User talk:Zscout370/Archive 4

image deletion

Amazing -all the criticsm of your actions has disappeared into an archive within hours! I was just posting to let you know that I have asked Jimbo to review the policy with regard to personal images, and ask his acolytes to show a bit of commonsense. jimfbleak 16:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to what you suggsted was posted onto Jimbo's talk page, but there was no response IIRC. Zach (Sound Off) 16:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your unquestioning obedience to authority figures must make you immensely popular with your teachers, but is making you no friends here. I just can't understand why you're so unwilling to give active uploaders a chance to add a tag to their own images by letting them know. Is it just laziness, or an unwillingness to deviate in any way from your master's dictats (at least he thinks you're wonderful)?

I thoroughly agree. You just removed several pics from the UNM site that came straight from the UNM web-site. If you had given any warning whatsoever, tags could have been added. Instead I have to reload everything. You are the triumph of form over substance. Your interest in Belarus must manifest itself in mindless obedience. - Laszlo Panaflex 04:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in Belarus has absolutely nothing to do with the image deletions. Plus, several administrators talked to Jimbo Wales today, and he said that we have a major backlog of these images that contacting every user would not only add another waiting period and by contacting people would be wasting valuable time. Zach (Sound Off) 04:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A comment in the Discussion section would have done the trick. Simple courtesy, Zach. Laszlo Panaflex 04:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing Laszlo, please read WP:NPA. Zach (Sound Off) 04:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never envisaged this running on and on like this, I assumed that you would be prepared to act in a reasonable way, like most contributors, but you are apparently determined to stick to the letter of your intructions, and abuse your admin status (in spirit if not in the letter). Grow up. jimfbleak 16:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across two of Tannin's excellent photographs of a Spangled Drongo and Red-necked Stint listed for summary deletion, despite being clearly marked as his own images. I've warned him of these, but you could do the decent thing for once, and let him know which others of his many excellent photos you are going to destroy, so that he has the chance to tag.

I'm sure he will leave Wikipedia if his valid work is savaged by you or others like you, and I know which of the two of you would be the greater loss. jimfbleak

When I went to Red-necked Stint, the photo was already removed. As for it's deletion, I am not sure yet. Zach (Sound Off) 17:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my apology for the comment on Tannin's page. It's just that I feel more strongly about the sheer inflexibility of this damaging policy than any other Wikiissues. When you upload an image and mark it as personal, you are stating you hold the copyright. Contributions to wikipedia are, as it states, under the GFDL. If the copyright holder uploads under that condition, and establishes that it is his/her own image, where is the need for gratuitous deletion? jimfbleak 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most like what happened was that while the image was tagged "I did it," but {{GFDL}} might not have been tagged on the image, so it was placed with {{nolicense}}. And, when Jimbo made the policy, me and others went in and shot down the images. As for you feeling strongly about this issue, I do not blame you. Others have voiced concern not only about my method of deletion, but mainly the policy change was done without anyone's consent. While I have no problems with Jimbo making this policy on the fly, others have issues with it. But personally, I have screwed up a lot on the early deletions. I even slowed down on the deletions unless they were orphaned or a clear copyviolation. I just think what we both need is just to calm down, think of fluffy bunnies and try to avoid this issue. I am going to draw some SVG images now, probably work on a school paper. But if you have any more questions about the whole idea, just let me know. Zach (Sound Off) 20:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have no problem with the policy, just the means of implementation. I take note of what you've said above, and whilst I'm still not happy, I'll let it rest for now. jimfbleak 05:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And jim, you are not the only unhappy person. I am sorry if what I did made you upset, but I am taking your suggestions in mind and talking to people now. Zach (Sound Off) 05:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following the archiving of this issue, it remains unclear whether the image for Yvonne Fletcher's article was "properly" deleted, and if there is any doubt that it was not, when you will be restoring it. Please clarify. 203.198.237.30 05:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel the deletion was not proper, then what you can do is search for that photo again, re-upload it and tag it with a license and a source. Zach (Sound Off) 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forget it, I did it myself. Now, look at the new image I uploaded and see how to source an image and how to tag an image. If you still have any questions, come see me. Zach (Sound Off) 06:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hero.

You are a true wikipedia hero. You'll muscle through the bad-feeling soon enough. Cowboy up! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am just focusing on some SVG flag drawings and some school stuff. Thanks for the support. Zach (Sound Off) 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit

I mistakenly edited my page from this account. I will update this from my original Waqasfarooq account later when the page will be unlocked!

