User talk:TheProject/Archive 0

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

User:Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Hi. Since some ISPs assign IP addresses "randomly", you received a message that was intended for another of your ISP's customers. If

you don't think it was intended for you, you can safely ignore it. — David Remahl 04:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:What he said. User:Neutrality (talk)]] 04:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

::Wow, you guys are fast. Thanks for putting me at rest -- I hope to become a fairly active member of the Wikipedia community. TheProject 04:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I responded to your concern about the key of the Imperial March at Talk:The Imperial March.

It's funny, given how common homophobic vandalism is--that's the first time I've noticed racist vandalism on WP. Nareek 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:Well, not that I would know -- today was my first time ever on RC patrol. Tiring but fun. I think I'll go again. TheProject 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page! _-M o P-_ 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:No problem. Glad I could be of help. TheProject 03:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy nominations on the three articles I AfD'd earlier today. I wasn't sure if they qualified, as one at least claimed notability and the criterion at WP:SPEEDY seemed to say that any assertion of notability, even a disputed one, requires an article to go through AfD instead of speedy. I looked deeper and saw that WP:DVAIN clarifies that such claims of notability must be "remotely plausible", which that band's claim certainly did not fulfill.

So thanks for helping me to get those articles deleted (though now I wish I'd saved "Declined" for WP:BJAODN, haha!), and also for helping me to gain a better understanding of when it's okay to use a speedy nomination. I guess I'm still a bit hesitent to use them because of a few times an admin changed my speedys into prods, but now I think I've got the hang of it :-) Long live the RC and NP patrols! --Icarus 04:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:Glad I could be of help. But it was my very first day participating with any volume on AfD, so don't take me as any expert on the process. The fact that the articles seemed to be complete hoaxes were good reason to place them for speedy deletion per G1 and A7, though. TheProject 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if you tag an article for a speedy because it is a transwikied dicdef, please make sure first that it actually has been transwikied (such as Combi deck, which I had to create before speedying it). Regards, Elf-friend 08:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I just went through what I did during the transwiki, and it appears that I copied over the article text where I should have copied over the edit history -- is that what you meant? (I've since fixed that.) Because otherwise, I did transwiki the article[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Transwiki:Combi_deck&oldid=1015463], log it in Wiktionary[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Transwiki_log/Articles_moved_to_here/staging&diff=1015681&oldid=1015371], and log it in Wikipedia[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Transwiki_log/Articles_moved_from_here/en.wiktionary&diff=51627445&oldid=51603282] before tagging it for speedy deletion. What did you have to create before speedying the article? Thanks. TheProject 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:P.S. On a very related note, I just noticed you took off the speedy tag on Coup de main (cajun) for the same reason, but I did copy it over to Wiktionary [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Coup_de_main_(cajun)], copy over the edit history to Wiktionary[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Transwiki:Coup_de_main_%28cajun%29], log it on Wiktionary[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Transwiki_log/Articles_moved_to_here/staging&diff=1015681&oldid=1015371], and log it on Wikipedia[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Transwiki_log/Articles_moved_from_here/en.wiktionary&diff=51627445&oldid=51603282], so I'm not sure what the problem is there, either.

:P.P.S. I went through your edit history for Starter pack to figure out what the confusion was, and I think you were looking for the transwikied article in Wiktionary's main namespace, whereas I transwikied (as transwikis are supposed to be done, according to meta) to the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace in Wiktionary. If that's the source of the confusion, I hope that clears things up.

::Yes, you are right, I was expecting to find it in the main namespace of Wiktionary, I am not all that familiar with transwikification, sorry for jumping the gun. :-/ That being said, there seems to be some question whether transwikification is a valid reason to speedily delete anyway? Regards, Elf-friend 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm justifying most of my speedy deletion tags by WP:SNOW. So far, I haven't had anybody complain about my discretion (although I will admit that once -- now twice, with Coup de main (cajun) -- have my speedy candidates not been speedied, but instead redirected), which means that either my judgement is either pretty good, or most administrators don't care. I'm not sure which one it is, but if I'm asked to stop, I will gladly do so. TheProject 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAMES Magazine bankruptcy that my copy-paste act might be considered a violation of GDFL, and something about IIRC? I don't know what these terms mean. Could you enlighten me? - Rainwarrior 05:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Rainwarrior, glad you asked. First off, the easier stuff: IIRC is a common Internet acronym for "if I recall correctly", and if you ever come across other acronyms you don't find, a good start might be to head over to [http://www.acronymfinder.net/ AcronymFinder]. As for GFDL -- I apologize for accidentally mistyping that as "GDFL" earlier -- that stands for the GNU Free Documentation License, under which Wikipedia is licensed (and if you're wondering what GNU stands for, have a look at its article).

:Part of the GFDL basically states that a document's content must carry attribution to everybody who has worked on a document (to make it more Wikipedia-specific, basically, articles in Wikipedia must properly credit all editors of previous revisions of the article). This is usually done trivially in an article's edit history. However, this requirement makes merging somewhat tricky: if an article A has content that is to be merged into article B, then article B -- since it contains content originally from article A -- must also correctly attribute previous editors to article A as well as its own. Hence one cannot do a merge by simply copying and pasting: the editor doing the pasting would be the only editor to show up on article B's edit history, which would violate the GFDL. If only it were that easy! Hope that helps. TheProject 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:P.S. Nice to see a fellow musician and pianist on Wikipedia.

