User talk:JYolkowski/Archive2

Talk archives: archive1

Sorry James, just got your note, I was just playing around ;) Didn't realize it would actually post! Anne ;) Cm.com

From the Author of solar analytics/geodetic astronomy

Hi James, Thank You, from skishows: author of solar analytics doctorate-thesis... it's an honor for me to be part of Wikipedia...

BC Rail

I just read the BC Rail featured article after seeing it on Main Page. Realizing that you were a major contributor, I just wanted to take a moment and compliment your efforts on a well-done and balanced Wikipedia article.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia, aka Vaoverland 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to commit on my nomination for adminship. Please be assured that I will bear your remarks in mind. I am sorry that you felt unable to support my nomination. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the trust that the community has placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Che Guevara in art

Hi I'm not sure art is the right template for Image:Famousphotoche.jpg as I didn't really intend for photos to be included, it creates difficulties in my opinion as how are we going to make a distinction between what is an art photo and what isn't? Cheers Arniep 02:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (Arnie587)

Hi like I said before how are we going to define the difference between a photo considered art and a photo not, I can see people taking advantage of any confusion and sticking any old photos in the category. I think it would be easier to change it back to plain fair use Arniep 16:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

DisneyCopyright

I created the Disney Copyright logo with the intention for that template. I understand if it doesn't fall under the fair use clause, but is there another way to use it there?

Corporate logos are widely used in "sub" templates, with the wide spread use I don't think there is much debate on it's use in that content. Using a logo to be used in a stub template wouldn't much different then what I attempted to do?

Image use on User page

Thanks for alerting me to the inappropriate use of a fair use image on my user page. I will not replace the image on the page. Having received and understood the message, I have also gone ahead and removed the template you placed on my user page. When I first placed the image, I was under the assumption that if an image could be used in Wikipedia at all, it could be used anywhere in Wikipedia. By one of those strange coincidences of timing, this very evening I had been researching Wikipedia:Fair use#Images, in conjunction with the Category:Images with unknown source project, and had noted this criterion: '"Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."' My user page not being critcal commentary, this gave me some qualms about the use of the picture, and I wondered if I should remove it, only to find within the half hour that someone else had just done so - after 2+ months of being on my page with no comment. So, how is that for coincidence? Anyway, thanks again for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, LiniShu 03:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the admin nod

I promise very hard not to let you or anyone else on Wikipedia down.  Denelson83  22:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fairuse

License is a verb. Licence is a noun. —Wereon 22:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair usage

Does that mean I must justify why it is fair use (therefore protecting Wikipedia's butt in court) by proving the following 4 points about an image?

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

--Bash 01:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be going through my contributions and properly providing a rationale for all of my tagged images. --Bash 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

About a picture I think you deleted

Hi, months ago there was a great picture on some article about the Venezuelan 2004 recall election. Today I couldn't find it, and after tracking it down it seems you deleted it with the comment "unused fair use". [1] The picture is still viewable here: [2]. I would like to re-add this picture and am currently looking into it's copyright status, but I would like to ask what your "unused fair use" comment means. Thanks. Gronky 01:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Where's the Wikipedia:Vandalism?

Thanks! --Peter

203.xxx

How does one block a range? Skyring is back again using the 203s (and the 141s). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "back" - I never left.

I learnt how to count up to 1023 on my fingers a long time ago, but I suspect that binary is beyond jtdirl. You might have to spell it out a bit more for him.

I can't say that range blocking is going to slow me down for more than a few seconds, because I've got easy access to a lot of ranges. It's just the way Telstra allocates IP numbers here in Canberra where nearly everyone in this baby boomer city uses broadand.

What bothers me a bit are things like this:

00:08, 22 October 2005, Lacrimosus blocked 139.168.157.40 (infinite) (contribs) (skyring puppet)

For me, I have the admin screen on my wireless router permanently open and I just grab a new address, but someone who doesn't know how to do this is going to be upset and puzzled and seek help when they get an undeserved block. Telstra's the biggest Internet provider in Australia, so you've got a lot of editors who are going to be caught by these things. Even more disturbing, when they ask to be unblocked, they are going to be suspected of being me and may cop a blast of mindless hatred.

Can we work out some way of minimising the inconvenience all round? --Pete

Hey, long time no see

Have a barnstar.

Take care, V M
23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

BC Rail

Skyring here. Couldn't help but notice your interest. Apart from anything else, I'd be interested in your advice.

I'm going to Toronto next April. If I can possibly swing it, I'll be taking the wife, and she's long had a desire to take that trip over the Rockies. I guess I have too, seeing as how I used to have a Triang train set with those "dome" cars. There seem to be two trips available, one using modern rolling stock, the other with classic 50s and 60s aluminium carriages - the very same ones my childhood train was modelled on. I'd be keen to hear comments on which service is better. I'm leaning towards the older ones, myself, but if they are hideously uncomfortable, my wife wouldn't be terribly happy!

Me, I can put up with any amount of discomfort for a great train ride!

I'm also without any significant writing project for the trip. It's my habit to keep a journal and to explore a theme for each long trip. Possibly the history of the area and the construction of the railway would do, but I'd have to know some of the significant sites along the way so I could recognise them when I came to them. If you can point me towards any books or good websites, again, I'd be grateful. --Peter

I replied on User talk:144.131.118.150. JYolkowski // talk 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! So the Canadian only goes westwards from Toronto? This seems bizarre. Don't the carriages pile up in Vancouver, or do they run them back at night when nobody's looking?

But if the CN route isn't as historic or scenic or comfortable as the CPR, then I suspect that my choice has been made for me. For something like this, I'd travel on a Round the World ticket, and I can go either direction, so flying to Vancouver, taking the train to Banff or wherever, and then flying on to Toronto (and then home via London or Paris) would be how I'd do it.

