User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Unprotect

Can you unprotect {{Infobox ESC entry}} for me. I want to tweak it so that the "finals performance" section header does not show up when there is no info there. See Työlki ellää. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I had it taken care of. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me know if you want to edit any other protected templates. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Chicago dog IP is back at it...

64.234.75.16 is a sockpuppet of that presently-blocked IP, beating that same dead horse. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and 130.127.230.20 (talk · contribs) has had its block extended to a month given the level of disruption the user behind it is willing to go to. What surprises me is that the user tried the same trick on St. Rita of Cascia High School, did (s)he really expect us to fall for it again? Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mystifies me. Where did you get that cool clock at the top right? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That is my edit notice, which can be found at User talk:Camaron/Editnotice. The clock is from the template User:Tkgd2007/Userboxes/My time. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiLove

Hello, Camaron. I placed a heart on your user page as a way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't want the heart icon on your userpage, feel free to remove it. Thank you. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very kind of you; I will keep it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Watcher tool on Meta

Two days ago, I placed a request to be added to the watcher tool list on Meta. It appears my request is being ignored. Since you are an administrator, could you add me to the list? Thanks. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 15:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am only an admin on the English Wikipedia, not on Meta, so I can't add you I'm afraid. If nobody responds in a few days you might want to chase up one of the admins that previously responded to others requests. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on Juliancolton's talk page, since it appears he is an admin on Meta. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 15:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Looks like Juliancolton added me to the list. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 15:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is good to hear. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

the Townshend talk page again ...

hello Camaron, and thanks for re-protecting the Pete Townshend page. meanwhile, are the allegations in the IP's post in this section about the ramifications of a police caution and the speculation about the contents of images Townshend looked at not a violation of WP:BLP#Non-article space? i think they should be deleted as unsourced & inflammatory, but i'd rather not be the one to do the deleting, since my judgement on similar comments has been overruled before. thanks for whatever you deem appropriate ... Sssoul (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the second paragraph of the users comments which were particularly problematic. Wikipedia was playing up when I saved the edit and I had other commitments so I wasn't sure it had gone through till just now. I could have gone further but that seems enough for the situation. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you Sssoul (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Lithuania in eurovision song contest 2010

it seems that Lithuania wont participate after all. check this link: http://www.escstats.com/chart10.htm it doesnt show that country at all. it shows that there is only 38 countries participating this year. please correct the error on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

NerdyScienceDude has given you a cookie!

NerdyScienceDude has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Happy Valentines Day! NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 15:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Camaron,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for vote 2 it depends what is meant by automatic desysop. If bureaucrats are expected to carry out a desysop in a robotic fashion if the threshold is reached then I would say none as first preference, and 90% as second preference. The definition of none being that there is no level of support of which the bureaucrats will automatically desysop. If the meaning of automatic desysop is closer to that of the upper threshold of RfA (80%), with promotions being near certain above the threshold but with rare exceptions for circumstances, then 80% is my first preference with 90% as my second preference. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Just to inform you trolls are trying to disrupt the article again. The most notable being The Affable Man (talk · contribs), Djypamba (talk · contribs) and A.constantino (talk · contribs). Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything from the editors which would make me not assume good faith in their actions. The latter two users are new to Wikipedia and I have left them a templated level one warning from WP:WARN. I would wait to see how they respond before doing anything else, they may be willing to discuss any issues on the talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. The Affable Man (talk · contribs) is breaking the consensus again. I would also like to remind you that my version of lede was already given five of six votes via WP:RFC, but anyhow I made several compromises to get along well with WesleyDodds (talk · contribs), an experienced editor whose suggestions were constructive. Now this The Affable Man (talk · contribs) character is only trying to disrupt the article with his unhelpful edits and without even getting involved on the talk page. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked him myself to take it to the talk page. New opinions and ideas are welcome per WP:CCC, but as he is deviating from the status quo and existing consensus on the talk page he is obliged to go there rather than engage in edit wars. If he continues I will consider taking further action. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Camaron, I'm sorry to post abruptly in your talk page, but I would appreciate it if you could reassess SMK_Kuching_High. Please also give some comment and advice on it. Thank you for your time. Skyrainbow (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I will try and re-assess it some time this next week. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much. Skyrainbow (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron, thank you for helping me to reassess SMK Kuching High. I will try to clean it up to suit Wikipedia's standards. Skyrainbow (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RE Possibly unfree File:Mount view high knight.JPG

I will not lie to you and that picture is off of my agenda book that they gave us at the beginning of the school year and I took that picture with my moms camera so the photo is completely free right.If I took it then its a free image and I dont really care if somebody wants to copy it i just took it then uploaded onto my computer then on Wikipedia to help my schools article,and there noto that much more that you can put on Mount View High School.Nascar1996 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is of a copyrighted logo, so a fair-use rationale is required. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 23:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yall Administrators dont know what the heck to do.I am not talking about NerdyScienceDude :) Nascar1996 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would read-up on the Wikipedia:Civility policy if I was you Nascar1996, and hiding offensive comments using hidden comment tags is not appropriate either. I have replied to your comments on the image at File talk:Mount view high knight.JPG. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mount View High School

Yes,my cousin signed that when i told here to log on to me so I could sign it because she is a vandaliser.I have told here over and over not to do that but she will not listen.HAPPY EDITING!Nascar1996 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is plausible so I will assume good faith and accept it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nascar1996's userpage

Hello, Camaron. I noticed in your edit summary on Nascar 1996's userpage that it looks like yours. It looks like yours because he got it from me, which I got from you. For your userpage, I would like to suggest collapsible userboxes. Collapsible userboxes reduce clutter created by userboxes. Thanks you and happy editing. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I thought so. I have considered collapsible user boxes in the past and they may work well on some user pages. However, on mine they would just result in an empty right hand column which wouldn't help reduce clutter much. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

uhh why ya talkin about my page?LOLNascar1996 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it looks a lot like mine, for reasons explained above. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh do you all like each other?Nascar1996 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The primary subject of this image is a logo which is someone else's work, this copyright is inherited into the photo, hence you do not have the copyright for it under United States copyright law. I'm not sure what you mean by someone else using the photo - if it is uploaded to Wikipedia it must follow the copyright policy regardless of who uses it. The image can stay on Wikipedia as a non-free image under grounds of fair use. However, it must have a fair use rationale and must not be used in the user space. I will implement both these requirements now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They do not own it and I got permission by the principal and friend Mr.Grygiel.Nascar1996 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First, who is "they"? The copyright holder is the creator of the logo, and only he/she/they can give permission for its use on Wikipedia. Please note that general permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough, it must be released under a free licence (such as Creative Commons) by the copyright holder, with evidence of permission e-mailed to permissions-enwikimedia.org. If this is not possible, then the image can stay as non-free fair use. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The school people.

Why does Wikipidia have such a copright law when no one gives a crap if it is there or not like on other sites you can copy it and than put it in your photos and save it then put it on their website.And where Ilive you dont have to get permission.Nascar1996 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Whom I see, yes you own the physical photo, but that is different from who is the copyright holder. For example, I could buy a painting done by someone else, while I would own the painting itself, the copyright would still be with the painter. Bear in mind that you give-up some "ownership rights" when you upload pictures and other material to Wikipedia, see WP:OWN.

In answer to your second question. Firstly, Wikipedia is an attempt to build a free encyclopedia. Ignoring copyright laws completely undermines this effort, and is hence unacceptable. Secondly, Wikipedia is one of the most well known and highly viewed websites on the internet - if it disregarded copyright laws it would almost certainly result in legal action by people or companies who have had material by them uploaded onto Wikipedia. Finally, Wikipedia takes its ethical responsibilities seriously; taking other people's work and then distributing without their permission can cause upset to others.

I'm not sure what you mean by "where Ilive you dont have to get permission." If you live in the U.S., as you claim on your userpage, United States copyright law applies to you, and it is clear on the matter of who the copyright holder in this case - and what their rights are. You can claim fair use without permission, as has currently been done with the image, but you cannot release it under a free licence without copyright holder permission. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea me I took the picture it is my property the whole thing is now they gave it to uss so we can keep up with our hmwk.Nascar1996 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read again what I said above, you do not seem to be getting it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the picture and it does not have coprighted on it i promise u.I dont care what u said that photo is mine and THAT IS NOT OUR LOGO I DONT HAVE A CLUE WHY THEY DID THAT/our board of education is stupid.Nascar1996 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry I don't believe you, and shouting in all caps is not going to change that. I have to say Nascar1996 that I am running out of patience, it seems what I am saying is going in one ear and out the other. For example, you have removed the PUF template again. This is despite the template clearly saying "If you don't want the file deleted, please provide explanatory information about the copyright status of this image. Please do not remove this notice while the question is being considered." and despite my requests not to remove it. If you keep this up, I'm afraid I will start to have to look at other measures. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then you cant update the article or the picture because you don have a CLUE AND IF i COULD i WOULD SHOW YOU A EXAMPLE OF MY AGENDA BOOK BUT I CANT.oopps didnt mean to be in all caps ohh well.And I sorry about that but i swear to you that there is not a copyright status on it and the owner then is unknown.I am sorry!Nascar1996 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to show me an example of your Agenda Book - it doesn't matter where you got it from. With the exception of very simple drawings, all drawings are copyrighted by law on creation, and unless evidence is given otherwise it has to be assumed that they are still copyrighted. Copyright still applies even if the author is unknown. I am rather confused on why this such an issue for you - the image of the school logo you uploaded is staying as a non-free image under fair use, and if the image has its resolution reduced (which I can do for you) and no further issues crop-up, it will soon be de-listed from WP:PUF. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It bothers me because I know the school and probably a past student may have drew it,because in the hallways there are many pictures that students drew.As long as the page dont get deleted.Nascar1996 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

