Jump to content

User talk:Anthony/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Anthony

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pjacobi (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 10 September 2004 (→Open Directory Project). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


00:48, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

archive

Lincoln Encouraged Trolling?

  • "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

Stop the vanity insanity

Josh Cooper

  • Vanity page. Might survive if seriously cleaned up. — Timwi 23:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not a vanity page. It's a page about a Canadian political candidate. Jamesday 23:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • A badly written article, so a cleanup matter. I should've re-read it before writing this. The article looks fine now. Fredrik 00:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - looks like the recent group of politian additions - Texture 01:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid ency. topic. Davodd 01:32, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Sidney Morgenbesser

  • Listed by User:RadicalBender 23 Jan 2004, reason "Looks to be a personal page? A few returns on Google, but the article itself is of no value."
  • Delete. Looks like avanity page. Bmills
  • delete. vanity page bursting with its own importance LadyPuffball
  • Delete for above reasons. Anjouli
  • Delete. - UtherSRG
  • Delete, vanity --Jia
  • Delete - vanity - (Are Jack and Anthony voting to keep any and all especially vanity pages?) - Texture
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for vanity pages - Unknown user

The facts...

  • Parts are copied from [1]
  • He is mentioned in the February 2004 issue of Vanity Fair, from which much of the page was copied.

Richard Haynes

Pei-Yuan Wei

User:Texture 16:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Canada Games Company

Quotation marks

Why would you move a period to outside the quotation marks? Anthony DiPierro 16:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NICAM stands for "Near Instantaneous Companded Audio Multiplex", it doesn't stand for "Near Instantaneous Companded Audio Multiplex.". Thus, it isn't good grammar. I've changed it to italics now, a bit more proper. -- user:zanimum

This is actually a Brit vs. American usage issue. See American_and_British_English_differences#Punctuation. Now that I know that both are correct, I've adopted the British style, as it makes more sense. anthony (see warning)

Ali al-Sistani

Anthony, you were reverted on your copyright notice for Ali al-Sistani. Was the copyright issue resolved? I can't find it listed in possible copyright violations. - Texture 17:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was removed from Possible Copyright Infringements by Muriel Gottrop as "resolved". I thought we were supposed to delete and then move the temp page in order to get rid of the history in cases like this. Anthony DiPierro 18:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah. Let's ask Muriel why that wasn't done. - Texture 18:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
BTW, [2] Anthony DiPierro 18:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Anthony, Ali al-Sistani was resolved because it was substituted by a stub and it was more than seven days old. We do not want to remove copyvios from page history using funny stratagems like deletion (if i am wrong i want you to point exactly where in the policies this is written). Now back off from things you dont understand and stop creating havoc. If you want to do something productive, i will be happy to indicate some open tasks. I know you are a reasonable man when you want. Now is the time to be one. Thank you, Muriel 18:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia maintenance

Trilateral Commission

Where is the list of members of the Trilateral Commission? RickK 01:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Their web site said you can get a list of members by email, so I've emailed a request for the list. Do you think adding the list to the article at Trilateral Commission, or creating a separate page with the list of members, would be fair use? RickK 01:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi, on VfD, I counted 5 deletes (me, Warofdreams, Davodd, BCorr, and Wile E. Heresiarch) and 2 keep votes (you, Everyking). Isn't that a consensus to delete? Yours, Meelar 02:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, a consensus has to be nearly unanimous. That's like 1 out of 10.—Eloquence 02:12, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
Sure. I was just wondering what criteria you were using. Yours, Meelar 02:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conflicts between users

I would have deleted it, but since ChrisDJackson has posted on it, I don't feel right about deleting it now. Ironic, since I'm on your side in that case. By the way, I'm still waiting for the email from the Trilateral Commission. RickK | Talk 21:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Hi Anthony

Just wondering why Jimbo Wales now redirects to Wikipedia - most of the content from the page seems to have been lost. Warofdreams 16:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo essentially requested it. See Talk:Jimmy Wales.

{{msg:unverified}}

I'm confused by the change of wording for the msg:unverified tag. "...may not have information on its source..."? If there is in fact information on an image, wouldn't a different tag than this be used? —LarryGilbert 06:57, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)

What about images where a source is listed, but the status is unknown? Maybe we need a msg:unknown tag for those instead? Anthony DiPierro 11:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I see. I understand. Now I can't think of a better alternative. So I guess you've cleared it up for me. :-) Thanks. —LarryGilbert 15:57, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)

Comment

Some consider it improper to remove comments from the bottom without archiving or removing all content. - Texture 22:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know that some people feel this way. However, I don't agree with those people. If a thread is going nowhere, and resolved nothing, I delete it. Anthony DiPierro 22:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's your page. I have to respect that. - Texture 23:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sig notice

Hey... Just thinkging, Mr. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice), that the (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) notice is a bit long. Is it really necessary, or are there ulterior motives involved in its deployment? -Fennec (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 03:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've had complaints before about my changing of comments after people have replied to them. I don't think I should need to keep confusing or inaccurate statements around solely because someone has replied to them. In fact, I think it's probably better to not use threads at all in a wiki. Have each person state their point in its entirety and just update it to respond to the points of others. So that's why I added the notice that "(this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice)". It may be long, but it's much better than having an extended thread where people make the same aguments over and over (and more often than not the entire point of the discussion gets lost on off-topic subconversations). In some cases I strike out comments, but in other cases that doesn't make sense. We wouldn't want to do that in the article space, would we? I don't see why the talk space should be any different. Sometimes I'd like to just delete a comment of mine completely. Sometimes I'd like to add to a comment (there's no unstrikeout notation). Again, this is a wiki, I don't see why discussions shouldn't be edited just like any other part of the wiki.

