User talk:Nyttend: Difference between revisions

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Talk page archives Current talk Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 • Archive 57 (template link) (revert point)

Boelus vs. Howard City

I see that you've been involved in the question of whether the proper name for the article on the village in Howard County should be "Howard City, Nebraska" or "Boelus, Nebraska".

I've looked for evidence supporting either name, and am inclined to favor the latter. However, I don't want to move the page without some kind of attempt to get consensus. If you'd be interested, I've laid out the evidence that I've found at the article's talk page. Ammodramus (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Attrition

I am glad you have not retired, but can sympathize (and am in a similar funk at the moment). Do what makes you happy - I took a bunch of pictures of covered bridges and am having fun pottering around adding content, albeit slowly. Hang in there, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloomington meetup

Thanks a lot for letting me know! I've added my name to the list at Wikipedia:Meetup/Bloomington, IN; hope that'll do as far as the organizers are concerned. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. And yes, if you'd like to forward the listserv email message to me, that would be great. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Champagne Bricout

Bricout champagne was an important Champagne company that produced three million bottles per year, in the top 10 of champagne until 2003. I had not time to finish, or reference, you deleted before and you probably did not even read. Your erase criteria: A7. is unfounded. This important company then made the headlines of Champagne and is connected to the historical past of the city Avize. It is an important addition to the history of the city of Avize.

Thank you to tell me whether the article should be written differently from the French to qualify as interesting, because I just translated an existing record verbatim from Wikipedia.fr for Anglophones cares to know this history, so there !

You can also delete the city of Avize, since you do not see the importance or meaning. Patkoc (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Finding images

Hello Nyttend! I noticed you were a contributor to this discussion... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Suggestion_for_programmers_-_finding_images As OP of the discussion, I just posted some new information that I think is important and goes to the heart of the problem. Hope you don't mind my letting you know. Take care. 3dimen (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, just noticed I probably should have created this with the New section button instead of editing the page. Kinda new to the Talk pages. Hope you get this. 3dimen (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Curran (disambiguation)

You may want to comment at this page, as you removed the speedy tag. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Archaic period

National Register of Historic Places listings in Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saline River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Image protocol question

Hey image expert, what determines whether an image, subject to copyright, but with a non-free rationale, should be posted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion, or Wikipedia:Non-free content review. See User_talk:Dharmadhyaksha#CSD_Notification for background (skipping over the discussion of the first deleted file, and jumping to "This users many uploads are copyvios. Now tagging them".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that was helpful.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of AfD that you participated in

As you participated a few days ago in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, I thought you might wish to know that the result of that discussion (to keep the article) is being challenged in a deletion review. If you have any views on this (i.e. whether to endorse the result, overturn it or something else) then please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:VictoriaHallUrsulineAcademyLynchHouse.jpg

I thought about getting a photo you asked me for, but it seems we already have a picture (it is used for that entry in National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Huntington Grange

Hi Nyttend i see you added a pic to Huntington Grange article. I don't have access to its coverage within any preview from the Dictionaary of Ohio historic places; do you have access i wonder. I was not sure if I could link it from List of Grange Hall buildings back in September 2010, so have just had a question about it at the talk page there. Is/was this in fact a Grange hall of the Patrons of Husbandry? It would be great if you could answer by adding anything to its article. cheers, --doncram 13:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Move

There's a "discussion" somewhat related to you're move of Prostitution in Palestine at User_talk:Wbm1058#Move. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Un-ambiguous?

