829:, you stated that "Those who do not see the incivility in his blog entry perhaps aren't reading closely enough." It's totally fair to ask that people read the linked material more closely. But you then proceeded to quote sections selectively with interpretation - that's basically viewed as trying to assign special meaning to WCM's words, and state a side in a debate on WCM's past conduct. Those are interpretations and arguments which can only be answered by WCM, so you ought to direct them to him via his user e-mail link or possibly via his blog.
31:
533:, describing the Knowledge (XXG) namespace — after listing categories for official policy, guidelines, policy thinktank, and rejected proposals, it goes on to say, "Many pages in Knowledge (XXG) namespace have nothing to do with rules, and thus do not belong in these categories." Thus, the existence of non-rule articles in Knowledge (XXG) namespace is acknowledged. —
415:. I'm more than willing to see if we can clarify whether there exists policy or consensus about essays not belonging in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace, and I'm willing to voluntarily comply with said policy or consensus. As it stands, with all due respect, I don't believe your opinion currently reflects the state of community opinion on the subject.
1083:
You have described the episode the image appears in but you have not stated your source for the file. Did you find it on a website and if so what is the URL? Or did you create it yourself using a DVD or video file of the episode in question? Currently the image does not have a source and that's why I
1074:
It is appropriate that you have tagged the image as a TV-screenshot and this is one stage in justifying fair use. However, the tag you used explicitly states "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on
Knowledge (XXG):Image description page, as well as the
1051:
Hello: please re-examine the information for the image you tagged. The image is clearly listed under the
Screenshot fairuse template ("This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program...") and provides the source in the description: "John Locke (played by Terry O'Quinn) holds up the two
814:
Hi, Thanks for the reply. I'd be inclined to say that "It's X Jim, but not as we know it" would be the most common Star Trek snow clone on this side of the
Atlantic, and seems to beat "jim, I'm a * not a *" on google. There are already many Snowclones listed that are quite local (MIT of X, This is my
773:
Hi, Thanks for the reply. I'd be inclined to say that "It's X Jim, but not as we know it" would be the most common Star Trek snow clone on this side of the
Atlantic, and seems to beat "jim, I'm a * not a *" on google. There are already many Snowclones listed that are quite local (MIT of X, This is my
607:
feel that individual MfDs are the best way to remove them. I still believe that were I in your shoes, I could best clarify the policy by achieving consensus via a
Request for comment. How you are handling this matter seems to be your opinion on where essays belong, and one of Knowledge (XXG)'s most
963:
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
Knowledge (XXG) (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
882:
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
Knowledge (XXG) (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
471:
Finally, I'm really at a loss as to how to say this last bit, but I'm at a loss as to how to say this in a more diplomatic fashion. I am beginning to feel as if you're always seeming to appear wherever I'm editing, taking whatever side opposes the one I've taken. I acknowledge this may be entirely
366:
Leflyman, please do not userify my essays. If you feel such an action is appropriate, I suggest you place my essays into the MfD process with your initial vote being one of "userfy." If you are doing so because you have observed the dialogue between PT and I with regards to his personal essays, I
585:
I understand that administrators aren't the arbiters of policy, but as the wikimop and bucket puts them in a position to enforce them every day, my experience is that they're often more familiar with it, and, indeed, being familiar with policy is often an element tested at requests for adminship.
410:
I have done some searching for appropriate policy that governs the two issues of (a) when essays belong in
Knowledge (XXG) namespace and when they belong in userspace and (b) nonconsensual userification. I was not able to turn up appropriate policy to cite with regard to the first item, so I have
481:
So I propose this: if you feel there exists some remaining issue to be worked out between you and I — or if, on a wider scale, you think I'm doing a greater harm to
Knowledge (XXG) through some personality or behavioral deficit or approach — then I suggest we avail ourselves of Knowledge (XXG)'s
1070:
are done so appropriately for the article to be recognised as high quality and hopefully receive featured article status. I used the suggested template from the {{nosource}} tag to make my initial posts as required when using the tag, I understand how the standardised message can be misleading.
