User talk:Erik9

Thank you

Thank you for undoing the damage to my user page. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

K-19 Widowmaker and stuff

Hi I have been noticed that you are watching for edition of the article about K-19 submarine. As I can see a lot of people like to edit this and offten they do it as they seem right. But often I have to edit their editions back then, as for example the most popular edition of them is to change it's real nickname to the nickname given to it in the moovie. I suggest to close edition of this article by non authorized users due to it's mass-culture status. If you can do pls do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yegor Chernyshev (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Woops

Apology on Tutankhamun, and thanks. I was quick on the undo button and didn't notice the vandalism has already been reverted... sheesh.... I watch that page and revert vandalism frequently so just went on automatic...yikes.(olive (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Not leaving redirects behind

Just FYI I've raised a technical/policy question at VPT that references a recent log entry I noticed by your bot. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Should non-administrator bots have the ability to suppress redirect on page moves? –xeno^talk 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI these wouldn't have met the criteria at WP:SUPPRESS, as it is a best practice to leave behind the redirect, and delete it later, so that there is a deleted edit indicating where something went. –xeno^talk 18:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

11:31, 17 May 2009 Erik9bot (talk | contribs | block) moved Template talk:MARepresentatives to User talk:Erik9/MARepresentatives [without redirect] ‎ (per TFD)
11:31, 17 May 2009 Erik9bot (talk | contribs | block) moved Template:MARepresentatives to User:Erik9/MARepresentatives [without redirect] ‎ (per TFD)
11:30, 17 May 2009 Erik9bot (talk | contribs | block) moved Template talk:ILRepresentatives to User talk:Erik9/ILRepresentatives [without redirect] ‎ (per TFD)
11:30, 17 May 2009 Erik9bot (talk | contribs | block) moved Template:ILRepresentatives to User:Erik9/ILRepresentatives [without redirect] ‎ (per TFD)

These moves were made pursuant to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_24#Two_US_representatives_templates, in accordance with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 7. Of course, if it would be more desirable to leave a redirect then request deletion, so that an entry indicating the disposition of the templates appears in the deletion log, I can do so in the future. If this matter is quite important, I can remedy the situation with the userfication of these two templates, by manually creating redirects, then requesting their deletion. Erik9 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, manually creating the redirects and deleting is probably not necessary, but yes, please leave a redirect behind in the future and have it deleted for the deletion log. Again, I'm not faulting you, this is a new and fairly mis-understood feature (I've had to explain its use to a number of admins as well), where consensus is really still in the gooey stage as to its appropriate usage. Thanks for your help explaining at WP:VPT. –xeno^talk 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

re lightbot

Don't want to muddy the convo at VPT but I don't adamantly want him retaining the flag, I just think that it should wait for the Arb remedy to pass, and I asked them here to actually write the deflagging into the remedy. –xeno^talk 18:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at the WP:RFAR subpage. Erik9 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP tagging

Great bot work. The bot should date the tag though. Right now Smackbot is running after your bot doing that. Rettetast (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add dated templates in my next bot run. Erik9 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. A question for you too. WP:FOOTY is trying too tackle the enormous backlog of unsourced BLPs. We have splitt the nearly 6000 article long list up into the different countries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country. Holding the list updated is a lot of work though. Especially when thousands of articles gets bot tagged:-). This is something a bot could do. It is simply intersecting Category:Unreferenced BLPs with the subcategories off Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality. Is this something you could be interested in working on? Rettetast (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The results are available at User:Erik9/Both Football (soccer) Players and Unreferenced BLPs. Erik9 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think you misunderstood. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country you'll see what we need. Rettetast (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually keeping the articles separated by country when determining the intersection of Category:Unreferenced BLPs and Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality cannot be done with standard AWB list operations; it would require a great deal of custom coding for which I have little inclination at the moment. However, I can assist in maintaining the country sorted list by computing two additional lists: all articles that are in User:Erik9/Both Football (soccer) Players and Unreferenced BLPs but not Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country (which should be added to the country-sorted list), and the reverse (which should be deleted from the country-sorted list). Since both the add and delete lists should be fairly short, updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country with them will be substantially faster than reviewing all entries. I will recompute User:Erik9/Both Football (soccer) Players and Unreferenced BLPs, then produce add and delete lists shortly. Erik9 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I retract my previous statement that "the add and delete lists should be fairly short": there are 989 articles that should be included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country but aren't, and 379 articles that aren't on the country-sorted list, but should be. I will post a request on WP:BOTREQ, since this is beyond what I can easily handle as bot operator. Erik9 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was responding to the statement but you realized it before i was finished. Rettetast (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested that another bot operator perform this task at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Unreferenced_football_BLPs. Erik9 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Date linking.