England

If you live in England how do you know so much about the USA?Nascar1996 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator of Wikipedia I do a lot of work with images. As Wikipedia has its servers hosted in the U.S. it is U.S copyright law that has to be followed here, and hence I have grown familiar with it. I am also familiar with British copyright law though it is pretty similar to that of the U.S. in many ways. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK.Nascar1996 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

RE Possibly unfree File:Mount view high knight.JPG

I will not lie to you and that picture is off of my agenda book that they gave us at the beginning of the school year and I took that picture with my moms camera so the photo is completely free right.If I took it then its a free image and I dont really care if somebody wants to copy it i just took it then uploaded onto my computer then on Wikipedia to help my schools article,and there noto that much more that you can put on Mount View High School.Nascar1996 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is of a copyrighted logo, so a fair-use rationale is required. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 23:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yall Administrators dont know what the heck to do.I am not talking about NerdyScienceDude :) Nascar1996 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would read-up on the Wikipedia:Civility policy if I was you Nascar1996, and hiding offensive comments using hidden comment tags is not appropriate either. I have replied to your comments on the image at File talk:Mount view high knight.JPG. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mount View High School

Yes,my cousin signed that when i told here to log on to me so I could sign it because she is a vandaliser.I have told here over and over not to do that but she will not listen.HAPPY EDITING!Nascar1996 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is plausible so I will assume good faith and accept it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nascar1996's userpage

Hello, Camaron. I noticed in your edit summary on Nascar 1996's userpage that it looks like yours. It looks like yours because he got it from me, which I got from you. For your userpage, I would like to suggest collapsible userboxes. Collapsible userboxes reduce clutter created by userboxes. Thanks you and happy editing. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I thought so. I have considered collapsible user boxes in the past and they may work well on some user pages. However, on mine they would just result in an empty right hand column which wouldn't help reduce clutter much. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

uhh why ya talkin about my page?LOLNascar1996 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it looks a lot like mine, for reasons explained above. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh do you all like each other?Nascar1996 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The primary subject of this image is a logo which is someone else's work, this copyright is inherited into the photo, hence you do not have the copyright for it under United States copyright law. I'm not sure what you mean by someone else using the photo - if it is uploaded to Wikipedia it must follow the copyright policy regardless of who uses it. The image can stay on Wikipedia as a non-free image under grounds of fair use. However, it must have a fair use rationale and must not be used in the user space. I will implement both these requirements now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They do not own it and I got permission by the principal and friend Mr.Grygiel.Nascar1996 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First, who is "they"? The copyright holder is the creator of the logo, and only he/she/they can give permission for its use on Wikipedia. Please note that general permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough, it must be released under a free licence (such as Creative Commons) by the copyright holder, with evidence of permission e-mailed to permissions-enwikimedia.org. If this is not possible, then the image can stay as non-free fair use. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The school people.

Why does Wikipidia have such a copright law when no one gives a crap if it is there or not like on other sites you can copy it and than put it in your photos and save it then put it on their website.And where Ilive you dont have to get permission.Nascar1996 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Whom I see, yes you own the physical photo, but that is different from who is the copyright holder. For example, I could buy a painting done by someone else, while I would own the painting itself, the copyright would still be with the painter. Bear in mind that you give-up some "ownership rights" when you upload pictures and other material to Wikipedia, see WP:OWN.

In answer to your second question. Firstly, Wikipedia is an attempt to build a free encyclopedia. Ignoring copyright laws completely undermines this effort, and is hence unacceptable. Secondly, Wikipedia is one of the most well known and highly viewed websites on the internet - if it disregarded copyright laws it would almost certainly result in legal action by people or companies who have had material by them uploaded onto Wikipedia. Finally, Wikipedia takes its ethical responsibilities seriously; taking other people's work and then distributing without their permission can cause upset to others.

I'm not sure what you mean by "where Ilive you dont have to get permission." If you live in the U.S., as you claim on your userpage, United States copyright law applies to you, and it is clear on the matter of who the copyright holder in this case - and what their rights are. You can claim fair use without permission, as has currently been done with the image, but you cannot release it under a free licence without copyright holder permission. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea me I took the picture it is my property the whole thing is now they gave it to uss so we can keep up with our hmwk.Nascar1996 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read again what I said above, you do not seem to be getting it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the picture and it does not have coprighted on it i promise u.I dont care what u said that photo is mine and THAT IS NOT OUR LOGO I DONT HAVE A CLUE WHY THEY DID THAT/our board of education is stupid.Nascar1996 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry I don't believe you, and shouting in all caps is not going to change that. I have to say Nascar1996 that I am running out of patience, it seems what I am saying is going in one ear and out the other. For example, you have removed the PUF template again. This is despite the template clearly saying "If you don't want the file deleted, please provide explanatory information about the copyright status of this image. Please do not remove this notice while the question is being considered." and despite my requests not to remove it. If you keep this up, I'm afraid I will start to have to look at other measures. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then you cant update the article or the picture because you don have a CLUE AND IF i COULD i WOULD SHOW YOU A EXAMPLE OF MY AGENDA BOOK BUT I CANT.oopps didnt mean to be in all caps ohh well.And I sorry about that but i swear to you that there is not a copyright status on it and the owner then is unknown.I am sorry!Nascar1996 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to show me an example of your Agenda Book - it doesn't matter where you got it from. With the exception of very simple drawings, all drawings are copyrighted by law on creation, and unless evidence is given otherwise it has to be assumed that they are still copyrighted. Copyright still applies even if the author is unknown. I am rather confused on why this such an issue for you - the image of the school logo you uploaded is staying as a non-free image under fair use, and if the image has its resolution reduced (which I can do for you) and no further issues crop-up, it will soon be de-listed from WP:PUF. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It bothers me because I know the school and probably a past student may have drew it,because in the hallways there are many pictures that students drew.As long as the page dont get deleted.Nascar1996 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

England

If you live in England how do you know so much about the USA?Nascar1996 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator of Wikipedia I do a lot of work with images. As Wikipedia has its servers hosted in the U.S. it is U.S copyright law that has to be followed here, and hence I have grown familiar with it. I am also familiar with British copyright law though it is pretty similar to that of the U.S. in many ways. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK.Nascar1996 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Will you please delete User:Nascar1996/Jimmie Johnson.I made a mistake in creating it.Thank You.Nascar1996 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone else has already deleted it for you. Just add {{db-user}} if you want a page in your userspace to be deleted quickly. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks anyway,if I got you mad and stuff I am going to apologize for my wrong doing.Im sorry.Nascar1996 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for the Barn Star!Nascar1996 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JimmyBallgame

Hello Camaron. I saw your comments on this user's talk, about terms of his unblock. You might take a look at WP:AN3#User:NastalgicCam reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: 24h, semi). This concerns an editor, NastalgicCam, who has been using multiple IP accounts to edit at Chicago-style hot dog and has tangled with Kintetsubuffalo. I wonder if this guy could be the same as JimmyBallgame. If so, the latter is not holding to his agreement. It would be good if the list of all the possible IP accounts could be collected somewhere. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The generally disruptive behaviour is similar which did make me wonder. I have looked at the latest IPs and there does not seem to be an obvious connection to those of JimmyBallgame. I also note that JimmyBallgame restored the info on the ketchup, while NastalgicCam and his/her IPs were removing it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

work remaining in the eurovision song contest 2010 article

a few fields still say oslo, even though they should say bærum. please change them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk)

References to Oslo refer to the Greater Oslo Region, which is correct and covers Bærum. The location information in the infobox had references to the Greater Oslo Region removed to save space, not for any other reason. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

for the last time: greater oslo doesnt exist it is just a company name.

since the greater oslo area havent ever existed as anything more than a company name, that article shouldnt have existed in the first place. any searches for greater oslo should instad point to information about a company named sl. sl is the company that the name originated from. it was used to describe where the tickets from that company were usable on trains. it never was an actual area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this has been discussed to death at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010 and we simply do not accept your claims. You have not explained the existance of numerous reliable sources on the Greater Oslo Region including a book, a scientific journal, and use of the term in Norwegian national statistics. The Greater Oslo area clearly exists and the article's, which can clearly pass Wikipedia:Notability, are not likely to go anywhere. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

you have insulted my country for the last time. i intend to repport you to the police for telling bad lies about my country. the fact remains that the greater oslo area havent ever existed. so unless you do something i will report you for harassment.(for harassing my country.)--84.208.75.65 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

See your talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Template Help

Hi Camaron, I'm trying to make templates for wikipedia and my own wiki site. I would like to know a few things:

• how to make the template outlines (ie, {{Ambox}}, {{Tmbox}} and the others).
• how to make the small logos what appear on protected pages.
• how to personalise pages, like the one I am using now to send this message.

Many Thanks For Your Help In Advance,
Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also on MSN as well.

