User:Zzyzx11/Archive21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Giants

You should also know that the New York Giants were named after the San Francisco Giants. The San Francisco/New York Giants were around for almost 50 years before the football team was established. Regardless of which team won the last Super Bowl or World Series, it does not change the fact that the New York Giants (Football) were named after the New York Giants (Baseball). So to answer your question, one does have priority over the other.

According to Wikipedia's policies, it is based on which one is more commonly searched for not based on whether which one was established first. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mall Police

Please head on over to my talk username mall police to chat of such topic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mall Police (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Bears seasons at WP:FLRC

You are one of the leading editors of Chicago Bears. Chicago Bears seasons has been listed at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Chicago Bears seasons for removal from the set of featured lists under the WP:FLRC procedures. I am not sure who to turn to, but the original WP:FLC nominator is unable to save the article. I hope you will consider responding to the discussion page issues and save the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anniversaries

I've responded to your message on the Anniversary talk page. Nalco (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just answered. Sorry for the delay, but as stated above this page, "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be anal

Thanks for moving that, forgot the Wikipedia part. Can you look at this? I have no idea what it means. Else they got the reason wrong. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the automated message generated by the Twinkle script by someone else who tagged it for speedy deletion. Because I moved it, I think you can basically ignore it. I think we all have been a little trigger happy, because I was wrong in making these deletions because a redirect from the main article namespace to the Wikipedia namespace is currently not covered under WP:CSD (only to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks again (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area roll call

Hello from WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on bay area related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

As well as the existing pages:

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! -Optigan13 (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I nominated a redirect that you requested a speedy for

See RFD for Don't be anal. Your comment is welcome. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This page was speedy deleted by User:Dreadstar at 20:04, 17 August 2008 UTC[1] Deleting admin cited WP:CNR, which is currently a moderately controversial essay, not a deletion policy, although "general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects should be deleted" (emphasis added). This admin is the opinion that if something is not policy, then the "When in doubt, don't speedy delete" rule applies. However, the page is only minor that a WP:DRV request is not need at this time, based on the reason cited in the RFD discussion that an actual article on the phrase "Don't be anal" may be needed in the future. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your wise comment. I happen to agree hearthfully with WP:CNR, altought I have argued occassionally for the preservation of certain redirects that were really uselful to wikipedia, like WP:GURCH. Basically, CNRs are evil :) , but they are OK when there is a justified use for them. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2008-08-26

Thanks for picking up the slack. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

succession boxes in superdome article

Hey, Zzyzx11. Thanks for reverting the succession boxes in that article. That was a test as part of this discussion at WP:SBS that did not reach a consensus. I appreciate your cleaning that up. Best wishes. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Roll call and Coordinator nominations

It's that time of year again – we're wiping everyone's name off of the active members list and doing a project roll call. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. You can also add your name to any of our many task forces!

It's also time to start the WikiProject Films coordinator selection process! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Indianapolis Colts helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Indianapolis Colts helmet rightface.png. 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) 05:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

image was previously removed by vandalism Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note),

- DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ).Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pittsburgh Steelers helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pittsburgh Steelers helmet rightface.png. 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) 05:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

image was previously removed from designated article by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject California roll call

Hello from WikiProject California!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

As well as the existing pages:

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ouellet_approaches_to_sign_the_Constitution.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ouellet_approaches_to_sign_the_Constitution.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Nard 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted in my comments on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 10#Image:Ouellet approaches to sign the Constitution.jpg, the version that was originally uploaded here locally by myself at 00:47, 1 August 2006 UTC was a {{c-uploaded}} image, temporary for main page protection. The admin who undeleted and restored it, User:Rmhermen at 18:57, 9 July 2008, – or any other user who voted to keep the image – should be responsible for providing a fair use rationale. I do not care whether it is kept or not. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 6 (FINAL ISSUE)


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 6 • 8 September 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Gap appears in freeway New York subproject appears on the Wikipedia Signpost New York State Routes leaves jurisdiction of USRD From the editors—newsletter decommissioned	State and national updates State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Rschen7754bot (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cleveland Browns helmet leftface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cleveland Browns helmet leftface.png. 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) 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not care if it is deleted or not. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

September 18

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 18#Chiropractic history because the discussion pertains to the content of that particular page, which appears annually on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo, Zzyzx11...