Thanks for the copy, but I'm not engaging in mass delinking or using any tool. I'm simply doing it by hand when I notice ones in articles I've been reading. As I read it, the MOS hasn't changed, they simply took a pause on mass delinking. The linking of dates is a ridiculous practice that serves no real purpose except to make a huge article/list. I also think that they need to resolve the issue as the "temporary" injunction has been in place for 5 months. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that you have necessarily violated the injunction, but only that, since you have delinked dates in at least five articles in a short period of time, you should be aware of it. Because what constitutes "mass delinking" can be highly uncertain, as witness the recent block of the Bot Approval Group member Quadell for what he thought was acceptable delinking, I would suggest avoiding any forays into this quagmire until the arbitration proceedings are sorted out, and preferably until the dispute over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Datestempprotectedsection, which is transcluded into WP:MOSNUM, is resolved (the manner of the transclusion is unfortunate, as it serves to obscure the fact that the dates section of WP:MOSNUM is protected due to an edit war.) Erik9 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

{{WikiMapia}}

Cc: User:Erik9

Hi. {{WikiMapia}} was orphaned and deleted but did the information in the template was put in {{GeoTemplate}} as the discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 18 indicated? Maybe it was my fault that I didn't give some specific instructions of what it had to be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the TFD discussion, almost every article in which template:WikiMapia was formerly included also had template:Coord for the locations indicated. As Template:GeoTemplate itself is extremely large, I cannot imagine that there was a consensus to transclude it in over 1000 articles. Erik9 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines and cooperate with others, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppets

Could the Lalaland editors on Mississippi Show Stoppers be socks of some kind?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly possible, due to the restriction of both editors to the same single article, and the commonality in account naming. You may wish to file a report on WP:SPI. Erik9 (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Buttocks

You may be interested in the conversation at User talk:ChrisO#Query. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP numbers

Hello how are you? The Human Height article is target of many IP vandals: The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_height&action=history 99.242.95.16, 123.100.127.237, 69.115.39.13, 75.165.145.44 are the most recent. The user 123.100.127.237 has a long history of vandalism in wikipedia. I think we shoud block him again. Do you know how we can block a page from editing by IP? The Human Height is always vandalized, most from IP users. Thank you very much friend.--Italodal (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussions about unref tags

Greetings. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 9 is getting quite long and dramatized. I'm not sure how to deal with it. How would you feel about withdrawing and starting an RFC, then reopening if/when everybody's got their brainstorms and personal affrontings out of their systems? If not, how do you think we should proceed here? – Quadell ^(talk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that Jeepday's idea of placing articles identified as unsourced in a bot-specific invisible category as described at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erik9bot_9#Bot_Specific is uncontroversial, and that the task could be approved on that basis. Erik9 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there's some good progress. If I approve it for another trial under the new specs, would it be more useful to you to have a trial for X edits, or for X days? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A specified number of edits would probably be better; thanks. Erik9 (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Marking unsourced BLPs

Related to User talk:Erik9bot#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 6.

Would it be possible to go through this list: tools:~mzmcbride/dump/blp-els-2009-06-08-output.txt (warning: kinda large)? It's my understanding that a lot of the of the articles there should be tagged with {{BLP unsourced}}.

Or, if you don't feel like doing it yourself and you have the settings file, I can run it.