---

Hello, I'm not sure I can help you much on the first two points as while I have a basic understanding of templates and know how to use them, I do not write complex template. Someone in Category:User template coder-4 and Category:User template coder-5 may be able to help you more here. For the third point, which feature are you thinking of in particular? Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

---

for part 1 & 2 - ok will do, thx

For part 3 - if you go to here, the page appears to be customised.

Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an editnotice which can be edited at User talk:Camaron/Editnotice. Information about editnotice use on the English Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Editnotice. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Certificate_of_Education_(Secondary) to General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education

I think a merger of Certificate_of_Education_(Secondary) to General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education is workable, I've started new section on the talk page. Checking though the history I saw that you did some edits, and thought you may be intrested in commenting. Blackash (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I will review the issue and weigh in some time soon. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: From the members

Sure! I'm currently typing it out as I type this. (how is that possible?) It will be probably finished in a few minutes. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, once all issues are sorted I will ask for it to be distributed. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just discovered I'm that good at writing pieces, but finished now, please have a look and make any amendments if you wish. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read it, looks good. I will give the newsletter a final look over tomorrow. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Username

Hi Camaron. I changed my username as requested. Sorry for the mistake. I am rather new and I didn't know I couldn't use the former username. I hope it's Ok now--Aeron10 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I see nothing wrong with your current username. I have unfortunately had to block a number of accounts recently due to username issues, just for clarification, what was the name of your previous account? Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The username of my previous account was Immagine.poesia. If you find something wrong in the future, please tell me: I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia and avoid any mistake. Thanks.--Aeron10 (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I thought so, thank you for understanding and creating an appropriate account. You were only blocked because of your username, so please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Benet Academy peer review

Hello Camaron. You reviewed Benet Academy for WikiProject Schools assessment, and I just wanted to let you know that I have an open peer review here. Feel free to provide suggestions if you want. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I may add some comments later, though I have my hands full at the moment so it may be a while. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lion King (franchise)

Sorry. My friend is a douchebag who thought it would be funny. He added something else, too. Just warning you. Way to fix it so quick, though. My faith in Wikipedia's quality is once again reinforced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.118.233 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with it, thank you for letting me know. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Help on vandal.

Sorry to bother you and I don't know if you could do rangeblocks. But an Indonesian vandal who constantly puts misinformation into production studio articles, Digimon related anime, etc. has used the following three IP addresses just today with the same modus operandi:

• 202.70.58.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.58.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.58.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A block 202.70.58.0/25 might be in order, although I might suggest 202.70.58.0/24 because the could appear anywhere in the 202.70.58.* range. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that a range block would be appropriate here at 202.70.58.0/24 (talk · contribs), though it looks like someone has already beat me to it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk Back

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Nascar1996's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 March 2010

deleting comet-me

hello camaron The PDF you refer to as being copyrighted is mine. I am a part of the Comet-me organisation, why did you delete it? and how can i restore the article? Fiestin (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

The Comet-me article was deleted due to concerns that the content was copyrighted. If the .pdf file linked is your own work then there should be no problem with copyright, though please forward evidence of permission to Wikipedia by following the instructions at WP:PERMIT. Let me know when you have done this and I can restore the article for you. One more thing, given that you have identified a connection to the topic you have wrote and article on you may wish to look at WP:COI and follow the advice given. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments?

Hi Camaron,

This is an informal request, but if you have time, I'd like your thoughts. I'm thinking about taking School for Creative and Performing Arts for a run at FAC. I've been waiting on some new sources, and I know it needs a good rewrite for prose quality. I'd like to make some changes before I put it up for peer review again, but I wonder if you could take a look at it and let me know where you think it needs the most work. Your comments in the past have been very helpful, so I thought I'd ask you first. There is a lot less history to work with than there was with The Avery Coonley School, but I think it could be a good story. Please feel free to be frank. You won't hurt my feelings. I'm kind of stuck on where to take it and I'd like some suggestions on where to go with it. If there are other folks on the project you think could help, let me know and I'll ask them, too. Thanks --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, it is unlikely I will be able to review this before I go on holiday to Egypt for 2 weeks, followed by an Exeter Field Course for another week immediately after. However, WikiProject Schools has done well with FAs recently and I wish you luck with future efforts. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

Hi Camaron. How you doing? This user Ishmaelblues has been trolling and disrupting several articles for ages and now he's edit-warring with multiple editors while pushing an unreferenced POV on Dazed and Confused article. I think he needs to stop now. I'd really appreciate your help with this one. Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Scieberking (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello there again, I have less time for Wikipedia at the moment but I'm okay. There hasn't been much activity on the page since yesterday, and the user you refereed to hasn't edited the page for 2 days. I will however keep an eye on the page for a bit to see what happens. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Camaron. Problem solved and consensus has been reached. Thank you so much for your help anyway. Best Regards, Scieberking (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. I can has rollback (to help prevent vandalism)? :-o Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot to respond to your request. You have a good recent history which convinces me that you can be trusted with the tool. I will give you rollback now though please only use it to revert vandalism, never to edit war or revert good faith edits. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Rollback feature and Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Use it well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already read the policies. The feature has been added to my profile? Scieberking (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is enabled on your account. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. You see the recent vandalism thing on Led Zeppelin article? It's terrible- almost spontaneous! Regards, Scieberking (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be some kind of spree by an individial or small group, hopefully it will calm down after today. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Again

I have an article that I would like you to see if it is good enough for GA status. The article is already on the nominations page. If you can't preview the article and make grammer changes (if there needed) thanks anyway. Also, ever since we last talked I have been understanding WP a hole lot better. Thanks again, - Nascar1996 01:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, its great to see you have been doing a lot of good stuff for the wiki since we last spoke. The article has now passed GA, and I don't see anything of serious concern, though GAs and NASCAR are not my speciality. I have made the publisher names consistent however. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to see it to believe it

Cam,

I hope your holiday was restful and completely non-productive.

Check this out if you have a moment. I don't need you to do anything ... I think you might just want a laugh. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a very nice holiday thanks, and yes it was rather non-productive, with perhaps the only exception being a trip to Jordan to see Petra. Kmweber is known for his rather strong views of Wikipedia, which have very limited support among the community. You responded well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, CT Cooper!

(By the way, you're the first person I've wished a happy birthday to here ) Pilif12p 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing me to be the first person you wish a happy birthday to Pilif12p. I did have a good day, which happened to be my last one in Egypt on holiday before moving on to Exeter for an Environmental Science Field Course. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pyromania

Hi Camaron!

I have restored the Pyromania (song) article, per a request at its talk page. Since the single has now charted, a new incarnation of it would not be eligible for deletion under G4, and I think it'd be pointless to have the basic structure of the article recreated when it's already in the history. Let me know if you have any objections. Regards, decltype (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections, though even I did it would be a bit late for me to raise them now. The version I deleted [1] left a lot to be desired in terms of addressing the concerns of the AfD with solid sourcing, the confusing use of past tense for 2011 didn't help either - "It is their first single from their yet to be titled studio album thought to be released in 2010 or 2011." However the article has come a long way since then, so good call. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by "objections", I was thinking in the form of criticism of my restoring the article without consulting you first. I took the IP's request as an indication that there was willingness to work on the article, and I verified the claim that it had charted - which would alleviate most of the AfD concerns - and I see nothing wrong with your March 22 deletion. Regards, decltype (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC) P.S You have an excellent editnotice by the way, one of the best I've seen.

Thank you for your compliments on my editnotice - it has taken a bit of evolution to be the way it is but I'm glad you like it. On objections, I'm not too fussy with admins overturning my admin actions as long there is a good reason and a note is left on my talk page per User:Camaron#My adminship. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Help request

Hi, I saw you're an admin. File:Lamprotornis hildebrandti -Tanzania-8-2c.jpg needs an information box and license but I can't edit the file, can you add it? Thank you :) Hekerui (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this picture appears to have been temporarily uploaded to Wikipedia so it can feature on the main page tomorrow, and is fully protected to prevent vandalism. The picture will be deleted once its time on the main page is over, so licences e.t.c. are probably not needed. See File:Lamprotornis hildebrandti -Tanzania-8-2c.jpg for the permanent copy on Commons. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That it's temporary doesn't mean it needs no license. (And the current DYK image isn't on Commons.) I asked the person I believe to be in charge. Best Hekerui (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't do Main Page work and I am not going to make any edits unless I know what I'm doing. The issue appears to be resolved, though this is possibly a bot issue and questions have already been raised on the operator's talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Andrew's

The reverts you made on St. Andrew's Episcopal School (Texas) are neither BLP or Verifiability issues. The information is both neutral and not original research as it is freely available information in the school's IRS Form 990 tax filings which you will note is listed as reference #6. Listing compensation for board members and chairs of educational institutions of all types is common place as can be witnessed in the article space of almost any college or prep school. I will leave the reversion to you so as not to start an edit war.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortheloveofbacon (talk • contribs)