Thanks for this. The advice of someone who knows what they are talking about is priceless, and I can now focus my attention on the CPR. --Peter

The {twoversions} template is up for TfD again

FYI, the {twoversions} template is up for deletion again: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Twoversions. zen master T 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian Mckellen image

Hi just wondered why you prompted User talk:DrBat to nominate Image:Ian McKellen.jpg for deletion? It is a free commons image released under the GNU Free Documentation License? Arniep 00:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

fair enough Arniep 00:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright question re: lyrics

Hi there. I have a question about Wikipedia copyright policies, and have picked you arbitrarily as someone who has edited the copyright policy FAQ and is an admin. The question was sparked by Sunday Morning (song), which presents the full text of the lyrics to a song. It isn't alone (e.g., there are categories of songs by year). I haven't found copyright guidelines relating to lyrics in the WP policy pages and wonder: why would this count as fair use?

Can you answer that or perhaps point me to another admin/wikipedian? Thanks for your time, Throbblefoot 00:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Coincidentally, just as you cited Dylan as fair use, I compared the article in question with the "Mr. Tamborine Man" page to decide if the issue was worth raising. Throbblefoot 05:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Haukur's RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA and for the pithy remark you chose to do it with :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Joey Harrington

How is the photo on Joey Harrington critical commentary of a tv show? It just seems that the cricket people are tougher on images than other sports/articles in wikipedia Astrokey44 15:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

UK railway stations

Hi. This is just to let you know (in case you didn't get any other direct answers) that I've posted a reply to your query from last May about UK usage of the word "depot" on Chris_j_wood's talk page. -- Picapica 10:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Star Emblem

Thanks for fixing the permission template.--SarekOfVulcan 20:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

I have just been looking at images in Category:Fair use review requested. I must say your rationale for fair use of the image is excellent, but unfortunately the image has been picked up by numerous articles other than Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, nearly all of which are patently not fair use. I hate to revert Jimbo, but I am going to close the review wioth the conclusion that our use is not fair. I'll remove your fair use claims, and we'll just have to rely on the granted permissions. Snottygobble | Talk 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Helbern

Hi,

Nice work with the sock puppet accusation clean up.

PS. I've dropped a warning on User:Helbern. It's clearly a disposable account, so I doubt this is the end of this.  :-/

Regards, Ben Aveling 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

User Account

Hey thanks for unblocking my User Account. I don't think that it was fair of me to be blocked, as I am not using a cyrillic character to try and impersonate anyone. *grumble*Damn zero edit users taking my nick.*grumble* A 09:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA

JYolkowski, thanks for throwing your support into my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! bd2412 T 07:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your signature (and thanks for the courtesy you've always shown)

Hi, James! Sorry to read that you won't be here as much as before. You were the first admin I ever voted for, and I was struck by your courtesy and calmness at Terri Schiavo. The fact that my Wikipedia experience started there would have given me a very bad impression of Wikipedia if it hadn't been for people like you.

Anyway, I came to your page to drop you a note about your signature. It's coming out all wrong. There was some bug or change of software at Wikipedia recently, and people had to reset their signatures as a result. What you need to do (I think!) is go to My preferences at the top of any page, and then replace your entire nickname with JYolkowski // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]], making sure that the "raw signatures" box is checked. Then save. (By the way, I've changed my username, but you can probably guess who I am. We've also met on Pope Benedict XVI. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 09:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A Rare RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

JYolkowski:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. I appreciate the confidence you've shown in my abilities, and I will try to live up to your expectations now that I am an admin.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Image:BobbyFischer.jpg

Hey! Please go to Image:BobbyFischer.jpg. I've just added the URL to that page. Adnghiem501 04:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Unimage}}

I have rewitten {{Unimage}} so it merely asserts copyright ownership, and isn't an ambigious license tag. Please take a look at the rewrite, and at my comments at WP:TFD#Unimage, and consider whether you wish to modifiy your comments. DES ^(talk) 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wang Hao De & Speedy Deletes

Vanity bios are candidates for Speedy Delete, see WP:DVAIN. I afd'd it, but I would have preferred to discuss the matter first. -- Jbamb 15:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, JYolkowski! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

new template

With regards to the WP:DRV discussion, I agree a new template could be useful. Although we already have {{indefblockeduser}}, a template aimed at logged-in vandalism only accounts, that communicates with the vandal is useful. It could also be used in blocking summaries as per {{usernameblock}}. I'd suggest you don't call it test7 though, difficult to remember which test is which. What about {{vandalblock}} or 'vb'? --Doc ^ask? 16:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL vandals

Hi J! I appreciate your actions! Good job! I was mistaken. Cheers -- Szvest 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

My userpage

What did you change on my userpage? It is in the history that you did something to a subst. template that is to be deleted in the "Articles that I have created" section? Station Attendant 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Clueless, as Usual!

Happy New Year James! I've been off saving misc. pieces of Mississippi and Louisianna since H. Katrina, and take an occasion R&R week back here in Boston. Somewhen, somehow recently, my signature began malfunctioning as I found when I generated a reply yesterday. Older 'embedded copies' examined by sampling extant corpous of 'works', is still displaying fine and dandy.