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Any action here? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on the mechanism for excluding articles previously tagged pursuant to the task, which is required under the terms of the task 6 approval. Since, when I started the task, I only anticipated reviewing all articles in Category:Living people once (as a second pass through the entire category would have involved a very large number of API queries with few resulting edits, and I was not yet using the database scanner), I did not keep a list of all articles edited, relying on the singular appearance of each article in the initial settings file to prevent it from being edited twice. I can cut and paste the text of the bot's edit history, 5000 edits at a time, and apply some regexps to obtain a list of articles edited, but the process will be most tedious and unpleasant. I could, of course, send you a copy of the settings file, but you would encounter the same problems that I would in extending the task to a new edit list, plus a few more: you would need to obtain a new bot approval (presumably under the same restriction to prevent the tagging of an article twice), and you would need to explain and resolve any technical or operational problems in AWB settings containing exceedingly long and undocumented regexps you didn't create. Erik9 (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've produced a list of all articles previously edited under the task, and will be able to begin work on having the bot review the list of articles you provided to determine if they qualify for tagging as unsourced BLPs shortly. Erik9 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

7852 articles from the list you provided will be tagged as unsourced BLPs. Note that titles with incorrect special characters such as "Zoran Pešić" could not be processed. Erik9 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:BLP probably unsourced

Template:BLP probably unsourced has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

page protection

Due to vandalism I've temporarily protected your userpage from unregistered accounts. If you want the protection removed or extended, just let me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it would be nice if the page protection were extended indefinitely - there's really no reason for an unregistered user to edit my userpage. Erik9 (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done – Quadell ^(talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Unref thanks! timeframe?

It's been a task for several members of the math wikiproject to tag the unsourced math articles, but I think each has given up after marking a hundred articles. Your bot's work to categorize these articles will definitely help us produce an automated count of how many need sources, and hopefully allow us to prioritize our cleanup efforts. Thanks very much!

At 100 edits per day, I think you estimated a year and a half until completion of the current set. Assuming the bot trial goes well, do you think it will finish its current set before August? JackSchmidt (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If approved, the bot can easily categorize 10,000 articles per day, and would finish the task in less than one month, based on my current estimate as to the number of unsourced, untagged articles. Erik9 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Space exploration → Spaceflight

Hi Erik. FYI, I deleted all of the empty categories relating to the CfD discussion, as tagged. I think everything is in place, and I'll be deleting the "by importance" and "by quality" categories, too, as they are empty and do not serve a purpose at this point. Jamie^☆S93 19:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Erik9 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD FYI

FYI, the time that CfDs are left open for has recently been changed from 5 days to 7 days. I mention this only because of this early close. (But no need to re-open this one I don't think.) Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I posted a reply on his page. What do you think?SchnitzelMannGreek. 16:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for writing that note, and for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Erik9 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He(the IP) left a reply on my page[[1]].--SchnitzelMannGreek. 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Erik9/transclusions of Template:Film screenshot fur

Are you going through these images or are you aware of anyone who is? This is (finally) the remaining item in the WP:TFD holding cell, and it'd be nice for it to be empty for once. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a messy situation: some image uploaders supplied this template as a fair use rationale, which was considered valid at the time, but subsequently found to be inadequate. Simply deleting after seven days all of the images on which the template appears as having "no fair use rationale" would be an irritatingly ex post facto treatment. Unfortunately, I lack sufficient experience with fair use images to determine which require fair use rationales, and for which no acceptable rationale could be supplied, and deletion should be requested. However, I'm sure that some of the many editors who take a great interest in image policy enforcement would be happy to help out :) Erik9 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have new messages at....

Hello, Erik9. You have new messages at Erik9bot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

reply to your reply to my comment at your bot's talk page

I Don't know if it automatically stops your bot when someone posts to its talk page, so I'll do it here instead. Just wanted to say thanks for responding, and your plan for tweaks sounds like a good one. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure of AfD

Due to the large number of apparent single purpose accounts replying to the Lila Rajiva AfD I believe your non-admin closure was inappropriate. I wish you would have waited for an administrator to decide before jumping the gun and closing the discussion. After all wikipedia wasn't built in a day; however, it seems that Marc Kupper has had the patience and taken the time to realize why I have nominated this author for deletion, and appears to be helping me to clean up this part of wikipedia. Even though I am new to wikipedia and am an IP user I do mean well, so I forgive you and will renominate this article in the future after cleaning up the supporting articles. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you raise the issue of "the large number of apparent single purpose accounts", let's consider the comments made by established registered users, which I'm defining somewhat arbitrarily as > 1000 edits:

Keep:

1. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
2. Edison
3. Joe Chill
4. Marc Kupper
5. C21K
6. Priyanath
7. Edward321

Delete:

(none)

Considering qualitative factors, I found Edison's comment to be particularly persuasive

*Keep "Mobs, messiahs.." is from a major publisher, Wiley, with good reviews from multiple reliable and independent sources such as "The Independent," "Money Week," and "National Post" (Canada.) Rajiva has had significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. WP:N and thus WP:BIO are satisfied. She has been interviewed or quoted as an expert by Pacific Free Pres, ABC News, Cape Cod Times,and The Hindu. She is a widely published columnist in several alternative, peace justice type outlets, but also in such sources as the Baltimore Chronicle and the Washington Post. Bloomberg.com documents the "Mobs, messiahs" book winning the "Get-Abstract Business Book of the Year" at the Frankfurt Bookfair. Edison (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to contest this closure at deletion review, but I do highly doubt that you have the better of the vote count or the better argument. Erik9 (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No need. I'll just renominate it after the get-abstract award is deleted. I leave you with a comment from the author on her notability:

No slur intended against individual editors. They might each have their own honorable motives...

Can you see, though, that in order to get visibility, you need a platform..in order to get the platform, you need visibility…if you have enough money, you can often get both..and then use that money and influence to determine how visible anyone else can be.

http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/08/05/plastic-reality/

Thank you for entertaining this discussion. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth reiterating that as the subject's notability is based primarily on the large amount of (apparently) independent media coverage of her present in reliable sources, not solely the fact that she received the GetAbstract International Book Award, her notability is not predicated solely upon the question of whether this award is or is not notable. It seems highly improbable to me, as it did to the other established editors participating in the discussion, that the subject could, as you insinuate, have simply purchased coverage in the broad range of reliable sources treating her. I do not advise a fourth AFD nomination, unless you intend to present substantially new evidence. Erik9 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DePiep/Essay

Hi, you introduced the word "antisemitism" here. This is a serious allegation or verbal assault. I ask you to prove it or strike it (deleting it altogether is OK too). -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at the MFD discussion. Erik9 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Topless Swimmer at Devon Beach cropped.png

Note to other readers of this talk page: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, with which Lar strongly disagrees, as an explanation for why he has suddenly taken such a keen interest in scrutinizing my userpage. Erik9 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi... noticed this pic on your userpage. I see you (per the file history unless I misinterpreted it) uploaded it from Flickr, but the photo's tagged as private at Flickr. How did the FlickrReviewer bot validate the license? Also is there proof that the model is of the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the picture was taken, and that the model consented to the pic? This (properly ensuring the rights of subjects in potentially embarassing poses) is a matter of some considerable concern at Commons, as I am sure you know. Thanks for any information you can provide. ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not the original uploader at the commons: my upload is a cropped version of File:Topless Swimmer at Devon Beach.jpg, originally uploaded by Max Rebo Band [2] and confirmed as being freely licensed by commons:User:FlickrReviewer [3]. The image is not "private at Flickr", but accessible to anyone with a Yahoo! ID, which FlickrReviewer has undoubtedly obtained. Erik9 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a yahoo ID... and in fact I have a Flickr Pro account, which I was signed in with when I tried to review the image at Flickr. It's private. Try it yourself. Perhaps the image wasn't private when FlickrReviewer reviewed it back in June though. As a Commons admin/crat/CU/OV I have some familiarity with how FlickrReviewer works, but I missed that you were uploading a crop. I'll ask Max Rebo Band, but if the image can't be validated as properly licensed, including model release and proof of age, both of which FlickrReviewer can't validate (Flickr washing is a serious problem that FlickrReviewer doesn't catch either), it probably should be nominated for deletion. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that:

1. The image obviously wasn't private when FlickrReviewer validated the upload (otherwise, it wouldn't have been confirmed); Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable.
2. The woman depicted in the photograph is clearly and obviously at least 18, the age of consent in the UK where the photograph was taken, from visual inspection.
3. Even a nude photograph of a 10 year old girl was not ultimately considered to be illegal per se under British or United States law, as explained in the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia article; Wikipedia editors reached the decision not to remove this image from the Virgin Killer article. In this context, the suggestion that a photograph of a topless adult woman gives rise to legal concerns borders on facetious.
4. The original photograph, File:Topless Swimmer at Devon Beach.jpg, was clearly taken (and quite likely posed) in a public place; consent of the model is therefore implied. Erik9 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that deletion discussions at Commons in the past have resulted in deletion of material where it's not possible to clearly establish the permission status and the age of a model. It may be obvious to you that "X is so", but that's not the same as having documentation of it. As a note, again, you probably don't need to remind me about the irrevocability of a Creative Commons license, (I have OTRS, I advise people about licenses all the time, and I've been around a while... trying to lecture me about stuff gets to sound condescending so I wouldn't advise it) that's not what's in question. An item can be asserted to be licensed at Flickr, and even carry that license at Flickr, and pass the robotic test that FlickrReviewer applies, and still be a copyvio because it was Flickrwashed. But that's not my concern at all. My concern is with the model permission and age aspect. I came here to ask questions to see what you knew, not to debate this matter. You've provided me what I needed to know, and thanks for that information, so I'm not interested in further debate on the topic. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If commons policy were indeed applied in the manner you claim, then

1. Commons could host no photographs containing nudity to any degree, since the age of the models featured in work by amateur photographers could never be established, and consent of the models could never be inferred from the photographs having been taken in public places.

2. Commons could contain no photographs from Flicker, because they might have been Flickrwashed.

Good luck with that :) Erik9 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons policy is sporadically applied, at best. But sometimes the right things are done. However your two points don't logically follow from your antecedent. We delete pics for being flickrwashed all the time, and we delete pics for having improper consent forms or improper proof of model age from time to time as well. But you weren't the original uploader so the matter doesn't really concern you, does it? ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Strike that last bit. Sorry. That was too snarky. If after contacting the original uploader I decide to nominate the original file for deletion (which I may or may not do) would you like me to let you know about it here so you can comment there? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite tired of dealing with this. If you want nominate the original image (and my derivative work, of course) for deletion at commons, you're quite welcome to do so. Your claim, however, that this sudden keen interest in my userpage is simple curiosity, and not in any way because you're quite angry that I nominated one of your friend's user subpages for deletion is only going to stretch so far: if you also nominate Nemifitide for deletion, etc, I doubt other administrators will permit this to continue. Erik9 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're assuming bad faith, rather than remembering the aphorism about glass houses. What I choose to work on or not is my own concern. While it's true I wouldn't have noticed that picture if I hadn't encountered you in a discussion and tried to understand your perspective better, given how argumentative you were being at the MfD, I have some background in discussing images of that sort at Commons. As for Nemifitide I had no idea exactly what that is prior to reviewing the article, nor any competence to determine its notability even if I had an interest. Again, you assume too much. However I'd strongly suggest you discontinue threatening me. You're verging on rather incollegial behaviour. Please step back and cool down. (recall if you will that when someone accused you of a bad faith nom at the MfD, I quickly piped in and said the nom was certainly in good faith) ++Lar: t/c 02:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The principle that "people who dwell in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is inapplicable here. The image on my userpage was available as free content on Flicker, and was confirmed to be available as free content on Flicker by FlickrReviewer. For an image of any other nature, that would end the inquiry, unless there were some evidence of copyright infringement. Thus, the situation is in no way comparable to having a user subpage containing an extensive, multi-paragraph quotation from a non-free novel. The very mild and tasteful nudity present in the image really does not serve as a cause for impugning it: female toplessness on beaches is widely accepted in the UK, the image is not pornographic, and is of a clearly adult woman and taken in a public place. If you are concerned about nude images of minors present on Wikipedia, then I respectfully request that you refocus your attentions on images some images that actually are of children, (and clearly aren't free content, either): File:Virgin Killer.jpg, and File:BlindFaithBlindFaith.jpg come most readily to mind. Really, File:Topless Swimmer at Devon Beach.jpg is not the first image to focus on if one is trying to stamp out child nudity on Wikipedia. Do bear in mind that Wikipedia talk:Images of children doesn't seem to indicate support even for this approach... Erik9 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In any event, the image isn't actually going to be deleted; I've opened a discussion on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless Swimmer at Devon Beach.jpg myself, rather than allowing this matter to continue to fester. Erik9 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if this image IS, by some extraordinary occurrence, deleted, I can always substitute File:Young Woman with Morning Glories in Her Hair.jpg - good luck with getting that image deleted too :) Erik9 (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Way to completely miss the point. However, your apology is accepted. In future please try reading for meaning before going off half cocked, and try assuming good faith before casting aspersions and jumping to unwarranted assumptions. You'll find things go much more smoothly... you've been here (under this account anyway) since at least January so hopefully that's just a reminder, not new advice. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 11:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please email me

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Erik9 (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the reverts. Cheers, ZooFari 01:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Erik9 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Please reopen your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wah Ming Estate, it is too controversial for a non-admin closure. Abductive (reasoning) 03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a unanimous "keep" to me. While I suppose that the vehemence of the disagreement with the nomination could be construed as "controversy", that's not an appropriate definition of the term in this context. Incidentally, you offered sources in the discussion which seem to show that the housing complex meets WP:GNG, and stated that "I would not have nominated this one for deletion. The ones that I did nominate do not have any such sources." [4]. Erik9 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please undo it. I merely commented that I would not have nominated the article for deletion, not that it passed the GNG. One day remains for comment, and you have to, when asked. Abductive (reasoning) 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim that you asserted the sources indicated the housing complex meet WP:GNG, only that I construe the sources you provided as possibly demonstrating notability under this policy. While, technically, the AFD should have run for 7 days, I closed it after 6 days, 21 hours, and 25 minutes. If you believe that this establishes a basis for reversal, please submit the matter to deletion review. Erik9 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118 arbitration case

Heya pal,

Its not permitted or appropriate for a non-clerk in an arbitration case to be getting involved with opening cases, let alone for a party in the same case. The reason why the case hadn't finished being opened was that there were matters that I needed to clarify with my fellow clerks before the case opened. Please do not do this again with this or any other case, unless of course you get taken on as a clerk.

Many thanks. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. BTW, the reason why all of the case pages listed at Template:ArbComOpenTasks and the case subpages described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Case/194x144x90x118 were red links is that you created the case pages at incorrect titles: the correct prefix is "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/", not "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Case/". In the future, however, I will let clerks remedy any such problems. Erik9 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The cases pages were created incorrectly as the create case button hasn't been updated with the correct destination. This will be fixed. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

Erik, I am considering nominating you for admin, I checked your talk page and don't find where you have been asked. I do find a number of comments that suggest the nomination would generate some hard questions for you to address. I think you have a strong knowledge of the Wikipedia process, and have been a good contributor to the project. You seem to interested in upholding the values of the project. You seem well versed in responding to questions of policy and administrative duties in general. Would you be interested in being nominated? Jeepday (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I respectfully decline; an RFA at the moment would likely prove too controversial to achieve consensus. Erik9 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to nominate you when you are ready. Let me know. Jeepday (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the NFCC

That DRV has closed... and with its closure I return to believing that the NFCC (and the EDB) need clarifying to reduce ambiguity in the area of texts. Would you consider working with me to (try to) get that to happen? ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. A change to WP:NFCC that I would support, and that I believe is reflective of current practice in all cases except the matter recently at MFD, would expressly permit short, one or two sentence quotations of non-free prose in userspace, but would disallow longer excerpts (except when present in drafts of articles, consistent with existing standards for non-free text in mainspace.) Since poetry, song lyrics, or similar material present exceptional copyright concerns, and could be problematic if so much as a single line is quoted, it's probably best to avoid any copyrightable lengths of such non-free content in userspace altogether. Erik9 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. I would support such a clarification as well, pretty much exactly (intentwise). We just need to figure out how best to push this forward, and how to get the text smithing done to make it good policy text... ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have thoughts on how to proceed (standalone RfC, discussion at the NFCC talk page, or whatever) please let me know. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFCC should be fine, provided that it is noted at template:cent and WP:VP/P to ensure wide community participation. Erik9 (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to take a cut at starting it, or should I? I don't want to forget. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if you started the discussion; the proposal stands a greater chance of success coming from someone with a higher status, and a few more privileged user group memberships than I have :) Erik9 (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope you're wrong about that, but fear you are not. If you'd take it on, I promise a vigorous support as soon as it went live. Or alternatively maybe we could work on a draft somewhere and I'll take it live instead? What do you think the key points are? Your post of 23:56 31 Aug almost reads like it might already be that draft, what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification. Erik9 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Sorry I didn't comment sooner, but hopefully it will help. My read is that most people are supportive of clarification in the direction we're talking about. I quoted your lead, verbatim, hope you don't mind. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Lambiam 11:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony F. Schneider's Distinguished Flying Crosses