None of the content which I removed was sourced with an in-line citation, nor could I find people's salaries in the references provided, including ref 6 - so I'm afraid I cannot accept that there is not a WP:BLP or WP:V issue here. I have looked and edited many school articles and I rarely see salary information on school employees. Even if such content is sourced it is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia per the spirit of WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI on not listing school staff, and to some extent Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. Thank you though for not starting an edit war, I will be happy to keep discussing this until agreement is reached. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the financial section as a brief summary of the school's 990 tax filing, which all non profits must submit and is freely available from multiple locations (that's what citation 6 is). My understanding of WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI was that the article was not to include a staff directory or list of employees, not that it was forbidden to include the names of those that worked there. If we've already listed the person elsewhere in the article as, for example, the Head of School, is it not then appropriate to include salary information such as in Kamehameha_Schools wherein it lists salaries for board members? I originally added the information with a sentence describing the school's use of salaries to recruit personnel from the local public school district where the average salary is $44,563 http://www.austin.isd.tenet.edu/community/new/basicdata.phtml although I'm not sure at what point that was deleted.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Information about living people must be very well sourced, with the actual source used clearly cited with a in-line citation. The link given, which was not clearly indicated as the source, and did not show any information on individial employees. On WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI it not a violation of the letter of these guidelines, but it is a violation of the spirit in my view. The only real difference between a list of individuals salaries and a list of staff is that there is a number by their name. If listing employees individual salaries becomes more common then I may ask for input from the BLP Noticeboard, and relevant guidelines can be amended as necessary. The general practice on Wikipedia, backed by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, is that mention of specific living individuals in articles should be kept to a minimum. In school articles in practice this usually means only highly significant individuals such as school headteacher are usually mentioned. Tax records are primary sources and their use on Wikipedia is allowed but limited; however there a more stringent restrictions on their use for material about living people per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources. In particular it states: "Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." While individuals salaries are not listed they do in my view count as "personal information" (even if it is available to the public), and there use in school articles is best avoided, particularly given that it is non-essential information. A possible exception could be if the material is subject to the attention of secondary sources. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be clarified that these individuals are all mentioned as the Head of School, Head of Lower, Middle and Upper Schools, not just random employees of the school. I'm not sure which pillar of the BLP policy you are taking issue with. This information is a) neutral, b) verifiable, c) not original research. Further, since the names of these individuals are mentioned elsewhere in the article I don't believe that this creates a privacy issue. Articles on a company for example may list the salaries of executives. Is this different merely because it is non-profit? Would it appear more encyclopedic if the salaries were appended to the names in the info box?Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have linked the parts of BLP policy which is an issue here above. I'm afraid there is more to Wikipedia policy than neutrality, verifiability, and no original research - and BLP, as linked above, specifically rejects the argument that just because information on living people is verifiable it should be included; WP:INDISCRIMINATE also rejects this argument. The privacy issue is primarily about their salaries, and executives of a company are usually more well known than teachers and other employees of an average school, so mentioning of the formers names can be more justified per WP:BLPNAME. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with your labeling of the edits as vandalism, and request that you rephrase your description of the revert. You have also completely removed the Financials section, which was never discussed as a BLP issue. Please advise on why that is the case.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was your edit that removed the finances section by reverting the article to a very old revision. This resulted in Chzz (talk · contribs) editing a very old revision, which I had to revert then manually combine with a more recent revision of the article. The edit you made was to say the least not appropriate use of Twinkle, particularly given that the vandalism revert button was used despite the edits being nothing like vandalism. You must take full responsibility for your use of tools like Twinkle, so please do not use them in that way again. I did not call your edits vandalism at any point (and even if I did that does not justify retaliation), which is why your edits were present in the revision I left, and that is why I left an attribution note on the talk page referencing your edits, as due to the vandalism of others I had to remove some of your edits from the history, resulting in loss of attribution. Also, per WP:GRAPEVINE users may remove material about living persons which is unsourced or poorly sourced, without discussion. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Over the Rainbow (UK TV series)

Hi, is there any way that Over the Rainbow (UK TV series) can be semi-protected because I have keep having to revert information about the eliminations that havn't aited. Thanks MSalmon (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the offending IP, 80.46.79.159 (talk · contribs), for the time being. I will keep an eye on the page and if the user returns on another IP or disruption continues I will go for semi-protection. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, there is a hidden note at the top of the Finalists and Live Shows sections to warn users of adding information before the show has aired but they just ignore it MSalmon (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin Page Protection

Was it your intention to protect the version of the page without heavy metal? While that term is disputed, I think you'll find it had been included in the infobox for quite some time prior to the recent spate of changes. Piriczki (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The version I found prior to the edit war had heavy metal missing, though it appears strangely that a lone IP removed it just before the edit war began. You appear to be right that heavy metal is present under genres consistently before the edit war, which begs the question on why so many editors suddenly appeared and claimed that previous talk page discussion had concluded it should not be present. Perhaps they just never noticed the issue until yesterday?

I am going to leave the page as it is given the fall-back under WP:PREFER is to protect the current version if there is no clear cut version of the page before the dispute began, which is what I did when I upped the page to full protection. It is more important that consensus be reached on the talk page and the page be soon unprotected. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is strange how this subject has flared up again since its been discussed before (see the archived talk page Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 6#Heavy metal.3F). I suspect the issue was raised again by a sockpuppet of a banned user with a particular POV on the subject. Of course if I'm wong I'd be the first to admit it. Piriczki (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edit request from Drhillteach, 9 May 2010

Dear Cameron, I am trying to get my comment onto the Discussion of Visible Spectra, This is my first time Wikipeadian, I will have a fresh go contributing to discussion and it may be clearer what I am saying. I have not yet found where you placed my work. No worries. I will slowly get going, but hope for general goodwill and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhillteach (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I will respond on your talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi, could you please take a look at this for me? It doesn't seem any admin attends the image undeletion request or WP:UNDELETE currently. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, the image was incorrectly deleted. WP:CSD#F5 clearly states that image can only be deleted when identified as such for seven days, which this wasn't, and one of the reasons being to allow users a chance to object to a fair use image being removed from the article. I am hesitant to restore the image though (and possibly so are the admins at WP:REFUND, which is why your request has gone unanswered) given there seems to be a content dispute over this Talk:Beyond Good & Evil (video game), and the deleting admin, David Fuchs (talk · contribs), is involved. If I come along and undelete the image, just two days after it was deleted, I could exasperate things. I would suggest asking David Fuchs directly to undelete the image, at least temporarily, while the discussion is occurring. If that fails, see how the discussion concludes, and as a last resort you could go to WP:DELREV on the grounds the image was not properly deleted. On the other hand, another admin could take another view to me and answer your request by undeleting the image. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No conference awards to be listed

I was wondering whether you were aware of the precedence which states that conference level awards are not considered notable for high schools as a assessor stated on the Shenandoah Valley Academy article. I undid the delete on that section since I found multiple instances of private high school articles listing these, and could find no discussion on it. It seems rather arbitrary to say no conference awards, but state/district awards are notable since many private schools only compete in conferences and do not get state awards as public schools do. Thoughts?WikiManOne (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy wise the main tests for inclusion of content within articles are verifiability and reliability, not normally notability. However, in certain cases it may be reasonable for editors to be more exclusive on what is included in an article. You will find some recent discussion on award inclusion at WT:WPSCH#Sections of the article. WP:WPSCH/AG#S has been recently changed to remove the no local awards language from the guideline, with only dedicated notable awards sections having the notability requirement. Despite this being a change I supported, I'm not fully convinced there is a clear consensus on school award inclusion across Wikipedia. There are many school articles, and I frequently come across stuff within them that shouldn't be there, so I would use precedence of other articles carefully. In any case, I am not hugely familiar with U.S. sports awards, so I do not have a strong opinion on this particular issue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Hello Camaron. I just have a question on the status of the Led Zeppelin article. Why did you further extend protection on the page? We do have a consensus on the heavy metal debate. RG (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like your close to reaching an agreement. However I extended the protection as I wanted consensus to solidify before unprotecting. If no further issues are raised soon, I will unprotect the page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. I think a consensus has been reached about the inclusion of "heavy metal" as a genre in the infobox. You could feel free to unprotect the article. Again, thank you very much for your efforts as an active, ideal admin. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, with the endorsement of two on their being a consensus, I have unprotected the article. I'm glad to be of help. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Southmoore High School

Why do you keep on changing my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimthomas (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not add any of my personal views. I edited out the inappropriate edits from someone else and added text from the official school website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimthomas (talk • contribs) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My edits are taken right from the official school website: http://www.mooreschools.com/shs/site/default.asp So can I please just continue working on making this wiki page? I started editing because I saw the inappropriate edits someone made. I'm not the one writing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimthomas (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the content you added as it read as promotional, and hence was in violation of the WP:NPOV policy. If it is from the school website then that is even more reason for removal, since such material is a copyright violation. Please place content in the article that is in your own words only. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not adding a non-neutral point of view. I am adding things that are on the official school website: http://www.mooreschools.com/shs/site/default.asp I started editing because I saw the inappropriate non-neutral point of views and I'm trying to improve this Wiki page. --Andimthomas (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It didn't read as neutral to me, and material from the school website is unlikely to be neutral. In any case the neutrality issue is mute since material from other websites which is copyrighted should not be added regardless of if it is neutral or not. Please only add content in your own words, see Wikipedia:Copyright. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Eurovision 2010.png