::Thanks. That makes things perfectly clear. - Rainwarrior 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Glad to be of help. TheProject 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You may endorse as many views as you please. In fact, there is even no rule (as far as I am aware) that prevents one from endorsing completely conflicting views on an RfC. Endorsing multiple views on an RfC is standard practice. JoshuaZ 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:Good to hear -- this is my first participation in an RfC. Thanks for the guidance. TheProject 05:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, I may have given you bad advice. Looking over the standard wording it looks like it may be disallowed, but as a matter of practice everyone does it. I've brought the matter up at the main RfC talk page for clarification. In the meantime, I recommend to ignore the possible rule and keep your endorsement. JoshuaZ 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in this RfC, concerning a recent AfD in which you participated to some degree. TheProject 07:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:Thanks for the tip. I have provided what I saw here. I wish people could accept they are wrong without having to go to such lengths. -- ReyBrujo 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who falls between the two extremes regarding "El kondor pada," may I ask you a quick question: since I'm sure you'll agree that Princess Diana's death is much more likely to be "common knowledge" than this song, what sort of sourcing would suffice to demonstrate the song's existence and notability? I think that both are true -- it exists (duh) and it could pass Wikipedia's notability threshold. But how to demonstrate it? Anything that could be found easily would undoubtedly be in Serbian. My guess is that nobody who wants this article sourced (or deleted) reads Serbian. Then of course there's the part about it being a song, and not a widget of some sort. How do you source a song's notability, short of getting lucky and having some (Serbian) journalist write about it? This strikes me as a dilemma. For the record, I (1) speak Serbian, (2) know that most of the Serbs involved here are basically trolls, but (3) still think the entry has merit. Not enough merit to get overly worked up about, though. Profnjm 16:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the language barrier should be a reason for discarding an entry, as that would probably constitute blatant systemic bias. You'll notice none of the links on the AfD were actually rejected because they were in Serbian. Of the four links provided, one was a 404, two were rejected because they were free Geocities-type sites, and another was rejected because it was a forum. These would be considered unreliable sources no matter what language they were in. It is my opinion that were there reliable sources, but in Serbian (which I don't question the existence of, just that they weren't provided in the AfD), that those should still be accepted. TheProject 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:It's also worth noting that Balcer has already pointed out that Serbian-language songs do receive coverage in Western press, so if it's notable enough, it wouldn't be too much to expect an English language source. However, as I said previously, I wouldn't discount a reputable Serbian language source. Others might not, though. TheProject 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::With all due respect to Balcer, I can't think of any Serbian language songs that have ever received coverage in the Western press. Profnjm 17:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, I can't speak for him, so you may want to see the relevant discussion at Sam's talk page, or contact him yourself. TheProject 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Indeed. I think I'll pass on talking with him, because his cites were done in bad faith. All he did was go out and find Serbian websites that were in English translation, mostly advertisements, and proclaim them "western press coverage of Serbian music," which they obviously were not. My only response would be that if those count as evidence of "notability," then Dzoni ought to just put up a page about them. That would, of course, be a travesty. No, I don't think I'll discuss this with Balcer, who was merely yanking crazy Dzoni's chain. Profnjm 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::Two of the websites Balcer has brought up might fit under mere English translation, as you have suggested. However, Balcer has also brought up three links to The Guardian's website, which is a widely read and respected British newspaper, and that would suggest to me that there is at least some coverage of Serbian language music in the Western press. TheProject 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Project,what is wrong with those two sites that were Geocites?Or with the one that was forum?

You are just repeting what you heard.Why dont you tell me whats wrong with it?Dzoni 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:I do believe the AfD, the RfC, and I have made it very clear already. Websites where anybody can just sign up and get free web hosting are not considered reliable sources, nor are forums to which anybody can contribute. Now, if you would mind moving this discussion back to the RfC which it came from, instead of harrassing everybody on their talk page, I would be greatly indebted. TheProject 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::As I expected,no valid response...Ok,I wont ruin your talk page any more,so be in debtDzoni 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ardric47, your recent removal of my prods on call gate and bleah for the reason of not having been transwikied (I assume this was the reason for the latter, although this was not specifically stated) seem to suggest that you might have been looking for the transwikied dictionary definitions in Wiktionary's main namespace, instead of the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace, where meta dictates they should be copied. If you look closely, I think you'll find that both articles have already been transwikied, to wikt:Transwiki:Call gate and wikt:Transwiki:Bleah, their edit histories copied to their respective talk pages, and the transfers logged on transwiki logs for both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. I hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject, 9 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:I began thinking about that not too long after making the changes, and I'm currently trying to seek clarification at Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log. In the meantime, I have no objections to the reinstatement of the tags. I guess having the content moved to the transwiki pseudo-namespace of another project counts as having "been transwikied"? Ardric47

::After something has been moved to Transwiki namespace in Wiktionary, it is Wiktionary's responsibility to decide what to do with it. Wiktionary may even delete it, in fact, so waiting for the transwikied content to show up on Wiktionary's mainspace may in fact be futile. TheProject 01:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Hi theProject,

I just saw your advice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shay, with which I agree by the way.

More of these kinds of pages can be found by following links on Maryland General Assembly Election, 2006. Every non-notable person wandering around in Maryland seems to be redlinked on those pages, and sometimes their names coincide with those of notable people.

I just wanted to ask for your advice in this case? Do we change all the blue links to wrong persons? But thereby we might create a page for a non-notable person? Or do we remove all the links on that page Maryland General Assembly Election, 2006, because very few of them will become notable in the end?