629:
Furthermore, I personally disagree with you regarding the usefulness of "rule essays"; I think in certain situations they can fulfill the same function as legal briefs, concatenating several policy citations in one arena in order to adequately address a common situation that may not have been a
457:
Going back to whether personal essays on
Knowledge (XXG) policy belong in Knowledge (XXG) namespace, I believe my essays express beliefs that actually bring together relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy on a particular subject. I think, unless the administrators can provide any substantial policy
1052:
opposing colors of backgammon checkers in part two of the pilot episode of Lost." This is used in the Lost article to illustrate the thematic element of the colors "black and white", and thus the image falls well within the realm of critical commentary. --
472:
in my head. I still wish to assume good faith of you, but I'm beginning to wonder exactly how many times in the future you will coincidentally stumble across my path, or across a dispute I'm having with someone else and take action to support them.
1079:
for guidance in creating the required fair use rationale. The point you made about the image being accompanied by critical commentary about black and white is an excellent one and should definitely be included in the fair use rationale.
232:
2. The article was rewritten. The original version was too much like an advertisement. The user who claims authorship originally stated that the article is, or should have been, the product of the subject's advertising staff.
815:
X), ones with far smaller coverage ("I love my big gay *" only gets about 50 real hits - "I love my dead gay *" does much better) and ones with a much shorter lifetime. so I think this one deserves some coverage?
774:
X), ones with far smaller coverage ("I love my big gay *" only gets about 50 real hits - "I love my dead gay *" does much better) and ones with a much shorter lifetime. so I think this one deserves some coverage?
448:
don't build consensus. This is because the redirect that is created by such a move is subject to speedy deletion, which would effectively cause the article to be deleted from the main encyclopedia."
228:
If I may be allowed to weigh the opinion of the broadly experienced users, it's clear that the consensus is 'delete'. Those who are voting 'keep' are those who are associated with the article.
704:. There is no reason you couldn't have gone that route for these moves, you have valid points and could succeed, but maybe you should leave that decision open to the community?
76:
819:
411:
posted an inquiry with the administrators, without naming your name or the articles involved or seeking their intervention in our disagreement. My inquiry has been posted
1004:
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
923:
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
832:
For what it's worth, I only consider it a weak Keep because it has little bearing on building the encyclopedia, but deference is usually given to User pages. Regards,
1084:
tagged it. You need to state where the image file came from not just what episode the still appears in. You also need to state who holds the copyright, probably ABC.
432:
is the proper place for this. However, when proposing to move what appears to be an article out of the main namespace, it is strongly recommended that some form of
239:
The basis for deletion is, ultimately, notability. Originally it read a little too much like an advertisement, but I believe that the final version is much better.
612:-building, requiring us not to impose our opinion upon others. With all due respect, I don't feel that your opinion reflects the current opinion of the community.
529:
Hopefully, someone on the admin board will come across with a clearer supportive policy, but I will leave things before I hit the hay with this reference from
412:
1013:
932:
1066:
Hello to you too. I have re-examined the image pages as you asked. I hope I am not being a pain but it is important that all of the images used in
1087:
I hope this makes it clearer what is required for the image to stay in the article, please let me know if I can be of any help. I've also tagged
62:
586:
The policy village pump might indeed have been a more fruitful place to inquire, however, I agree, but I question how frequently it is visited.
1017:
936:
635:
459:
428:, which states: "Generally speaking, other types of cross-namespace moves will be controversial and worth discussing with other editors.
280:
Oh, and I'm embarrassed. You mentioned an email on my book. I either didn't get, or more likely, misplaced your email. What did you ask?
437:
998:
994:
967:
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
917:
913:
886:
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
850:
708:
492:
676:
546:
512:
491:
If not, I hope we'll find ourselves on the same side of the fence more often in the future. After all, I think you've written
388:
638:, but they're still "actionable" and "authorized by consensus," and guidelines are usually common practice on Knowledge (XXG).
530:
441:
988:
907:
317:
hard to try to make it a good article. I'm adding context for EVERY ship and SOURCES! I hope you'll be glad to hear that!