If I get a chance to work on a page which clarifies the warning I'll shorten it and link, I guess. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 03:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do this: -- anthony (subject to disclaimers), and it'll at least be a bit shorter. Currently you are silly. — Sverdrup 14:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) notice is a bit long. :) Alternatively, consider striking out earlier versions of your comment. Fennec 14:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Eloq has made a good example by linking to his comment policy with a star in his sig. — Sverdrup 12:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll try this. anthony (see warning) 13:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Much better — Sverdrup 14:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I like it. Mind if I link to it on occassion? - Tεxτurε 19:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Feel free. Of course, the warning is applied to the warning itself :). If I ever get the chance I'd like to add a lot longer explanation. anthony (see warning) 22:07, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Anthony - thank you for bringing that nonsense on Requests for adminship to a speedy conclusion. →Raul654 03:40, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I hate your sig

Don't take this personally, I just thought I'd let you know how annoying I find your oversized sig. Mkweise 13:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if you could pick a shorter sig. It disrupts the flow that bit too much and besides you're only like to change a tiny fraction of your comments in the future... for these maybe you could write a special note rather than blanket saying "this is a work in progress" for all comments. Your decision of course, :-). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I forget too often to add the comment by hand. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You've now shortened it to a link to a warning page, which I think is much better. Thanks for doing that. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing your opposition...

...to my nomination as an admin. I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair use is a defense

Just to let you know, fair use is a defense. Cheers. — © Alex756 03:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not copyright infringement. anthony (see warning) 04:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes and no. Fair use is an affirmative defense—"yes, I copied from the plaintiff's work, BUT..." So if the behavior wouldn't otherwise constitute an infringement of the copyright (i.e. not enough was copied), there is no need to get to the issue of fair use—your defense against infringement would then simply be a denial of the claim. Basically the plaintiff needs to establish infringing behavior, then the defendant needs to establish fair use to excuse the infringing behavior so it's no longer considered infringement. Postdlf 14:04 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contrarian

Do you vote the opposite way of stated policies and prevailing wisdom just to be contrary, or is there a more significant reason? --Brockert 23:53, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't. anthony (see warning) 01:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I actually came to your talk page to ask you something similar, after seeing you vote on VfD to keep a contentless article about a school "because it's a school" and to keep an article about Walt Disney's grandfather whom he never even met because "it's enough that he's an American farmer." Could you elaborate on why these are good policy reasons? I'm at a bit of a loss to understand your rationale most of the time at VfD, unless you think articles on EVERYTHING should be kept. Postdlf 16:07 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think everything should be kept, but I do think articles about schools and people should be kept if they are verifiable and not original research. anthony (see warning)

So every human being could potentially have their own article, every building...as long as it's actually factual. You do realize that's contrary to policy as to what Wikipedia is not? Postdlf 21:59 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say factual. I said verifiable and not original research. Every person could only have her own article if an unimpeachable primary source presented enough information to have such an article. Most schools would fall under this as well. I never said anything about every building. I see nothing in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which contradicts this. anthony (see warning)

Arbitration ruling

The arbitration committee instructs you to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages. The arbitration committee does not object to which way you voted, only the manner in which you voted.

The issues of your reverts and alleged trolling are referred to the mediation committee. Martin 00:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

The arbitration committee has referred the issues of your reverts and alleged trolling to the mediation committee. If you would agree to mediation on these issues please leave a message at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I am cross-posting this message to all those who commented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:42, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee).

Empire of Atlantium

I acutely appreciate everyone's frustrations concerning the endless reversion wars and deletion attempts our favourite rogue user is waging against the above article. Concerning documented reputable media sources try looking here: http://www.atlantium.org/media.html and here: http://www.atlantium.org/news.html (try reviewing the archive).--Gene_poole 01:31, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Welp, I've changed my vote to keep. anthony (see warning)

Reading material

The discussion you wanted to read is located at User talk:Wik/Jimbo discussion. --Michael Snow 18:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The warning

Your warning has grown considerably since I last saw it (so it's good that entire text isn't still in parentheses in your signature). But speaking of signatures, the warning says that if we copy your comments, we should not copy the signature. I assume that it's still okay to copy your signature when your comments are part of an entire discussion that's being moved to a new location (e.g., when archiving a talk page). If so, you might want to state that exception, or if not, make it more explicit. I hope this makes sense, because it would be rather inconvenient when archiving discussions to have to sort through them for any comments you made. --Michael Snow 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider moving my comments, in their entirety and without modification, to be copying them. I'll make this explicit. -anthony

Redirects For Deletion

Redirects for deletion is not VfD. You don't have to vote against me on principle there. --Ben Brockert 22:16, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Conflicted Users

No problem. I hope that all of our past problems are just that, past. Also thanks for the support on the VFD page. Good luck! ChrisDJackson 23:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from the Mediation Committee

Concerning the mediation requested by the Arbitration Committee regarding User:Anthony DiPierro and a number of other users:

Although the members of the Mediation Committee have been willing to conduct a mediation and have solicited possible participants, to date no one has stepped forward to be a second party. As it has been the committee's experience that attempting to conduct a mediation discussion with only one party has not been successful, it seems best to wait until there are additional parties willing to participate. Anthony has demonstrated his willingness to mediate; but his adversaries have not. Until they do, we must consider Anthony a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility.

The Mediation Committee is more than willing to mediate this case if and when anyone comes forward with specific concerns.