Thanks for your time, Jadriaen 01:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

:The redlinks should be removed. Precedent on AfD is to delete biographies of people whose sole claim to notability is as a failed electoral candidate, so there's no point in inviting the creation of pages which will be deleted at AfD anyways. Hope that helps. TheProject 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the advice. I'm not looking forward to removing all those links, but I might already start. There probably is a template for that too, right? ("Too many red links" or something.) Thanks again, and cheers. Jadriaen 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not aware of any template for lists of redlinks. You may want to try copying and pasting the wikicode into notepad and then running a find and replace on and -- it may make the process faster. TheProject 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Hi, I just found a template for redlinks and added it to the page. I'll go through the page later on (some links have their value, so a pure find and replace might not suffice). Cheers, Jadriaen 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::Not an automatic find and replace, that's for sure. But a manual find and replace (where by "manual" I mean still using the find and replace feature, but not using "Replace All") would still speed up the process, I think. By the way, thanks for pointing out the template. TheProject 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How often is WP:AIV checked, anyway? That guy is still active. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:The IP was blocked five minutes after your addendum to my alert. TheProject 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I decided to rewrite tradable instead of letting it get deleted after a few days. I was working on another article and wanted to link to "tradable goods" or something similar, but all I could find was this page (with no useful information). I typed up a new article; it's brief, but I think worth keeping now. --CRGreathouse 18:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

:Nice work -- it's very much appreciated. TheProject 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage so quickly. It's been a long time since I've seen someone explode with so many userpage vandalisms in a minute because of a simple test4. Wow. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:Glad I could help. I'm guessing the vandal would have gone after my userpage too, but it's semi-protected for some reason. TheProject 03:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

You recently removed the {{move to wiktionary}} tags from the Brunoise and Tester stubs. If they have been transwikied like you said in the edit summary, why did you just remove the tags without taking the actions necessary for deleting the entries? Folajimi 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:If an article has been transwikied (which has been done at wikt:Transwiki:Brunoise), it can go through one of three processes: an editor may propose that it be deleted or list it on articles for deletion, it can be redirected to a more appropriate article, or, if it has encyclopedic potential, it can be left as a stub for expansion. Which process the article goes through is at the discretion of the transwiking editor. In the case of Tester, the definition does not add anything to that already at wikt:tester, so I removed the transwiki tag. I chose to leave both as stubs; obviously, if you feel that either article should not be on Wikipedia, feel free to {{prod}} either one. I have nothing against either being deleted; I just happen to be a bit more cautious than usual with {{prod}} today. TheProject 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

::That's understandable. By the way, thanks for the transwiki effort on the Brunoise entry. FWIW, the entries are not being wasted — just relocated to a sister project ;) Besides, the author of the second entry has been banned by none other than Jimbo Wales; usually, I give authors a heads up before nominating such entries for deletion.

::Thanks again. TTFN. Folajimi 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that adding Template:Prod should be marked as a minor edit... Ardric47 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:My general rule of thumb is that if I'm not adding anything of substance to the article itself (i.e. changing its meaning), I mark it as minor. Also, most of the time my prods are in the same edit as my removal of a Transwiki tag, which I usually mark as minor. However, I do see your point (I guess the rule about AfD tags being marked non-minor should be specified as applying to proposed deletions as well) and I will start marking prods as non-minor. Thanks. TheProject 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Indulgence.png

For RC patrol. - Xiong Chiamiov 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks! It's good to know I'm appreciated some days. TheProject 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What did I due I got a message from you that I put a nonsense edit in the Legislative building what was it and can you provide a link I am having trouble getting to that article.

:Just as a follow-up: your IP was previously recorded carrying out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saskatchewan_Legislative_Building&diff=prev&oldid=54735045 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saskatchewan_Legislative_Building&diff=prev&oldid=54735212 two] edits, hence the warning. TheProject 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

::I um dont understand and could you provide a link to the article.

::::The article in question is at Saskatchewan Legislative Building. (Just click the title.) TheProject 17:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:::::COuld you tell me what I did that was bad.

::::::Your IP added nonsense to the article, which is considered vandalism at Wikipedia. TheProject 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:::::::What was it like a mistake or dfgngjd something like that I am sorry I dont know I am not the only one who uses the computer you know.

::::::::Your IP added "Kelsey Teneycke is the coolest person on earth!" to the article. If you weren't the one who added that, you can safely ignore the warning. TheProject 17:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:::::::::Thats my point other people use the computers too I will just use my account thing and sign in to avoid this from happening again.

:::::::::By the way this is a school computer so I am not sure what should be done hundreds of students use them so what should be done?

::::::::::We'll take the appropriate steps. Signing up for an account definitely would be a good idea. The basic principle is, if you don't vandalize, you can safely ignore the warnings. Thanks. TheProject 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:Uh, thanks. But is that really worth a barnstar? :-) TheProject 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit though, Arthur MacArthur is a pretty funny name to name your kid. 209.51.250.35 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop transwikiing game articles to wikibooks. Wikiboooks has stopped hosting game guides, supposedly by order of Jimbo Wales. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I wasn't aware of this, and I'm done clearing out the backlog anyways now. Anyways, I'll do that. You wouldn't be able to tell me where it says video game guides are not to be sent to Wikibooks, would you? It would clear up a lot of confusion for people who are marking them as such, as I didn't tag them, but just saw them and sent them over. So are video game guides just supposed to be listed for deletion, then? TheProject 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

::Most of them are being absorbed by StrategyWiki, I think. And if I knew where that was stated, I wouldn’t have said “apparently”. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Paolo, your recent removal of my prod on manu militari for the reason of not having been transwikied seems to suggest that you might have been looking for the transwikied dictionary definition in Wiktionary's main namespace, instead of the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace, where meta dictates they should be copied. If you look closely, I think you'll find that the article has already been transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Manu militari, its edit history copied to wikt:Talk:Transwiki:Manu militari, and the transfer logged on transwiki logs for both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. I hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:This is correct: after looking for the exact term on wiktionary, I performed a search, but did not notice that search defaults to the main namespace (this would mean there is no way for searching in the transwiki: pseudo-namespace, as far as I can see). I have now deleted the article. Thanks for pointing this out. - Liberatore(T) 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(By the way, if I may ask -- which school are you currently at?) TheProject 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's subpage