I personally think there is no need for File:Eurovision 2010.png to be used in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article, we already have the image as part of the main contest logo. A few problems with the file that I have noticed are; the file is rather large, and needs to be reduced, plus you can see that the red of the flag can be seen on the outer edge of the 'heart' and 'i', with heart itself having had a large chunk out of the where the top two points cross over and my last point is that the positioning of the flag should be futher to the left, as seen here . I've also notified the original uploader (5219736P (talk · contribs)).  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree; I never noticed the faults in the image itself but with this been within the main logo it seems superfluous, and does not pass WP:NFCC. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook campaign - That sounds good to me

It has been written about in ESCtoday, do you think that reaches the standard to be in the article? 安東尼 TALK 17:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As it has been reported on by a reliable source, I would have thought so, either in United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 or That Sounds Good to Me. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unwelcome visitor

You're welcome, as ever. I hope your exams go well. Take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, I hope so too! Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello Camaron,

How are you doing? This editor by the name of Pyrrhus16 keeps changing the lead paragraphs of the Michael Jackson page. This age has been structured one way for the longest time. I also believe that he is sock sock puppetry by writing from an ip address besides using his wiki name. Other editors have spoken to him about yet he still does this. I just noticed that you're taking a break to study Good luck with exams. ill also write one more admin in the mean time.Knighttrain (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You knighttrain

This looks like a content dispute to me, not vandalism. There is a lot of edit warring occurring on the Michael Jackson page, which isn't productive, so I have now fully protected the page. Please go to the talk page and reach an agreement over the lead; I will unprotect the article as soon as an agreement is reached, and keep an eye on it in the meantime. If you believe someone is violating the sock puppetry policy then you should report it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations where any suspicions you have will be investigated. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Hey, there. I was wondering if you could unprotect the Michael Jackson article? A clear consensus was formed for the revision of the lead on the article talk page, and the three accounts that disagreed have all been blocked as sockpuppets of each other; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buffaloxoldiar/Archive. Pyrrhus16 08:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done, I would have replied earlier but the internet I was using gave out. I don't see any point leaving the article fully protected with one major party blocked, if there are any further disagreements they should be sorted out on the talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Paulotanner Revisited (& The IPs Reloaded).....

Here and here. Thanks and Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it appears to be Paulotanner (talk · contribs), given that the IPs he was editing through previously were also from Brazil. Paulotanner does not seem to be very active so this might just be a one off incident, if further IPs from Brazil appear further action should be considered. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk pages

I am not a vandal. They say lies about the history of my country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.167.248 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on the talk page of this IP address. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

True feelings if secret???

I agree that the margin should be lowered if we are going to keep SecurePoll, given that use of such a process drives up the number of oppose votes

You wrote this. Does this mean that if the vote is secret, one will express their true feelings and oppose but if they have to print their name in the open, people will support> Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly yes, whatever the reasons, in the 2009 ArbCom Elections with SecurePoll there was a noticeable increase in the number of oppose votes cast for the more popular candidates, compared to 2008 ArbCom Elections which had public voting. It is not easy to show why this has occurred, though people being more willing to oppose in private could be a factor. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-12-21/Election report is a good article on the subject. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OTRS stuff

User:84.208.72.121 (and whatever other IPs) have revoked their legal threat through OTRS. Ironholds (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I have unblocked the user. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Changing your username half-way through an RfA... now that's just sneaky ;-) TFOWR 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome; I forgot when I commented on your user page that I had changed my username and I might confuse you. I suspect there is going to be some confusion for a while, particularly while most of my edits are still on the old Camaron account. CT Cooper (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer NSD. I will certainly consider joining in since I could do with some glory! I do have a lot to do both on Wikipedia and elsewhere however. CT Cooper (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bronx High School of Science#Notable alumni

Heya CamCT I am having a big problem over at this article. The school has a long list of alumni (somewhere between 75-100). I had recommended to an editor splitting that list out, writing in more prose and referencing it. We did that, and another editor had a big problem with losing the list from the article. Now, the section has a link to the list with referencing and such, but this editor now insists on keeping both the stand-alone list and the list within the article. We tried an RFC, but it did not get a lot of response. I told the editor in question that this can simply be solved by doing and RFD on the stand alone article: if it is deleted, keep the list in the article .... if it is not, then the list in the article goes. I suspect he is aware that the stand alone will definitely survive an AFD, and as such is now taking this "let's keep both" stand.

Any thoughts as to how to proceed? I would do the AFD myself, but I think it would come across as being pointy, and I would rather not go there. Glad exams are over for you! LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the current set-up on this page either, there is no point having a separate article for the alumni if you are going to replicate most of in the main article. Compromise can work in some cases, this is not one of them. Either the list of alumni is in a separate article and there is a summary in the main article, or it is all merged back into the main article. The WP:SS guideline applies in this case, but this does not appear to have been mentioned yet; the current content in the article alumni section does not look much like a summary. In this case I think the alumni list is long enough to justify a separate article and a full merge back would mean the alumni list would dominate the article, the amount of readable prose is not the be-all and end-all. I would avoid an AfD if you can, since they can cause controversy, particularly when other editors see them as unnecessary. Since the wider issue of summarising split alumni articles has been raised, in particular what is common practice, perhaps you should ask for further opinion at WT:WPSCH. CT Cooper (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wayward contributions

While they may start moving yet, we had another user who's been waiting a little longer to see any movement and Jeff G. went ahead and noted both issues at bugzilla:17313. You may wish to "vote" for the bug, if you have an account on bugzilla. See also WT:CHU#Stalled renames. –xeno^talk 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have an account on Bugzilla, but I have gone ahead and created one so I can vote and comment. Thanks for letting me know. I would have started talking to the developers myself soon anyway as it doesn't look likely that my old edits are going to move. CT Cooper (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As I commented there, I think the reason was that you were active when I performed the rename, so maybe there was some cookie, or being logged in to the global account, or something, was what caused it. –xeno^talk 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I suspect you are getting onto the cause of this issue. CT Cooper (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proof of account ownership for username change

I am requesting a rename on Commons, Meta, the Simple English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia UK. My current username on all these projects is Camaron. CT Cooper (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Table help

Hi CT

I ask you as most experienced user of mediawiki. I'd like ask you for modify table template to add the "fixed header" feature like on this example.

Many thanx

Smuto (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know how to create scrolling tables with fixed headers, and I'm not sure it can even be done on MediaWiki. Help:Table will tell you how to make tables but I can't find anything there which will answer your question. Be aware that even if you can create scrolling tables with fixed headers, they might not be allowed in the main (article) space, due to the potential technical difficulties; see MOS:SCROLL. CT Cooper (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

can you correct some error on an article.

the Dungeons & Dragons: Dragonshard article lack information about the european release. based on what the manual say it was released some time during 2005. the pegi rating is 12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

i havent even done anything wrong since my block was liftet but then, i suddenly get threatened as well as blocked. whats going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the problem for you, see my comments at User talk:84.208.72.121. CT Cooper (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

i am still being threatened by wikipedia saying that they will contact my isp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

something else that the article doesnt mention is that the game was released on a single dvd. i have the dvd release myself. thank you for removing the threat. i only ever edit to correct errors or misinformation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk)

You're welcome. Please reply at User talk:84.208.72.121 so we can keep this discussion in one place; I am watching that page. CT Cooper (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Younger brother on laptop

Hello,

I am sorry about what happened, you see I let my younger brother go on my laptop and he has not only trolled on this website, but another website as well. I am very, very sorry. I use Wikipedia a lot, so I wish for this I.P adress not to be banned.

Yours Faithfully

BM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.201.136 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on your IP address talk page. CT Cooper (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC

Hello,

Yes, My younger brother does exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.201.136 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say your brother didn't exist? The comment left on your userpage implying otherwise was left by another unregistered user. From Wikipedia's point of view, who did the vandalism is not important, the point is that the vandalism has stopped so there is no need to block that IP address. CT Cooper · talk 16:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

UGAdawgs2010

Thanks for your help with UGAdawgs2010 (talk · contribs) and his IP, I had just filed a case at the edit war board on him. Just to let you know, he also has the UGAdawgs2011 (talk · contribs) account, which he just used to comment on the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And now new account Truthiness101 (talk · contribs) has jumped right back into the fray on the same page. Dayewalker (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have blocked both. I saw the previous block on the IP and decided just to drop in today and see what was happening; I think it was a good job I did. I have just spotted Truthiness101, and I'm looking into it now. CT Cooper · talk 18:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked indef. Truthiness101, as it was a WP:DUCK passing sock. I will keep a look out for any more socks on Eric Holder. CT Cooper · talk 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gracias again, now there's IP 95.154.230.252 (talk · contribs) picking up the edit war. Can we just get the page semi-protected, and force all of this to the talk page where it belongs? Thanks again. Dayewalker (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Eric Holder for 2 weeks to stop this spree of socks. The protection can be extended as necessary if problems continue after expiry. Given that UGAdawgs2010 clearly has no interest in complying with policy, I have raised the block on the master account to indefinite. (S)he is not permitted to edit Wikipedia at all while this block stands, however if I see him contributing more productively on the talk page, or an indication that he will stop edit warring, then I will consider lifting the block. CT Cooper · talk 19:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A "new" editor (66.199.232.141) has just arrived, eger to defend UGAdawgs2010 - SummerPhD (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is another (216.169.110.204). Thanks for your attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are two more (174.137.52.234) and (109.200.6.49). I am afraid that EH's talk page may need semiprotection for a day or two (though I know that isn't done very often). I am done posting there as feeding the trolls is taking up too much time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those few cases when talk page semi-protection is justified. I have semi-protected it, along with other articles being targeted, given it is clear this user has never ending supply of IPs. CT Cooper · talk 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also range blocked 174.137.52.0/24 as it appears this a narrow range of IPs being used by the user. This is short 35 hour block over the existing blocks, due to the potential collateral damage of range blocks. CT Cooper · talk 21:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected for one day

