User talk:David.Monniaux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1, 2

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:ALLEGRE.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ALLEGRE.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:93RAM 155 TR F1 16082231456651583.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:93RAM 155 TR F1 16082231456651583.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. YellowDot 01:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Sandbox

Merci pour le deletion d'un "sandbox" dans ma "userpage." Next time you wish to tinker with any aspect of my userpage, I would appreciate you atleast take the courtesy of consulting me first. This particular sandbox was used to compile a range of information about a political candidate for the Texas Senate. All information within was sourced, with much of it coming directly from the local newspaper. I am compiling this information in anticipation that this candidate may win the election, and thereby be notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your cooperation in resurrecting this soon-to-be article, as well as a brief commentary as to what you particularly may have found to be "libelous." Thank you in advance. Somnabot 06:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed the article from the Wiki server, but it is still google-searchable. There is nothing I can do about google's cached pages. This political candidate has not acheived "politician status" yet, and I find it odd that a candidate be allowed to request the censorship of what might be viewed as a skeleton in the closet. If possible, I would like to view the complaint filed by his staff so as to better understand what aspect of the future article exactly should be reworded or edited. I also muse as to whether the candidate's staff contacted the local newspaper demanding censorship. Once again, thank you for your cooperation. Somnabot 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcos Aguilar

Can you explain your reasoning for deleting this page? Users like Azcatl did add potentially libellous information, but there seems to have been a reasonable, referenced article originally. —Xezbeth 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of King's College School Wiki Article

The deletion has left a huge number of red wikilinks in other articles, maybe the article did need editing (I don't know, as I've not had the chance to read it), but as it has been deleted we have been denied the opportunity to do so. DuncanHill 12:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is unease that some Admins employ summary deletion too readily. If this impression is to be avoided, then the rule ought to be: if there's room for doubt, discuss. The Admin may find there's sufficient reason for the article. The discussion may lead to improvements. And if the conclusion is still 'delete', reasonable process will be seen to have been employed, and the interested parties may have learned something. Countersubject 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what's happening about restoration (or not) of this article? King's College School in Wimbledon is notable for its origins as the junior department of Kings College, London (part of the University of London), and for a number of its alumni. Did the deletion derive from particular content? If so, the article could either be restored without that content, or a completely new article could be created. Please respond to my dicussion page. Countersubject 15:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No response as yet. I have no direct interest in the article under discussion, but believe there is a prima facie case for its reinstatement. However, I recognise that, as a late arrival in the conversation, I may be wrong. Please advise, or at least acknowledge the request and tell me you know nothing about the deletion. The alternative is for me to simply create an article about the school, on the basis of publicly available information. I'd rather not do this, only to go through a deletion process and discover there's good reason for not having the article. Countersubject 22:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Would like to add my support to what User:Countersubject says above. I found the article was missing after following a red link in another article. It would be appreciated if you could at least acknowledge messages left for you. Thanks. DuncanHill 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Did the article only contain inappropriate mentions of people at the school, or was there useful/informative content too? If the latter, then is it possible to reinstate those parts? DuncanHill 12:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, David, both for your reply and the steps you've taken to have the article revised and reinstated. We should attempt to establish ways of removing vandalism of otherwise acceptable articles, short of summary deletion. I recognise this may not always be possible - for example, in cases where the law is being broken and removal of the offending elements would require excessive time and effort. I don't know whether that's so in this case, but I hope you can reassure me that such action is the exception to the rule, and that your reference to the established deletion procedures as whatever bureaucratic procedure there is doesn't indicate a disregard for the ways in which these things ought normally to be done, in the interests of fairness. Perhaps it would help if Wikipedia could formalise your solution in this case by having a specific area, open only to Admins, to which difficult-case articles could be removed in the first place, pending revision. Countersubject 14:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand the pressure of time, espcially in cases that might get Wikipedia legal problems. However, that doesn't address the consequent deletion of other material in these articles that isn't objectionable, and may be interesting and useful. That's what my suggestion of a holding area was designed to address. It meets the requirement for immediate removal from the public domain, and also provides a means by which the article can be cleaned up and re-instated. Identification of such cases would require careful judgement on the part of the individual dealing with complaints, but hey: if the Foundation trusts them in this role, then that's good enough for me. Finally, thanks again for the effort you've taken in dealing with this matter. I see from your details that you're a very busy individual. Countersubject 15:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David for the info and help - the article is back up now, and clean of inappropriate content DuncanHill 17:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for this. Much appreciated. Any thoughts about my suggestion that Wikipedia institute a new process based on the way you've dealt with this problem? Countersubject 22:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating the article. The old content can still be viewed at Answers.com, and although some of it is vandalism this is a small amount and is obvious. As is evident, this is a large article and contains much useful information. Xeixz 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chilwell School deletion

You deleted the Chilwell School page, stating that is was not notable.

However, the page contained a section entitled "Notable Student Projects" and the school has received constant publicity over the past two years. Do these things no suggest to you that the school is notable and the page should have remained?

Tom H 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation got a complaint about repeated inappropriate content on that page. This page cited no independent sources and contained a lot of anecdotal claims. In addition, as I said, it was not evident that this school was notable. David.Monniaux 17:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A question: was your deletion "without prejudice"? In other words, can we recreate the article as long as we provide verifiable references to notability? I'd be happy also to address any issues that the complaint to the foundation raised. Thanks. Akradecki 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Last I saw this article, it was encyclopedic and on-topic (if you look through my editing history and the many articles I've written, you'll see I'm a stickler for this). It was also on my watchlist for anti-vandalism purposes. Is it possible to find out specifics of what the complaint was about, so that I might address them? Also, is it possible to get a copy of the deleted material put into my sandbox? I would also be more than happy for you to review the draft article before it gets put into the mainspace, when the time comes. Thanks again! Akradecki 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, never mind on the request for the deleted material. I think I'm fine without it. It's essentially ready to go at my sandbox if you want to review it. I'm waiting for a reference for the video section, so that won't be unsourced, and I'm sure there'll be more to add in the future, but I think this is a workable start. It'll probably go live on Monday. Please let me know if you have any comments. Akradecki 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:French passport front cover.jpg

[edit] Image of FR passport

Your note on my en talk page was somewhat cryptic. I wouldn't hurt you to explain a little more in future as I had to go to PUI to find your comment that the FR government didn't copyright their images. In this case, how can you own the copyright to an image of a FR Government document? If there is a special dispensation concerning copyright for French Givernment - images should this be reflected in the tag? Anyway, I'm happy to withdraw my objections to the image in these circumstances. I have cross posted this to your commons talk page --Spartaz 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia

Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit&section=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit&section=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.

[edit] Office actions

David, I've been following the King's College dialog, though I'm not involved in it, because it appeared similar to the Chilwell situation. Now that you've explained the situation, both the complaint issue, and the time limitations, and the need to protect the legality of the project, I fully understand the pressures. Because I've what you wrote, I went and made myself familiar with WP:OFFICE. With that policy in mind, can I then ask you a favor? When you summarily deleted Chilwell, the deletion reason left in the log was "non notable; no sources; vandalism magnet". That really gives no hint as to the fact that it was a serious issue. Because you've been busy and not available for replies, I almost asked another admin to get involved and undelete it. Now, maybe at the admin level, they would have seen something that would have stopped them, but if all they see is what you put in the log, they would have undid an office action and might have been harshly disciplined, as the policy warns. I would have felt terrible that I put an admin in such a position. So the favor: when you do such a summary deletion, could you note in the log that it was an office action so that those of us peons out here will have a better understanding and won't jump to wrong conclusions. Thanks! (Someday, when I become an admin, that selective undelete chore would be one of the mop-and-bucket tasks I'd be willing to do.) Thanks!! 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management

Would you please expound on your reasons for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management? In the edit summary, you state that it "contains inflammatory comments and is no longer needed". I know you've been around a long time, but we don't generally delete AfDs without a very strong reason to do so as they provide the basis for future speedy deletions of recreated content. I'm highly inclined to restore this AfD but wanted to have an opportunity to discuss this with you. What in particular is so egregious from your viewpoint? --Durin 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We got a complaint on OTRS: apparently, this debate in which demeaning comments were made on the topic of the article shows up quite fast in Google. (When I do seemingly "random" deletions it is generally from an OTRS complaint.)
In many of our deletion debates, participants say things that they perhaps should not say in this way in public. I remember in particular a debate about a bio on somebody who didn't write it (a well-meaning colleague did it), but was publicly accused of being an unimportant little boss seeking notability through Wikipedia. Needless to say, the guy was not amused. David.Monniaux 23:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello David. I saw your response about the OTRS issue. Perhaps a stub could be created that just has the results of the AfD vote, and says that the text was deleted for OTRS reasons? Can't you create a new AfD page without restoring the history? I've just spent quite a few minutes searching for the missing AfD. (I'm not a fan of the article itself). As Durin observes, someone could recreate the IIM article and there wouldn't be a record of the preceding AfD decision. EdJohnston 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{afd-privacy}}. Normally adding that template and hiding the previous contents in history (instead of deleting) is good enough since Google doesn't index them. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-17 18:46Z

I've previously suggested a limited-access holding area for articles that need to be removed from the public domain, but which contain information that might conceivably be restored after a clean-up. This would allow authorised users to deal speedily with privacy or legal issues when it's not feasible to do so in a simple edit, yet stop short of immediate deletion. Admins would then be invited to discuss and edit articles on the list, until they are either deleted or restored. Your thoughts? Countersubject 07:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

S'il vous plaît? :-) Countersubject 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, deletion fits your purposes, since deleted articles are in effect put on special storage, and can be read by admins... David.Monniaux 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There are three main problems with simple deletion. Firstly, ordinary or occasional users of Wikipedia will have no idea why the article was deleted, and this can result in the kind of irate conversation seen above. That becomes a problem for both user and administrator (how much time have you and others had to spend on this kind of thing?). Secondly, it lacks the presumption of restitution, which is where we should begin with articles that include seriously problematic material, but that otherwise contain interesting or useful information. Finally, it is possible to imagine admins hesitating to immediately delete such an article when immediate action is required, because of the content that isn't problematic, or concern about others' reactions. A solution that hides the article from general view until a decision has been made to delete or clean would be win-win for all concerned. It would take some of the heat and light out of the process, allow for prompt action short of deletion, and be better for Wikipedia's content. Countersubject 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Of all the above suggestions, I prefer Quarl's idea of {{afd-privacy}}. This makes the page disappear for all casual readers of Wikipedia. Does OTRS often get complaints about something still being visible in the PAGE HISTORY? I know if we were sued for defamation or copyvio we would want to get rid of everything, but surely a typical OTRS complainant wouldn't require such drastic removal. EdJohnston 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Most complainants are concerned about e.g. discussion pages being archived by Google and shown in the first results in Google when they search for their name. Still, we have had complaints with history pages, especially when some external site links to an old version. David.Monniaux 06:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] change tag

Did you ever see the request here Image:McCondom dsc06781.jpg to update the tag? --evrik 13:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Andre_Vingt_Trois.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Andre_Vingt_Trois.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dieffenbachia dsc07295.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dieffenbachia dsc07295.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:Dmonniaux DSC02256 Miyajima floating gate.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dmonniaux DSC02256 Miyajima floating gate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:DSC00732 Notre Dame Paris from east.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC00732 Notre Dame Paris from east.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:Notre Dame Paris gate DSC00697.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Notre Dame Paris gate DSC00697.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:French Gendarmerie Mobile riot control.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French Gendarmerie Mobile riot control.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Edward 21:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:French Gendarmerie motorcyclist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French Gendarmerie motorcyclist.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Edward 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breton Wikipedia

You might wish to consider your remarks regarding the Breton wikipedia that you left on the Breton language talk page last year [1] in the light of the fact that Breton is the Celtic language with the most articles by far on the Wikipedia and is soon to move up to the 10,000 mark. Neal: Breton Wikipedia Moderator

[edit] Image:XlePichon.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:XlePichon.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 00:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:IEEE logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:IEEE logo.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:4RCh Afghanistan burka 130524501473834340.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:4RCh Afghanistan burka 130524501473834340.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Philippe de Villiers 2212.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Philippe de Villiers 2212.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned public domain images

The following images were uploaded by you, but are currently not in use. They have been tagged as public domain (PD), either as PD-self or other PD claim, or equivilant. These unused PD images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, tag them for copying to WP commons {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} or if they are no longer needed, they can be nominated for deletion by following the easy three step process at Images and media for deletion. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Image:DSC00827 Leclerc main battle tank on the Champs Elysees on Bastille Day 2003.jpg
• Image:Bono-betterworldheroes.jpg
• Image:King-coretta-betterworldheroes-com.jpg
• Image:Chopra-betterworldheroes-com.jpg
• Image:Cocaine.jpg
• Image:Conseil Etat.jpg
• Image:Clyster1.jpg

[edit] Áine Chambers

Hi. It's been requested that the last version of an article you deleted, be userfied. Since you deleted it noting WP:BLP : criticism, no independent sources, OTRS complaint, I don't wish to fulfil the request, as I have no knowledge of what OTRS complaint means. Is it a reason for not userfying? I'd appreciate it if you could comment at WP:AN#Deleted content request. Thanks for your time. Steve block Talk 21:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks, I see. Would it be an idea worth considering to make the ref to OTRS complaint in a deletion summary or edit summary a piped link to Wikipedia:OTRS? That might save a little confusion. Steve block Talk 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lword13.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lword13.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Oden 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei RFC

David, after lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I think the new page is better, but there are a lot of single-purpose accounts who have been edit warring with me over it. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 11:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Litvinenko in intensive care.jpg

Bonjour, David. I am surprized that the Foundation received a complaint about this image I uploaded, considering how widely it was distributed, and how our use was consistent with use by news organizations. Do you mind sharing with me the nature of the complaint, or perhaps fwding the email to (email). Thank you. - crz crztalk 18:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Makes sense. I doubt it's the Foundation's position that fair use is only available on media made in the U.S. tho. I am sure that U.S. law permits us to fairly use media created anywhere... Do correct me if I'm wrong. - crz crztalk 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I redeleted the image, which was re-uploaded by someone shortly after you deleted it, FYI. - crz crztalk 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've stuck a note there and tweaked the page to open it for when someone might try again. —Leather_is^tough 03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real World London

I understand (now) that these changes were made due to a complaint made to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I would not have reverted your change, if the edit summary had contained a note to that effect. Ckessler 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Administrative Appeals Tribunal

If you look carefully at the edit history, it wasn't actually me who reinserted that large chunk of text recently. enochlau (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake, thanks for sorting it out

In this edit I accidently reinserted the vandalism when I thought I was removing it. My appologies. I have removed the test warning I posted on that anon user page. --Comaze 09:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Ty Zantuck:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 12:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think Edits

Could you please stop by the discussion page for Think (book) and summarize your edit [3] and why you made it? KevinPuj 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More replaceable fair use images

• Image:Alain Lipietz 4384.jpg
• Image:Bruno Gollnisch 1164.jpg
• Image:CHEVENEMENT.GIF

—Chowbok ☠ 04:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)