BCorr & sannse, Co-chairs
On behalf of the Mediation Committee
Copied to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

DuBois

W.E.B.'s last name is pronounced DuBoyz. RickK 01:49, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this on Jeopardy. You are indeed right. anthony (see warning) 16:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your question

Wow, it was sort of weird to see your signature without the usual warning. I'll take it that means you're not threatening to change the question you're asking after I've already made my answer, so thanks.

Anyway, as you might guess, I'm just letting you know that I responded to your question at User:Michael Snow/Candidate statement and discussion. Also, I am honored to be one of the candidates you endorsed in your withdrawal from the race. It is especially nice to hear considering that we have disagreed with each other on occasion. For my part, I have come to recognize that what once frustrated me as your "stubbornness", comes from your commitment to your convictions, and I respect you for that. We may continue to disagree from time to time, but I am confident that we can do so in a spirit of mutual respect. --Michael Snow 06:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


The great disappearing trick....

Kia Ora Anthony.. At 10.06.01 you amended Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I read your amendment, noted the article seemed to be interesting, so read it right through. At the bottom there was a section under the sub-heading If you must.... I noted a problem with the last line and attempted to amend it, but each time I load the page now the If you must... section is not there. The page history shows you didn't delete it. Where has it gone? Or is my IE the culprit? Cheers. Moriori 22:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I did delete it. anthony (see warning) 01:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Twenty dollar bill

Was there a reason why you removed this from the VfD page [3] and yet did not remove the VfD notice from the article? older≠wiser 14:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Your NPOV of the debated Ronald Reagan statement was well done. Thanks for stepping in. - Tεxτurε 22:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

License

Did you take this picture? If the author is anonymous, how do you know the picture is licensed under cc-sa? --"DICK" CHENEY 02:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The person who took the picture requested that I not reveal his or her identity. anthony (see warning)

Senate Image

A link has been added on the controverted image's page. -- Emsworth 00:20, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Message you posted on IFD

Do not list things on images for deletion which are still linked

"Image:Graycenterowl.jpg and Image:101-0176 IMG.jpg - uploader claims the image for which he owns the copyright may only be used for noncommercial purposes. anthony (see warning)"

The image is still used in the article, it's not the job of sysops to do such cleanup on things listed at Images for deletion, just to delete it, take it up on the talk page of the article, remove the images and or find replacements for them and THEN list it again on IFD. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:54, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

I removed the images and relisted it. anthony (see warning) 22:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Georgia Moving Poll Voter Designations

How can I designate you that you vote for option #4?? I designate option #1 voters as Republicans and option #2 voters as Democrats, but can you think of a good designation I can use for option #4 voters?? 66.245.30.216 21:57, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Coca-Cola's nomination as a featured article

I have refactored the article to accomodate your suggestions on WP:FAC. I hope you could provide input on the article as it is now and where it could use work. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 09:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The corrections are currently done manually. I may or may not end up writing a bot to do it; I don't see it as something that has to be done immediately, so people doing a few when they have some spare time seems reasonable. If you (or anyone else) want to do this, feel free. The lists themselves (indent caps) are generated by a script.

I am only changing “External links“ sections because I don't generally look at the rest of the article when fixing it. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 15:04, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

Buddhist philosophy revert

I noticed your revert of a bot's change of "[[Vegetarian]]s" to "[[Vegetarianism|Vegetarians]]", and was wondering if you had some special objection to it. Not that I have any interest, myself; just curious. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 01:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The redirect is useful in organizing what links here and in the case where an article on vegetarian is made. anthony (see warning)

Organizing what links here? Could you explain that further? And should a vegetarian article ever be made? I thought we always ended articles w "-ism" if at all possible ;) Sam [Spade] 04:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What links here is organized by redirects. So when you look at it, you see what is linking to vegetarianism directly, and what is linking through some other term (organized by term). As for whether a vegetarian article should be made, I think it's certainly a good idea, if for no other reason, then as a disambig page. As I went through the list there are a lot of different concepts using the same term. And we already have ovo-lacto vegetarian. Also, the concept "vegetarianism" itself is rather large and diversified. People choose not to eat meat for a large variety of reasons, and I'm not sure it makes sense to group them all under the same umbrella. We also have an article on vegetarian cuisine, which I've changed a number of the links to. anthony (see warning)
Well, that’s certainly a more in-depth explanation than I expected. I have been successfully swayed from tacit disapproval and concern to casual indifference. I'd give the matter more thought, but I must admit to not being particularly thoughtful at the moment ;). Cheers, Sam [Spade] 12:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 15:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FAC Che Guevara

The iconic image (the image about which the copyright concerns were raised) was removed. [4] 172 07:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vegetarian reverts

Anthony,

A bot changed all instances of [[vegetarian]]s to [[vegetarianism|vegetarians]], since the former are double-redirects. I've noticed you have reverted many instances back to double-rds. Why? (I had reverted the example in Buddhist philosophy, and then noticed that you had done this in many places, so I thought I should ask you here before making any other changes.) Quadell (talk) 14:01, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

See "Buddhist philosophy revert" above. anthony (see warning)

Talk:Ken Jennings

Why the suddently strict take on deleting anything that you think is contrary to Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not? You've never followed it that closely before, based on your votes on VfD that are consistently contrary to nos. 17 and 22 of "What Wikipedia entries are not." Why is it that you'd vote to keep an article just "because he's a farmer" but feel comfortable deleting content that people have posted on a talk page that is at least on topic? Postdlf 02:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I believe I have been consistent in my application of what wikipedia is not. I don't believe that 17 and 22 are applicable to farmers, farmers have achieved somthing, and 22 actually was just recently added and there is no consensus for it. anthony (see warning)