Hello Christopher,

I applied a short 1 day semi protection on your talk page par a WP:RFPP request, due to the large amount of IP sock puppets that were making a mess of things. I realize user talk pages are rarely semi-protected (Especially other users semi talk pages) but in this case i decided to go ahead and apply a short protection until you are around to decide what to do with this. If you do not wish to leave it protected, by all means remove the protection. (And feel free to trout me if you feel this was a stupid action)

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems a lot has happened since I was asleep, you did the right thing given that this talk page was being over run by IPs, so good work. When I first blocked this user for a 3RR violation, I did not expect it to end with en masse range blocks and semi-protection, but that's what happens when you upset a troll. CT Cooper · talk 08:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubai fountains

I have re-added the content after writing it in my own words, and now it doesnt seems copyright violation.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems okay now to be me, good work. CT Cooper · talk 11:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Aitchison College's logo

Hello. I read your post concerning the logo of Aitchison College. The logo is not copyright and can be used freely by anyone. I am a student of the College and the logo was obtained from the relevant people in the College. It is available easily to everyone and is also up on the College's website, http://www.aitchison.edu.pk. Thank you --Hammad (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I will add the source of the school website to the image, but I'm afraid you must provide evidence of permission that the school has explicitly released the logo under a free licence. See WP:PERMIT. CT Cooper · talk 17:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am awfully sorry but there is no explicit proof which we can get at the moment. However, I am sure that there is absolutely no copyright granted to Aitchison. this is because in Pakistan, there is little issue of copyright problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mianhammad59 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so it will be difficult to leave the image with the current licensed claimed without proof that the school has actually put the image under that particular licence. The easiest thing to do here would be to assume the image is copyrighted and keep as non-free content under a claim of fair use. I will convert it to fair use now for you, so the image isn't deleted. CT Cooper · talk 19:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

96.32.148.0/24

Hi. 96.32.148.208 (talk · contribs) is requesting an unblock. He/she seems to be caught in a range block of 96.32.148.0/24. Can you respond to his request? I have no idea if this person actually is the individual you are looking to block or not. --B (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, upon looking at contributions, I see that this IP is obviously one in the same with UGAdawgs2010 and this IP has been held for more than a few days. I'm going to decline the request. If you wish to overturn that decline, feel free. --B (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your position, there are too many coincidences here, I have declined the unblock request. CT Cooper · talk 21:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2

Ya might want to check your grammar there- you called him "the Connormah"! I assume you meant "the candidate" or just "Connormah" but got confused halfway through typing! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I do try and proof read, but errors do still frequently slip through. CT Cooper · talk 22:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only one- I do that kind of thing all the time! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was an honorific? Henceforce, please refer to me as "The Right Honourable Xeno" !. –xeno^talk 22:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I will stick to "The Supreme Bureaucrat Xeno". CT Cooper · talk 09:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

*voice of dog from "Up"* I love you!

Thank you so much for protecting my userpage! o0pandora0o (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Squirrel!

You're very welcome O0pandora0o. You'll be pleased to hear I have seen Up, so I understand the joke! Keep exploring! CT Cooper · talk 09:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Socking

In response to the recent vandalism by socks, I've requested temporary semi-protection of your talk page. I hope you don't mind. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 22:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

...and I've semi'd it for 12 hours (possibly overkill, but I'm guessing CT Cooper can <ahem!> find someone to unprotect it as required ;-) TFOWR 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help guys, I appreciate it. I will leave the protection to run. CT Cooper · talk 10:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

things missing from the americas funniest home videoes article.

the exact details are on the americas funniest home videoes discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying earlier; I missed this message. I don't think there is very much I can do here given I am not familiar with the TV show, as I'm not American. CT Cooper · talk 20:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ali Kids Campus

Hi! This is Farjad. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools working on articles about schools in Pakistan. There are a few articles in this category which I think need to be deleted, for example Ali Kids Campus. My speedy deletion request has been cancelled since it was not applicable on such issues in the first place. I need to ask you how to put up an article for deletion discussion. Thanks in advance! Farjad0322 (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, based on your comments elsewhere this article probably should be deleted if it is a day care centre, as these are unlikely to meet WP:N. I don't see any speedy deletion criteria that apply. You could try first proposing deletion (PROD), which simply involves adding a template to the article proposing deletion, rather than setting up a full deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion (AfD). To PROD an article follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Nominating. Please ask if you need further help. CT Cooper · talk 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help! Farjad0322 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Francois Roche

dear... it seems that the portrait of F Roche is directly "harassed" by one contribution : Thomas1020 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thomas1020 , who is personnaly targeting this architect. Please, could you take care of how this portrait has been disturbed or volontary destroyed (as an abusement) by this contribution --90.63.253.25 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen anything on that page which meets the definition of vandalism. If there is a disagreement between you and Thomas1020 it should be resolved by constructive discussion on the talk page. CT Cooper · talk 14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanking You (and a small request)

Hello, thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I've read through the General guidelines you gave me, and I must admit... they have really helped me out getting started on Wikipedia. I was just taking a brief look on your User Page and came across a "To-do List" which you had inserted onto the Page. From what I have observed, the list really helps other Wikipedians see what your working on. It also seems to have the added function of reminding yourself on what your working on. I wanted to incorporate your idea onto my Userpage... however, I faced difficulties in writing the code for the list. I wanted to ask whether there is a specific guideline for editing userpages as I can not find one. The only pages I can find relate directly to Userpages and their content guidelines and Wikipedias rules regarding them. If there is no specific guideline, I would really appreciate if you could give me some of your contact information such as Skype or Windows Live ID so you can assist me with incorporating such an idea as I feel it would greatly assist me in organizing the tasks I hope to achieve on Wikipedia. I would like to thank you once again and would like to say that I really appreciate your assistance.

Umer Vakil. Umervakil (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

=)

Hello, I have e-mailed my Windows Live ID to you using the Wikipedia "E-mail this user" function. The e-mail should arrive at the e-mail address you specified in your preferences. As for your userpage, my advice is "walk before you run"", my user page design is complex and only looks that way due to years of evolution. Also, while having a user page is a good idea, and having a nice looking user page has its benefits, you will get more credit for contributing to the project. I am not aware of any guide on how to write a user page, with pretty much everything at Wikipedia:User pages. A copy of a simple to do-list is included below:

== To-do list ==

* Item one {{done}}
* Item two {{doing}}
* Item three {{not done}}

For help with learning the wiki-code this project uses, see Help:Wiki markup. CT Cooper · talk 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

error in the starcraft 2 wings of liberty article

people have incorrectly called the starcraft II editor the galaxy editor. i have seen the editors true name by using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You can edit the article directly, it just has pending revisions switched on meaning your edits need to be approved by an established registered user before going live. CT Cooper · talk 08:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request ( WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March through July 2010). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Joe692 - User is blocked.
• RedvBlue - Connection error.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 19:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

^Neat. The one I struck got thru, their talk page was huge so the bot couldn't verify delivery (978,085 bytes) –xeno^talk 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, I have deleted Joe692 from the membership list as yet another sock. CT Cooper · talk 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Missing

Thank you for your thoughtful eulogy but I am still here, just lost the bug for editing for the time being. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected page

Hi, I noticed you were online and I need some admin attention, or more precisely I need some help with some content dispute. This Template:Command & Conquer series has been fully protected because of a dispute I am involved in and need help restoring it to a previous state before the dispute. Details are on the talk page. --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the issue and left my comments at User talk:222.89.92.106, with the proposal that the user be unblocked so this issue can be resolved on the talk page. I don't think reverting to a preferred version would be sensible at this point in time. The protection policy under WP:PREFER restricts what edits can be made to fully protected pages, and states that edits should not be made without clear consensus. If your version has consensus, it will be quickly apparent when it is fully discussed. CT Cooper · talk 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus, as explained on the talk page, but the annon user refuses to recognize this. More importantly, there is absolutely no consensus supporting the current revision. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I can see no recent discussion on the talk page, which is where consensus is supposed to be formed. If there is a consensus, can you provide evidence to demonstrate it please. Even if there is a consensus, WP:NOTVAND is clear on the issue:

Although at times the following situations may be referred to as vandalism, usually, they are not considered vandalism, as such. However, each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In addition, if an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

...