Can you see about killing off that redirect from "2009 Major League Baseball season" to "2009 in baseball" as I have some basic info about the length of schedule, tenative post season, All-Star Game and new stadia in NYC... NoseNuggets (talk) 3:18 PM US EDT Sept 18 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

September 22

Hi, I put a comment on the talk page about Iran–Iraq War and I think it is deserved to be put on the main page.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:St Louis Rams helmet old.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:St Louis Rams helmet old.png. 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) 06:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:St Louis Rams helmet LA.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:St Louis Rams helmet LA.png. 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) 06:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:St. Louis Rams helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:St. Louis Rams helmet rightface.png. 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) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bucs set sail.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bucs set sail.gif. 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) 10:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image was replaced with Image:Bucs set sail.png. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Afc-championship2005.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Afc-championship2005.gif. 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) 11:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image was replaced by Image:Afc-championship2005.png. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nfc-championship2005.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nfc-championship2005.gif. 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) 11:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image was replaced by Image:Nfc-championship2005.png. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pine Hill, California

Regrettably your reverts got in the middle of my edits. I can see why cut an paste is not desirable. However, the issue is still in error. The editor that you noted my conflict with cited Lisco, Nebraska as the example to follow and then undid my work in contradiction with his own example. Are you guys willing to let this error stand because of the incorrect US Census name? Why not at least follow the Nebraska example and use the correct name (I provide the County of Humboldt as proof) for the article and use the bold incorrect pluralization of the community to begin the text of the article? Thank you for your time. Norcalal 06:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The policies on the cutting and pasting of the article is pretty much an objective rule because as stated on Help:Moving a page, "The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires".

If you had simply used the move page function as you did earlier,[2] (and since at the time before your edit,[3] you could have done so as a normal user because it was just a redirect to the old title, with just one line in the page history), I probably would not have stepped in and reverted your action.

On the issue in dispute: As I stated elsewhere on that talk page, I do not care exactly what the article should be named. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) does not specifically address whether an article on a CDP should use the official name used by the U.S. Census Bureau, or the local convention and spelling. All I originally saw was that you and another editor were almost on the verge of an edit war. But I am glad that you followed my recommendation and posted a request on WP:RM. At least there is another editor who offered an alternative: leave one article about the CDP, and create another one on the community itself – because the community may not encompass the entire territory that the Census Bureau defines as the CDP. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:ElectionsCA

Thank you so much for your edit to Template:ElectionsCA! I was looking for someone to help out with making it collapsible, and you come out of the blue like a fairy godmother. Again, thank you. – Zntrip 21:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Philadelphia Eagles helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Philadelphia Eagles helmet rightface.png. 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) 05:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Main page images

I know that you are busy, and very experienced at images on the Main Page, but you forgot to protect commons:Image:Odwalla HQ.JPG (Image:Odwalla HQ.JPG) which meant that any vandal could have got a dodgy picture for the TFA! Just a little reminder to remember to do it next time. ;) Regards. Woody (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So you mean that User:MPUploadBot is not doing what I thought what is was suppose to do? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not in this case apparently. Hasn't edited today. Perhaps bring it up with the operator? I was unaware of the existence of the bot. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, what you just did by just saving a tag on the image description page here locally does not help because it is still getting the image from Commons, which is was unprotected there (I just protected it, just now there). You either have to save the image directly on Commons (if you are an admin there) or actually save and upload the image locally on Wikipedia here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, I had just noticed that, but then noticed you had protected it over at Commons so no need now. Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Colours on Villa lists

I have made some edits to the Aston Villa F.C. players list; can you make sure that it is acceptable please? In terms of the Aston Villa F.C. seasons list, I am not seeing where anything is portrayed by colour that isn't in the text anyway. The gold is merely emphasising that they are winners, and the same for the runners-up grey, it is emphasis and not highlighting anything not in the text already. The promoted relegated is also highlighted by the bold in the division table so it is again a matter of emphasis and not portraying information not available elsewhere in the text. Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not see anything wrong with the gold and the grey colours indicating winners and runners-up. But at first glance, it seemed like the colours marking promotion and relegation did not comply since the "Division" column is 8 columns away from the "Pos" column, and the highlighting is not used on the same row as the corresponding bolding. Normally I (and probably many other users) would expect that the alternate text method would be in the same table cell, row or column – not go 8 columns to the left and one row down – which makes it harder to find it. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween 2008

Hi Zzyzx11. Please expand the news tip at Wikipedia Signpost regarding POTD's Halloween 2008 post. Also, should Template:POTD protected/2008-10-31 be protected? -- Suntag ☼ 17:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your post on WP:TIPLINE seems sufficient.
It was protected, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Cascading protection.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

request for third opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [4], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