RFAr

You have been listed in a request for arbitration. →Raul654 01:17, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a demonstration of incivility to me. I take it you reject my request for mediation that I made on 20 July? anthony (see warning) 02:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the underlying reasons for your request for mediation (IE, my status as chooser of featured articles) have been addressed. On the other hand, the issues in the RFA request need serious consideration by the arbcom. →Raul654 02:50, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • All I see is a proposal which less than a handful of people support. In any case, why don't we save the arbitrators a bunch of time and mediate those issues you bring up to them too? Do you think the arbitrators are going to ban me indefinitely or something? Because if not, then I'll eventually be back, and it'd be a lot better to actually work out a solution to our problems with each other. You are rejecting mediation, right? anthony (see warning) 03:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Anthony, as far as I can see, the *only* solution in your case would be to permanently enjoin you from editing anything except articles, article talk pages, and user talk pages (IE, nothing in the template, Wikipedia, or image namespaces). If the arbcom does take this case, I'm going to suggest that that be the minimum punishment they impose. If you want to save a lot of people time, you can agree to that right now. Otherwise, I'm inclined to see what the arbcom has to say - I don't think they'll be too happy once they see the evidence and the litany of people you have pissed off. →Raul654 03:18, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
          • I think you have zero chance of getting what you wish. But if you wish to roll the dice rather than resolve the issues, go ahead. anthony (see warning) 03:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • I think you underestimate how much you've pissed-off people in the community. I see no roll of the dice here - this is about as open-and-shut as it gets. →Raul654 03:42, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Agreement

I wrote the agreement, and then (on suggestions from Danny) I softened the lanaguage so that it is not permanent - every 6 months, 3 members of the mediation committee (whom we need to agree upon now) will consider whether or not you have reformed. If two of them think you have, then the agreement is over. If you agree to it, please sign it (or state your objections otherwise). I talked it over with the arbcom and they're happy with the solution. →Raul654 23:36, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to agree to this proposal as is. I have two minor problems with it which I'd prefer to see changed though. First of all, I think the word "ban" should be changed to "block", although an argument could really be made for either term. Secondly, I feel term "provocative edit" is not a useful one. At the least I would suggest using the same terminology of the original arbitration ruling, that is a "provocative edit...for no other apparent purpose than to stir other editors up." But really I think it would be better to use terms like "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial". Ultimately it's up to the admins to decide what this means, and I trust they won't be blocking me without some sort of legitimate justification, but I think we should at least guide them in the direction that we're thinking.

Should I sign this now or wait until the three members are chosen? I don't really know much about the members, so I'll let you suggest three, but I'd rather not choose James F. as one as he seems overly eager to engage in this arbitration.

anthony (see warning) 00:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have made the changes you suggest. Also, I should point out that Jamesf is not a member of the mediation committee (from whom we will be choosing the three) -- he is a member of the arbitration commitee. The members of the mediation committee are:

We need to agree to 3 people from that list. →Raul654 00:53, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I misread that one. My top picks would be Angela, Llywrch, and Dante Alighhieri. anthony (see warning) 01:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My three would be Danny, Angela, and Bcorr. So we agree on Angela. →Raul654 02:52, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've added Bcorr. I would suggest Sannse (the other co-chair), but he is on break. Incidently, so is TUF-KAT. anthony (see warning) 13:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about Cimon? →Raul654 18:39, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

FYI - Cimon and Angela have both agreed. I left a message on Bcorr's talk page asking him if he's OK with it. Once he says yes, I'll sign it and then bug some arbcom members to. →Raul654 20:51, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding fuck

I removed your {{notable}} from the article for fuck because this issue in general has been discussed before, and you did not present any argument on the talk page for adding it. If there are pieces of the article you think are uncencyclopedic, do feel free to discuss it on Talk:Fuck, of course. There are some discussions there already dealing with such issues. Note that the article is (for the most part) an encyclopedic look at the word, rather than being a dictionary entry. —siroχo 02:54, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Doesn't the fact that this has been discussed before show that whether or not this entry is encyclopedic is in dispute? anthony (see warning) 11:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

copyvio

Why did you put a copyvio notice on Rowan University without providing a link? --H. CHENEY 03:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I did provide a link, on the possible copyright infringements page. I didn't realize it could also go in the template (these things seem to change every two days). In any case, I tried to add the link to the template, but it doesn't seem to be working. anthony (see warning)

OK, it works now. Thanks. By the way, would you mind if I reduced the dimensions of Image:Heights.JPG? It's way too big at almost 500kB. --H. CHENEY 18:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your Warning

  • As your warning is stored on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, I see no harm in copying large portions of it for myself. Please reply on my talk: page. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 21:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

{{iraqcopyright}}

Anthony, you commented on July 27 on Copyright problems with the above template, which you also created. Would you care to explain what all this is supposed to mean, and why? I don't understand whether it's supposed to endorse using something (the image, in this case) or the contrary. Thank you, Lupo 13:53, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment on whether or not the use of that image is legal. What I'm saying is that if the image was first published in Iraq and Iraq does not have a copyright treaty with the United States (which appears to be the case) then it is not protected under United States copyright law. anthony (see warning) 16:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) [CCed to Lupo's talk page]

WikiReader

http://tomk32.homelinux.org/WikiReader/authors.phps

Malicious Deletion Attempt

Hello. Sorry for the imposition, but I thought you might be interested to note that an article you supported in the past on vfd has been listed again under malicious circumstances - the 3rd such attempt in 7 months. Please feel free to review the discussion and cast your vote as you feel appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium --Gene_poole 10:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just ran the search again and I again saw the "Offensive Search Results" notice. Are you sure it's not there for you? When someone deleted it a couple months ago, I wrote on Talk:Google bomb#Jew: "Perhaps .derf overlooked it because the highlighting that I mentioned is a light blue background that makes the notice blend in with the bar above it that gives the number of hits." The user double-checked and found the notice still there. What do you see immediately above the listing of the Wikipedia article? JamesMLane 03:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I swear it wasn't there before. But it is now. I'll try to word it in some way which makes either way. Thanks for the note. anthony (see warning) 11:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question on Fair Use