Disruptive editing or stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable— you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also: Tendentious editing

There is also nothing at WP:3RR which gives the exception of "Enforcing a consensus". CT Cooper · talk 14:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okey, it seems my definition of vandalism is a bit outdated, but still doesn't change the problem. Interestingly, it seems most of the "vandal" edits being reverted by huggle users is, per definition, not vandalism. Anyway, here's your consensus: link. Although, I'm warning you, it's a long read. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, well that makes your position more defensible in the dispute, though consensus can change and so is always open to challenge, and as I've said enforcing a consensus is not a good reason to edit war, even if the unregistered user's position is not as well backed-up. If the consensus is solid it should quickly be resolved on the talk page, and any further edit warring after that can be dealt with as disruption. Only a more recent discussion on the talk page would really be enough to give the "clear consensus" necessary to justify editing a protected page. On the issue of use of the word vandal, yes there is a lot of misuse of the word out there, and it is important that admins and other users get the message out on what the right definition is. CT Cooper · talk 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for removing the template which was incorrectly used in the page of IMMAGINE&POESIA. Saluti dall'Italia --Aeron10 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision by Country

I noticed, when reading some articles (e.g. Denmark) that the country is often referred to as 'IT' and 'THEY' in the same article. Is it ok to give them a quick scan and adjust accordingly? Denisarona (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought so, as I agree that it should be consistent. CT Cooper · talk 13:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Hi CT, I recently made a suggestion on WT:WPSCH, but the only reply came from a friend who is not actually directly concerned with schools. i do quite a lot of work on schools (not only in the UK) and I have two concerns:

1. There are 320 or so people listed as members of WP:SCHOOLS, but as Keith points out, not only do the majority not seem to be very active at all, but some have never , or hardly ever posted on Wikipedia! Do you think we could split the list into active and non-active members? (I could do this).
2. I would like to canvas some of the recent, regular, active members to make either a UK Schools task force or daughter project.

FWIW, I have experience in Wikiproject work - I created and run one (WP:WORCS). I have experience in schools - I founded several and ran them (they are not listed on Wikipedia).-Kudpung (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes the project has not been very active recently, and I'm pretty much the only one now manning WP:WPSCH/A, which is a shame. I have never monitored the participants list, but I agree that splitting it between active and inactive members is a good idea. I also think a sub-project for Education in the UK would also make sense, along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Australia or Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada, and there probably would be enough editors to support it. CT Cooper · talk 09:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... the examples you cite are not exactly hyperactive projects either. I'm not sure if I could drum up enough response for a daughter project. I think I'll probably try and organise a task force to clean up the UK schools. I've worked on a great many of them, but the task is too large for a loner, and some of the school articles are in such a sorry state they shouldn't be on the encyclopedia in spite of our policy that secondary schools are de facto notable.

I'll try first by sorting the members list into active and inactive participants; I suggest a cut-off at 10 edits in the last 12 months for active members, and see who out of that hails from the UK. If you think I'm on the wrong tack, let me know;--Kudpung (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at what has happened when I get back from holiday, or when I next get internet access. CT Cooper · talk 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Talk:The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre.
Message added 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Thanks for helping to keep an eye on this page. Kudpung (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I have replied on the talk page. CT Cooper · talk 10:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Daffodil International University

Dear Cooper, Whenver I am uploading the information in the page of Daffodil International University, the information is being deleted by someone on the ground of different issues. Would you please help me to edit the page of Daffodil Internatinal University in a proper way.Iqbalbhuyan (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will respond on your user talk page. CT Cooper · talk 09:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CT Cooper. You have new messages at Talk:Hutchinson Central Technical High School.
Message added Wolfnix • Talk • 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Acknowledged, I'm glad you appreciate the assessment. CT Cooper · talk 09:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented; I was going to anyway this just reminded me of it! CT Cooper · talk 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Agenda 21 page

Hi Christopher, I am surprised that you are editing out a post for a website in opposition to Agenda 21. There is enormous global opposition, and this is not a fringe group. Many thousands of people visit our site and get information regarding Agenda 21 and opposition to it. The site is a not for profit, non-commercial, non-self promoting site. Does your degree in environmental science predispose you to a bias? There should be a section for criticism of Agenda 21 on the wiki post. In the interests of fairness that should be added. Thank you, Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.47.2 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a degree in Environmental Science; I'm only in the process of getting one. My removal of this link was in-line with established policy and guidelines on Wikipedia. If you look at the history you will find I have removed other links giving more favourable views of Agenda 21, again for appearing to violate the Wikipedia:External links guideline. It is fringe website, because it is for one party in one country, out of many in the world covered by Agenda 21. While this is the English Wikipedia, articles covers topics from a global perspective, and I see no reason why we should give exclusivity to this one site for criticism because the owners want it. It is clear from your use of the word "our" that you have a potential conflict of interest, please read the linked guideline carefully. Spamming does need be done for commercial purposes to be advertising, and I don't see how organisations adding themselves to Wikipedia could be considered anything else. If a criticism section is needed then please write it - adding external links is not a good substitute - though I don't think the need for such a section is any more pressing than a praise section, and in any case it will need to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (I'm very doubtful that this website would meet the standards by Wikipedia to be considered reliable, it is a freely created 7 page website and looks self-published to me. Evidence will need to be provided of meeting the standards linked to have any entitlement to representation on Wikipedia.) CT Cooper · talk 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange edits

Could you look into the edits of Александр1997? I already reverted his edits on Our Sound since they were clearly wrong, but I am not as sure about his other edits. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I just looked through some of the pages he created and they look like hoax articles to me. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I could find nothing in Google (other than Wikipedia) for the articles he has created. Look here. "[[ВП:В|вандализм]] обсуждений: [[ВП:ВИРТ|перезапуск срока в связи с обходом блокировки]]: [[ВП:В|вандализм]] (добавление ложной информации))" translated in Google Translate to "[[VP: B | vandalism]] the discussion: [[WP: VIRT | restart date in connection with the Bypass]]: [[VP: B | vandalism]] (add false information))". Yes, adding two and two together, these look like hoaxes. Given that leaving them will damage the project, I'm going for the nuclear option on his article creations, and will revert his other suspicious edits. CT Cooper · talk 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User appears to be connected to 81.25.53.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with similar behaviour, and there have been IPs with similar numbers before that have added false information to Wikipedia Eurovision articles. CT Cooper · talk 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Similar behaviour and edit history to Cuchufleta (talk · contribs); there might be a connection. CT Cooper · talk 21:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Don't forget this one: Intervision Song Contest 1977. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, that one was missed by the nuke button due to my page move. CT Cooper · talk 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rashtriya Indian Military College

I agree with your quality rating but this article surely deserves high importance in importance scale. the school has produced 4 army chief and 1 air chief of Indian army and one army and 2 air chiefs of Pakistan army. have a look at Rimcollians for more information Rahuloof^{Text me} 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I suspected it did, and with this endorsement I'm going ahead and giving it high-importance. CT Cooper · talk 16:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it again i am looking forward to improve this article to at least B class Rahuloof^{Text me} 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A request for comments from a user

Hi I am looking for comments from an administrator and I happen to see you are online. I have been in a WP:NPOV dispute with User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry and User:Stevo1000 over the page Nigel de Jong recently. De Jong is a footballer who has recently been in the spotlight for injuring a fellow player. I have flagged it for comments, but seems nobody is responding. It seems now we have settled on the appropriate edit for the section ([2]], but I am wondering if you would be kind enough to offer comments on the following issues:

• Mancini in particular has been very offensive, both in his attitude and his language. He called my discussion at Nigel de Jong "anal rants" ([3]) and then called me "fanny" on his talk page ([4]. According to my understanding this is not civil at all. He has also repeatedly accused me of acting in bad faith. Would such behavior be uncivil?
• Mancini accused me of POV pushing ([5]) because of this edit I made: ([6]). I am wondering if you would agree this is POV pushing, coz I was merely trying to restore neutrality to the article.
• Mancini made this edit of his, which I think is a loopsided POV in de Jong's favour: ([7]). I am wondering if he is right in his claim that he is not trying to advance his own POV by making such an edit.
• It seems Mancini has returned to his old ways of POV pushing ([8]). He put in quite a number of peacock words and did not add any sources. I am thinking a neutral voice would work better to explain to him policies on WP:NPOV, WP:peacock and WP:BLP. I have tried to do so on the talk page of Nigel de Jong but obviously he's not taking any of it in.

I am sorry to bother you about this dispute, but I have been anticipating some third party comments and this dispute has been troubling me. Let me thank you first for reading.Craddocktm (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of writing a response. CT Cooper · talk 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.Craddocktm (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been having a trouble responding due to some issues with my internet. Anyway, in an administrator capacity, I cannot really just make a ruling on the dispute either way, though the atmosphere of the situation could be improved to allow this issue to resolve itself. I think the primary problem here is a great distrust and a feeling of bad faith between all parties in the dispute, which prevents the content dispute being settled easily. 'POV pushing' is a serious accusation and should not be made lightly. All three of you are established users and chances are none of you are deliberately trying to skew articles, but rather this is more a disagreement on what version of the article best represents NPOV. The "anal rants" comment was a violation of Wikipedia:Civility, and the "fanny" comment was a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, however I think it would be in the best interests of dispute resolution to let it go. I'm not surprised that nobody uninvolved has responded to the request for comment given the atmosphere on that talk page. At the end of the day, attitudes on that talk page have got to change if things are going to move forward. I'm getting the impression that the dispute has already moved beyond what can be resolved by straight discussion. Have you considered filling a request at WP:MEDCAB? CT Cooper · talk 19:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the protection on my talk page! o0pandora0o (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. CT Cooper · talk 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom voting system RFC.

