User talk:Wizardman
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #148 |
|
You have email. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
End of WP:Bio assessment driveI have reraised the issue (see towards the bottom) as to whether assessors should receive all the awards they qualify for or only the highest one. Your input is appreciated. BrokenSphereMsg me 15:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Re:AdminI would like to go through the process and appreciate you nominating me. However, would you be willing to wait maybe two more weeks? I just started school and want to get attuned to everything, and I have several side projects within WP:FILMS I want to divert most of my attention to in the next week. If this is a problem, let me know. Again, sorry about this, I always seem to be at a bad time when you contact me. Thanks for considering me again for nomination. --Nehrams2020 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Lionel Barrymorehello Wizardman, I noticed you deleted the picture of Lionel Barrymore on his entry. Why? was there some copyright problem instead of public domain image. A number of good images of Lionel are at SilentGents.com and can be used for uploading if there's a copyright problem with the previous image. I must admit the previous image did look like it was taken from a film or newsreel. But I'd like to see an image back of Lionel. Silent Gents is a good place to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.201 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Question on deletion of "Lawman (TV series)"Hi Wizardman, I'm rather new to all this and I'm impressed with the qualifications on your page. May I ask why the image I provided courtesy with the permission of www.peterbrown.tv was deleted? 1)They gave permission for use of the image 2)As the show is no longer on and Mr Russell is dead there's no chance of getting a recent photo of the two, nor would it be from the TV show 3)They believe the image is in the public domain. 4)I feel the image is necessary to illustrate the article Hope to hear from you and learn some things for future use. Thank you, Foofbun 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Re:adminWow, that's really nice of you! I would be honored if you nominated me for adminship. I don't know if I'd do very well, but one has to try. I've been here for nearly a year and a half, have made over 5,800 edits, and I'd be up to the job if approved. Thanks a lot! Reywas92Talk 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My RfAThanks very much for your excellent co-nomination and support of my now-successful RFA. Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks!
Quick questionWhen I place a request for speedy deletion, and a vandal deletes the request - can you or any other administrator who controls vandalism still see that the article is still in question? It's annoying when I place a request for speedy deletion and then have to keep re-checking the pages to ensure the tag still remains on the page. And yes, vandalism does make my blood boil. :-) Thanks --EndlessDan 12:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Ugh, that stinks. Thanks for answering my question. --EndlessDan 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC) DeleteWould you mind deleting this redirect and this one. Also would you mind merging the histories of User:The Random Editor and User:The Random Editor/Source/Userpage, and deleting the redirect that will be created at User:The Random Editor/Source/Userpage. --Т.hε R.αnδom E.διτor 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thanks Click there to open your card! → → →
RfAI would like to accept your nomination for adminship. Would you be willing to move the nomination to the discussion page once I've answered the questions? I'll probably get to it later tonight or tomorrow (I have an accounting study group to go to). Thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A little rain for your parade...In the future, before you take it upon yourself to assume that an image is in violation of Wiki policy and then hastily delete it (wasting everyone's time in the process), I strongly suggest that you have the courtesy to at least post a warning on the site regarding the image first, giving the poster of the image time to post a copyright, or failing that, at least a rationale. In the case of Ugly American (magazine), your deletion of the image was ludicrously ill-conceived considering the fact that the image is of one of the magazine's covers, and not a "photograph" taken by anyone, and as such - to the best of my knowledge - falls unequivocally within the category of "fair use" (not to mention the fact that the image was posted by an ex-editor of the micro-zine, who - as much as these things can be determined with a collective zine that was almost never actually copyrighted - can be considered one of the "copyright holders"). The fact that you are seemingly free to vandalize articles at will and without warning is ridiculous, and the shoddiness and thoughtlessness of your actions should be condemned and not supported by the Wiki administrators. I suspect that your "road to good intentions" has unnecessarily caused quite a bit of trouble, and you might consider cleaning up your own act first, before your knee-jerk actions (and de facto vandalism) get you tossed from the site. J. Marlowe 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Re: Deletion of image from UA (magazine), ad nauseam...At the risk of beating a deader-than-dead horse, I'd like to offer a few comments regarding your decision to delete the "fair-use" image from the UA (magazine) article. In the greater scheme of Wiki, the UA (magazine) article is an insignificant speck, and judging from your history, your deletion of unauthorized images by the boatload is a regular occurrence. That being said, you happen to be the only administrator that I've ever had a problem with, and I feel that this situation touches upon a number of larger issues that may be of interest to other contributors who've experienced the same frustrations. Since you've been gracious enough to share your knowledge of Wiki with me, allow me to be bold enough to offer you a few suggestions in return. Backtracking a bit, I have to say that I'm still rather surprised by your deletion of the sole image within the article, for a couple of reasons: 1) The image in question was of a magazine cover (with the title of the magazine clearly written on the cover), and was used only once - quite judiciously - solely to illustrate the fact that the zine did, in actuality, exist. No other administrator has ever questioned the patently fair usage of the image. Now, I understand that any contributor posting an image is required to provide either a notice of copyright or an explicit fair-use rationale. The article, like every other article in Wiki, has, during the past year or so, been "tagged" with various clean-up notices by the administrators, and all of their concerns have been promptly addressed, which leads me to my next point: 2) Despite your claim that the poster of the image was "notified" and given "at least a week's" warning, I have been unable to corroborate this claim, and furthermore the image was never "tagged" in the article as being unauthorized and in danger of deletion. Given both that the image was posted over a year ago by an individual who seldom contributes, and remained uncommented upon by the administrators for over a year, notifying the poster - if this was even done - can be considered at best a "warning" done in bad faith, satisfying perhaps the letter of the Wiki law, but certainly not its spirit. The deletion of the difficult-to-obtain image, far from advancing your goal of "perfecting" Wiki, has led to a poorer article (and a huge hassle), which could have been avoided had you taken even two minutes to simply post a tag on the article where every contributor could see it, and given the contributors, who have lives outside of Wiki, a bit longer than one week to address the issue, instead of unilaterally deciding in your zeal that the contributors have refused to comply with your wishes and that the image must be deleted. All of this leads me to the larger issue of your modus operandi. The "Wizardman/FAQ" page stongly implies the arrogant assumption that most, if not all, of the contributors' complaints are superfluous and unworthy of commentary, and any challenge to your actions receives only a brusque and often redundant recitation of various Wiki rules and regulations. I understand your desire to make Wiki better and more authoritative, and I'm fully aware of the fact that there exist many articles in need of outside assistance, but if Wiki is to truly succeed, the administrators must allow the contributors to feel free to liberally contribute without fear of provoking the ire of said adminstrators, or without fear of one day finding an article gutted or deleted by an administrator without warning. My overall point is that your hard-and-fast judgements, bolstered by your bureaucratic adherence to the rules of Wiki (and perhaps whatever degree of power or status you possess), might need to be tempered a bit to allow more give-and-take between the contributors and the administrators. I offer this suggestion hoping that other contributors don't experience the same frustrations that I've had, that efforts to "improve" Wiki don't have the opposite of their intended effect, and, most importantly, that the experience of contributing to Wiki remains positive. Thank you, goodnight. J. Marlowe 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) EdokterI just nominated Edokter for RFA. I can't get the edit count on the talk page to look the way it does on others. What did I do wrong? This is my first RFA nom. Rlevse 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
My Wiz!
RfA thanksThank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Dreadstar RfA Click there to open your card! → → →
Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