433:
445:
429:
728:
I noticed a snowclone that I added got zapped by you a while back. I think it was just a slip as the change log says:
69:
1038:
38:
955:
786:
731:
Sub-divided list to ease editing, ordered additions by chronology, minor corrections, added commented-out note
603:
You need nominate my essays for MfD only if you feel they must not belong in Knowledge (XXG) namespace and you
353:
1091:
for the same reason and this will require the same measures to meet wikipedia's fair use image requirements.--
1088:
874:
761:
308:
293:
630:
problem when the rules themselves were drafted. With regards to your moves, again, I feel they violate the
132:
304:
297:
609:
567:
402:
185:
982:
901:
179:
462:, which, if my essays result in a 'deletion' or a 'userfy' vote, can then be moved into my userspace.
334:
170:
152:
664:
534:
500:
376:
349:
Your application has been approved. Please let me know it you have problems getting it running. --
126:
350:
971:
959:. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the
890:
878:. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the
854:
261:
243:
58:
47:
17:
343:
964:
link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
883:
link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
1067:
1034:
779:
697:
277:
I just got your message on Collins. Thanx hugely for letting the discussion comment stand.
257:
1076:
1030:
705:
700:, you don't just do it whenever you feel like it. Controversial moves should be done via
176:. He has never edited any article on wikipedia other than the subject article and its AfD.
94:
85:
I thought about this a lot before deleting. I'm happy to analyse it. Here's my reasoning:
701:
693:
631:
425:
115:
1092:
1055:
1042:
1021:
940:
834:
303:
Hello, Leflyman. I've noticed your comments on the crushing landslide on the AfD for
214:
158:
110:
1010:
Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded
929:
Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded
105:
1095:
1060:
1045:
1024:
943:
857:
838:
807:
794:
790:
Figured you'd want to know, given that you've been helping out in the reverts. --
715:
680:
550:
516:
392:
356:
337:
311:, and have added a redirect from the deleted page to the newer page. I am working
264:
246:
210:
100:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
960:
879:
804:
791:
755:
321:
734:
The original text is below. Is it OK to add it back? Would you prefer to?
696:. While admins are not the arbiters of policy, you need a good reason to
849:
367:
would ask that you note that he userfied his essays by his own choice,
825:
I thought that I should explain to you personally my meaning. In your
242:
I'm happy for it to be taken to a deletion review if you disagree. -
978:
897:
766:
482:
dispute resolution forums to handle it in an aboveboard fashion.
61:, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See
25:
1075:
source of the work and copyright information." Please follow
88:
1. Weight of 'votes'. The following users voted to 'delete'.
209:(who voted twice). This IP has never edited anything except
236:
After the rewrite, GassyGuy still questions its inclusion.
424:
With regard to nonconsensual userfication, I refer you to
659:
much appreciate it, although I have no specific response
195:, who has never contributed anything other than this vote
1005:
924:
826:
801:
671:
541:
507:
383:
237:
217:
206:
199:
192:
174:
77:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Clandestine (mud)
1001:
for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
920:
for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
820:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:WCityMike
634:
guideline, and not just where it comes to me. Yes,
1016:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
935:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
375:initiated and I am voluntarily participating in. —
225:
Total: 8, with 2 experienced users among the voters
499:a great deal, so we can't be massively unalike. —
981:. If you believe the media meets the criteria at
949:Unspecified source for Image:Pilot2backgammon.jpg
900:. If you believe the media meets the criteria at
202:, who has never edited anything except this AfD.
188:, who has never edited anything except this AfD.
182:, who has never edited anything except this AfD.
868:Unspecified source for Image:Thelostnumbers.jpg
568:User talk:WCityMike#Personal essay userfication
403:User talk:WCityMike#Personal essay userfication
129:, who has never edited anything except this AfD
458:regarding this, it's an issue best decided in
1037:. For an example of a fair use rationale see
995:Knowledge (XXG):Image copyright tags#Fair_use
914:Knowledge (XXG):Image copyright tags#Fair_use
283:Sorry. Brain death comes early in my family.
142:Total: 7, 5 experienced voters amongst the 7.
135:, who has only made one edit outside this AfD
8:
260:. Next time you can do it too :)). Cheers. ←
655:As for the remainder of your commentary, I
213:and this AfD. The IP appears to belong to
63:Knowledge (XXG):How to archive a talk page
977:tag can be used to release it under the
896:tag can be used to release it under the
759:and made well-known by the novelty song
460:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
438:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
307:. I have promptly moved all of it to
146:The following users voted to 'keep':
7:
999:Knowledge (XXG):Image copyright tags
918:Knowledge (XXG):Image copyright tags
753:: "life"; the original was based on
993:or one of the other tags listed at
912:or one of the other tags listed at
371:to engaging in a mediation process
24:
863:Images without source information
531:Knowledge (XXG):Project namespace
442:Knowledge (XXG):Proposed deletion
848:
434:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion process
29:
1039:Image:Lost ep210 12 360x240.jpg
778:Request made for protection of
446:Knowledge (XXG):Speedy deletion
430:Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves
1018:Media copyright questions page
937:Media copyright questions page
362:Your Userfication of My Essays
1:
844:Thanks for fighting vandalism
493:a rather intelligent proposal
1029:These images also require a
1014:criteria for speedy deletion
933:criteria for speedy deletion
1096:23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
1061:17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
1046:11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
1025:11:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
944:12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
858:00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
839:01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
808:23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
795:21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
745:Jim, but not as we know it!
436:should be used, preferably
426:WP:MM#Cross-namespace moves
70:User_talk:Leflyman/Archive7
68:Next archival selection is
1111:
956:Image:Pilot2backgammon.jpg
608:important requirements is
853:On my userpage. Cheers. ←
716:06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
681:11:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
551:04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
517:03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
495:, and we both appreciate
393:02:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
357:16:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
338:20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
320:I'm not sure if you're a
252:check user is your friend
1089:Image:Thelostnumbers.jpg
983:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use
902:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use
875:Image:Thelostnumbers.jpg
636:guidelines aren't policy
265:04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
247:06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
173:, who claims authorship
309:List of Star Wars ships
294:List of Star Wars ships
97:(nominated the article)
161:, a strong contributor
155:, a strong contributor
953:Thanks for uploading
872:Thanks for uploading
324:fan, but if you are,
42:of past discussions.
989:Non-free fair use in
985:, use a tag such as
908:Non-free fair use in
904:, use a tag such as
692:FWIW, I saw this on
401:{snipped} Reply at '
305:Star Wars ship names
298:Star Wars ship names
566:Extended reply at:
57:Post replies to my
1058:
1031:fair use rationale
1012:, as described on
931:, as described on
721:List of Snowclones
18:User talk:Leflyman
1054:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1102:
1068:Lost (TV series)
1059:
1035:Lost (TV series)
992:
976:
970:
911:
895:
889:
852:
827:original comment
780:Template:LostNav
713:
674:
544:
510:
386:
133:OneThousandYears
33:
32:
26:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1053:
991:|article name}}
986:
974:
968:
951:
910:|article name}}
905:
893:
887:
870:
865:
846:
823:
783:
723:
709:
669:
539:
505:
381:
364:
347:
335:RelentlessRouge
301:
272:
254:
80:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1108:
1106:
1064:
1063:
950:
947:
869:
866:
864:
861:
845:
842:
822:
817:
813:
811:
810:
800:Oh, well: see
782:
776:
772:
747:
746:
722:
719:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
522:
521:
520:
519:
486:
485:
484:
483:
476:
475:
474:
473:
466:
465:
464:
463:
452:
451:
450:
449:
419:
418:
417:
416:
407:
406:
363:
360:
346:
341:
300:
291:
271:
268:
253:
250:
230:
229:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
203:
196:
189:
183:
177:
165:
164:
163:
162:
156:
144:
143:
139:
138:
137:
136:
130:
121:
120:
119:
118:
113:
108:
103:
98:
79:
74:
59:main talk page
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1107:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1072:
1069:
1062:
1057:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1033:to remain in
1032:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1020:. Thank you.