Responded. CT Cooper · talk 09:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Image question

Hey there, I saw you were listed on the image reviewers list on Commons AND on the highly active users list here so it seems you'll be able to help me quickly about an issue I have. I currently am searching for pictures on flickr that would be useful in the fashion department (I'm a member of the fashion wikiproject) and I'm finding them but I read that having an image reviewed is important because on a website like flickr, users can modify their policy on any of their pictures at any time. Since my research may bring me to dig out many pictures, I though it would be best if I asked a reviewer directly for his/her help.

I'll give you an example : this photo has a copyright that is suited for inclusion in wikipedia, and I personally believe it is valuable enough to be used. What do you think? Would you accept to review it? Would you accept to review subsequent pictures if I brought them to you?

Thanks in advance! Thiste (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Since it allows images to be used on all Wikimedia Projects; I would recommend uploading all free image to Commons rather than to the English Wikipedia. You can use this form to upload Flickr images to Commons, and this page also contains guidance on what licences are acceptable and which aren't. After you have uploaded an image from Flickr, a bot should come along and automatically review the image; if this fails a Flickr reviewer should come along and review the image manually. The image you have linked to has a free licence on it (CC-BY) which would normally mean it can be uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons, and I would normally accept it if I reviewed it. However, I have just done a check on the Flickr account Hugo971 as a precaution against Flickr washing, and it appears this account has been identified as putting questionable licences on images, see commons:Commons:Questionable Flickr images. This basically means that the licence given on the uploads by this account are likely false, and these images should not be uploaded. If there are any other particular images you would like me to comment on, let me know. CT Cooper · talk 13:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I certainly was going to upload anything I found on Commons of course. I'm only contacting you on en.wikipedia because I figured you would probably check here sooner. What I didn't know was that bots were reviewing images automatically, even if in the example I gave you I don't think it would have been any help. I know about the licences that are allowed on wikipedia by the way. To be honest, I also had doubts about this photo and this account but I was wondering, you say "this account has been identified as putting questionable licences on images", is there a resource somewhere with that information so I don't have to bother people, or did you just figured it out yourself? I'm still convinced it is possible to find valuable pictures of models on flickr, the one found in this article originally comes from that website for example.

I think this is what I'm gonna do : will continue to dig pictures on flickr and if I have the slightest doubt on one of my findings, I'll let you know! I hope you don't mind. Thiste (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Flickr washing can only be detected by human review and there will never be perfect screening of images uploaded to Commons on copyright issues, from Flickr or otherwise. Flickr washing is generally suspected when it seems unlikely that the image were taken by the uploader, such as it looking very professional, particular if the uploads can be found on another site which hasn't released them under a free licence. In this case Hugo971 was already blacklisted by another user at commons:Commons:Questionable Flickr images (my apologies I miss linked this before; now fixed), which is how I knew that the account has engaged in Flickr washing. I would recommend checking this list before uploading images from any account. However, from my experience Flickr washing is rare and there are plenty of images on Flickr which would make good uploads to Commons. CT Cooper · talk 23:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Harold Chapman

Dear C.T. Cooper,

Please forgive my Amateurism but this is my first attempt to both contribute to Wikipedia and try and understand why deletions are made. Any guidance from you would be greatly appreciated. I would state that I have no objection to my own name or address being known to anyone. I would welcome independent arbitration and WOULD accept the verdict. My problem is this: I contributed 2 additions to an article on the (still living) Photographer Harold Chapman. Both ADDITIONS I made (and, curiously, much other stuff from sources unknown to me, that was there when I first looked at the site) have now disappeared, deleted by someone. I have no idea WHO nor WHY. It appears to me to be Anti-Democratic for some anonymous person to delete additions while hiding behind a non de plume.

Your guidance would be much valued and I would much appreciate it if you could E-Mail me.. Yours sincerely, Graham Gadd, 18, The Green, Twickenham, Middlesex TW2 5AA. Ihavenews (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Graham, welcome to Wikipedia. Administrators don't have the power to arbitrate when it comes to content disputes, but we can mediate and help set-up an atmosphere in which a dispute can be resolved. Wikipedia is a open project and almost all edits and actions are logged and are viewable by anyone. In the spirit of this I would prefer to discuss this on public talk pages rather than by e-mail, unless there is a pressing reason on why it needs to be private. You will find all edits made to the Harold Chapman logged in the edit history. It appears that J04n (talk · contribs) removed the content as shown by comparing revisions (diff). J04n will probably be happy to discuss his edits on his talk page if you want to make contact with him. CT Cooper · talk 10:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Hi CT Cooper. Please bear with me if you are already aware of this. In early September changes were made to an infobox template that affected the display of hundreds of school crests/logos in the UK schools infobox. This is now being taken care of and you may find the discussions on this page interesting: Template talk:Infobox UK school, do however leave a message here or here if you come across any that are still not displaying correctly.
If you are still actively interested in schools and and are not already a member, and would like to help out on school pages and school templates, you may wish to consider joining the WP:WPSCHOOLS project where you can also stay abreast of developments by adding its talk page to your watchlist. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have occasionally come across the odd the school article without the logo displaying, with the lost logo often deleted by the time I find it but fortunately I can restore them as an admin. I didn't know about the infobox changes, so I'm watchlisting the infobox talk page to keep an eye on developments. I'm already a happy member of WP Schools; in fact it was probably the first project I joined, and I have the main project talk page on my watchlist. Thanks for the heads up. CT Cooper · talk 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

HiChris. I know you're a member, and we've discussed school project stuff on and off before:) This was just a generic message FYI that I sent out to several editors to put a stop to this silly messing around with infobox templates after all the havoc it caused. On the project itself you'll see I've been very busy over the last couple of days. There appears to be nobody apart from you and me who is working on the project in spite of our 300+ members, but I intend to make an appeal for help soon and have already drafted a newsletter (not finished yet), and sorted a bunch of member lists on the participants list you split off a while ago. I've had lists made of all the UK schools that have the wrong infoboxes, but 500 is more than I can cope with alone, and another couple of thousand have no infoboxes at all. I use Mac, so I can't do any of this with AWB. If you have any suggestions on any of all this please let me know because I'm tapping in the dark a lot and maybe even making myself more work than I need. I also need to know why AlertBot has not updated anything since April. I know the bot was down for a while but it should be running again now. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again; thanks for your good work with the project. I had considered creating a newsletter previously as it was one thing WP Schools was missing compared to other projects, and if it can be sustained it should help co-ordinate things more. Good work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/UK schools using wrong infoboxes also, though unfortunately I have a lot on my plate at the moment so I can't be much help, but I may be more active over Christmas. One problem with this project always has been scale, though I haven't till now used AWB. ArticleAlertbot has been down since April and a replacement is still not operational, meaning we will have to manage without it for a while more yet. CT Cooper · talk 12:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Chris. I had realised tt RL was keeping you rather occupied at the moment. It's a shame AlertBot is down - seems the developers did a disappearing act and took the code with them. Dunno, maybe something else will turn up. I'll be doing some minor reorganisation of the project main page in a day or two, so yes, do keep an eye on it, and don't hesitate to let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree. Also, let me know if you think the newsletter is crap, otherwise I'll organise a bot to send it out in the next day or two. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. I did have a bit of a chuckle some of the tongue-in-cheek statements on there, and I'm sure others will too. CT Cooper · talk 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink Question

Hi Camaron. Is there any way to insert a wikilink to Danish Wikipedia without using the external link attribute, like I'm trying to do here. And, if I use these two external link attributes to link to a Wiki Project of foreign language, is that wrong or against policy? Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Scieberking (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Interwiki linking on how to link to other languages of Wikipedia and other projects. To link to another language of Wikipedia just put the language code before the page name e.g. Led Zeppelin ([[da:Led Zeppelin|Led Zeppelin]]). I'm not aware of anything in policy explicitly disallows it, though keeping links within text internal is probably preferred. Linking to an article in another language is not very useful to most users which will not speak that language, instead it may be better to create the needed article, or failing that just leave it as a red link to encourage creation of an English version of that article. CT Cooper · talk 17:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help, but it doesn't just work here... Scieberking (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Outside of talk pages I've now worked out you have to add an extra colon to avoid the link appearing on the left hand bar rather than in the article. CT Cooper · talk 17:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Camaron. I hope you're doing great. Just wanted to inform you that another IP sock of Paulotanner, 201.22.189.14, has surfaced yet again, and tried to disrupt the article - 1 2. The disruptive edits were reverted by SabreBD, though. Greetings, Scieberking (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I am still watching the page and I will keep on a look out for Paulotanner. CT Cooper · talk 11:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

IP sock of Paulotanner vandalized the page again, this time reverted back by Mlpearc. I gave him a final warning on his talk page yesterday. He has vandalized it yet again minutes ago. Scieberking (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well he frequently switches IP address so a block is likely to be ineffective. If it keeps up I may semi-protect the page to stop this disruption. CT Cooper · talk 18:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, me or other editors will keep undoing his edits. It just him, and a few other dumb vandals, otherwise this page doesn't really need semi-protection... Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Paulotanner IP socks have now become unbearable... Would you please semi-protect this article? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I messed up a bit, but it should be semi-protected now. CT Cooper · talk 12:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur

what do you understand the difference between "theism" and "gnosticism" to be? Volound (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a policy issue in relation to WP:BLP and WP:V, not philosophical debate. See your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 12:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree. i think the terms have already been defined and that we must only use the terms correctly. Volound (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Again see your talk page. CT Cooper · talk 12:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)