😂

Disappointed

I was very disappointed to see your assumption of bad faith and insulting behavior on the Mzoli's deletion discussion.--Jimbo Wales 19:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I was merely pointing out that some users seem to place a higher importance on your edits over any others. Had this article not been authored by you, my speedy deletion never would have been overturned. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true. Pointing out the bleeding obvious is hardly an assumption of bad faith. Moreschi ^Talk 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Jimbo is not the end-all be-all he has been made in some circles and simply pointing that out is far from Bad Faith. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the feeling that Jimbo would love to be able to edit normally. Just because others over-react when he is around, doesn't mean we should as well. Carcharoth 12:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that your speedy would not have been overturned if it hadnt been Jimbo creating the article is an appalling statement. Is it that you think we have too much coverage of Africa already, or perhaps that we shouldnt really cover the continent at all? It was so obviously not a speedy and it would have been equally wrong for you to have speedied the article regardless of who created it. Your judgement that it was a crpapy article makes me seriously question your judgement, especuially as an admin who engsages in speedy deletions of articles that you dont like fopr whatever reason. Those who oppose countering systemic bias seriously depress me, and I totally agree with Jimbo that your bad faith insults were inappropriate, SqueakBox 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to dispute that the speedy deletion would never have been overturned. The article was in fact recreated, and that would have been an easier option than getting the speedy deletion overturned. I was considering recreating the article before someone else got there first. But surely you are missing the point that speedy deletions often are overturned on request. If there is a reasonable objection made to a speedy, the best option is to undelete and take to a full deletion discussion. Speedy deletions are not sacrosanct when only notability is at sake, and admins do not WP:OWN their deletions. Carcharoth 12:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've nominated it (under 17th September) at WP:DYK. See Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on September 17. I hope the people over there can be objective (either way) when they see the name Jimbo Wales. Carcharoth 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Midway Airport Runway 4R (Brett B. Despain).jpg

Hi demon. Can you please delete [Image:Midway Airport Runway 4R (Brett B. Despain).jpg]. The author had requested it be deleted as he is going to sell it. I saw you deleted it yesterday, but I re-uploaded it because I thought it was deleted for a different reason. I checked my email today and saw he wrote me telling me he wanted it off so when you have a chance can you delete the image for me. Thanks alot! Sox23 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If the image is GFDLed, then we have no reason to delete it. Did the user tell you when you uploaded it that he was releasing it under the GFDL or CC-by-SA? If so, then he can't take that back. FCYTravis 00:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the GNU liscense and has already been deleted by Demon before. Sox23 00:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That license is, as far as I understand, not revocable. He can sell it, but he also cannot prevent free copying and redistribution of the existing, low-res photo, if he did release the photo under the GFDL already. FCYTravis 00:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, I have already found a replacement picture for the article, so it really doesn't matter if this one gets deleted...Sox23 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD comments

You do realise my comments on this MfD were intended as humorous? Both you and Riana seem to have taken them somewhat too seriously - [1] [2]. I wasn't trying to make editcount a big issue; it was a comment intended to lighten the mood in a somewhat contentious MfD (in which, incidentally, I didn't have a strong opinion). Walton^One 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For having the guts to enforce policy even if the creator was Jimmy Wales I award you this barnstar. We need more people like you and less people who care more about their status on Wikipedia than policy which is what adminship was created to uphold. No one is above the project - no matter who they are. EconomicsGuy 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Category move

As you have updated the graph at Template:Notability progress in the past I thought you should know that the categories are being moved.

Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from July 2007 will go to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from July 2007

Hope this helps,

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:57 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Black falcon is updating when the current move is complete. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17 23 September 2007 (GMT).

I had to drop this some time ago due to lack of time. Glad Black Falcon was able to take it up. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)