O'halloran

Any reason you got rid of the changes to Dan O'hallorans pages? [Statement removed due to violation of WP:GRAPEVINE on talk pages] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.95.17 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. You did not provide a citation to third party references. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject San Francisco 49ers

Hello fellow Wikipedian! I just wanted to let you know that WikiProject San Francisco 49ers is looking for participants who are interested in improving the quality of the articles on the San Francisco 49ers! If you want to help, you can add your name to our list of participants, check out our to-do list, and most importantly, improve the articles!

removal of images in NFL Draft pages

Your opinion of "looks like an unprofesisonal, poor man's version of the NFL logo on mirror sites" is just that and Opinion. and your blanket removal of the image is un-sportsman like especially considering your level of contribution within the series of draft pages. This MASS removal is really the kind of thing that would generally be discussed on the projects discussion page.Slysplace ^talk ^♫ 23:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith as I was being bold. Where was it discussed previously to add this image, designed primarily to be the logo of WP:NFL, in the main namespace as an image placeholder? If you yourself were just being bold in adding it without any type of discussion, I see no reason to not be bold and remove it – regardless of how many pages are affected. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a project-approved template for draft pages that uses that logo.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll restore it for now ... give me about 20 minutes while I finish what I'm currently doing by removing some images that do comply with rule 10 of WP:FUC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the images should go back up. It is pretty bad. Just bring up the topic at WP:NFL and get some consensus.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Sorry for any troubles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bold is always good IMO specifically to individual articles. I'll point out that the discussion pages for each of these articles / lists which use the image have requests for more appropriate art, creating a new image rather than deleting the existing would have been bold. Thank you for your reconsideration. Slysplace ^talk ^♫ 13:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

I just need to say this somewhere... The use of copyrighted images on WP is so convoluted that it's mind boggling. Take the removal of HeismanTrophyLogo.png from every single draft page because there was no listed fair use rationale for the article (or list), however it would be very simple to add one. Take the usage of the real NFL Logo on 4 separate pages (including a list), any user could easily add the same identical fair use rationale for any article and it would go un- noticed. Quite the riddle isn't it? Which scenario really adheres to the guidelines / rules / policies of the wiki? Copyrighted images are everywhere because someone simply stated "Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:" [5] Any insight or suggestions? Slysplace ^talk ^♫ 01:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see it as "a riddle". Some of the rules on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria are fairly objective – black and white – either they pass or don't. Other rules are more subjective and have been historically been debated extensively, so much to the point that some are unwilling to strictly enforce it like me.

One objective rule on WP:FUC is #10, the rule I applied when I removed Image:HeismanTrophyLogo.png on those article. Because that image description page lacked any type of rationale, it could not be used on those articles.

But perhaps the most hotly debated subjective rule on WP:FUC, or in fact anywhere on Wikipedia, is rule #8: "Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." There have been so many hotly contested debates on how to judge "significance", that some users including me have been reluctant to enforce it. These debates are like dealing with different Supreme Court justices who either want to strictly enforce the rules by requiring very detailed explanations or who are only looking for anything reasonable.

It is this issue of significance that the fair use rationale on each image page is suppose to explain. Take the 1936 NFL Draft article: If I was enforcing rule #8, I would read the fair use rationale and wonder, "What significance does the 2008 version of the NFL logo have to do with something what happened in 1936?" and would remove it immediately.

So to sum up, one reason why "any user could easily add the same identical fair use rationale for any article and it would go un- noticed" is that there are some like me who decline to strictly enforce the hotly debated subjective rule #8.

Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank's, and I'll just chalk this edit [6] up as understood and fair enough. Happy editing Slysplace ^talk ^♫ 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For one example of those hotly debated discussions now archived, see Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 2#Clarification on use of sports team logos, which occurred in 2006. In one corner ... those that feel that just mentioning the entity name in the article is sufficient ... like the media organizations do. In the other corner ... the more strict interpreters of rule #8 ... either it must be the logo of the subject or the article, or the logo itself is specifically discussed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Can Wikipedia:POTD row/August 3, 2006 be unprotected now? No need to reply, just unprotect it if appropriate, otherwise leave it be. 58.8.240.51 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Before the Cascading protection feature was implemented, the main page templates like this one had to be protected manually. Of course, back then there was no urgent need to unprotect them after they fell off the main page. Is there some reason to unprotect that specific one? If you want to make an edit like this one, keep in mind that it is recommended that you do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Stanley Cup Playoffs

