User talk:Jclemens: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Wikipedia obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

The article The Wolf and the Lion you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Wolf and the Lion for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And will I have to wait 3+ months again, or will you re-review it as soon as the feedback has been addressed? Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make sure that articles met the GA criteria before nominating, if you cannot recognise very poor prose then seek out someone to copy-edit. Then take it to peer review. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By agreeing to review the article, you agreed to use appropriate processes to do so, which are the basis on which I have a reasonable expectation of actionable feedback. Please articulate which of the quick fail criteria apply (hint: none do), provide a detailed review, or place the article back in the queue so someone else can review it who will actually do a detailed review. Thanks, Jclemens-public (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree with you, that shouldn't have been a quick fail. Sure, the prose is pretty ropey in places, but that can be easily fixed within the span of the customary 7-day holding period. I'm afraid that you may have fallen foul of the latest drive to reduce the GAN backlog. We can't do much about the failed review, that's done and dusted, but if you re-nominate at GAN then I'll pick up the review. It may still end up not being listed, but at the very least I'll give you something to work on. I don't watch the GA nominations, so if you decide to go down that path then let me know on my talk page. On the other hand I can be a rather demanding reviewer, so you may prefer someone else; I just thought I'd offer to help. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Malleus. I would be pleased to have you as a reviewer: I'm relatively certain I've not reviewed any GAs for you or vice versa, but word on the street is that you excel at it. Would you mind if I actually delayed taking you up on this for until I get back from a short trip and I can make sure ArbCom election drama has died down a bit, so I can actually fix some things both before and after the review? Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, there's no rush. Just let me know when you're ready to rock and roll. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will be a couple of days now... I've just gotten one passed, and one more currently on review. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Malleus, it's been re-nom'ed and I've started poking about working on things that other reviewers have commented on with respect to other articles in the series. Your input is welcome at any time. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at them - read all the damn books and watched the miniseries...and if GRRM takes another five years to write the next one, I will be.........very.......unhappy......Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have HBO, so I only saw the pilot so far. FWIW, I doubt he will ever finish the next book. He's completely lost touch with the characters, and the fifth book was a disaster. I can elaborate on why if you like, but that's more like an after-dinner conversation than a Wikipedia-relevant topic. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I've left you some homework for The Wolf and the Lion...not a huge amount of work...check it out anyway. I was going to do Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) as well, but it only has 3 footnotes. That needs alot more work, both in referencing and embellishing some bits - can we find some more commentary from GRRM or directors, actors, reviewers about the episode? It'd really help. I am mentioning this as I think it might take alot of work and be good to do it before someone starts a seven day timer ticking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you're trawling through references, would it help to have another article reviewed at the same time, or would you prefer to focus on one at a time? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, there is a challenge with respect to sourcing, which I had been planning on standardizing a good bit more throughout the process. I'll be able to address this feedback a little later on today, I believe. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm working through the feedback. It would be nice if that foundation-inspired WYSIWYG editing environment allowed me to more easily cut and paste between different pages. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten a little bit stalled on this, but it's not off my radar. I'm moving, again, this weekend--this time with my family, so it's a wee bit more complicated. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commit to getting this done within the next three days (by Sunday evening, my time, in other words). Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I finished off the 4 citation tags and added a "header" to the plot section. I can do other stuff as needed, and will as part of the GT quest... :-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, but it appears to have been shut down before I got a chance to look at it. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked for that? Boy, I wish you'd been around when people were adding claims about George Soros cited to sources that called him a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" and paragraphs about politicians cited to press releases from organizations that campaign against them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP has gotten a lot more serious as things have moved from a dinky little website full of IPC content. The guy got a personally tailored warning, and then tried a different way of abusing sourcing, which was just not cool. As of now, if he's one of the regular customers in LGBT issues (Benjiboi, Otto4711, or WikiManOne), he'll probably abandon the account now that it has a block in the log. If he's not, he'll either give up and leave (unfortunate, but not altogether avoidable), or pay a lot more attention to sourcing BLPs. I'm sure there's sourcing out there to support his desired reading--but knowingly introducing article mismatch and then deleting a reference so that reference will no longer conflict with the desired reading are both not cool. And, for the record, I'd be more assertive on Soros if that nonsense were happening today and he was on my watchlist. Nonsense like that deserves an immediate indef, with unblock only after acknowledging the BLP policies and at least mouthing intent to comply. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify - the Soros thing was a couple of months ago and the press releases were a few weeks ago. :/ It's not really a sitewide strengthening of BLP - it's just that different people have different views on where it applies. Or so it seems to me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, you see that sort of shenanigans on any page, no matter where on the political spectrum, and it isn't getting dealt with appropriately, come here and let me know about it, and I'll apply the same sort of swift kick. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussion on his talk page, I think we should unblock him and hope this has been a valuable lesson. -- Luk ^talk 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Note this review will be claimed as part of the 2012 WikiCup. Review page is at Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA2. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will address the feedback this weekend. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around whether time to post evidence could be extended and whether subpages are permissible for extensive evidence. Some editors me included posted evidence close or slightly after the deadline making it impossible for others to rebut the evidence. In my case I decided to post late in the day and realize I didn't give much time for Doc James to deal with the evidence against him. A definitive statement from the drafting arbs on whether the deadline for posting evidence has been extended and whether evidence can be linked to on subpages might settle the environment on that arbitration which is ever so slightly starting to look like at three ring circus. I can't speak for anyone else but I'd be happy to give editors extra time to reply to my evidence. (olive (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. the issue has been resolved.(olive (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Why is there evidence against Doc James? He is not a party to the case.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James saw fit to post and his evidence was being closely scrutinized by an arb, I believe Doc's neutrality is in question per multiple biased edits he made most of which I did not post. Doc also came very close to outing TG and certainly harassing him. If the arbs feel my evidence is unwarranted, I will happily remove it. That's all I have to say on the matter unless an arb has questions, directives or comments.(olive (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

What do the arbs think about adding evidence regarding non-parties?   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the original, I could understand the nomination... specially as coverage under its Serbian title of Jelenin svet was so limited. I greatly appreciate it when a nominator reverses himself upon article improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has already been done. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Always fun to bring articles into the fold. 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. On November 28, as Anythingyouwant was leaving in a huff, he asked you to fully protect his user and talk pages. You said you'd rather have an uninvolved admin do this than do it yourself. I obliged on December 15, so these pages are now indefinitely fully protected. I wanted to check with you to see if you still feel this protection should be kept up. I know WP:UPROT says that "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected due to retirement is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page" — but I figure you had your reasons in this case. — Richwales 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, I don't really care one way or the other. I just think Anythingyouwant's wishes should be honored to the greatest extent consistent with policy--I didn't mean to authorize (as if I held any particular authority to do so...) deviation from them, and any implication to that effect was a misstatement on my part. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. :-) OK, then, I'll unprotect his talk page, but I'll keep an eye on it (it's on my watch list). If anyone posts anything on it, I'll point out that he's retired. — Richwales 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I don't agree with all of them I thought it was really good that you made so many comments on the Muhammad workshop. Good job. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Working out consensus--or trying to--offline was part of the delay in the Abortion decision, which I was justly criticized for during the reelection cycle, so I've been making a concerted effort to participate in the workshop page. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you are commenting, but am concerned that you seem to be weighing in on the content side of things, when it was my understanding that arbitrators were supposed to be more focused on user conduct. If you would like to be involved with the content decisions, you are of course welcome, but perhaps not as an arbitrator? --Elonka 06:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is pointing out how the article differs from other articles on similar topics a content decision? I think there's enough evidence to support a FoF that Muhammad has already been handled in a way no similar historical figure article has been handled. While Arbcom never decides content, it might well be within our remit to put the question to a binding community RfC: is a LOCALCONSENSUS at odds with how deceased individuals who are of historical significance are portrayed to be allowed to continue? Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a community-wide RfC, as long as it is framed properly (i.e., just having an RfC "should biographies have images" isn't likely to produce useful commentary). But my question for you though, is as to the purpose of the case. Is it open so that ArbCom can decide how the content should be handled? Or to review the behavior of the editors involved in the dispute, to see who may have been blocking consensus or behaving inappropriately? --Elonka 07:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the primary focus is on user conduct, as are our remedies, how far a particular dispute has drifted from community expectations and norms is always a valid question, IMHO, with which to frame the discussion. In this particular case, pointing the discrepancies out is as much a part of the dispute resolution process as cutting through the indefensible policy interpretations set forth by the disputants. The closest ArbCom comes to deciding how content is handled is by 1) binding RfCs, essentially forcing the community to choose, or 2) (topic) banning enough participants from one side of a dispute for their own behavioral deficits such that swaying the outcome becomes a side effect. While 2) is never a goal, neither does ArbCom artificially attempt to "balance" bans based on "sides" in a dispute: if all or a majority of the people on one side of a debate have been disruptively editing a topic, for example, while those who disagree have been civil and following community behavioral expectations, that will likely end in a de facto consensus shift after the decision is implemented. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was just pointing out that I was getting uncomfortable with how your comments seemed to be veering more into content opinions, than I would normally expect from an arbitrator who was supposed to be reviewing things in a neutral manner. --Elonka 16:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't followed the Muhammad case, this does tie into a similar concern I had about the TimidGuy ban appeal case. There, the Arbs seem to be doing neither 1) nor 2) above, but rather using an "analysis of evidence" section to weigh in on which particular aspects of a specific source should be emphasized in an article. I agree with Elonka, in that if an Arb wants to get involved in the details of content and sourcing then they need to take off their Arb hat and act as a regular editor. That's always been expected of admins, but it seems like the line is getting blurred a bit at the ArbCom level. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tightrope walking a line between reviewing how editors are using sources and making content-related comments. I agree arbs need to be careful. I haven't looked much at Muhammad yet and will do so soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluate content all the time, because arguments about content are advanced by parties. I'm trying to be as transparent as possible, but there is a difference between arbcom deciding about content (we do not, and should not), and individual arbitrators having opinions on content matters (we do, and should). I make no pretense that I come to the "Muhammad images" case with a tabula rasa view of image policy. Quite the contrary, in fact. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon has revealed several times that the reason Alan Tudyk's character was killed in Serenity was because he couldn't commit to sequels. Same for Ron Glass. This actually threatened the deal going through, so the only solution was to kill off those characters, and so prove to Universal that sequels could be locked before production on the first film began. (Joss explains this here: [Joss Whedon Experience 2010]) That doesn't mean Tudyk and Glass wouldn't have reprised their roles, it just means that if Universal didn't want to negotiate a deal with them, the sequels could still go ahead. In Whedon's original "Kitchen Sink" 190 page script, it's the exact same story, but everyone survives at the end. Don't get too miffed with the actors, though, it was Fox that put everyone in this position. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joss on killing characters (from the video): "The practical reality of the thing is sometimes a factor. It was with Alan [Tudyk], and I don't think is a big secret anymore, [but] there was trouble in the deal-making, and the idea of killing him from [that]. 'Well, you know. If he doesn't want to be attatched to a sequel... and the contract... Can't you kill him?'" As I say, the deal with Universal was in jepoardy if Joss couldn't lock down sequels for them. If Tudyk didn't have such a great career, he'd probably have happily signed on for sequels, and the idea of killing Wash probably never would have been considered. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, readd that with the quote in the reference, and cite it to that time so that people who have the BluRay can view it. On the other hand, it would be nice if there was a source in print. Mind you, this contradicts what Joss had said on other occasions about why Wash was killed. That doesn't mean that it can't also be true, of course... Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by Joss in the video, it was once considered a "big secret", so that would explain why he contradicted himself. Joss has contradicted himself MANY MANY times over the years, in order to tow the company line. Another example is in Buffy: On the DVDs he states that it was his idea to give David Boreanaz a spin-off: "It was in this scene, where David really brought depth and emotion, that I began thinking he could carry his own show". It's, of course, very well known that the WB asked for a spin-off show to be made, and that Whedon would have permanently killed off the character at the end of Season 2 if they hadn't been asked to create one during that season. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J, I'd appreciate a response to this post. I'm sure you just missed it in the crush, but I've had too many experiences in this dispute with other editors sidestepping rational arguments that they dislike. It's frustrating to try to have a discussion where editors ignore every reasonable thing I say and harp endlessly on every perceived slight they can dig out of diffs, and it would be nice to change that dynamic. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. I could dig out the diffs, but I said elsewhere on the workshop page that I believe that POV images can indeed be balanced by other images, contra someone else's (yours?) assertion. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I must have missed it. I'll hunt it down and see what it says. --Ludwigs2 03:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've started the review for The Pointy End. I haven't taken a thorough look at the article yet, but I left some preliminary comments on the review page. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I will be working on GA feedback on multiple articles from that series this weekend. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a busy weekend! It's really good to see a member of Arbcom actively working on improving the site's content. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I try and balance my time between the behind-the-scenes work, and working on things that interest me. I volunteered for advanced responsibilities because I believe in the project, not out of some personal desire for power or responsibility. I get plenty of each in my real life... Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I only got to 2 of the 3 GA reviews I had pending this weekend. I've asked Sandstein to help out, and I see that he has done some work. I will try to get to the rest of the feedback during the upcoming week. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jclemens, how should I deal with the IP user who is harassing me on my talk page? [1] Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week, if he IP hops we can semi-protect your page. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the blatant sockpuppetry going on at the talk page of NPA, I have opened an SPI for all of those users, but not including the IP.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) OK, I'll get to that, too. For those of you waiting for my GA article improvement, please note the delay... Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you more, but a new round of socks is coming tonight. A rangeblock appears necessary considering that autoblock isn't stopping it.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A rangeblock is probably not practical. Have you filed an additional SPI? Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same SPI here, with DMacks and I commenting after the closure of it.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see that WT:NPA has been protected for now, so I think the issue is going to be one of playing whack-a-sock until the guy gets bored and goes away, since the IP addresses use vary quite widely. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main NPA page (WP:NPA) also needs protection since the socking has now moved there.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected for something like a day. We'll see if longer protection is needed tomorrow night.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may've noticed, I've just started an amendment thread about Mathsci's behavior toward and about me. However, AGK has raised concerns about whether an amendment thread was the best way to handle the issue. As I said to AGK in the amendment thread, I don't think going to AE is a good idea. In retrospect I'm unsure if I should've come to you about this initially, since you warned Mathsci about this specific issue pretty recently ([2]). I'm unsure of where's the best place to deal with this, so I was wondering if you had any idea of what should happen if he were to do what you warned him about again (which he did). Any help or advice would be appreciated. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a "best place" to deal with the issue. I will say that we're looking to clarify behavioral expectations of editors related to off-wiki conduct in one of our active cases, which may shed some light on these sorts of issues, but that may not be timely enough. Someone from Arbcom will be in touch. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Hipocrite be asking me to confirm the accuracy of off-wiki information about another editor in public? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The limited consensus of arbitrators who've opined on the matter agree that you should not feel compelled to answer that question. No guidelines exist to prohibit the asking such of a question, but we may make it more clear that asking questions which the recipient is not obligated to answer is not appropriate, and that editors who have concerns should direct them to ArbCom, who are chartered to deal with such private information and associated issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict is continuing to escalate. Mathsci is now trying to get me blocked at AE, and in the amendment thread, editors are calling for me to be site-banned and are repeating the same claims about me that Mathsci has been making. None of these people are uninvolved, and I complained about basically the same thing from two of them in my original statement in the R&I case almost two years ago. I think this shows why I'd like this conflict to be handled by Arbcom rather than by the community. It doesn't seem possible for me to make any request that others see as related to R&I, no matter how tangentially, without it resulting in this. It would be really helpful if rather than Arbcom allowing this to continue spreading to other users and forums, an arbitrator who's familiar with all aspects of the situation could take the initiative and propose a remedy that would finally resolve this dispute for good. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the image of Jesse Dirkhising. I never understood why it was deleted in the first place. Caden ^cool 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that I didn't restore it myself, but rather was one of the administrators who opined that keeping photos of notable murder victims, including Dirkhising, was entirely consistent with and respectful of the laws concerning fair use and copyright. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]