• I've tried multiple combo's and permutations, and can no longer get anything that makes sense using colors. It used to be:"<font color="blue"Fra]][[User talk:Fabartus|<font color="green">nkB", and be evenly split half blue (User Page) and Half Green (TALK)... Now it's blah! (The font commands are coming out literally - the sig below is no longer what I'd had earlier today.)
• Any insights or fixes would be appreciated! Even getting a simple Talk Link attached in the Signature again would be an improvement over:
• Fra//User talk:Fabartus|<font color="green">nkB]]
  • YUCK! (Since you first helped me straighten this matter out, I figured you're still a good source to ask! That'll teach you for being friendly to newbies!)
• FrankB ...(As desired!)
  • (Above manually generated) vice: Fra//User talk:Fabartus|<font color="green">nkB]] 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a Hearty THANKS!!! I just added some Bold to the Blue following your lead. FrankB 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Kitchener-Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational School

Thanks for your wonderful additions! Are you an alumnus, or is this simply reasearch in an interesting topic? All the same, your work adds a lot to the article (which is one of my 'babies', as it were).

Thanks again! Radagast 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dakota2.jpg

I've left my comment in the image's talk page, so please go there to discuss your matters. adnghiem501 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The image has been claimed to be taken by User:Morval. It doesn't seem to me it falls under "fair use". It is called non-free. Lately, I removed tags related to "fair use" and the tag of "no source", then replaced {{PUIdisputed}} and {{no license}}. If the uploader's not returning to here, notify him again. adnghiem501 07:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're back

Hi, welcome back, although I don't think you really left, did you? AnnH ^(talk) 23:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Blue Devils 1949.jpg

Please see User_talk:Carnildo#Re:_Image:Blue_Devils_1949.jpg as a problem has arisen partly because of your edits to Image:Blue Devils 1949.jpg. -User:Lommer | ^talk 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dakota2

I took this photo. Please designate this image as 'fair use', thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morval (talk • contribs) -- 02:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Template albumcover

It looks to me like you've been retagging a number of images with the "albumcover" template that are not album covers, and that the text of that tag does not seem to cover. Could you explain, please? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Rawdata

You deleted this template without properly closing the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 23#Template:Rawdata. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion process#Templates for Deletion page and feel free to close some more deletions while you are at it :) --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Still vs. screen shot

I think we need to be careful about equating a "still" with a "screen shot"--as you suggested on Template:Tv-screenshot and Template:Film-screenshot. Here's why: strictly speaking, what the film industry calls a "production still" is a still photograph taken in conjunction with the production. And, of course, a "screen shot" is a grab of a frame from the actual film/video. Production stills are copyrighted separately from the copyright of the film/TV show. And their "fair use" is not as clear as the fair use of a screen shot.

In some contexts, however, "still" and "screen shot" do mean the same thing. Confusing, no? So, to help provide a bit of clarity, I think the templates labeled "screenshot" should narrowly be used for screen shots. How's that sound? --Jeremy Butler 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad we could come to agreement on this. Regards, --Jeremy Butler 11:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship Vote

I want to sincerely thank you for voting on my successful adminship nomination. Whenever I mess up, please let me know. I want to learn from my mistakes so they don't become patterns. Superm401 - Talk 06:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-because}}

I left a note at Template talk:PD-because, but it hasn't gotten any reponse yet. There is an svg version of Image:Achtung.png available, and it is suggested at Commons:Images for cleanup that svg replace png where practical due to a number of reasons. I would make this change myself, but the template is protected. You are listed in the edit history for the template, so I figured I'd leave a message. Thanks. McNeight 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:86.136.61.186

Just in case you haven't noticed, this anon, who has been adding a number of dubious speedy tags, is -Ril-. A quick check of the IP's contributions can easily confirm this, as it has been involved in -Ril-'s current ArbCom case and it also made a comment at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, a comment that was later amended by -Ril- to mark it as his own. As such he might have violated the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-#Continuing_misbehavior part of his last ArbCom, which specifically dealt with his incorrect adding of speedy tags. - SimonP 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Testb

Hello. Can you please explain why you feel that {{testb}} is not redundant to {{test-n}} on its Tfd page? Thank you. -- Avi 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the shakespeare image as pd-old

I still need it, and I'd uploaded a replacement image with the same filename.

Thanks for the message :) James Kendall 17:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor

Oops, sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it and bringing that to my attention. --ThrashedParanoid★ 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

copright question

How is the image of Carolyn maloney not the work of the federal government? Cornell Rockey 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realize I forgot it, usually I'm really good about that. thanks! Cornell Rockey 03:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

I'm not sure if the version of SPUI's talk page you reverted to is "uncontroversial", but do you know whether this would encourage the user to come back or not? --HappyCamper 04:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

AVGP photos' licence

Sorry for reverting the licence tag for the series of AVGP photos—I thought they must have had no licence for you to add that tag, and adding the obsolescent Canadian Crown tag would at least give someone an opportunity to evaluate them for another licence (I couldn't think of anything that applies). I realize now that you were just removing that tag. Too bad we can't use these. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-02-16 03:17 Z

Image:Scarborough, Ontario Location.png

I see that you have been removing references to the old CanadaCopyright tag. The recommended replacement template is {{noncommercial}}. Also, please remember to notify the uploader when using {{nolicense}} tags.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wiki-gonzales.jpg

Hi, I removed the "orphaned fair use" tag after I saw the talk page: this image survived an IfD. Mushroom (Talk) 23:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Our policies on fair use images is that they must be used in articles only, so images that aren't used in articles are not acceptable (IfD is subordinate to copyright issues). If you did want to keep it, you could add it to an article (maybe Wikipedia might work?) Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this, and normally I would have deleted it, but the IfD result was "keep" and it was already orphaned. But you're right: since the image is orphaned and fair use, the template is correct, so thank you for re-adding it. I'm not interested in keeping the image, I just wanted to explain my edit. Mushroom (Talk) 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The fair use policy explicitly allows exceptions to the article space only rule when there is broad consensus to do so. If it is reasonable to keep the Brittanica takeover parody in Wikipedia space, then I would say there is a reasonable editorial argument for keeping the photo as well. As a candidate for fair use though, that photo may be fairly marginal (it's not really necessary to the parody in question). If someone did want to propose making an exception in this case at the very least the original source material for the photo would need to be more clearly documented and attributed. Dragons flight 00:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on User talk:Dragons flight. JYolkowski // talk 15:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Brezhnev/Ford

No. Adam 11:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Styles P

Care to explain why you deleted the image on the Styles P page? (Just toss up an explanation on the discussion page, because this is a dynamic IP address that I'm posting from right now ... but I'm the "141" guy who's been maintaing the page for a while. Point to fact, I didn't add the image, but I liked it and I think the page doesn't look nearly as good without it.