Didn't like to change it, in case you meant it to be 'ambiguous'... (At the Persecution AfD.) Peridon (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Carnegie Library

Please help!!!!!! I have a picture of the former Carnegie library in Akron, Ohio, but I do not know how to post it to the article. The link is http://www.akronlibrary.org/digital-lib/Library%20History/Images/LHM0008B.jpg. Any help that you could provide me in this matter would be greatly appreciated!!!!!! 71.72.29.241 (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 71.72.29.241 (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Proxy block

Please see this discussion at WP:AN (if you haven't already). Consider yourself asked (the why, not to bite).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Commission on Elections

Hi Nyttend, I had tagged Commission on Elections with a {{db-move}} from the result of an RM I closed. Either Commission on Elections (Philippines) should be moved there, per the RM, or you should overwrite my closure with a "not moved" verdict. Otherwise, the RM is just confusing and misleading. Don't you agree? --BDD (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hearing nothing, I'll leave a note on the article's talk page. I'm not watching this page anymore, so let me know on my talk page if you want to discuss the matter further. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Watermark removal

Howdy. So the lesson of the day is to not use G6 for watermark maintenance. Roger that. :) I wasn't sure how to indicate that the watermark was removed beyond removing the watermark template. I had asked in both the help irc channel and the main -en channel. It was suggested to me to use G6. The reason I figured that the old revisions should be deleted (at least with the freer images) was the line "Additionally, if this image is a freely licensed image, it is in violation of Wikipedia's image use policy" in the watermark template. That line links to the image use policy. The wording there makes me think that the watermarked revisions should be deleted. What are your thoughts on this?--Rockfang (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The policy says that we shouldn't use images with watermarks, but that doesn't mean that they're banned entirely. Keeping a watermarked image would be bad if we had a non-watermarked image of the same subject or if there were some other way to replace the whole image, but when the watermarked image is the best (or only) that we have, we should keep the original version. Since the problem with watermarks is that they get in the way and are unnecessary distractions, they're not a big enough problem that we should hide all traces of them. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What's more, deleting the original revision would cause problems with attribution. See SfanIMG's comments on your talk page — if we delete the original free images, it will be easy to get confused and think that these images were your creations. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. So for non-free images that I remove the watermarks from I should replace the watermark template with {{subst:orfurrev}} and for the freer images I should just remove watermark template?--Rockfang (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that's the best course of action, yes. I'd rather keep the old nonfree revisions as well, but policy is unambiguous that those need to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well done for some elegant photoshopping but …. I deleted one previous version that Rockfang had dealt with then I decided it was not worth doing any more. They are not serious copyvios and they are hidden as old versions. Indeed, I question whether it is worth removing the watermarks at all. The images were (correct me if I'm wrong) all present on a fair-use basis and the watermarks were not intrusive, in which case it is reasonable (and more honest) to leave the original watermark in place. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• No complaints about deleting copyvios; that's why I tagged old nonfree revisions for deletion like I would with any other old revisions of nonfree images. I'm only working to keep images that don't violate policies. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in has been relisted

After a deletion review, a recently closed AFD has been relisted. I am contacting everyone who participated the first time who hasn't found their way there already. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Photos of pending NRHP listings

I haven't intentionally photographed pending listings, but I don't see any reason not to. The only thing odd about having a pending listing category would be that it would be a temporary holding pen, which I haven't seen before, but see no reason against it. Go for it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd thought of tagging it with Commons:Template:Empty category; I didn't make this proposal to you and the others until after checking to see that it existed. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A good idea, conforming to the Moscow Rule of Shopping: if you're on the spot and have an opportunity even if you don't need it right away, grab it. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's why I've watched this page carefully ever since I discovered it, and also the NR pending lists for soon-to-be-listed sites. Depending on the former list has its risks, since some properties don't get listed, but I'd rather take the effort of visiting a site and uploading a photo that I didn't need than not take the effort for a place that gets listed later. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I also watch the Florida state submissions to the NRHP, since it gives a several month lead time. Didn't create any special "pending" categories, but that could be useful. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made a practice of looking for pending listings, although I'd certainly photograph one of I knew about it and was in the area. In that case, I'd probably categorize it in Commons under "NRHP in X County", figuring that it could be removed if it wasn't actually added to the list. Ammodramus (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't keep tabs on pending listings, but I like the idea of having a pending listings category over on Commons. I always search for photos when I add listings to the tables here, but given the shortcomings of the search engine there, it would be nice to have a category to check. --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

AN

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at WP:AN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quis separabit? 18:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Uvala Help

Hey Nyttend, thank you for your help, I believe that i've made the recommended changes that you advised.