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Stanley Cup Playoffs, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Stanley Cup Playoffs has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Stanley Cup Playoffs, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

All content was moved a few days ago to Category:Stanley Cup playoffs in a speedy renaming (lowercase "p" in "Playoffs") as per WP:NAME#Lowercase. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

- Thumbs up on the above category deletion. It just had me confused. It looks like it just got manually emptied and then deleted immediately, but as long as someone's minding the store over the rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Selected Anniversaries *mp template

Hi.. you've responded to both of my editprotected requests on Selected Anniversaries templates, so I decided to ask you this question. I see now why the end li tag is needed, but why is the {{*mp}} template even needed at all? If you look at the talk page of that template, the link to the bug report shows the status as resolved, so why is the template still in use? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have my guesses, but the one that probably is most likely is the historical inertia of the formatting of the main page, much like why the Main Page in still in the main namespace. Since being created in 2006,[7] {{*mp}} is currently used on all 365 SA templates; In The News; and Did You Know and its next update pages. Nobody has bothered to make a major effort to change it because, including me, feels like it is a very low priority to change what is a total of about 370 templates — especially when "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Another guess would be a possible concern about backward compatibility — how many users are still using old versions of Mozilla/Firefox without the bug fix?

Also, if you notice the source code on ITN, they are also using the template as a way to help mark the date of each event.

By the way, the end li tag is only used on SA pages for formatting purposes, so a carriage return essentially appears between the left-justified list of events and the left-justified "More events" footer line. It is not needed on ITN and DYK since those templates end with a right-justified footer.

Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful

Though I understand the need to edit my block, please be careful. You accidentally re-enabled the anon-only feature, which was intentionally disabled. It was funny that you did that after I accidentally re-enabled the ability for him to edit his own talk page. :-) --Deskana (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I realised that too. I do not know why the protection form does not auto-fill in the settings that are already enabled. Not a very good web usability. Might want to open up something on bugzilla. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Stain removers and removal

Given what you wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red wine stain remover about our needing an article on stain removers and stain removal, you might be interested in chiming in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stain removal, where editors' substitutes for fixing content and tone are, it appears, to nominate entire articles for deletion, based upon just 1 paragraph that they think is inappropriate (but that they have made zero effort to actually edit out themselves) and some vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Page error

Good work. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Super Bowl XLIV Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Super Bowl XLIV Logo.png. 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) 05:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

the replacement file is File:Super Bowl XLIV logo.svg Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Control cities box

Do we need the box listing control cities on California articles, such as Interstate 205? California is like, the only state that uses them, and that box was never sourced. It's probably better that you actually go and take a picture of the sign in Tracy, if you live around there. That'll probably satisfy people. (I'm from Southern California, so I can't do that.) -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably we do not really need the control cities lists on all the California articles because when you look at it, most of them are generally unsourced.

As sort of a roadgeek like me who has driven everywhere in California, and observed that CalTrans generally only posts control cities on the freeway mainlines at freeway junctions, I would not be shocked if a person from NoCal tried to remove the control cities table on the 170 article for the exact same reason.

So feel free to remove all of them, not just the 205. Especially if we want to maintain that standard for all of the U.S. roads and highway articles. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Super Bowl XLI.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Super Bowl XLI.png. 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) 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Replaced by File:Super Bowl XLI logo.svg Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion from Ulysses . . .

. . . was exactly the right thing to do.[8] Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not feel like I could do the alternative method described on WP:TRIVIA, try to integrate that content into the other sections, so I just removed it. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Super Bowl XLIII

On 2 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Super Bowl XLIII, which you helped update. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦^C 21:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN -> SA

Now that I have my first two WP:ITNs, I have to figure out how to get one of them into WP:SA. Is either Rod Blagojevich corruption charges or Inauguration of Barack Obama worthy of SA inclusion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to wait a year or two until the articles become more stable (see WP:RECENTISM). My guess is that any article about Obama is more likely to get posted next year because his story has more international interest since he is the first African-American to become U.S. President. Blagojevich probably comes across internationally as the average corrupt politician – nothing relatively out of the ordinary there. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tubman

Thank you for taking quick action on the misleading-at-best description of the Harriet Tubman PotD. :) ^L_Wizard @ 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

oops- superbowl template

Thanks for correcting my stupid error. I copied my sandbox version that has the trailer matter ripped out. Sorry. -J JMesserly (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Calender templates