Anticipating that you might reply that there was some sort of copyright issue, care to assist the development of the page by finding something that we could use and putting it there? It's very easy to criticize/delete -- it's much more useful to also be able to help construct!

Hello

No, I'm not going to stop deleting the images. There is a clear issue of copyright violation going on here, most of the images should not be being used. I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey there James

I see you are also opposing the rapid deletion of images in the fairuse category. It looks like there is no stopping the process. User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu claims he has a private communication with Jimbo Wales that has given him the right to delete what he thinks is a copyright violation. He is using the very effective method of creating orphaned photos which are auto deleted after a fixed period of time. The Abitration committee has rejected my plea to issue a "stay of deletion", so the process continues. As you can see the deleter is very busy: [Activity log] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use deletions

Please discuss this issue with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees or Jimbo Wales if you feel that I have been unfair in my deletions. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on calling an RFC

Nice job on calling an RFC...I will contact others who Ta bu shi da yu rubbed the wrong way.

You may be interested in this:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_5#I_just_got_an_okay_from_time_magazine

signed: Travb 22:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I filled out the little section of the RFC with specific reference to the policy violated. I was actually surprised myself to find that copyvio is only speediable when it is article content. Images are not speediable for that at all. So it is definitely outside of policy in that respect. As I wrote on the RFC, I'm totally happy with changing the policies if that's what Jimbo and the committee wants to do -- it's a tough part of the law to interpret (as everybody except TBSDY acknowledges, strangely enough) and if the legal-types say that we should follow one interpretation of it, that's fine by me (it's their neck!). But I'm very annoyed and disturbed by the people who have decided that our current policies should just be ignored completely and happily flaunted, not only because I think it is completely unnecessary, but because not one of them has bothered to really suggest real policy changes before this, and that TBSDY would give such a flippant "take it up with them" reply, as if his actions were just obviously beyond question. The whole thing is just really, really irritating. --Fastfission 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:JYolkowski and Fastfission I e-mailed you both a message just now. FYI. Travb 06:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Logos

Hello, the logo category of images is heinously huge. So myself and some others have been trying to sort it - but there seems to be some glitch that a lot of the logos are still showing up in the logo section and the subcat, even after the {{logo}} has been removed from the image page. Also, the logos sometimes don't appear in the subcat at all. Do you know what could be causing this? Go to here and look at "What links here" to see an example of what I'm saying.--Esprit15d 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Editwarring

I'm going to single you out for a little rap on the knuckles for silently editing Wikipedia:Fair use review into a redirect, which I was unaware of until just now. While I think I understand the motivation, it's the kind of action that escalates tensions rather than de-escalates, and it would have been more productive to debate it on the talk page instead. Stan 13:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use for magazine covers

Hello, JYolkowski.

I would like to have you intervention in a issue about using a magazine cover to illustrate a celebrity under the claim of Fair Use. As of my uderstanding, this is not acceptable (correct me if I'm wrong).

The celebrity article in question is Xuxa, and the magazine cover image is Image:Xuxa_Mene.jpg.

In this specific case, a fellow Wikipedian editor named Xuxo (talk) went a little bit too rude towards me in the change comment, leaving me devoid of enough self-confidence to reply him myself. Would you have the time and the williness to educate us in this matter?

It would be nice if Wikipedia had an specific guideline page on magazine covers usage, so that disscussions like that could be easly resolved by redirecting users (maybe me) to that page.

Thanks, --Abu Badali 22:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi James, long time no interact. I was wondering about a similar issue, before uploading, so I'll hitchike onto this section. (Answer here or email (See Upages), I'm watching. I see your email  ~;( is off.)

Months back you enveigled me to sign on in WikiCommons when or before I uploaded an image. I wonder whether all images should goto the commons, in particular, one's that may be fair use under USA law (e.g. Magazine/Book Covers) but not internationally. Since my current big project will involve many such, thought I should check with you. I saw your post: here and it triggered the pending need.

Speaking of 'here' can't we do something more understated and aesthetically pleasing than these fire alarms styles? Everyone else in the world uses ridiculously small fonts for things, why not make the copy right disclaimer itself an image and scale it with a thumb. Let me rephrase in their offline context these are OK-Fine&Dandy—but ugly <g> like me— I asked BDAbrahamson for legal opinion on fairuse here 1634: The Ram Rebellion#Authors Forward, wherein I had previously tried to use some copyright templates to annote the block quote.

SO the template there was certainly out of place and ugly spelt with a capital 'UoooG'.

I'm waiting for a similiar permission from a text speech that is famous, notable and sadly &suprisingly missing (full keywords text search!) on en-wikiP, and for which Fordham U. wants a mention. I can live with that, though I suspect we won't need to document the quote this way. OTOH, these matters involve prose, not images, and copyright templates and usually GFDL do not seem (public domain in US) to apply, though clearly fair use does... Thoughts, Guidance? (Swear words?- not that I really want such!)

Also wanted to raid your user page for a user template on welcoming committee greeting. I seem to be stumbling over a fair number of newbies these days whom no one has greeted in days, in one case over a week— So thought to patrol greeting some myself. Any tips?

'Sides, just wanted to say Hi, Hope you've been fine! Call it sentimental attachment for the one first greeting me! FrankB 15:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Crypt2.jpg

You deleted the above image back in October. I don't suppose you happened to keep a copy? It had been removed from an article by editorial mistake, was only out of that article for less than 24 hours and should never have been deleted. Hope you can help replace it, Steve block talk 22:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:CanadaCopyright

I was looking for the log on the rationale for deleting the template, trying to figure out copyright on some images, do you happen to have a link to the TfD discussion, I can't seem to find it. Thanks! -- Tawker 08:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurly-Burly and the B-bbbbbbarrell Kick

• Kindly tell James that I kicked over the barrell boldly here in defence of guidelines, and will spam notify a few others in that debate as well.
• 'Frank' wonders if James will consider dropping him and email detailing some tips on what methods James uses to keep up and track all this hurly-burly, as he is daunted by discovering just how many policy proposals are on the listing category, and frankly, Frank doesn't quite know how anyone gets enough WikiTime to both spend time tracking and commenting on such as well as creating things added to wikipedia, much less keeps up with all that! Shudder!

and Wow! Best regards, FrankB 17:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also What Do you Advise on this?

What would you think about the wisdom of posting a discrete link to this notice at the very page top Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals, and how do you like the concept? Something in a box saying See this New Notice (Flashing lights and sirens wouldn't be enough as far as I can see!)

• What other actions might be in order- RFC, VP, Adds at head ends of CAT:CAT and key children cats 'top down'...? The utility and desirability seems self-evident. Can't figure out why it wasn't part of the system from day one.

Sigh! Back to content edits! Best! FrankB 20:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• You can forget this request. I was missing info, which I've annoted there under 'Egg on Face'. <G> But please give no priority. Best regards, FrankB 04:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Above again, More Egg

Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just posted:

I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Apologies FrankB 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

It's not quite a party, but...

You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 18:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

DC4 Deleted Image, can U undel?

Hi from User talk:fabartus on son's computer/user account 'user talk:Dukes of Gaia'.

Jon uploaded an image file on DC4 that has been deleted, and we're both pretty sure it's in the public domain, but cannot 'see' the PIC to verify and properly tag, nor to overwrite w/proper PD image of which there are several options, for the article DC-4.

• Either way, we have several candidate pics we could upload. Can you 'undelete', and let us deal with it from there, or what do you recommend. Respond on my talk please, since Jon hasn't done too well at answering his mail! <G>

Best regards, user:fabartus! Dukes 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Welcome

It's sad that you haven't edited for two months now :-(, I wanted to thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia one year ago today. NoSeptember ^talk 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Streetfighter chunli illust.png

Is there a reason you tagged this as a music sample for? --elias.hc 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you're back in the saddle!

Hi! See you're 'greeting again' on User_talk:Spacepotato. Hope you've been in fine health and were just on vacation or such! RL has a way of wacking things up now and again! All my Best! FrankB 15:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your name just showed up on my watchlist. Good to see you back. AnnH ♫ 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! bd2412 T 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A little birdy tole me...

you were really back (apparently I had the wrong YEAR above, as she was also kind enough to note back then), so welcome back. I hope all is well. I especially hope 'BDA' was pulling your leg hiding behind his new nome-de-plume, as it were--I asked you how to archive for Pete's sake a year back, so I find that incredibly funny! LOL. Perhaps he's trying for a subtle reminder that there are many still using dial-up services! I was amazed to find one very active admin was in just such a state very recently.

I thought I was on wiki-break. Hah! Thank God for friends and email! Lend some vote help please since you were the one linking me up to the commons last year!

re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_15#Fabartus_user_categories This is a bit of spiteful non-sense— at least on the two admin cats, imho. Thanks. // FrankB 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood ME... I was laughing at (and I think 'with') 'BDA'... (who is probably NOT on dial up either—being in Florida and able to get comcast like myself, despite his new name and the 'heinious' social-crime of being a lawyer too, albeit a nice guy—I've been spoiled by cable-modem for nearly a decade meself), because you taught me how to archive my talk, now about a year ago.

Still, Welcome back, I'm taking a wikibreak myself for a couple of weeks of RL needs, and just checking messages and such. ttfn // FrankB 22:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jen Atkinson

I noticed you recently deleted the Jen Atkinson article. It has been deleted three times previously today, and has just been reposted. Any chance it can be protected against recreation? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 23:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the revert on my user page. I will indeed keep an eye on it then. --TeaDrinker 00:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian vs. the Canadian

Thanks for the feedback - this is not my area of expertise. Leonard G. 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Job!

Many thanks or your good work on Breslin Realty / "WillyWorld" consolidation and corrections. Christ, I had no idea I was letting that many typos slip by me. Consolidation makes its all look logical and organized, too, instead of the batted-out-in-a-sleepless-frenzy gibberish it was before. Did you save it from "speedy deletion"? I'm new here and not sure how these things go. The story has since been developed a bit on the Robert M. Johnson page - he was the publisher of Newsday (6th largest paper in US), deeply involved with Breslin, hired as consultant by Breslin Reality for an undisclosed sum immediately after he was fired from Newsday. There's more on their relationship on the Urban Development Corporation page, as it was relevant to an aborted scheme for a UDC-sponsored coup d'etat.

Oops!

I speedy deleted My Dinner with Bobo. Could you please paste the deleted format on Season 4 episodes for Drake & Josh? No matter how much is on the page I'm going to put it on there. Reply on my talk page, Thanks. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Skippy The Fridge

Are you seriously suggesting that "They started out as a covers/interpretations band but developed in the early 90's into one of the finest SKA bands of all time" is an assertion of notability? It sounds a lot more like an opinion to me. --IslaySolomon 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. CSD A7 only applies when no assertion of notability is made in the article. "[O]ne of the finest ska bands of all time" is an assertion of notability. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But "one of the finest ska bands of all time" is totally subjective. It's an opinion of notability. An assertion of notability would consist of facts, for example: "Ska Monthly magazine named Skippy The Fridge one of their all-time most influential ska bands" or "STF's first single reached number 5 in the charts". Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability (music) contains guidelines on what makes a music ensemble notable and the article made no mention of Skippy meeting any of them. --IslaySolomon 00:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from A7, it states: "...does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." (emphasis mine). For the purpose of this criterion, it doesn't matter whether the assertion is true or false, just whether it has been made. If you believe the assertion to be untrue or unverifiable, you should take it to AFD (which has already been done in this case). Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:MUSIC has no bearing on CSDs, just at AfD. JYolkowski // talk 00:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. That does make sense. My only problem with this is that an article that reads:

"X are a rock band formed by three teenaged friends. They rehearse occasionally in a garage. They once played at a battle of the bands at their high school and lost. They have a myspace site with over 20 friends. They are the most significant rock act to have ever lived."

would have to debated in AfD.

Anyhow, I did put Skippy up for AfD and it was deleted almost immediately, so I suppose the system works. I'll be more discerning in which delete tag I use in the future. Thanks for explaining that for me. --IslaySolomon 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi I can believe that Skippy was deleted, they are a such a great band, and obviously some one did not read the article at all. they are legendary-but it shows that the youth of today are to speedy and do not reading things through (or do reseach!). Do not worry I have a article about a band that's big in Japan 2-4-2 which has been removed, I can not believe it-I did not have even a chance to put up the radio interview link and it was deleted (A7) by the same person.-thanks for writing a good article Horfsby 09:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)horfsby

Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "Skippy The Fridge". Hey, i dont get it, if there is a notable band called Skippy the Fridge how come there is only one hit when i googled it??? im not into deleting band pages but you have to do a MUCH better job of supporting your information. id like to hear from you, write me but yeah, get the information in the article pronto!!! Xsxex 19:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Yesterday, I requested semi-protection for Highgate Vampire. You recomended that I should try at the 3RR violation noticeboard. I don't see how I can do that, because the user is using several IP addresses, several of them being shared. So maybe I should request a Checkuser first? --Anonymous44 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks! --Anonymous44 17:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Eyre

Hi James, I'd urge you to take another look at that AfD. Adding the so-called "references" to the articles would not help. Very few of the references listed above meet Wikipedia's standard of reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. They are a collection of amateur genealogy sites, personal web pages, opinion, theory, possible hoaxes, and non-scholarly "research". You might also want to carefully examine the factual claims made by the articles' proponents. This is the type of article (the whole set) that has the potential to be embarrassing to Wikipedia; we don't want to base encyclopedia articles, to be cited elsewhere, on what is basically unreliable, crackpot historical theories. Thanks, --MCB 23:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It looks like the AfD ran its course (it had been pending since June 22), and I think the right thing happened in any case. Best, --MCB 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

of interest

Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

Greetings, JYolkowski. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :) Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Special Invitation

I think I saw your account on the commons had become a redlink on my quicklink list. What happened? Voluntary I hope! Please give a quick read to this (e-mail substitute).

FYI- examin coding: User JYolkowski like some other new tools on the commons. <g> Both will display the same on either sister project. Also add {{ut}} to your tool kit. Makes talk page notes simpler. // FrankB 03:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Greg's

Looking back, I see what you're saying about it being almost impossible to find. In fact, I only found it via the random article feature. Erechtheus 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with fairuse Albumcover

Hello. I am coming to you with a question after reading the discussion about fair use of album covers at Template talk:Albumcover. I came across the Pete Burns article and it has an image of an album cover at the top. The caption uses it as an example of his "fashion sense". The lead sentence of the article does tie in to the recording, but it is what I would term an "extended reference", i.e. it probably belongs at the article for the group more than the artist. So, I have 2 questions for you:

1. Do you interpret this as "fair use", or should this image be removed from this article?
2. If it should be removed, can you take me through the steps to do so (i.e. teach me how to fish instead of giving me the fish).

Thanks for your time. --Brian G 11:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. --Brian G 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux vs windows

Sorry about the belated reply, dear J - no worries, you did perfectly, and there's no need to fully protect the page; in fact, maybe it'd be better to simply unprotect now that the author of the deleted entry might have lost interest in it. What a great chance this is to tell you it's great to meet you at last, btw! ;) I really hope we get to talk more asap - have a great weekend! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 07:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Slightly confused, are you sure that is not vandalism? =/ --Palffy 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do on part 1, I wasn't aware that you had to do 2, if he's already been warned 3/4 times with level 3s and 4s (though earlier). I can certainly do that as well though. Cheers, --Palffy 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. It was agreed in a number of discussions that removal of vandalism templates from user pages is treated as vandalism. They have to be displayed to enable admins to know about past warnings and blocks when blocking a user. Users who remove those templates are blocked for doing so. They have been for months by many many admins. Ways are being explored to make them unremovable. In the meantime, removal of them, except in the case of the archiving of a large page, is treated as vandalism in the case of a user who has a long history of vandalism and is trying to hide their past warnings and blocks through removing and hiding templates. Such users are, and will continue to be, blocked. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

?