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1002:
1000:
996:
990:
984:
980:
973:
965:
962:
958:
957:
948:
946:
945:
942:
939:. Thank you.
938:
934:
930:
926:
921:
919:
915:
909:
903:
899:
892:
884:
881:
877:
876:
867:
862:
860:
859:
856:
855:Humus sapiens
851:
843:
841:
840:
837:
836:
830:
828:
821:
818:
816:
809:
806:
802:
799:
798:
797:
796:
793:
788:
787:
781:
777:
775:
770:
768:
764:
763:
762:Star Trekkin'
758:
757:
752:
744:
740:
739:
738:
735:
732:
729:
726:
720:
718:
717:
714:
712:
707:
703:
699:
695:
682:
678:
673:
668:
667:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
637:
633:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
611:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
570:
569:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
552:
548:
543:
538:
537:
532:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
518:
514:
509:
504:
503:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
487:
480:
479:
478:
477:
470:
469:
468:
467:
461:
456:
455:
454:
453:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
420:
414:
409:
408:
405:
404:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
390:
385:
380:
379:
374:
370:
361:
359:
358:
355:
352:
345:
342:
340:
339:
336:
332:
329:
327:
323:
318:
316:
315:
310:
306:
299:
295:
292:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
270:hello, hello!
269:
267:
266:
263:
262:Humus sapiens
259:
256:FYI, I filed
251:
249:
248:
245:
244:Richardcavell
240:
238:
234:
227:
224:
223:
218:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
200:71.86.197.108
197:
194:
193:71.197.57.236
190:
187:
186:JaquesDeMolay
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
168:
167:
166:
160:
157:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
141:
140:
134:
131:
128:
125:
124:
123:
122:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
96:
93:
92:
91:
90:
89:
86:
83:
78:
75:
73:
71:
66:
64:
60:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1086:
1082:
1073:
1065:
1028:
1009:
1003:
966:
954:
952:
928:
922:
885:
873:
871:
847:
833:
831:
824:
812:
789:
784:
771:
760:
754:
750:
749:- :Original
748:
742:
736:
733:
730:
727:
724:
710:
698:ignore rules
691:
665:
660:
656:
604:
565:
535:
501:
496:
400:
377:
372:
368:
365:
348:
344:VandalSniper
333:
330:
328:contribute!
325:
319:
313:
312:
302:
288:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
255:
241:
235:
231:
180:Ascarislepis
145:
87:
84:
81:
67:
55:
43:
37:
211:Clandestine
207:69.170.2.76
36:This is an
171:Blackrazer
153:Aguerriero
95:Travelbird
1077:this link
1006:this link
972:GFDL-self
961:copyright
925:this link
891:GFDL-self
880:copyright
756:Star Trek
610:consensus
331:Cheers!!
322:Star Wars
127:Windflare
116:WinHunter
1093:Opark 77
1056:Leflyman
1043:Opark 77
1022:Opark 77
941:Opark 77
677:contribs
547:contribs
513:contribs
389:contribs
215:Donathin
205:Anon IP
198:Anon IP
191:Anon IP
159:Leflyman
111:GassyGuy
997:. See
916:. See
737:David.
286:cheers
106:Nick Y.
39:archive
663:it. —
605:really
354:(talk)
326:please
258:WP:RCU
101:Bugwit
741:It's
711:juice
706:Mango
702:WP:RM
694:WP:AN
632:WP:MM
440:, as
369:prior
351:Chris
16:<
979:GFDL
898:GFDL
805:PKtm
792:PKtm
785:See
767:1987
725:Hi,
672:talk
666:Mike
657:very
542:talk
536:Mike
508:talk
502:Mike
497:Lost
444:and
413:here
384:talk
378:Mike
314:very
289:mjt
274:Hi,
82:Hi.
835:KWH
803:--
765:in
65:.)
1041:--
1008:.
987:{{
975:}}
969:{{
927:.
906:{{
894:}}
888:{{
769:.
679:)
675:•
661:to
549:)
545:•
515:)
511:•
391:)
387:•
373:he
72:.
751:X
743:X
670:(
540:(
506:(
382:(
296:/
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.