V/R

G310Daniel 

(G310Daniel (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

DYK for Lemuel Moss

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bishop’s Stortford

I’ll reply on my talk page. -- pne (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

This editor has disruptively edited, even when I warned him to stop. I reverted the following edits because they weren't accurate, as shown in this video uploaded yesterday afternoon (the date is written next to the video description). Then, he pretends that none of his edits even happened by correcting his inaccurate info, as shown here. I would've never reverted had he waited for the real info to appear, but that's not the case here. Is that considered "ownership of an article"? Platinum Star (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So far, no replies. But no big deal, thanks for the help anyways. Platinum Star (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Value enhancement

OK, thanks for that, deleted as spam and nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Cincinnati, Ohio

Hi Nyt ... I recently put in a good deal of work adding information about Multiple Property Submissions in the Summary column of the northern Cincinnati list. The only explanation you gave for reverting my work was the edit summary "Those comments make the column too wide; restoring standard hidden comments". I don't get it. First off, I think table column widths are mostly dictated by the width and resolution of one's monitor. The column widths looked fine to me. Second, are there guidelines somewhere of which I'm not aware that limit the width of a column in a table?

It seems to me that including the MPS information in the tables is valuable because it can help in article development. I've made adding this information one of the things I routinely do when I add new listings. If you feel strongly that this information doesn't belong in the tables, perhaps we can kick it around a little at WT:NRHP and get some other views?

As for the hidden comments, they really serve no purpose other than adding unnecessary bytes to each page. It's pretty clear from the row header ("|Description=") that one is supposed to enter a description there. It seems odd to me that you apparently find those hidden comments more useful than the MPS information. --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the MPS information is trivial. I don't think the information is any more trivial than noting when the building was constructed, the architect or the architectural style. It's among the information that the NPS includes in the weekly new listing announcements, so they clearly don't consider it to be trivial. MPS documents provide historical context for the sites that are part of the multiple submission. This information should be of interest to editors who wish to create articles about a given listing. When adding this information to a list, I provide a link to the WP article that describes what a Multiple Property Submission, Multiple Resource Area and Thematic Resource is. I don't understand why you think a reader would find this confusing. Can you elaborate?

As for citing sources, as you know, the source for most of the information we present in the tables is the NPS NRIS database. I believe that every list includes at least one reference to the NRIS database. MPS information is included in the NRIS database. In any case, I see that doncram has restored the information I added and has added a source for each MPS note. Does this allay your concerns? --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to work with you here, Nyt, but your responses on my talk page seem to suggest that you're not willing to compromise on this. On the other hand, I see that you've not reverted doncram's work that restored my edits to that page and added some additional information. Does this mean that you're okay with including the information in the Summary column as long as I include a reference citing the NRIS database or an MPS form as a source for each entry? --sanfranman59 (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see (although I don't know what "he prefers B and RRR with only a pretence of D" means). In that case, I'm going to take this issue to the community at WT:NRHP to get some other views. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and paste some of our back-and-forth the last couple of days to initiate a discussion there. Please join in. --sanfranman59 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Nyt. Just a quick note to let you know that I've posted a message at WT:NRHP#MPS info in tables or not? about this issue. --sanfranman59 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Me again, Nyt ... would you please chime in over at WT:NRHP#MPS info in tables or not?? A proposal has been made to include MPS information as a footnote in the tables using the 'name-extra' feature of the 'NRHP row' template. See the Syracuse list for an example. Would this be acceptable to you? --sanfranman59 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Lofoi

Go ahead and unprotect. The edit wars on those articles have died down. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: 2013 tampa bay rays season

I tagged 2013 tampa bay rays season for speedy deletion because when it was created a few months ago, it was incorrectly capitalized. 2013 Tampa Bay Rays season has since been created, capitalized appropriately. As of right now, searching "2013 tampa bay rays season" with all lowercase letters just redirects to the main Tampa Bay Rays article when the redirect doesn't need to exist at all because a search for it doesn't have to be case sensitive in this situation.