I need an image for the Race page, one that I do not have in my personal collection of photographs. I have found a suitable image on-line from which I have excerpted a face. I have digitally changed the proportions of the face somewhat, have rotated to image to vertical, have added "skylights" in the eyes, and teeth in the mouth, have made facial wrinkles and folds less pronounced, and have made a few other minor changes (background, etc.). From that I have a "new" 1" by 1" photo that lets me show a smoother continuum from the darkest of African faces to the lightest of N. European faces. My question is whether this "new" image is sufficiently derivitive to use on Wikipedia, and, if so, how should it be labeled? (I don't think I will be able to travel to the Golden Triangle to make my own photo in the near future. ;-) ). Thanks. P0M 18:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to your first question, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give legal advice. If you want to pay for me to go to law school somewhere in the Tampa Bay, Florida area I'll happily answer your question after I pass the bar exam, though. As for the second part of your question that is dependent on the first, so I can't answer that either. anthony (see warning) 18:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

request for assistance

Hello again. If you've been following the Empire of Atlantium VfD recently you might have noticed that the article's going to survive - so thanks for the support (again). Hopefully that will be the last time! Unfortunately I now have Samboy running a cyber stalking campaign against me, which I'll be taking to mediation in the next few days after I've compiled more evidence. Because Samboy couldn't get the main Atlantium article deleted he is now going ballistic and trying to build a "consensus" with a gang of just-registered crank editors to delete all references to Atlantium on the Micronation page instead - which is obviously complete nutbar stuff. Anyway,I just wanted to ask if you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on the article and helping me to maintain its factual basis by reversing any vandalism attempts that he attempts to make, if you have the time.--Gene_poole 09:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want Atlantium on the micronation page. Your website says that you don't consider Atlantium to be a micronation.

In any case, I looked at the Atlantium page, and there seems to be an edit war going on there. I've agreed not to participate in edit wars. Once things die down, I'll take a look at the damage and see if there's anything I can fix. anthony (see warning) 12:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I personally don't agree that Atlantium is a micronation - however as I keep trying to point out to people like Samboy, the point of view of individual editors is not a valid basis for editing articles. What is relevant and verifiable is that multiple media sources, in multiple countries, over a number of years - press, radio and television - have all referred to Atlantium as a micronation - so a person researching the subject as a result of hearing about it via those third party sources should ideally have a reasonable expectation of finding it at least referenced in an article specific to the micronation subject.

The edit war initiated by Samboy relates to the Micronation article. I've decided to let the continued vandalism of that article pass for the time being, and will attempt to repair the damage once things quieten down again - and after some of the crank editors who strangely appeared a week ago to edit this article and 1 or 2 related ones - have disappeared.

There is actually no edit war going on at the Atlantium page. --Gene_poole 11:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"non-commercial use only" images

Anthony,

you wrote on the Wikipedia:Village pump:

Any image which is fair use for Wikipedia is probably fair use for just about any noncommercial encyclopedia, so non-commercial only images are probably more restrictive.

I don't understand that. Did you mean to write "...is probably fair use for just about any commercial encyclopedia,..."? Even so, I'd like to know what makes you believe that. The Berne Convention, in its Article 10, requires the right for citations, allows (but does not require!) further exemptions, and requires crediting. Do you have any data indicating that indeed most signatories of the Berne Convention do provide for additional "fair practice" exemptions from copyright (besides the U.S. "fair use" and "fair dealing" in the UK, Canada, Australia)? Germany, France, and Switzerland are three countries who do not have anything resembling "fair use": they allow citations, private uses, and news reporting, but no other exemptions exist. Lupo 14:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean commercial. My point is that most fair use images, if they truly are fair use, are going to be at least as free as a noncommercial only image.
I also don't see what the Berne Convention has to do with anything. Fair use is a US law. I would assume that any image created in the US whose copyright was owned by US citzens would be subject to it, regardless of where or by whom the image is used. Likewise, any non-US image which relies on fair use would be illegal for Wikipedia to distribute outside the US.
anthony (see warning) 15:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Choice of law

From what I understand, citizenship per se is not usually a decisive issue. Repeating your last scenario with a slight variation, if a US citizen uses an image on which another US citizen has a copyright under German law, and the initial publication as well as the copying and infringement take place in Germany, then German law still decides whether "fair use" can apply, and the citizenship of the parties doesn't matter. (Assuming that a US citizen can hold a German copyright, and is allowed to sue in a German court, but I think these are safe assumptions.)

  1. A uses an image whose copyright is held by B under the fair use doctrine on a website hosted and accessed in Germany.

Could you clarify the structure of this sentence, please? Is A using the image [...] on a website hosted and accessed in Germany? Or is that supposed to mean that B holds the copyright [...] on a website hosted and accessed in Germany? Or both?

That's particularly important because the location of the infringement has a much bigger effect on what law applies. And of course the problems of determining "location" with the internet make the question even more complex.

Also, I assume you mean that "A uses an image, whose copyright is held by B, under the fair use doctrine". Commas make it more clear that the sentence does not say B holds the copyright under the fair use doctrine, a statement that makes no sense. But that same structure then throws off the part about where the website is hosted and accessed. Sorry to nitpick the grammar so much, but I want to understand your meaning correctly.

In terms of relevant case law, I know of the Itar Tass case, which is mentioned in those choice of law links on your user page. I'll try and answer (sort of) your general questions, but keep in mind that for many of the hypothetical scenarios you might construct along these lines, I don't really know and it's quite likely that nobody truly knows what the answer will be, because that specific type of case hasn't been decided anywhere yet. And that case might not be binding precedent the next time, when the same question is before a different court, quite possibly in a different country even.

Question 1: Where such a case would take place. Fundamental answer: Wherever the plaintiff decides to sue, of course. But this requires the court to accept that it can have jurisdiction over the issue in question, and over the defendant. Jurisdiction over the issue typically means at least some connection to the facts of the case (a French citizen can't sue a Brazilian citizen in a Nigerian court for infringement of a Mexican copyright that took place in Thailand), and often a court that has only a minimal connection will defer to other courts with stronger connections. Jurisdiction over the defendant may involve asking whether the defendant can be sued in absentia (and the plaintiff must decide whether this does any good). For organizations rather than individuals, the extent of the connections may again affect the jurisdiction question.

Question 2: Whether or not fair use would apply. If you mean specifically the US doctrine of fair use, then it's simply a question of whether US copyright law applies, and to what extent. Naturally, a US court is more likely to apply US law, but a US court might apply some non-US law, and likewise a non-US court might apply US law under appropriate circumstances. The law applicable to the original copyright, any places where the work has been published, and the place of infringement all could affect this analysis. As for doctrines in other countries related to fair use, but varying in their coverage - deciding whether any particular doctrine applies would rely on similar logic. --Michael Snow 18:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In most situations, courts will apply their own national law, because that's their default position and it's what they're most familiar with. That means to get a German or other non-US court to apply fair use, even if that is appropriate for the situation, there's a considerable amount of inertia and/or ignorance to overcome. And in the situation you describe, I'm quite skeptical about the chances. When the defendant is German and the infringement takes place in Germany, that seems like enough to keep the court using German law, and my guess is a German court would not be persuaded to apply US copyright law just because the work was originally published there by a US plaintiff. There's a certain incongruence to it when the foreign national is perfectly willing to play by the local rules, and it's the local party who wants the "normal" rules changed. Changing the rules to benefit the local party smells fishy to people and is likely to create a bad impression internationally.
Incidentally, I noticed the argument you raised on the village pump as to why US law should apply based on the Berne Convention. It's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't expect the theory to succeed in practice. The way I would read that passage, it requires the author's rights to be preserved as they would be in the country of origin, but doesn't prevent them from being extended (such as by limiting the availability of defenses to infringement, e.g. fair use). --Michael Snow 21:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood your meaning because I was reading it in light of our current discussion; I thought you were getting at whether it was possible to benefit from the fair use doctrine in countries other than the US. If your point is more about whether fair use should be available in the US for works of non-US origin, then you might have a better argument, but again I doubt its chances for success. At least I'm not aware of any cases where a fair use defense has been rejected by US courts because the work was from outside the US. I suspect that there's not much international pressure to change the situation, because most of the copyright holders who are affected by the fair use are happy enough to have access to the US market that they're willing to live with slightly less protection of their rights.

Returning to our topic, I think the answer is that if a US citizen publishes a copyrighted work in the US, then sues another US citizen in German court, for copying that work in Germany, then the fair use defense under US law is probably not available. Of course, I don't know German law well enough to be certain in this specific case, but that's what I would expect based on general principles. And yes, it's basically impossible to distill international law related to fair use/dealing/practice into simple guidelines, which is why we have such a hard time with our policy on the subject. --Michael Snow 00:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hurricane Charley Image source

From what URL did you get Image:HurricanecharleyIR200408041215LTC.jpg? I would like to know what kind of image it is and other information and it would be useful presently and in the future for URLs of images to be included in their description. - Centrx 03:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/satellite.shtml has the full list of satellite images from which I chose this. This particular one was cropped from the GOES East Water Vapor IR of the Gulf of Mexico 13 August 12:15 UTC. I have no idea why I put LTC. Must have been a typo. I have the full uncropped image available. If you're interested (and can't find it in some archives section or something) I can upload it. anthony (see warning) 12:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Parody

Parody is rather a special case, I think. Since it's a well-recognized technique, and considered by many to have valuable potential uses, I don't know how quick other countries would be to clamp down on it, even if they don't have a broad fair use defense to copyright infringement. For a British example, there's The Rutles, although I'm not sure how much copying went on there rather than just imitation (the George Harrison cameo also suggests that maybe they had some level of permission, although it's a little hard to imagine that not getting permission would have stopped Eric Idle). And MAD Magazine, certainly no stranger to including parody in its quiver of satirical devices, apparently has versions in several countries that aren't known as being friendly to arguments of fair use. I frankly don't have any idea how other countries resolve the problem of parody in the context of copyright law. Maybe they don't allow it, maybe they treat it differently based on free speech arguments that aren't explicitly in their copyright statutes. I can't be at all confident that parodic copying is legal outside the US, but I'm also not certain that it would be illegal, so it boils down to I don't know. --Michael Snow 05:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Page moves

Did something change internally with the way moves work? If so, this is great, but I can't find any details in the history about who moved a page and when. Is this available somehow? Additionally, is there any chance of adding a field to list a reason for a move? anthony (see warning) 11:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. I moved this from the village pump sicne it was time to clean that page. I don't know of any changes to the way pages move. Details of who moved a page will be in the page history of the old title. If you want a field to list a reason for a move, please make a feature request at MediaZilla. Angela. 03:46, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Your Warning as a Wiki-Wide Text

  • Hi Anthony. I've noticed that several users (including myself) like link to your warning, therefore applying it to their comments. Would you mind if I copied it to a page in the Wikipedia: namespace and generalized it (removing words "Anthony", etc.) so that other users could link to it without having to rely on your personal subpage? I'd give you credit by using a name such as Wikipedia:DiPierro Comment Disclaimer. Let me know if you object to this. Thanks! — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 16:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Please don't call it "DiPierro Comment Disclaimer". If you want to copy it and remove the references to me feel free. Just add a link somewhere to the original page (maybe a references section) if you copy any of the text verbatim. anthony (see warning) 19:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Okay, thanks for your help. Your warning, with a few minor changes, can now be found at Template:Disclaimer. Of course, the new template, which can be inserted as {{Disclaimer}}, is up for grabs for anyone to edit as neccessary, another reason why I didn't want to link to your personal subpage. You'll notice that in the "Sources" section near the bottom there is a link to the original text. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 15:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I think you should know that the text Template:Disclaimer has been edited and is no longer verbatim to your warning, as I added a section about updating timestamp signatures. (See comparison of the two revisions.) The rest of the text, however, has been left intact. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 19:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:Ac.queencorgi.jpg

I've added some information on the source of this picture to Image talk:Ac.queencorgi.jpg. I think it should be removed. Marnanel 15:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll list it on possible copyright problems. anthony (see warning) 15:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[Wikipedia-l] Tabular data in Wikipedia (Wikispecies -> Wikicommons)

Your post expressed almost exactly what I would would want to say myself. I'm happy there are users like you on the list. Way to go! --Dittaeva 14:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But mav is also on the point.--Dittaeva 14:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, mav was probably the one who convinced me that a split isn't a good idea, at least not a split endorsed by us. But at the same time, I've been trying to extract this ToL data so I can use it in my own projects, and it's a major pain. My parser needs to deal with lots of little special cases, and things are not well organized at all. *Hopefully* this will be resolved as people move toward using the templates, but at the same time, it's somewhat of a pain to use the templates. As I get my parser honed, though, I'll apply for a manually run bot to go in and update the taxobox formats to be more consistent. If I get my parser honed, I guess. anthony (see warning) 14:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the language-independent data for taxoboxes on Wikicommons is a great idea, but one I don't expect to see for some time yet. Thus I think interim improvements to taxoboxes would be great, if you have an ideas. Pcb21| Pete 23:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LoPbN

see /LoPbN

Category

Hi. Category:American musicians seems to have been superceeded by Category:United States musicians. I notice you just recreated it. As it only has 3 articles linked there, all appropriate as far as I can tell for "United States", I'm changing them to link there. If there's some reason for a seperate category, let me know. (I'm also alerting TUF-KAT, who seems to have been the last person adding "American musicians" category, on the 18th of this month.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"American" seems to be the the term we use for other categories of this type, and it is the proper adjective form for a person from the United States, so I'm not sure we've got the right naming scheme. But anyway, the only reason I "recreated" it was because it had articles linked to it and I've been going around fixing orphaned categories. Didn't even know about US musicians. anthony (see warning) 02:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Recent Reverted Destruction"

I have gradually been doing it to all the pages. There is still a LONG way to go, but I have spent a huge amount of time doing it.

By the way, you would be well advised to (a) tone down your inflammatory language, and (b) remove the "warning" from your signature. These things can create antagonism, and can stifle any sense of good-will that other users might have towards you. "Destruction" is inflammatory language, in my opinion. Go and learn something about civility. I've spent at least as much time on these indices as you have, and I intend to keep on wikifying them until they are all wikified. David Cannon 11:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fix your script, then. anthony (see warning) 11:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will take greater care with it than previously. I admit that I have sometimes not checked my work carefully enough, and will attempt to do better in future. David Cannon 11:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, don't take better care in the future, fix the script and revert your changes until you have done so. anthony (see warning) 11:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:Fairusein

I saw you mention Template:Fairusein on the mailing list and it looks useful (since Template:Fairuse's wording applies only to an uploader) but is there any reason why it uses triple braces to give an edit link to the article? —Morven 21:15, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I thought this was how you include parameters. Or are you asking something different? anthony (see warning) 21:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Or are you saying why it links to the edit page rather than the article page? Because I thought this was a bug. anthony (see warning) 21:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's what I meant -- that it links to the edit page rather than the article page. I implemented a workaround, which should work in most cases; let me know if you find that acceptable. —Morven
Cool. Not sure why it does that in the first place, but it seems to be fixed :). anthony (see warning) 23:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi. Are you able to tell me what I can do if I suspect that an editor is setting up multiple sockpuppet acounts in order to wage a personal vendetta and promote vandalism? Over the last couple of weeks I've noted a number of instances of new registered editors appearing, making a small number of edits in a few unrelated articles, (often just changing one comma or 1 letter within a word), before jumping straight into a controversial discussion in a way that leaves no doubt they are intimate with all of the details surrounding it - and then disappearing again. The intent is obviously to give the false impression that there is a consensus of opinion against me. I am 80% certain I know who is doing it, but I cannot prove it. --Gene_poole 23:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The best thing to do is just note that these people are suspected of being sockpuppets on whatever page it is that they are giving that false impression. In the long run there's not much that sockpuppets can do, so don't sweat it too much. anthony (see warning) 23:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dwarf tossing