:I'm currently at the University of British Columbia. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw the proposed deletion tag you had on Tiki Bar TV recipes and replaced it with a tag requesting that it be moved to Wikibooks (with the other recipes). It appears that this was not transwikied from elsewhere and has not yet been transwikied to Wikibooks. Crypticfirefly 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Same goes for Tamate ka Kut Hope this is useful. Crypticfirefly 03:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. Okay, never mind. I'm easily confused and couldn't find those recipes in the Wikibooks cookbook because I didn't know about the transwiki page. I added some text to the pages so others won't be confused in the same way that I was. Crypticfirefly 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:Seeing as how you're the fifth person to be thrown off by this, I'm going to start adding the transwikied destination to my transwikied prods now. TheProject 04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining! :) --Fang Aili ^talk 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:Glad to participate. TheProject 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC).

:I've gone and added my voice to the discussion, but please note that 1) AfD is not a vote, and 2) alerting users to AfD discussions (especially ones that aren't particularly relevant to them) via talk pages is very much frowned upon. TheProject 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

::I actually think your input on the Afd is much appriciated and a good solution. Zeq 08:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

... I'm sometimes rather pushy (maybe "sometimes") is an understatement, so I apologize in advance and please don't take it personally if you feel that way. Now, if I could ask you ... did you have a look at my sandbox and/or my question about style? Any comment?

Have a great trip. TheProject 20:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:Thanks for writing. No problem; actually, I value directness. Same goes for me--if I say something that irks you, let me know.

:I have looked at your work and comments and I'll respond when I get back into town. I'll be getting off the computer within the next hour or so. Cheers. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC) I've responded to a few things.

::I'm hoping Pelladon comments about the hyphenation thing. He seems to be up on all those details. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::I can't really comment on the template stuff. When I look at the template code all I see is gibberish. I get by with templates by experimenting with the fields, when I need to. Sorry I can't be of more help. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Basically all I'm trying to say with the template is that, as the first and second infoboxes are virtually the same (except for trivial differences), template expansion will not break any pages currently using the infobox. The third infobox is just saying that the expanded infobox would have additional capabilities. TheProject 02:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, additional capabilities=good. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 00:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You were right, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Digiscoping_cameras I didn't have to type a thing]. Cheers! :o) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 06:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why you think :Image:007ThunderballLife.jpg does not qualify as fair use. If you could provide some reasoning I would love it. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:Whoops. Clearly I wasn't paying attention when I looked in the article for mention of the magazine issue. Mention of the magazine issue has to add non-trivially to the text of the article, and it does that. I have taken off the tag now. Please accept my apologies. TheProject 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::It's no problem :) xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 17:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A similar plea for fair use consideration for the Playboy cover in the article on Alessandra Mussolini. I unindented the fair use rationale on the image, that was there, but possibly hard to read.

You're right that the article didn't mention the magazine issue very much, but it should have. I've added some text, and am looking for more. Here's the point - Mussolini is a fairly notorious politician, first due to being the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini, and second due to her apparent iconic status as a neo-fascist (she's one of, if not the most prominent European politician considered a neo-fascist), and her past as a fairly notable sexploitation actress and model is a notable contrast to that. If she weren't a politician, being on two Playboy covers could have made her a notable model just for that. Also, as best as I can tell with help from automatic translators, the it:Alessandra Mussolini article, seems to say that though she was in several sexploitation films, it was her Playboy appearances that caused a scandal that ended her actress/model career. ("Partecipò effettivamente in alcune sexi commedie, ma lo scandalo suscitato da un servizio fotografico apparso su Playboy, di cui era protagonista, non giovò alla sua carriera da attrice.")

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:I believe magazine cover appearances have to be notable as more than just cover appearances. If the part about said appearances causing a scandal is verifiable and added to the article, I have no problems with the image as a proper fair use. However, at the moment, it does not. TheProject 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the images I added to the Chrysler LeBaron article? They were properly taged. I'd like if you would explain this to me. Bavaria 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:The images were only orphaned because you deleted them from the article. I would like a better explanation if you do not mind. Bavaria 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::The problem is not that the images are orphaned, but that the images are fair use violations. I guess I'll go through each one individually:

::*:Image:1989LeBaron.jpg: was improperly tagged and in contravention of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines because the tag states "... where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". No other fair use rationale given, as the image was used with a generic fair use tag.

::*:Image:1979LeBaron.jpg: has no fair use rationale, and was improperly tagged due to the "no free equivalent" restriction.

::*:Image:1984LeBaron.jpg: claims to be a promotional image, but there is no evidence that the image is released as part of a press kit or otherwise promotional media, nor any evidence that copyright is held by the automobile's manufacturer. Also fails the "no free equivalent" restriction.

::*:Image:1993-Chrysler-LeBaron-GTC.jpg: claims to be a promotional image, but no evidence of this, and I would think the latter, as it comes from domain name consumerguide.com, and consumer guides are not considered as promotional media. Again, no evidence that the copyright is held by the automobile's manufacturer, and also fails the "no free equivalent" restriction.

::*:Image:1993Chrysler-LeBaron.jpg: see above.

