taking a "wikibreak" from articles related to the 9/11 attacks, while I work on other things. --Aude (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know the feeling. Anyway, it looks like Peter Grey has solved the problem at least temporarily [6]. It's not the most informative solution to the problem, but at least the article doesn't say anything false on this point right now.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Update: looks like MONGO has taken the issue back to square one.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I doon't have any scripting tooools, so I will let you undoo everything. Thanks for the quick bloock and starting the mooves back. --KP Botany (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I blanked one of the redirects, before I realized you can just delete them all when you're done with the moves. Again, thanks for all the work. --KP Botany (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the pages are all moved back, and I can delete the redirects. --Aude (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

 Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's.Sloane (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been reading the criteria for "quality images" and wanted to ask you if this would be eligible? Gracias. APK has a crush on Brandon Stoughton 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't have much knowledge of how quality images are judged, but suggest asking User:Durova for her advice, as she has expertise with Library of Congress images, the featured picture process, and likely knows about quality images. From what I see at full resolution, I do notice some specks of dust that might (I'm not sure) need to be cleaned up. Aside from minor things like that, I'm very impressed with the image. At first glance, it looks like a photo taken recently, with the full color, but I see that the photo was taken in 1940. Certainly that part of the city is completely different today. The image would definitely add "encyclopedic" value to Wikipedia articles, and I see that the image is a work of the government so there are no copyright issues. --Aude (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the tips. I'll contact Durova and try to clean up the pic. APK has a crush on Brandon Stoughton 23:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply