User talk:Strothra/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Welcome
2 Warning templates
3 Archive 1
4 "Personal information"
5 Merging
6 National Security Archive
7 Elizabeth Kerner
8 Please Reconsider Your Strong Delete
9 RECONSIDER YOUR VOTE!
10 Re:Image Copyright vio
11 You may find these interesting
12 Like I Said
13 VandalProof
14 Tawkerbot2
15 Re: Status Message
16 RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia graham

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Strothra/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Petros471 13:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning templates

As per your request on WP:RFI I've removed the warning template off your userpage (they should never go there anyway). I noticed you cleared the discussions off this, your talk page. Normally I would strongly recommend leaving everything on your talk page, archiving where necessary. However in this case, as you are a new user and have said that you are withdrawing from the dispute you were in, I think it could well be appropriate. I'm glad you've joined us in the CVU, you might also find WP:CUV useful. Feel free to ask any questions or for help on my talk page. Petros471 13:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Hello! Did you mean this to be a personal page? It doesn't appear to be encyclopædic, more a record of conversations between editors. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! No I didn't. I'm actually trying to fix that as we speak.--Strothra 22:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so what I am trying to do is archive very old discussion on the article National Security Archive. How do I do this? Is it possible to archive it like you would with a talk page? --Strothra 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a reason why an article Talk page can't be archived at the moment. If I do, I will let you know. Instructions for archiving Talk pages can be found at Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've found Talk:Rajput as an example of an archived set of article Talk pages, so there is a precedent. Just in case you wanted to know! Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Personal information"

If you don't want people knowing your business, then you need to be careful about what you post on Wikipedia. As it is, even if you remove it from my talk page, it still exists in the page history and in your edit history (both of which are publicly accessible). Whatever you posted is staying on there. This isn't the article name space. That's my user space. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure I can help you too much with that one, as Schuminweb is unwilling to voluntarily let you remove the info (can't imagine it would make much difference if I tried). I suggest you don't try and continue to do so, if for no other reason than the more edits made, the more chance that someone will spot them in an edit history/your contributions. It is possible for admins to delete selected parts of the page history (used when private information is posted and needs to be removed), so you could try asking an admin to do this- however I would have thought they would be more likely to do this if it was someone other than you that posted it. Finally I don't really see too much problem in what you put- it might allow people who know you already in real life to find out your Wikipedia ID, but not anyone else (and it doesn't really reveal that much more than can be worked out by your article edit history). Petros471 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that works for me.--Strothra 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging

The obvious answer is that it hasn't been merged. The {{merge}} tags should still be on the article (because I don't have the time to personally merge the articles and ensure the prose flows smoothly). Johnleemk | Talk 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your edit summary titled "Article merged and redirected to Washington Metro as per AfD" was confusing. --Strothra 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

National Security Archive

I read the article, and I think it's a pretty good read, with the only change I'd suggest (and I went ahead and did it, too) was to put what the organization did in the first sentence vs. when it was founded. Anything POV? As a first time reader of the article, I didn't see anything standing out as POV. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kerner

Hi there. Thanks for the notice. I'd noticed this morning that Monicasdude had removed it, and perhaps I should send it to AfD because Monicasdude is a strong inclusionist. Anyway, now that this has happened - it has been challenged and removed , I will send it to AfD, becuase you seem to also think it is nn? (We aren't supposed to reinstate these if they are challenged). Regards,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I disagree with your edit summary when you reinstated the {{prod}} tag on Elizabeth Kerner. You said of Monicasdude, reverted article. please do not assume bad faith and participate in discussion when it is proposed by fellow editors. Monicasdude did not accuse anyone of bad faith, at least not that I can see in the edit summary. Removing a {{prod}} tag is the proper way to contest deletion and it was improper of you to restore it. When a prod is contested the next step is AfD. As you will see from the AfD debate, I found that over 500 libraries own her first book, and as her books were published in 1997, 2001 and, Amazon sales rank (which is I believe the past 7 days) is not very informative. Thatcher131 17:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I did restore the Prod but it was only up for all of 5 seconds as I was about to take it back down after I realized that fact about the Prod. I never use prod's and thought they were to stimulate discussion and not meant to be taken down without discussion. Another user decided to place up the AfD. --Strothra 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Prod is a different procedure and has confused more than one good editor when encountering it for the first time. Thatcher131 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Reconsider Your Strong Delete

Thank you. EZZIE 18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC) The Long Island Project

RECONSIDER YOUR VOTE!

Reconsider Reconsider Reconsider DEAL WITH IT! EZZIE 02:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review the wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL and perhaps even meta:Don't be a dick. Thank you. --Strothra 14:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image Copyright vio

Hi Petros,

I recently put a copyright violation tag on this image but am not sure if I did it correctly as it seems the article for the date which I posted it no longer exists. Could you take a look at this for me? Thanks! --Strothra 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(After running away to read up on copyright/fair use and talking to some admins). We've decided that image can qualify as fair use, and Pathos re-tagged the article as such. The article Naomi Scheman exists, as does the source. I thought I could try emailing Naomi Scheman to obtain full permission, unless you want to? Petros471 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the fair use tag and I think that it works although I'm a bit surprised that such a big loophole exists for copyrighted images. That being said, I don't think it's neccesary to e-mail Scheman unless you wanted to revert the copyright tag back to the previous one. Also, I don't think that she owns the copyright but the university she works for. --Strothra 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll leave it for now. Fair use is an aspect of US law that does make things a lot easier on Wikipedia, which tries extremely hard to be fully compliant with all relevant legal/copyright laws. Petros471 15:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You may find these interesting

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Norcross

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project (2006)

-- Fan1967 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The above article was written several months ago--however, I was informed that upon being listed on other websites, then this could go back up. It's been listed and those websites are included on the External Links page of the article. You're "digging up" of this information merely makes my point. Quit being hard-up on this subject matter. EZZIE 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article could go back up IF notability is established in the article according to Wiki guidelines, ie you must also CITE notability. If the article does not fix the flaws for which it was deleted the first time then it cannot go back up. I have brought this issue to the attention of administrators involved in the previous AfD discussions.--Strothra 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought that I would bring to your attention that an article which was previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project (2006)) seems to have been put back up and is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project. The new article never fixed the flaws for which it was deleted for initially. Shouldn't this be speedied? I also brought this up to User talk:Stifle since he was also involved in the previous AfD debate. --Strothra 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I wasn't previously aware of this. {{db-repost}} would be an appropriate tag if the article is an identical repost of previously-deleted material. I shall have to look in the logs to be sure. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I Said

The only defense you guys have are these WikiTags-- EZZIE 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, WikiTags are a part of Wiki policy. The NPA tag I placed on your user talk page is simply a step in an established process of having your IP banned from Wikipedia if you continue making PA's. It is not the fault of the editors that you do not wish to contribute to wikipedia in a good faith manner, participate in discussion, and edit your articles according the standards established by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will not remove its standards to accomodate poorly cited articles.--Strothra 16:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Poorly cited articles? Tell that to whoever wrote the article about Kangaroo Jack Strotha! The film I wrote an article about deals with an important issue and deserves and article! You have no grounds for the stance you have taken, with the exception of spite against me and other new people! Just look at your track record, I did! Your primary focus is "Articles For Deletion." EZZIE 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the quality of Kangaroo Jack as a movie. I have not seen your movie. And neither has the rest of the country. This means your film is not notable. It can only become notable after it is released. Many films deal with important issues but never see the light of day beyond the screening room. This is unfortunate and does not make these films notable. Notability here is judged by viewership. If your film is as important as you say it is then it will become widely known and thus have a place in Wikipedia. You cannot use Wikipedia to advertise your movie before its premier and before it has established notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a billboard. --Strothra 17:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hey,

I saw you added yourself to the approved list for WP:VandalProof. You've been removed from this as you need moderator approval. I've moved you to approval holds, as you have fewer than 250 mainspace edits (only 165), but if you can provide me with some links of your contributions (diffs, please) I may change my mind. Computerjoe 's talk 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up how that works. My main reason for wanting the software is so that I can stop having to revert vandalism simply through patroling Recent Changes. Anyway, I saved the article on Shah Mahmoud Hanifi from deletion making the neccesary contribs discussed in its AfD. I've also done extensive revision to the National Security Archive article and created the article for the George C. Marshall Foundation [1] - I'm the only editor who has even contributed to that article. I also updated articles relating to it so that they pointed to that article. [2] [3]. Please see the article histories for those articles since I made many edits to them over a period of time and they would still come up in the recent edits of those articles. I cleaned up POV in the Fred Carama article eventhough I was voting for its deletion. [4]. I standardized and removed unencyclopedic material as well as POV from the Diane Kunz article. [5] [6] [7]. I added a section to cover the media coverage controversy to the Matthew Shepard article. [8]. I assisted in standardizing the article on Robert Frager [9]. I removed POV from the Jesse Dirkhising article. [10] [11]. I cleaned up the article on the Media Research Center by deleting uncited material. [12]. I have also created the article American Institute of Afghanistan Studies.

Those are some of my contributions. Many of my other edits have been in AfD's and adding neccesary tags & citation requests. --Strothra 17:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Approved. Computerjoe 's talk 20:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Hi, Tawkerbot2 is a bot to clean up vandalism. It fixed the De Stijl vandalism you suggested it had created. Just FYI. John (Jwy) 21:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I've realized that. My apologies. --Strothra 21:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Status Message

Sure. First of all you have to create the StatusDiv page (you can see mine at User:AmiDaniel/StatusDiv) in your own userspace. The create a Status page (mine is at User:AmiDaniel/Status), which you then transclude on your userpage/talk page using {{User:YOUR_USERNAME/Status}}. Whenever you want to change your status, goto your status page and change the paramater to Online, Away, Busy, Sleeping, etc. If you'd like, I'd be glad to set this up for you. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)