::As all of the above were fair use violations, I removed them from the article, and have re-removed them again. If proper fair uses (i.e. not in violation of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines) are not found, they will be deleted as orphans. TheProject 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Why do you need proof for the latter two when it's pretty damn obvious that they ARE promo images? I don't understand Wikipedia's image policies sometimes...--ApolloBoy 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::::No, it's not obvious that it's a promotional image. In particular, promotional images are copyrighted by the product's manufacturer, and as the images come from a consumer review site, it's not clear as to whether the images are copyrighted by the reviewer or the manufacturer. If the image comes from a manufacturer's press kit, please make this source clear. TheProject 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I don't mean source-wise. If you look at the images, you can see that they depict a new-looking car without license plates in front of scenery. That's why I said that it's obvious that they're promo images. --ApolloBoy 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::If it is a promotional image, I'm sure finding a source will be easy. TheProject 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::And they do have sources. --ApolloBoy 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Sources that illustrate the use as a promotional image? I thought I already established that. Furthermore, the last source URL is broken. TheProject 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::The images are obviousley promotional images! As ApolloBoy already said they show a new car without liscense plates in fornt of some sort of scenery. If they aren't promotional images then explain why I found one of them in an old National Geographic magazine! THEY HAVE THE PROPER SOURCE! AND SEEING AS THEY ARE CHRYSLER LeBaron IMAGES THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY OF THE Chrysler Corporation. WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? Bavaria 11:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::"Number A, you don't have to shout. You know how many internet etiquette laws you're breaking by typing in all caps like that? Well, you're breaking one: Don't type in all caps."

::::::::::Now, if I may rephrase: if it's so obviously a promotional image, I'm sure finding a source that shows them in a promotional context will be absolutely trivial. If they're from a magazine advertisement that you scanned, say so. At the moment, the source that is given on the image page -- a consumer guide -- is not a promotional context. Moreover, the last image has a broken source URL. TheProject 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Firstly, I should let you know that although I was the creator of this article I am not the originator, I just moved the content from Word Up! when cleaning up and creating a disambig for the phrase - so I hold no real affinity with the content (i.e. this is not "why are you deleting my stuff" post!!). Here is my view - yes the phrase appears on Wiktionary - and that’s fine. If the content of the above article was going to be transwikied over there then that would make sense, but you have marked it for deletion. It would seem to me that we are wasting good information here in that the article here on WP has an interesting bit of content to it, but the article on WT is as bare bones as they come - it is simply a definition. So can the extra background info that is here at WP be moved across? Or should the article remain here because it contains useful info that doesn't fit inside the WT remit? It just seems a shame to throw away interesting bits and bobs as a result of "it is on WT so it can get delete". Regards, SFC9394 00:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:On second look, I'll send it to Wiktionary, as I'm on a transwiki run right now. Thanks. TheProject 00:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello TheProject : - ) Why did you remove Image:1-02richmag_cover_story.jpg from the Patricia Cornwell article with out discussion on the talk page of the article and notifying me on my user talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patricia_Cornwell&diff=prev&oldid=56901638] I think that you should have notified me about your concerns regarding fair use with that image. At the time I added the fair use claim, I consulted with a Wikipedia editor that is familiar with Wikipedia:Fair use. I carefully followed the instructions for meeting Wikipedia:Fair use and crafted a specific fair use claim that should cover its use on that article.

I do not mind you questioning the fair use claim. It's possible that I am wrong and the claim is not valid. But, I can not address your concerns if I do not know about them, right? Could you spell out why my specific fair use claim found on the image page and on the article is not adequate to cover fair use for this particular article? FloNight talk 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:I actually don't notify on fair use disputed (nor do I see any policy that requires me to), but I did forget to notify you of the {{tl|orfud}} tag -- please accept my apologies. Now, as for the fair use claim itself -- it's my understanding that fair use magazine covers should be used primarily in articles about the publication itself, not the subject who appears on the cover. If a magazine cover is indeed used in an article about the cover's subject, the article must discuss the notability of the cover image itself. In this case, I didn't see the article discuss the cover appearance.

:I might add that I don't think the image is necessary to show the relationship between Cornwell and the city of Richmond, either, because what I'm reading in the article that has anything to do with Richmond (and there seems to be rather little mention of Richmond to make a good fair use claim) is that the city features prominently in the author's writing, not the author featuring prominently in the city's culture. A legitimate fair use for this piece of information might be an excerpt from one of her publications, for example, that illustrates the prominence of Richmond in her writings (I'm being intentionally vague, of course, but that's just an example).

:I strongly disagree with the fair use claim, but I did forget to notify you when I orphaned the image. Sorry about that. TheProject 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::Apology accepted. Sometimes I get in a hurry, get distracted, and forget to follow up. It's a bitch being human. ; - )

::Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of the fair use. I know that the mag cover image did not meet fair use before I made changes to the article and added a second fair use tag. I did not add the image to the article. I came across the Patricia Cornwell article when it was listed on AN/I for persistent problems. When I first noticed the magazine cover image, it was used to "illustrate" the article and clearly did not meet fair use. No attempt had been made to add a reason for fair use at all. I started to remove it from the article and then I looked more closely at the magazine, the magazine article, the specific magazine cover image, and the Patricia Cornwell article content about her relationship with the city of Richmond. I decided that this particular magazine cover could meet a Wikipedia fair use exception because a magazine named Richmond with a cover story article about Patricia Cornwell did show the special relationship between her and the city of Richmond, VA. Unfortunately, DreamGuy did not think any changes were needed (that it was already fair use per Wikipedia policy) and he chased me away from the article before I finished making the changes to the article.

::The changes I made that support US fair use law and Wikipedia fair use policy are:

::#I added the second Wikipedia fair use tag to the image page and added specific reasons for fair use on the Cornwell article.

::#I added a caption to the image on the article that I think supports its fair use.

::#I moved the image down the page next to article content about Cornwell relationship to Richmond.

::#I added the hidden fair use statement to the article.

::As it stands now I think it meets Wikipedia fair use policy because of the caption in the image thumb. If the image was moved back down the page and more article content was added about the relationship between Cornwell and the city and mentioned the mag article, the fair use claim would be stronger. Regards, FloNight talk 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Fair enough. I'd very much rather the fair use claim be made stronger, as you mentioned, so I'll keep the fair use disputed tag, but I'll not be orphaning the image anytime soon. Hope there are no objections to proceeding in this matter. TheProject 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about giving that detailed explanation on the AfD on D-flat minor like you didn't know. Your "uh..." made me think you had no idea what I was talking about. Consider it an explanation for anybody who actually does have no idea what I'm talking about. :-) TheProject 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:No prob, and no apology necessary, as that was overly snarky of me myself, to be honest. I should have assumed better with you anyway, you're much more versed in the playing, I was simply a lowly vocalist. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol, I've done a little bit of research on the pieces you listed, and I'm unfortunately of the opinion that none of them are legitimate. Please respond at the AfD. Thanks. TheProject 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:Sorry for the delay in replying to your message on my talk page. I've added yet another set of examples I've found to the AfD debate. I'd really appreciate it if you could give your expert opinion on these, as I do not have the technical knowledge to evaluate if these are valid examples or not. Thanks, Gwernol 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::Unfortunately they all seem to be mistakes. TheProject

Thanks for the support for deletion. Looks like we're down quite a few votes. Do you know anyone else in Wikipedia who doesn't want these articles? Kingjeff 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, I'm on the fence myself, especially due to precedent. I'd rather not try anything that might be construed as vote-stacking, and I wouldn't know any like-minded people anyways. TheProject 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

::I'm going to try to get it overruled. It goes against Wikipedia policy.Kingjeff 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:::And what policy would that be? Consensus? Leave me out of it, while you're at it. I'm neutral on the issue. TheProject 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

::::The policy is What Wikipedia is not. If you look under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information then you'll see it's not a news report. It says, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known."

:::::They aren't news reports. At any rate, I'm not going to make any more of this matter. Consensus is quite clear. TheProject 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, theProject. I saw that you WP:PRODed a bunch of constitution-related articles, since they had already been transwikied to Wikisource. I went ahead and tagged these for speedy deletion under criteria A2 or A5, depending on the cirumstances. Cheers, Lbbzman 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:Technically, A5 only applies to transwikied articles which have already been through AfD, which is what I've been following, but I don't really mind. Thanks. TheProject 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask why you moved Montreal International Musical Competition to Montreal International Music Competition? The former is the name of the competititon[http://www.concoursmontreal.ca/violon2006/en/index.asp] and is how they announce it at the competition. Thanks! TheProject 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:Looks like the lead text was confusing. I have fixed it and have moved it back. Please let me know if you have any objections. TheProject 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

::I moved the page because of the lead text, but also because the Ivo Pogorelić article was linking to 'Music Competition'. I wrote most of that article so I know that I pasted the competition's name from some other site... but yeah, if that's the official name, than it should stay so :) --Missmarple 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, it's a little complicated. Pogorelić won a different "Montreal International Music Competition" (no idea whether it was "Music" or "Musical" then) in 1980. I have no idea what happened to that competition -- the current "Montreal International Musical Competition" is a different competition and was only started in 2002. Regardless, the article that is on WP right now is the latter. TheProject 21:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

::::I see. Well, it would be really great if there was a sentence or two about the previous competition, I guess :P Regards from Slovenia! --Missmarple 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw the straw poll about deleting accounts, and I think it is a great idea. I only have one question. What aboutdoppelganger accounts?. Those are important for stopping impersinations, but yet they never make edits. I would appreciate it if you addressed this in the straw poll. Thetruthbelow 19:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not too terribly concerned about doppelgangers, but if this is a particular problem, we can have an amendment to the policy that says that doppelganger accounts clearly labelled as such will not be touched. Alternatively, since doppelganger accounts have to identify themselves, they can just make an edit to their own user account to label themselves as a doppelganger (and thus be saved, as the doppelganger has a single edit). TheProject 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

::I think that if they edit the account so that it shows that they are adoppelganger account, they should be kept, like you said. Otherwise, I think the poll is a great idea. I would like an ammendment though. Thetruthbelow 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As it has been less than 70 years since Hemingway's death, unpublished works by Hemingway (in this case, a private letter) are still under copyright and are considered copyvios on Wikipedia. Thanks. TheProject 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:Hello Project. Well, I uploaded that image so long ago (probably years before you'd heard of Wikipedia) I remember nothing about it. Is there a way I can see the original image page, allowing me to verify any copyright or fair use claims made there? JDG 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Doink-- nevermind. I didn't think to just look in the history. Thanks... Added 16:56: I see the image came from LOC. Obviously the Hemingway estate made this material available to the LOC and it is now Public Domain. I object to its removal. Are you an Administrator? JDG 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::No, I'm not an administrator, but that's quite irrelevant, I think. Do you have a source showing that the work is actually in public domain? The fact that it comes from the LOC does not necessarily mean that the LOC has obtained the copyright to the work. In particular, LOC's legal page[http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html] says that "... as a publicly supported institution, the Library generally does not own rights in its collections", and often, donations of Hemingway materials to the LOC say something along the lines of "single copy reproductions require the donor's permission". Unless there's a source somewhere that says the image is actually in public domain, it should be treated as a copyright violation. TheProject 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:::You are misapplying the first statement: "the Library generally does not own rights in its collections". Of course it doesn't— at least 98% of its textual/photographic holdings are in the Public Domain, meaning there are no rights to be held. Your second statement about "donor's permission" bears looking into. I would appreciate it if you would restore the image page, plus the page referenced in the Hemingway article, until we can sort this out. They have been there since 2002, and have passed the scrutiny of many copyvio checkers (in fact I think there was a challenge in `03 that was shot down). Unless you have a particular expertise in copyright law, I'd say respect for these earlier workers should keep the longstanding arrangement intact until a judgment is made. I'll be looking into it and I'll be contacting one of our legal people. Thx JDG 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Source texts belong on Wikisource, actually, not on Wikipedia. If it meets copyright, then it needs to be moved to Wikisource. If it does not, then it should be struck as a copyvio. Since the copyright on this work would need to be explicitly released before Wikipedia could use it, there needs to be proof that said release has already occurred. If that evidence is provided, it will be moved to Wikisource. TheProject 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:::::It should not be moved to WikiSource. I saw that suggestion by the other editor and was about to enter an objection when my attention was taken by your action. The primary interest of this image is in seeing an actual typed page from Hemingway's actual typewriter. The text itself is less than secondary. To see his original spelling mistakes, his own erasures and handwritten addenda, etc,. is the whole reason for the image being there. If you can't see the reasoning behind this, then I ask you: why does anyone bother with an autograph? Why isn't it enough to have a slip of paper with the letters W-I-L-L-I-E M-A-Y-S typed on it? Why would someone bid, say, $20,000 to own a hat that Hemingway wore when he/she could have an exact replca for $12?. The interest is in seeing the article exactly as it was produced and seen by the subject and his/her associates. JDG 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::Ah, I see your rationale. In that case, the image should probably be moved to the main article on Hemingway and not the subpage, as it seems the notability of the image pertains to Hemingway and not the text of the letter then. An article devoted to the letter itself is very likely to find itself moved to Wikisource. At any rate, if the copyright status of the image could be clarified, I would be very much obliged. TheProject 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:::::::Yes, it's an odd arrangement-- the way the image is a page unto itself. I had a reason at the time... Maybe it should just be a standard image with a standard image tag in the article. I'll try to clarify the copyright status... JDG 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::::FWIW, it's a footnote in the Hemingway page, as I'm sure you already know. If the image is indeed in public domain, I'll tag the article as merge to the parent page. Thanks! TheProject 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

::::Donation of a letter to a different party in no way affects the copyright status. Copyright exists independently of the physical item. There is no reason to presume that this letter is in the public domain, and therefore without permission from the copyright holder (who may be the Hemingway estate or the LOC, depending on the arrangements made when the letter was donated) it cannot be used on wikipedia. And yes, I do have particular expertise in copyright law. Kcordina ^Talk 08:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, SAT questions are copyrighted material and therefore cannot be included on Wikipedia. Let me know if this is incorrect. Thanks. TheProject 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:According to the agreement students have to sign on the SAT test, the questions cannot be discussed or shared until they are posted on the collegeboard.com website which all have been.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ram32110 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 June 2006.

::Thanks for the clarification. I have reverted the copyvio listing. TheProject 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Seems like wikisource material, but I'm still a little unsure about how that's done:

Proclamation of the Independence Order (Bangladesh Liberation War Documents)

Hornplease 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:If you ever see something that should be moved to Wikisource, just use the {{move to Wikisource}} tag. Thanks. TheProject 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

You are doing a great job cutting through the backlog with these! I would appreciate it you kept any comments on the talk page (especialy those regarding questionable copyright or sources lacking) attached to the texts. Fair warning; anything that I have questioned on this end is guarnteed to be immediately put up for deletion over at Wikisource. If the orginal contributor over here has not clarified in all this time the chances of them doing so over at Wikisource are slim to none. Thanks for all the hard work you have been doing.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 10:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. I'm checking through as many for copyvios as I can, although there may be some that slip through the cracks. Where I am unsure, I've marked it in my transwiki at Wikisource. TheProject 14:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::This was the one I had noticed Talk:Interoperability in health IT. The talk page comments were not moved to Wikisource and I could not find any comments about the lack of source and unverified copyright (which isn't specifically mentioned but you must have a source to know the copyright). Maybe I am just not looking in the right place?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Hm... looks like I mistakenly interpreted this as a work of a government organization. I'll strike both copies as copyvios. Thanks for the double-check. TheProject 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::::The one I mentioned above is the only one I remembered having a question about so far. I check out that category pretty often and tag things I am reasonbly sure are copyvios. Then I also leave notes on the borderline ones, which are usually translation issues. I was watching you and noticed you were being really careful with these which I really appreciate. I am sure we will go over them carefully before moving them out of the Transwiki space as well. We are doing some major maintanence over there so they may being stting tight for a bit. Thanks for all the good work you are doing! Let me know if you have any questions regarding Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:You already know this, but thanks for the nomination; it is gratefully accepted. TheProject

Hi! I've deleted a few of the articles you prodded as already transwikied. However, those need not be prodded - already transwikied articles are eligible for speedy deletion; just put {{tl|db-transwiki}} on them. Thanks!

P.S. Best wishes for your RfA. Kimchi.sg 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, Kimchi. I might as well seek clarification. I was under the impression that db-transwiki was for articles already considered at AfD where the outcome was to transwiki, not for articles not yet passed through AfD. TheProject 03:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't begin to tell you how absolutely delighted I am that someone's cleaning up the mess I'm leaving on the transwiki log, and I think it's fantastic that the en.wikibooks log has been cleared already. (You know, I'm going to fill it right up again in a short while...)

I just had one request of you when you're doing cleanup for en.wiktionary in particular. Could you have a look at "what links here" for the entries that have already been deleted, and remove backlinks that invite the creation of a dictionary definition, rather than an encyclopedic article? This will usually be most backlinks, except for those whose backlinks are completely irrelevant -- a movie title, place name, entirely different concept, etc. This should help curb recreation of dictionary definitions.

Actually, this applies to all projects, but to Wiktionary in particular, so could you in general please check the backlinks on redlinks on the transwiki log please? It would help greatly. Many thanks! TheProject 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:I knew it wasn't that easy! I'll check whatlinkshere when I get the spare time to start going through the logs again (school holidays in one week...).. Thanks for the heads up (and good luck on your RfA!). :) --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 04:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

::An example wouldn't hurt, I guess: check out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwight_Evans&diff=prev&oldid=60674922 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wario&diff=prev&oldid=60674826 two] diffs. Most should be orphaned but some more common words may have backlinks like these. Thanks again. TheProject 16:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

You've removed the copyvio from the current edition, but it still exists in the history. The copyvio material was inserted by 69.114.103.143 in this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_the_Bull&diff=prev&oldid=39229858], and I believe that edit (and several other edits after it) should be purged from the history if the copyvio problems are to be resolved completely. If you're an admin, go ahead and do that; if not, please ask an admin to do this. 69.117.4.132 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:As a general rule, it's enough to strike copyvios from the current version; striking a copyvio from the history is usually only necessary if we're specifically asked to. (Of course, if there's another reason to delete a revision -- personal information, libel, etc. -- that'll be done.) TheProject 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I removed the lyrics from the article because public domain lyrics belong on Wikisource, not on Wikipedia. The transwikied page is at s:Transwiki:K-K-K-Katy, and when the transwiki process there is completed, a link may be added from the article to the page. In the meantime, I have removed the lyrics again. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Thanks. TheProject 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:"...when the transwiki process there is completed, a link may be added from the article to the page. In the meantime, I have removed the lyrics again." OK, let me know when it is completed, and I will add a link and remove the lyrics. In the meantime, I have added the lyrics back again. Wahkeenah 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

::Song lyrics do not belong on Wikipedia. Whether or not the process at Wikisource completes (Wikisource, after all, may choose to delete the transwikied text outright), the lyrics cannot stay. TheProject 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:::"Song lyrics don't belong on wikipedia." So you say. Just tell me when you're done with your transwiki process, and I'll remove them. Wahkeenah 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Cite me chapter and verse of where lyrics are not allowed... and I assume you plan to scan all articles looking for lyrics. Wahkeenah 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Ah, not exactly only "so I say". Don't include copies of primary sources. And by the way, yes, we plan to scan all articles looking for lyrics. Care to help us with that? (Obviously, there are some articles on Wikipedia which do have primary source texts, which are only included if they add to the article other than just "here are the lyrics".) TheProject 22:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:::::As with various policies, it's nebulous. Anyway, I don't have time to work on fixing something that I don't see as being a problem. You want to fix a problem? Keep anon users from editing. That will save everyone a lot of time that they could better spend doing your projects. Wahkeenah 22:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this was about a year and a half ago, but since you still seem to be moderately active here, I thought I might tell you that I've labelled the inclusion of lyrics in The Whistling Gypsy as a copyright violation: the song was written around 1950 and the lyrics are still copyrighted in the United States. Thanks. TheProject 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:I understand about the copyright. I don't remember what I wrote in that article, as it was a long time ago. Could we just keep the rest of the article, without the lyrics, then? Ed Sanville 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::I'd love to keep the rest of the article, without the lyrics, but if you look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Whistling_Gypsy&oldid=46772315 last revision], you'll see there's not much in the article outside of the lyrics. Thanks. TheProject 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Hi there, you've raised Section_6 as a copyvio.

As I can't find an easy way to add this comment on the copyvio page itself, I just wanted to point out that if the article is indeed a copy of UK law then it is freely reproducible under UK Crown Copyright: [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/copyright-guidance/reproduction-of-legislation.htm]

(see point 10[d])

Cheers... --Jscriv 09:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads up. 10. d), however, applies to non-commercial websites only, and Wikipedia cannot accept materials released on a non-commercial license, as there are reusers of our content who generate money off of advertising. At any rate, the article looks more like a legal notice than an actual copy of legislation, so I'm still keeping this as a copyvio for now. TheProject 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::Er, actually if you read point 10 again you'll see that the waiver is extremely free and open - you can (point 10.b) make multiple copies of the Material for distribution and sale; and (point 10.d) reproduce the Material on free and subscription web sites which are accessible via the Internet; therefore regardless of the commerical or non-commercial nature of the website, the copyright is waived. As for the question of Section 6 being a legal notice - perhaps a UK property lawyer could advise? Cheers... Jscriv 11:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Wikisource has been through this issue and Crown Copyright is not acceptable to the Wikimedia Foundation. One of the problem is the material cannot copied copied downstream as copies must be made from the UK offcial version. The rules against using the material in a "misleading" way are also a problem. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 11:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. Amusing that shortly after I unprotect it, it gets vandalized... TheProject 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

:You're welcome ^_^. Apparently this guy attacks everyone who reverts him, and has a changing IP... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian {T C @} 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:TheProject 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC): P.S. I appear to have broken your talk page. Sorry! :-) copied from user's talk page

::Oh, it wasn't you; User:RedHotHeat forgot to use the