For example, I could enter "tampa bay rays" in the search bar without needing to capitalize each word and it would take me to Tampa Bay Rays anyway. However, I would have to type "2013 Tampa Bay Rays season" in order to get to 2013 Tampa Bay Rays season. TampaBay721 (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

photos of bridges restored

You asked in some edit summaries "why are you following me?". Well, I noticed that you weare bashing me in comments elsewhere, and it attracted my attention. You alluded to long-past dispute on List of NHLs in CT, where, when I revisit Talk:List of NHLs in CT, i see really extreme editing in violation of any reasonable interpretation of wp:BRD on your part. It is unpleasant to reconsider that. You have proven to be very difficult to communicate with, over the years. I don't know why you have chosen not to communicate in normal discussions at Talk pages, but rather have communicated by reversion edits with cryptic edit summaries.

You don't own the Ohio NRHP articles. --doncram 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You say "when you add content that's plainly at variance with our standards, why do you expect me to attempt to reason with you". I have no understanding of what you think is "plainly at variance to our standards". Obviously there is room in the articles for several photos providing different views. Please do explain with respect to specific articles, what you think is wrong. I don't expect to enjoy this discussion, but at least we are sort of talking, maybe. If you have gone and deleted the photos already, i'll tend to want to take back any conciliatory tone. --doncram 01:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well i see you had gone and deleted them. I restored them. In one edit summary you assert something about a non-existent page wp:FILE. I can follow a link from that to a style guide, where indeed there is a suggestion that one can create a gallery on commons. That's a good idea when there are lots of pics, like for some HD articles where there are 50 pics and a gallery in the article itself is cumbersome. That style guide does not preclude the use of a small gallery, like for 3 pics in the given bridge article case. You have really dogmatic reading of the guide to feel you must remove good content.

In other edit summaries I think you are suggesting that for a short article it is impossible to alternate pic placement satisfactorily. It is not a reasonable conclusion to delete the photos. Expand the article, perhaps? Don't you have Ohio sources? Why are the Ohio articles not more developed by now. --doncram 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lucy Lippard file

Hi there, I'm responding to your speedy deletion of a photo I uploaded of art critic Lucy Lippard. The image is from flickr (not my account) and licensed as Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0). The license explicitly states that this image can be circulated, altered, etc. as long as attribution is given and the image is used for non-commercial purposes. I provided a rationale as well as attribution, and Wikipedia is a non-commercial site. It does not make sense to me that it was deleted under F9, Unambiguous copyright infringement. Furthermore, there are no free alternatives to this image. I understand uploading this image to Wikipedia with attribution as fair use. Can you explain why you believe that is not the case? --Arthistorygrrl (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Zipcode directory

Hi-The zipcode directory you put together for starting articles on unincorporated communities that have zipcodes is very useful. I like starting articles about unincorporated communities. the communities have their own history. Many thanks for the zipcode directory.RFD (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Linky?? I would love to see itCoal town guy (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The link is:User: ZIP-thanks-RFD (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GROOOOVYCoal town guy (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A word of caution, if you removed any bluelinks from the list, please make sure they are not redirects. I have come across a few on the list that were redirected-thanks-RFD (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I've removed only articles. I've made some exceptions: sometimes the post office name is different from the municipal name, whether completely different ("Boelus" is the post office name for Howard City, Nebraska), or sometimes there's different punctuation or capitalisation, such as the occasional LaSomething, Statename when the article is at La Something, Statename or Lasomething, Statename. However, I've kept the blue links there when they've been redirected to some other place, such as disambiguation pages or articles about other communities. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The effort is duly appreciated in any form. Kentucky is a spiders nest as far as nomenclature and any help with those communities requires the patience of JobCoal town guy (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I created them a few years ago from the deleted lists of ZIP codes in each state (deletion discussion); since I've actively used them for a purpose instead of just keeping them around, they aren't a problem either as a repost or as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. I figured that they'd be useful for starting articles; while we've established consensus that all real communities are notable, it's easier to argue notability when there's something official there: those who doubt inherent notability generally seem to be more easily convinced of the notability of something that's not just a dot on a map, and I like to fill out articles with something more than just a single GNIS feature record. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I lived many many in some of those dots on a map, they are very real and just as notable as some "larger" places. Dont get me wrong, I loved London and Munich just fine, but I love my small coal towns tooCoal town guy (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement with your sentiment. I was referring to places that are just dots on the map, as far as our sourcing goes (i.e. nobody seems to live there anymore, and they never had anything official except for appearances on USGS quads), but not trying to demean them. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I saw no disrespect at all and I am thankful for your help hereCoal town guy (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image rationale