Hi there. I noticed you tagged several templates like {{FebruaryCalender2004Source}} as T3 although some are still in use. I requested a bot to change those uses to the new template used but Anomie has further questions and as you tagged them, would you mind seeing if you can explain more there? Regards So Why 11:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Main page errors

"Sorry, I don't quite understand your request. The bolded piped link "biggest robbery" does currently point to the Securitas depot robbery article." It wasn't bolded when I complained. :) TJSwoboda (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I sort of realised that after the fact.[9] I am assuming good faith that (s)he corrected the error on his/her own without ever looking at WP:ERRORS. It is somewhat annoying when admins see a report on WP:ERRORS, make the correction, but do not edit WP:ERRORS afterwards. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

While I did make a suggestion that the control cities be removed, I didn't specifically ask you to remove all of them, but however thanks for attempting to fulfill my request. As of this point right now, I don't really care that the control cities were restored by User:I-210. My watchlist was flooded by these changes, so it's not like anybody didn't notice this change. I only requested that the control cities be removed because 1) they're unsourced, and 2) they leave a lot of blank space between the lead and the route description. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly, those boxes were the "standards" two years ago, [10] but not essential last year.[11] So that's why its not on Interstate 680 (California). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And no, you'll have to find when the box was removed on Interstate 780 yourself... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Roseland, California

I have a disagreement with Clab6 (talk · contribs · email) about whether Roseland should have an article distinct from Santa Rosa, California. I'd be grateful if you could provide us with a third-party perspective on the issue. If willing, please respond on Talk:Roseland, California. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded on that talk page. Short answer is all the articles in Category:Former census-designated places in California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't even known about that category. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:San Francisco 49ers Unused 1991.png

Thanks for uploading File:San Francisco 49ers Unused 1991.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge and plentiful reflists

Whoops. I see I left my debugging reflist in there. Good catch. - Denimadept (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

December 23rd on this day

Hi there, one of your edits on December 21st 2008 led to the loss of a the Byzantine fact. Could you please fix it and have it back? Thanks. Gabr-el 19:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit, right? The event was moved to the hidden section for backups. I do not remember why that was the case, or why it was not chosen to be the first one rotated in during that day,[12] but maybe it was because there have been too many events associated with wars and battles during that week, and so it was done for a change of pace. Looking at the page history, it was going to be the second one rotated in,[13] but was quickly reverted.[14]

In any case, because it is more than 9 months to December 23, IMO it is too early to tell which ones will eventually need to be hidden, including that one, when the time comes because their respective articles will be in poor shape. Of course, the templates are unprotected throughout most of the year so I cannot essentially stop you from moving it back to the visible area, right? Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:2006FinalFour.png)

Thanks for uploading File:2006FinalFour.png. 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) 05:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Replaced by File:2006 NCAA Men's Final Four logo.svg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIII editnotice

Hi zzyzx
Can {{Editnotices/Super Bowl XLIII}} be deleted again?
Cheers, Amalthea 10:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dito {{Editnotices/NFL playoffs, 2007–08}}. --Amalthea 10:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that the devs mandated that all-per-page editnotices be moved out of the MediaWiki namespace, and therefore the resulting redirects were also deleted, so I do not understand why they need to "be deleted again". Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My "again" was confusing, sorry for that. The two editnotices simply seem obsolete now, with the Play Off season over. If they are still useful then they can of course stay where they are!
Cheers, Amalthea 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit notice for NFL playoffs, 2007–08 may be deleted since the event happened over a year ago. But I see no harm in keeping the ones for NFL playoffs, 2008–09 and Super Bowl XLIII until the new season starts in September. They are the most recent games played, and thus still fresh in the minds of most American fans, including those who still might want to insert POV comments about the officiating or controversial calls. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly no harm, yes, I just thought that they had been forgotten. I'm going to delete the 07/08 one then, maybe you can remember to remove (or move) the other two once you create the notices for the new season.
The reason I was asking in the first place is because I'd rather keep them used on as few pages as possible; I'm afraid that if we put them on too many article's they'll loose their effect.
Thanks, and a happy Saint Patrick's Day (if that's celebrated at wherever you are from), Amalthea 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Seattle Seahawks helmet rightface.png

I saw your edit summary. I too saw that many (all?) other helmets were the size you reverted to. I do not think that simply because all the other helmets are the size you want makes it proper. In the 08:02, 2 November 2006 iteration of the image, you noted Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". I'd like to point out that even at the time you made that edit to the image, the page you cited for support of this action was marked as a proposed policy, not an actual policy. But, even using that as the baseline reference, we find it says "image resolution should be no more than the minimum necessary for the image to convey its information within the context of the Wikipedia article". In this smaller version, no details about the helmet are lost. The logo is clearly visible, it's clearly identifiable as the helmet of the Seattle Seahawks. In fact, it's so readily identifiable in that size that this is precisely the size that the article uses; 160px*106px. The purposes of the article are served by the image with the long side being 160px.