I noticed you recently changed the category of the Tony F. Schneider article to indicate receipt of the Commonwealth Distinguished Flying Cross. I was aware he had received three Distinguished Flying Crosses for combat in the Pacific during the second world war, but I assumed all three had been awarded by the United States. I have changed the category to Recipients of US Distinguished Flying Cross. Please add the category for the Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom) if you can confirm at least one of these decorations (or a decoration for postwar service) was awarded by the United Kingdom. Thewellman (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for that; when performing the category renaming after the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_28#Category:Recipients_of_the_Distinguished_Flying_Cross, I assumed that the existing category membership was correct, rather than individually reviewing every article. Erik9 (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118 case

SarekOfVulcan has mentioned on the proposed decision talk page for this case that you (the filer) were not involved with 194x144x90x118 at the DreamHost article, which then led me to wonder which dispute you were involved in? It's not a major issue, and the case is nearly closed, but it has piqued my interest. On something else entirely, I noticed you do a lot of CfD category moving work. I thought that was done by a bot? Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any disputes with 194x144x90x118 -- unless you believe his conspiracy theory [5] regarding my username :) Work to effectuate the closures of CFD discussions is ordinarily performed by Cydebot. However, as I'm not an administrator, I can't edit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working to activate the bot, and thus have been performing my CFD closures semi-automatically with AWB. (Erik9bot is not approved for CFD-related tasks.) Erik9 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism at The Colm & Jim-Jim Breakfast Show

Some recent editors of The Colm & Jim-Jim Breakfast Show seem keen on restoring vandalism which seems to stem from edits by User:Sometosser. Whether they are the same editor or just fans isn't clear, but this history in particular looks odd. As you'd warned the original vandal before, I thought you'd apprecate the update.Autarch (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced

• I wonder if it's worth going back to RfAR and getting permission to change to the unref tag?
• I wonder if you have an exclusion for the "Outline of knowledge" pages?

Rgds. Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

All articles whose titles contain the substring "outline" are excluded from categorization. Based on the opposition to automated application of template:unreferenced expressed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 9, as well as the more generalized disagreement with the usage of the template articulated at Wikipedia talk:CiterSquad, I don't believe that adding the template directly to articles would either be approvable or an appropriate task for the bot. Erik9 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 12

No I don't have any evidence & there hasn't been much response where I originally posted the idea. I've seen some of the responses & although I don't understand, I accept consensus & thank you for trying.— Rod ^talk 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9Bot ANI

Just an FYI - there is an open ANI concerning this bot. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Erik9bot_going_haywire.21. I haven't looked at it closely, just passing the news along. Manning (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions on others

...as you in the MfD when you said "Jack Merridew's retention of this extensive non-free text, in this context, demonstrates a contempt for the community of which he is a member.". I would really appreciate it if you struck/refactored/removed the text, or better, did that and apologized as well. Risker is encouraging you to withdraw the whole MfD, doesn't it seem that maybe you could have worded it better? I sent you a note about this privately first, but you haven't responded. It hasn't been that long, it's true... but I feel pretty strongly about this. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that Jack Merridew "demonstrates a contempt for the community of which he is a member". What else is to be inferred from the fact that he not only maintained non-free content that would be unacceptable in the userspace of any other editor, thereby angering a number of users through the perceived application of a double standard? That's not my only evidence, however. Jack Merridew responded to the initial MFD by accusing me of being a "hypocrite" who "quite possibly" had child pornography in his userspace [6]. Really, in comparison to Jack's accusation of pedophilia leveled against me, stating that he "demonstrates a contempt for the community of which he is a member" is decidedly weak tea, and demonstrates great civility :) Erik9 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WP:NFCC. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing by an uninvolved administrator. MBisanz ^talk 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)