Not for nothing (it's a non-issue) but you do realize that the rationale you gave for deleting File:RussanRiverBrewingLogo.jpg was a bit inaccurate -- the file hadn't been on Wikipedia for more than 48 hours... let alone the seven days you cited. I know, from previous encounters with you, what a stickler you are for rules, policies and regulations and whatnot, so I just wanted to point that out to you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Conk 9 and 6 years of copyvios

Based on your comments here, I thought that you'd be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Conk 9 and socks and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 20.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Baynard Rush Hall

Hello! Your submission of Baynard Rush Hall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

ZIP codes R US

Hey there-

I have a few questions that hopefully you can help with. I am at this time hitting all of the KY olocations that have a zip but no article. HOWEVER, I noticed that the WV list is crossed out. SO, does this mean we have hit all WV locations, OR not? IF we have not, is there any way that list can be restored and I would tackle that as well. Again, many thanks for the listCoal town guy (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Swindon Town Swoodilypoopers

I see that you removed the Wikipedia entry for The Swindon Town Swoodilypoopers. I urge you to reconsider this terrible decision. The Swindon Town Swoodilypoopers are an incredibly important, vital cultural identity (one that should certainly be searchable on the fine establishment of Wikipedia). I hope that, in the future, you will research things that you delete rather than doing things impulsively that you have not thought out or about which you have not attempted to find more. You are a horrible person, and should feel bad.

You are named in an Arbcom request

Here. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Baynard Rush Hall

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

IP editor

I'm still convinced that this editor is Lui2021 because he keeps on adding copyrighted material (case in point, this), as well as posting inaccurate info. Plus, I'm noticing that he's been stealing info from sports websites and posting them here, which is what Lui2021 did in the past. Platinum Star (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