Whatever gives you the idea that WP:NOT is not a core policy? >Radiant< 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's kind of circular reasoning. {{Policylist}} gives six core content policies, and WP:NOT predates NOR and V by at least a year. >Radiant< 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol

Just as a note, I found the information which was previously on the page [Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol]] to be very useful. If I had to look for it in WP:VAND, it would have taken me much longer to find it; besides, it's an unnecessary extra click. Just my two cents: the duplication isn't so bad. Thanks!-Patstuart 01:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suddaby Public School, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Arbitration relating to WP:NNOT, WP:NOT and Radiant

Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. The case is about some users who have been abusing some guidline and proposal pages (including WP:NNOT and WP:STRAW). Since you've been involved with NNOT, I thought you might be interested in giving your comments. I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! Fresheneesz 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Aussie Pollie Stubs

I am very concerned about the recent deletion of around 50 stubs on Australian politicians. These articles lay the foundation for what Wikipedia will one day be..."a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" (Jimmy Wales). This however will not happen overnight. I draw parallels to my own project on Central Coast, New South Wales articles. 90% of the suburbs are stubs. But these stubs encourage anyone to edit. Even trivial information has a place on Wikipedia. It should not worry YOU if the articles contained very little information, but you should be happy that the articles had information. In many cases these articles only needed an infobox and they would have been reasonably adequate. In closing I ask anyone who has supported their deletion, that you reconsider your vote by visiting this page: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 30#Albert Piddington (Australian politician) Todd661 10:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Stone Church

Added references you questioned in the Wachusett Reservoir page LymanSchool 21:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also added a lot of other stuff (going backwards through the system) LymanSchool 21:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ancient Apostolic Communion

Hello,

Would you please take a moment to look over The Ancient Apostolic Communion article and its talk page. It has been nominated for deletion and I believe it is just as notable as other articles on Independent Catholic Churches.

Thank you.--Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 03:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mourne View

Thank you for taking care of this article. I think redirecting it was a good solution. I was puzzled that you noted that no reason for deletion was given, however, as I listed the reason as verifiability problems. The deletion policy gives being "incapable of verification with reputable sources" as sufficient reason for deletion; perhaps my wording was unclear. I will word things more clearly in the future. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain how it meets the criteria?

You keep voting in the unaccredited places claiming it passes criteria, but you offer no reason. Afds are not votes they are discussions. Some of us have spent a lot of time improving the unaccredited school articles, and I am cleaning up the ones not worth keeping. Offer proof of your WP:V claims to improve the article. Arbusto 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User 81.79.186.22

Hi! May I ask why you didn't think this user should be blocked? You didn't put anything in the summary when you removed the entry other than "rm," so I was just wondering. Thanks! Confiteordeo 20:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. The only thing is, s/he was blocked on Oct. 11 for fifteen minutes, after which the vandalism continued, so on Oct. 18, Benn Newman put lang4 on his/her talk page. Then, two hours before I put the request on the page, s/he hit the United States presidential line of succession page, so I figured that was recent enough. Thanks! Confiteordeo 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Doctor

With reference to [3] I did not take that seriously. Was just adding few remarks in the lighter vein. Any way, though my present username does not include a "dr", my signature as well as my previous username includes "Doctor" which was what referred in The "doctors" that have My reply at the talk page to your comment was just to lighten the mood.  Doctor Bruno  05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy

Can I ask why you feel the supermajority in support of the change isn't a consensus? I haven't read the entire talk, but I do understand you have a dissenting opinion. I'm just not seeing the lack of consensus and so I'm not sure why you're reverting. Shell ^babelfish 02:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe instead of just saying that 73% isn't consensus - which, by many methods used on Wikipedia would be false - you could explain the issues you still feel are outstanding. Consensus building is one thing, but judging consensus doesn't require everyone agree. It looks like John254 feels he's responded adequately to each one, which may not be the case - perhaps pointing out those unresolved concerns would help. Shell ^babelfish 02:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MartinBotII

Hi - just before you served the block, I'd stopped the bot :). Thanks for a) noticing and b) using rollback to revert its edis (though not all were bad, something was playing up - I've going to code around this now). The bo is currently on trials for this task, so I'm just doing short runs to identify problems (like this one - which I've no idea why it happenned, but which I'll implement a work-around for). Again, thanks -- Martinp23 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise :) Martinp23 15:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		It's quite a strange reason that I'm awarding this - for blocking one of my bot accounts, and proceeding to beat me in fixing up all of its errors (using the mythical rollback function :P). Huge thanks for this Martinp23 15:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the Support I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, JYolkowski, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1 (and I'm sure that I will need to use the rollback function on my bots at some other point!). Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WHEEL

Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.

I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors have put together over the last year will be rubble.

If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.

Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John Reid ° 07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

JYolkowski, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Papal Numbering

Hello JYolkowski, I need your help. User Ludahai & I are in a discussion of Papal numbering. He/she says the numbering of Popes adds up to Benedict XVI being the 263rd Pope, I'm argueing it adds up to B16 being the 265th Pope. Could you explain it to him OR her, on his/her 'talk page'? GoodDay 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Debate has been settled, 'Ladaha' had used a list that counted Benedict IX only once. Vatican counts Benedict IX three times. GoodDay 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Idea?

I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire (here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award . There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // FrankB 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Heck, if you've still got last summer's 'Hurly-Burly-Barrel' message above, you've been 'more away' or at least 'even as much' as my 2-3 months 'wiki-missing in RL period' just ending...
  
    But the answer is yes, at least on the ideas and suggestions side. Currently looking for some 'suggested messages' that are not my ranting template (It was Bad, but I was mad), but which would none-the-less move our society towards a bit better documentation discipline.
  