Is this a real sport or something that you added it to list of sports? It's been removed and posted on BJAODN with the comment "You don't want to know how long that was allowed to stay on the page." zoney ▓█▒ talk 17:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not yet an auto-googler - hence my asking here. I wasn't the BJAODN-er or remover though. It just goes to show, one can't be too careful in deleting what is apparently nonsense! zoney ▓   ▒ talk 18:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I added an external link to a CBS news story to the article. This should be enough to convince people that it is real. (Until that link goes dead, then it'll probably just raise even more questions). anthony (see warning) 18:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VFD

And I have a right to point out your knee-jerk vote of keep on any and all articles ever listed on VfD. RickK 19:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • I, also, am curious about why you (seemingly) consistantly vote to keep on VfD. Why is that? Don't you realize that "poluting" Wikipedia with nonsense or personal articles makes the good articles come into question? What I mean is, if someone looks and finds some silly entry by a wanna-be-hacker who can't get his frontal lobes in gear, that casts a shadow of doubt on the reliability of the rest of the articles in Wikipedia. KeyStroke
    • I don't think we should have nonsense or unreliable information. But the articles I vote to keep on VFD are not nonsense, and generally have reliable information. Some of them might need to be trimmed down, but they don't need to be deleted. If you want to discuss this further I'd suggest a general page where everyone can be invited to share their viewpoint, because people tend to make the same arguments back and forth ad nauseum. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper has some of it, but it's really scattered all over the place. anthony (see warning) 20:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm confused about something. You left a message on my talk page saying "Please stop vandalizing external links." I was under the impression that it was standard procedure to nowiki links for pages that were undergoing VfD debate. That is the only time I ever nowiki external links. If I was mistaken, then I'm sorry. It certainly was never intended as vandalism. If you would be willing to take the time to fill me in, I would appreciate it. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 03:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If this is standard procedure, I've never heard of it. anthony (see warning) 03:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I found it. For a while this was part of the instructions in the Template:VfDFooter. On 16 Jul 2004 the instructions were changed to incorporate the warning about "You are about to edit the main page," and the nowiki section was not kept. Anthony, you're right -- the current instructions do not call for nowiki-ing external links for articles on VfD. Thank you for catching this. SWAdair | Talk 04:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the accusation that you were acting in bad faith. anthony (see warning) 10:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • No problem. You had no reason to believe otherwise. SWAdair | Talk 02:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude

Anthony, I'm sorry about the "starting an argument with Anthony" on VfD just now. I see now that it can easily be read in a way I didn't intend. I meant to say that the argument between you and me wasn't relevant to voting any longer — couldn't help anybody make up their minds about how to vote — and yet it went on, wasting everybody's time and lengthening the VfD page to no purpose. For that I apologized to other voters and said I would now cut it short. (I don't want to go back on that, which is why I'm replying on your Talk page, but feel free to copy my reply into the VfD discussion if you think it should appear there). I only mentioned "with Anthony" to make it clear which argument I was talking about, i. e. that I thought my reply to Keith Tyler, for instance, was still well relevant to voting and to the general discussion. I'm truly sorry if it sounded like I was saying something like "it's always pointless to argue with Anthony." That wasn't in my mind at all. Bishonen 11:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure the voting ever was relevant, since every single vote so far has been to keep the page in some form. But I assumed good faith with your response, that's why I questioned it rather than whinge about you being rude to me :). Thanks for your reply. anthony (see warning) 12:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I'd also like to mention that VFD, despite its name, is supposed to be about discussion, not about voting. anthony (see warning) 12:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleting my own user page

Could you delete it then? This is the first time that I get asked for reasons to delete my own pages. —Maio | Talk 15:20, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't think the history should be deleted. Just modify it or change it into a redirect. The speedy deletion reason applies only to subpages, not the main user page, if I'm interpreting it correctly. Although I don't think these should be speedy deletions either, it just happens to have gotten in as a policy while I wasn't looking. anthony (see warning) 15:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is CSD #3.7. Also, Wikipedia:Userpage#How do I delete my user and user talk pages.3F says:

Where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page or talk page be deleted.... the sysop can delete the page straight away.
If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. anthony (see warning) 16:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy deletions also mentions it. Angela. 16:15, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy deletions mentions it for subpages, not the user page itself. anthony (see warning) 16:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't. It says "Deletion of personal pages", not "Deletion of personal subpages". Angela. 17:08, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I see, you're referring to the heading "Deletion of personal pages"? That heading doesn't imply that all personal pages are candidates for speedy deletions. No where does that page say that all personal pages are speedy deletion candidates. anthony (see warning) 17:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Sidney Morgenbesser

Anthony, I'm extremely sorry I misread the History of Sidney Morgenbesser. I thought in good faith that I saw there that it was you that had re-added the passages from Hitchens, but I made a stupid mistake. I do apologize. Bishonen 03:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • No problem. I just wish you had taken this to me before complaining to others, because I would have been able to clarify this in the first place. anthony (see warning) 11:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

We've had our difference on a number of issues, but thank you for what you said about my block on Netoholic on Angela's page. RickK 18:37, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov

Hi Anthony,

you have made edits to the license template for works by the US government that are released into the public domain. As it seems now, this is not the case worldwide - I posted a comment about it on the talk page. Could you have a look at it, please? Maybe the template text should be updated.

Best regards, --zeno 11:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In theory this might be true. I'm not opposed to updating the template. anthony (see warning) 11:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Open Directory Project

Would you be so kind to point out what's need fixing in the article? Otherwise it cannot be improved. In fact, I for one don't see a reason for a NPOV listing. -- Pjacobi 18:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It contains a whole bunch of trivia about Wikipedians. anthony (see warning) 18:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So your suggestion is, to reduce this [5] section and taking out the names? -- Pjacobi 19:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony/Archive&oldid=5788247"