please provide copy of page you just deleted

Copyright infringement is illegal, and attempting to convince me otherwise is unwelcome.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nyttend, would you please provide by email or otherwise a copy of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) page which you just deleted. --doncram 04:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I received your negative reply. I believe it is your obligation as an administrator to provide a copy of the page that you deleted. You can certainly do so by email to me. I believe it is an abuse of administrator tools for you to delete an article like that without discussion, as I am rather sure that I would disagree with your assessment of copyright violation. And it is certainly an abuse to do so and to refuse to provide the material that you deleted. Please do send a complete copy of the article to me by email. --doncram 04:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I am unsure about your rationale for deleting (again) Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). You initially deleted the article on September 27, because it "has no meaningful, substantive content." It was restored after doncram added to the content in his sandbox. By October, the article was a pretty decent start with a proper infobox, properly licensed photograph of the building, description of the architecture and some history, and citations to reliable sources. Your stated reason for deleting the article today was that it contained "an excessive quote of nonfree copyrighted material." However, the only quote in the article is a brief 10-word excerpt from the "Ohio Historic Places Dictionary," which was attributed and cited to its original source and author. This 10-word excerpt does not appear to be "excessive" and instead appears to fall quite readily within WP:FAIRUSE, which permits the use of such short excerpts: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks." Can you please take another look and explain further your reasoning for deletion? Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Talk-page stalker here... I sympathize with Nyttend's action, although I disagree with some of his reasoning. I agree with Nyttend's judgment that the quotation is excessive; the main thought could be quoted without quoting the entire sentence. However, I don't think that the copyvio is serious enough to justify a total embargo on the article. I can't read Nyttend's mind, but it appears to me that his real concern is that this article was repeatedly recreated or restored to main space without resolving the issues that had led to deletion. The most recent version still had essentially no substantive content, and footnotes like "From another book preview snippet available in Google search results" and "Note, however this would seem not to be covered in Ohio Historic Places Dictionary online book; there's nothing about all of Morrow County" are "not ready for prime time" (i.e., main space). This cited source would be a basis for a fine addition to the article Chesterville, Ohio, but it doesn't seem to say anything much about this particular building. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC) No point in replying at someone else's talk page, since you're all here...Remember that the idea of fair use only permits irreplaceable content. It's excessive to quote anything nonreplaceable and thus a copyvio: unlike when we quote other people's words as a means of conveying their impressions of the subject of those words, this was quite obviously a method of using someone else's words needlessly to describe the article. Doncram has been warned about this in the past, so he knows the difference and is beyond excuse. I'd rather delete the copyvios than go through the hassle of another ANI, but if I find more copyvios, I'll eventually be dragged to the point of believing that deletion will be insufficient for preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, deterring the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Because we're all equal, we're all liable to sanctions for committing copyright infringement; if I did the same, I would deserve to have my creations deleted and my talk page filled with warnings. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Nyttend -- We went through this previously at Talk:C. Ferris White. A single 10-word quote, properly attributed, is the epitome of appropriate fair use and is not a copyright violation. As Moonriddengirl and Dirtlawyer pointed out there, "the 'no free equivalent' provision of WP:NFCC applies only to 'other non-free content,' [e.g., photos, recordings] not brief textual quotations that are properly quoted and footnoted." Even more so here where the quote is not merely descriptive, but qualitative in nature, reflecting a recognized expert's view that the property in question is one of the finest in a particular area. I urge you to reconsider and restore the article. BTW, I do agree with some of Orlady's comments about a couple of the footnotes being "not ready for prime time," but that can be fixed without deleting the entire article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Definitely not. This quote was not being used transformatively; it was simply a quick way to expand the article by using someone else's words. Doncram's own words, paraphrasing the statement in question, would be quite capable of conveying the same sense. It quote blatantly fails the first point of WP:F: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose." Kindly stop belaboring the point. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Nyttend -- I'm not belaboring it, but you seem to be ignoring what you've been told here and at Talk:C. Ferris White by Moonriddengirl, Dirtlawyer and others. Will you reconsider and restore the article? Cbl62 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC) No. Will you reconsider and stop attempting to get me to restore a copyright infringement? You cannot convince me to engage in contributory copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC) You don't seem to be listening. The very passage you have quoted above makes clear in its introductory language that it only applies to non-textual material. It says, "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." I will not comment further here, but your interpretation appears to be plainly incorrect and does not justify deletion of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Very well. Try reading Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which says nothing about the medium in question, and which stipulates "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." I am quite weary of repeated attempts to convince to participate in copyright infringement; further attempts to convince me will be removed from this page, further copyright infringements will be deleted summarily, and those committing infringement will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC) I too agree that it can be considered an abuse of administrative privilege to condenm -an entire article- when only a small portion of it represents CV. At best it would be a failure to behave collegiately among the community. The most appropriate course of action, given the attention this is receiving, would had been/be to restore the article, without the alleged CV fragment and tag the article with any appropriate notices while simultaneously starting up a section in the article's Talk Page about the CV issuue/s in question for community consensus. I am perfectly aware that CV rules allow for immediate deletion of material -and my record will show that I take article CV very seriously myself- but, again, to condenm the -entire- article, was not the way to go in this instance. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