Thanks for informing me! Next time I will be careful. Regards Waqas Farooq

Edited page from Digitalsniper 27 September 2005

If you meant by your normal account being blocked, I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWaqasfarooq and it says that you are free to use the account. However, there is not a name change being done at all, since some program is down. So what I suggest is that you put a notice on the Digitalsniper account page that this is your second account. However, I also strongly advise to you that you use this second account less often, since the use of such accounts is strongly discouraged. I also suggest that you note vote with the Digitalsniper account, since voting using sockpuppets (technically, that is what your second or more accounts are called) is disallowed. Thanks you joining us and hopefully enlighten us about Pakistan and other things that you would like to share with us.

BTW, since you said you were from Pakistan,is there a website where I can get a drawing of the Pakistan flag? I like to draw flags for this website. Thanks again and if you need anything else, stop by and let me know. Zach (Sound Off) 06:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiss phote

Here's is the source on the Hiss photo [1]; "Alger Hiss with U. N. Charter (and its own parachute)". I don't see copyright info anywhere on the site. It's probably an old newspaper (UPI?) photo. nobs 16:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the image as {{Fairuse}} since it is not in the public domain just yet. Zach (Sound Off) 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping clean up the Image: category indexing problem

For all those tedious edits that you did (or made something else do). Kelly Martin 19:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kelly :). Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Chess Association

Why did you delete American Chess Association claiming that it's not a real organization? It's somewhat obscure (maybe too obscure to deserve an article) and it's the subject of some controversy because of Stan Vaughan's friction with the USCF, but it's a real organization. I joined in the late 90's and they sent me a membership and TD kit (3-ring binder with score sheets, pairing charts, stuff like that) and they listed me on their web page. They have run and rated a number of events, mostly in the Las Vegas area. Opinions can of course vary on the validity of those ratings. Phr 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a user by the name of Sam Slone who tagged the article as a candidate for speedy deletion on August 29th and he gave his reasoning, which was quite longer than the article itself. From what I could tell earlier, it was made into a redirect, since the article was very short for a really long time and saw no additions to it. However, I deleted the article based on the CSD and it's reasoning. I know little about chess (though I play it myself on occasion) and I believe what Sam Slone said was true. While the deletion summary might have been harsh, but that is what I mainly got out of the notice was that this group did not exist. However, what I do suggest is that if there is an article on Mr. Vaughan, you could add this bit about the ACA to it. I hope this explains everything and if not, I will be welcome to undelete it and see what happens on WP:AFD. Zach (Sound Off) 23:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please do undelete. I put a request on WP:VFU before realizing I was supposed to discuss it with you first. Sam Sloan is another controversial chess figure, on the pro-USCF side. He's knowledgeable and has written a lot of WP chess articles, some worthwhile, others not. You shouldn't consider him (or anyone) infallible. In general, as someone on VFU put it, if the "speedy" reason requires an essay longer than the article itself, it should go to AFD and not get a speedy. Phr 01:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is the thing, you and Sam know your chess, I do not. But, the page is going to be undeleted now. Zach (Sound Off) 02:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but Sam's edits are still deleted and those are probably the most interesting ones (even if they're wrong). Supposedly there was a 1.5 page essay requesting the speedy deletion. Can that be restored? See the VFU entry about the page, from today.

But his explaination is included with the speedy delete tag, as in {{db|His long comment}}. Including that restoration, people will see the speedy tag and delete it again, causing the cycle to start all over again. Zach (Sound Off) 06:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about the page on VFU so it shouldn't get speedy-deleted again. How about restoring the version with the comment so that it appears in the revision history but isn't on the current version of the article. I can find the comment in the history that way to use material from it. Does that work? Thanks. (I don't understand about the db template).

Template db is a speedy delete notice, but I could restore it later (I have classes in a little bit). Zach (Sound Off) 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd appreciate that. If you're not comfortable restoring the remaining deletes, maybe you could just plop the contents onto my talk page. I'm actually interested in seeing Sloan's take on the situation. Phr 22:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on the article's talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I saw that fragment before, maybe in World Chess Federation. I may try to use some of it. I've already updated the ACA article a little bit, but some more should be said. Whether it's worth doing the research over something as inconsequential as this--shrug. Phr 03:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Zach (Sound Off) 03:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]