     I fixed up the one link... there was one in the tfd too, but I couldn't check it and find it just now. The whole thing was copied to that talk though, to start it off. A backlink there to the TFD archive should be working, if you want to see the original... I just userfied it and db-authored the 'proto-proto-draft' that captures my gripes and groans at least. So yeah, but take your time. Thanks. Have a great holiday season // FrankB 00:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

School reports

I note that you reinstated my deletions about school inspection reports in WP:Schools. I've now re-phrased the footnote to make it clear that all schools in England have regular inspection reports. I'm not clear on the worldwide position but certainly in England inspections are a matter of routine for all schools. I don't see any reason to include such reports as a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. You are potentially opening the floodgates for thousands of minor nursery and primary schools in England to qualify for entries in Wikipedia simply because they have had an OFSTED inspection. The inspections are all in the public domain on the internet and there is nothing to be gained by selectively quoting sections of such reports to compile a Wikipedia article. If the situation is perhaps different in other countries and such inspection reports confer some degree of notoriety then perhaps such a phrase should be included but the remarks will need qualification. Dahliarose 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. It all depends how you interpret "worthy of being written about". If you interpret that to mean anything that has ever been written about anyone or anything then you could include children's essays as references and all sorts of other trivial nonsense. OFSTED reports have to be written as a matter of routine. The OFSTED inspectors are not choosing to write about a specific school - it is part of their job. Every single childminders in England has to be inspected by OFSTED. Each childminder might only have responsibility for around two or three children. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you seem to suggest that every single childminder in England (of whom there must be many thousands) should qualify for a Wikipedia article simply because OFSTED has written a report on them. There have to be limits. There is probably a case for arguing that every secondary school in England should have its own Wikipedia entry as any school which has been around for many years is bound to have something notable written about it. The same cannot be said for every single primary school, nursery school or childminder. Dahliarose 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've been following both the WP schools' pages, though I can't quite understand why the two pages haven't been merged. I don't have any strong views either way and am only interested in ensuring that school articles are written to a high standard. I see that WP:Ndefines notable as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". I cannot see how this definition of notable can possibly apply to a government inspection report which is required by law. My concern is that if school inspection reports are accepted as a non-trivial source then lots of people will take the easy route and use these reports as their sole source of information rather than take the trouble of digging out some of the other more important local or national sources which are not easily available online. OFSTED reports are already available online so I see no sense in duplicating this information. Dahliarose 22:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

School AfDs

Please stop saying that deletion rationales are not "entire valid" because SCHOOLS and SCHOOLS3 say that school articles should be merged instead of deleted. Aside from the fact that my deletion rationale is far more valid than your rationale to "keep and cleanup" a school article that is literally nothing more than an infobox, SCHOOLS3 specifically states: "Such articles [that don't meet any criteria] may be merged into an article about their parent community." It does not say should be merged or must be merged, but rather, may be merged. Thus, if I don't feel there's anything to merge into another article, there's no reason my deletion !voting is invalid. -- Kicking222 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you weren't referring to my opinions in particular; that, I was not worried about. While you are absolutely right that SCHOOLS3 does not explicitly state that nn schools should have their articles deleted, it's rather implied. My point is that it certainly also does not say that all schools must be merged or redirected. -- Kicking222 19:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mission Peak Regional Preserve

Thanks for putting in that redirect for me. I guess I should just have gone ahead and done that myself, but sometimes I find the rules confusing and want to err on the side of conservatism. Perhaps the AfD instructions should say that redirects are handled separately. Alison Chaiken 19:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Destroy

I've started an essay called Don't Destroy. Thought you might like to look at it. Fresheneesz 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Award

I award this Barnstar to JYolkowski for excellent work in creating WP:LOCAL. —Quarl 2006-12-31

TfD nomination of Template:Standard test

Template:Standard test has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Oden 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

GamerWiki

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GamerWiki. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Smithsonian

Template:Smithsonian has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Abu badali ^(talk) 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just happened by, so thought I'd say hi! (Looks like RL has captured you again for a time!?) Cheers! // FrankB 04:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey there, this is advance warning that this message will seem slightly off the wall. You welcomed me back when I first joined Wikipedia in 2005, but at that time I didn't realise that the message wasn't automated. Heck, I didn't realise very much. So, sorry for the enormous delay, but I really felt that I should get back to you and say a resounding thank you! Angus Lepper has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Image source problem with Image:Algoma-central-railway-logo.png

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Algoma-central-railway-logo.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Non-free stamp

I notice that back in January 2006 you added the following line to the bottom of Template:Non-free stamp: To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. I have added a comment about this to the talk page for that template. Crypticfirefly 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:7-Up can.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:7-Up can.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Uploader did not tag image

A tag has been placed on Template:Uploader did not tag image requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Image-license-fairuse

Template:Image-license-fairuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific Railway

I have nominated Canadian Pacific Railway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR of BC Rail

I have nominated BC Rail for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Non-free with permission

Template:Non-free with permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:BC Rail map.png

File:BC Rail map.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:BC Rail map.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:BC Rail map.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Service areas AfD

Since you expressed an opinion in the last AfD regarding UK service areas at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, I'd like to inform you of a new AfD discussion which has recently been started by another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination). In the interests of keeping this within the rules regarding canvassing, I am sending this to everyone involved with that original debate, regardless of if they voted keep or delete, or if they appear to be active or inactive. Jeni ^(talk) 14:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TestTemplates

Template:TestTemplates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Terri Schiavo case

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of edits to this page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Whistler Northwind.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Whistler Northwind.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Modded a page of yours

So you know, I modified User:JYolkowski/fud with nowiki tags, because it was tagged with a file deletion tag and thus was gumming up the works over at speedy deletion. I have no idea what you want to do with this page from here, but this at least gets it out of categories where it doesn't belong. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free with permission

Template:Non-free with permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mechamind90 01:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)