My position is that all these helmet images that exceed their target size for the article they are in are larger than necessary for the purposes of the article they exist in. I further cite Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3b where it notes that "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." (emphasis mine). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I should have reverted it all the way back to the original 06:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC) version or the 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) version. When Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" was being discussed three years ago, I did in fact expand all of those helmets from 130px in width to 400px in width. When that discussion became inactive, I felt there was no immediate urgency to revert those images back (especially when for the past four years I have been here contributing to Wikipedia, there seems to be always long, drawn out heated debates about what does and what does not qualify under WP:NFCC. I mean an issue brought up three years ago seems to be always be constantly discussed today).

The image that you reverted back to, the one with the shadow effect, was an image uploaded by User:Rick lay95 at 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC). I quickly reverted him at 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC), but back then the ability to add an edit summary to a file revert did not exist back then, and thus I could only make a comment about it on his talk page.[15] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, good luck in trying to enforce those subjective criteria like 3b and 8. Been there, done that. My position is that we need more input from the Wikimedia Foundation on such legal matters rather than the ~~armchair lawyers~~ community trying to decide what exactly is the amount of low-resolution/fidelity/bit rate that is sufficient enough to be legible on widescreen computer monitors, or what exactly is the degree of significance that an image is needed so readers understand of the topic of articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious About Barrack

How long has that been going on? I've seen redirects like that this morning and it's now past sunset where I am. -WarthogDemon 02:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like another one of those persistent vandals like Grawp that seem to want to run on dynamic IP addresses for most hours of the day. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It's times like these where I've wondered if I have a life outside the Internet, and its things like this where I find . . . I do. D: -WarthogDemon 02:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted a meesage on WP:ANI here if anybody knows how if the redirect can be successfully added to one of the blacklists for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A filter has now been posted using WP:FILTER, and it looks like the vandal has left the building for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

...then again, if he is persistent like Grawp, he'll come back doing some other type of vandalism ... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Filters

Please be careful. The filter you wrote prevented all new editors from writing any redirects at all. I quickly fixed it, but if you aren't sure about something please wait for help. Also, setting it to log-only at first is a good way to make sure it is doing what you intended before adding Disallow. Dragons flight (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your immediate changes. But do I still reserve the right to ask "If a vandal hits, is it better to and shoot first and ask questions later?" Don't I? :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is my growing list of what the bold "use" of the AbuseFilter has gotten us. The thing is powerful, and deserves some respect. Or to adopt your metaphor, shooting the vandal is fine (no discussion necessary), but please try to avoid firing indiscriminately into the crowd. Dragons flight (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If it would help, I would suggest putting some sort of large {{warning}} disclaimer on MediaWiki:Abusefilter-intro so it is very, very noticable. I admit that I failed to notice Werdna's line "PLEASE be careful. This is potent stuff". Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List of NFL champions

I have nominated List of NFL champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for moving Mary Woolstonecraft to the head of the list for April 27! I thought it was a rather special occasion (after all, a girl only has a 250th birthday once in her lifetime) but had no idea about the procedure for suggesting it for the main page. Thanks for spotting it, tweaking the wording, and increasing her prominence. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Mary; perhaps you do too? Now we can give her some birthday cake! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NHLEastConference.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:NHLEastConference.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kalel2007 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kalel2007 replaced it with a SVG version. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NHLWestConference.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:NHLWestConference.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kalel2007 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kalel2007 replaced it with a SVG version. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SuperBowlV.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:SuperBowlV.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kalel2007 (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Kalel2007 replaced it with a SVG version, File:Super Bowl V.svg. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

	Archives 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8 \| 9 \| 10 \| 11 \| 12 \| 13 \| 14 \| 15 \| 16 \| 17 \| 18 \| 19 \| 20 \| 21 \| 22 \| 23 \| 24 \| 25 \| 26 \| 27 \| 28 \| 29 \| 30 \| 31 \| 32 \| 33 \| 34
Current time: Tuesday, November 19, 2024, 07:23 (UTC) Last edit: November 18, 2024, 05:00 (UTC) by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk · contribs)