TLDR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nyttend, I asked a narrow question "Nyttend, would you please provide by email or otherwise a copy of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) page which you just deleted." You replied at my Talk page: No, I will not. You included an excessive quote of nonfree copyrighted material, and I will not commit copyright infringement by copying it. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Administrators are under no obligation to provide copies of deleted content. When the content has been deleted because of a copyvio, it would at the minimum be contributory copyright infringement, so I will not break the law by restoring your copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, didn't respond to your entire message. It is not a abuse of administrative tools to delete pages containing copyright infringement; otherwise every G12 speedy deletion would be an abuse of administrative tools. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC) The narrow question is answered, i.e. that you refused. And another administrator has emailed a copy of the page to me, so I no longer need it from you. I learned from browsing about administrator responsibilities that an administrator is not in fact obligated to provide a copy of copyvio material (tho there seems to be disagreement on whether there is a copyvio, and if there is copyvio, you would be free to provide a copy). Otherwise, I don't know what anyone is learning here. Maybe on one basic level, I wonder if you can accept my saying that if you want to exercise administrative privileges to enforce standards on NRHP articles in Ohio, which you closely monitor, then you need to be open somehow to discussion on what those standards are, and you need to communicate about what you perceive as violations of your standard. If you don't want to be involved in communicating and learning about copyright policy or other matters that come up, then IMHO you should not be exercising administration powers in this area. I personally am willing to make some effort to meet some possibly higher standard for Ohio NRHP articles that you wish to enforce, if you would participate in some give-and-take, including at a basic level your simply articulating what you want and what you don't want, in words. Even though I don't agree that you have any absolute right to enforce an arbitrary standard, I am trying to nonetheless show some respect for your wish that Ohio articles start at some higher level than is required by general wikipedia policies. Signalling this (though you probably did not notice), I put into the wp:NRHPhelp guide some advice that I thought I was discerning from you, i.e. that you think anyone should check the Ohio Historic Places Dictionary in any new NRHP Ohio article (that advice is now directly available at shortcut wp:NRHPhelpOH.) I would be willing to agree to do that, i.e. either to use that source or to indicate it provides no info in a given case, as part of settling something with you. In the very article that you deleted, I had made a point to indicate that I had tried and failed to find anything in that dictionary (i wrote: "this would seem not to be covered in Ohio Historic Places Dictionary online book; there's nothing about all of Morrow County"). That was a message to you, personally, left in a footnote for you to see, knowing you were watching this article topic, and I presume you did see that message. Obviously, the note could have been removed by you or anyone, and perhaps it should have been put originally on the Talk page instead, but i think i was not necessarily expecting you to look at a Talk page before reacting, when you found the re-started short article. (And then later, the footnote should have been removed by me or anyone, because i had in fact later found and referenced OHPD material about the place, after all.) I dunno, maybe you were in fact actually offended by the footnote somehow? I have little idea about what you want and don't want. On your refusing to provide the article to me, I think you need to understand that you certainly could have provided it by email; your statements that you would be breaking a law by doing so are simply and completely incorrect. I think you need to get some clarification elsewhere, somehow, if you really believe that. It would be a pretty horrible world if we could not quote from anything, ever, even in private emails which clearly don't constitute any kind of public publication. It certainly undermines communication and discussion, if you delete and don't share and if you further seek to cut off discussion here. And, as suggested by your top-of-talk-page statement, I believe in general you are usually not willing to discuss things elsewhere. I recognize that you are a volunteer, like me, and that we do not have infinite obligations to participate in useless discussions, but I do think there's some useful discussion to have somewhere, sometime, that you and I and others could actually learn from, around copyright issues. E.g. what is short enough for a quote to be considered an acceptable short quote? (200 words, if you have to set a rule of thumb? 10 words?), what on earth is the "transformativeness" quality that moonriddengirl cited as desirable previously? (probably desirable), is there an operating requirement in wikipedia for quotes to be transformative? (i think not), was the quote I used here actually transformative (I think it was). I thank the commenters in the now-closed previous discussion. I rather assume more discussion won't happen here, and maybe that is best. I guess that a deletion review would be the next step in a process to get more eyes on the question of this one article and its 10 word quote, as a small example to learn from. --doncram 15:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

At my Talk page, you asked me "to write substantially less". Okay, how about this: do you understand that, in the deleted article, I was actually trying to comply with what I thought you wanted? And that I wrote that into wp:NRHPhelpOH? What advice would you give to any editor starting Ohio NRHP articles? What would you change in wp:NRHPhelpOH? --doncram 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Beatrice Hicks

I've added 300 characters of prose. I believe Template:Did you know nominations/Beatrice Hicks is ready to go live. On the off chance that you also do GA reviews, the article has been waiting to be reviewed for a few days as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for getting and supporting the "joke", which has led to the creation and improvement of articles in Wisconsin and Australia like Gibraltar District School No. 2, which is just fantastic. :D

LauraHale (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah well. Then just coincidence. ;) Another editor and I have nominated 7 articles not in that European country with Gibraltar in the name for DYK. 2 are in Wisconsin, 3 in the Australian Capital Territory, 1 in New South Wales and 1 in Western Australia. I got the idea to do it after I saw Gibraltar on a map at a museum and was like ZOMG! DID NOT KNOW! Anyway, your article is really impressive. I wish I could write that well. :) --LauraHale (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just really awesome work. :D There are a number of places in Australia I could work on... but I got to the point where I thought it had become akin to beating a dead horse, and I should work more on stuff for n:Wikinews:IPC Nor-Am Cup Wikipedia wise. Writing Wikipedia articles is good research for interviews. But any more work on USA Gibraltar articles would be nice. :D (Or if anything with a similar name in Asia or Africa or South America or elsewhere in Oceania...) --LauraHale (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome for the photo of the Gibraltar school #2. I have replied more in depth on my talk page. Royalbroil 05:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi-I started the Gibraltar, Washington article and added GNIS to the Gibraltar, Pennsylvania. Both need infoboxes. I hope you can make them DYK articles out of them-thanks-RFD (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

CSD G5 declined

Hello!
You recently declined the CSD G5 request of the article List of awards and nominations received by Hina Khan given reason that "Several people have made substantial contributions here". I would hence like to point out who those several people are. The wikisense tool lists down top contributors as follows:

• User:119.73.46.2 - Geolocates to Islamabad
• User:182.182.21.96 - Geolocates to Islamabad
• User:Amina ashraf khan - Proven sock of User:Mr Hamza. If you ask some regular check users on his case, they would confirm his location also to be same.
• User:119.73.34.219 - Geolocates to Islamabad
• User:Bgwhite - Now him i would call as the genuine 2nd different person.
• User:119.73.47.154 - Geolocates to Islamabad

Do you want to reconsider your "several people" statement now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Regular Show episodes

On my talk page I've accepted that I made a pig's ear of this — got carried away after deleting the verbatim copyright of Regular Show (season 4). I'm not quite clear what you are asking me to do, you seem to be suggesting that I redelete, but I'm not clear why, given that I made an error in the first place. Is there a "don't" missing, or this this a technical thing that I'll need explained to me? Also not sure about the wheeling comment, I've never edited this before Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I'm not convinced that this article is as kosher as I've been told by all and sundry.

• For the season 4 article that I deleted, a search with the first sentence of each episode description led to the corresponding verbatim description of that episode on the cartonnnetwork website
• On the main article, I did the same on a couple of episodes, I've picked a few more at random below eg.

• episode 66 first sentence search gives this
• 73 gives this
• 78 gives this
• Sigh... and the season 4 blatant copyright violation ( I used the same search for first sentence) has been reincorporated into the main article

If you are prepared to defend this stuff, it's up to you, and I'm not going to wheel. I got flamed once, and I've no intention of inviting another onslaught. I'm walking away from this, if you think there's anything I really have to do, technicality or not, then take it to ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

but I'm not guaranteeing that I'll ignore season 4 if it's split off again. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 13:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)