User talk:Splash

Archives
1st August 2005 17th August 2005 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) 26 September 2005 22 October 2005 19 November 2005 5 December 2005 3 January 2006 20 January 2006 5 February 2006 4 March 2006 23 March 2006 3 April 2006 29 May 2006 1 August 2006 16 September 2006 12 November 2006 6 August 2007 24 November 2007 12 July 2008

Deletion of Dna13

Hi - are you able to help me recover a copy of my deleted page and upload it to my user page? I understand the changes I need to make and would prefer to do so without having to start from the start again. Thanks in advance. Dna13 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Dna13

Vice Admiral vs Vice admiral

I notice you have moved "Vice Admiral (United States)" to "Vice admiral (United States)"

I do not understand the process that led you to do this, and although I acknowledge that you might find it tedious to do so, I would really appreciate it if you could explain it to me. (I don't mean the whole process, just that bit of the process which led you to actually make the "move".)

It is my understanding that such actions are only performed after consensus is reached.
This move (and a number of others) are the subject of ongoing long and heated debate, which is NOT resolved, and hence NO consensus has been reached.

Referring to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog, I wish to understand how the process allows such a wholesale set of "moves" to occur when consensus has NOT been reached, (and the discussions are ongoing). Pdfpdf (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I refer you to the following comments and lengthy and unresolved discussions:

• OPPOSE vehemently: This topic has been discussed at great length several times previously, and ALL issues have been dealt with several times. There is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE here that involves hundreds of articles; the general principle should be addresed and resolved rather than white-anting the issue one page at a time. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title
See also:

• On talk:rear admiral:
  • talk:rear admiral#Capitalization,
  • talk:rear admiral#Move to Rear admiral,
  • talk:rear admiral#Move Back to Rear Admiral and
  • talk:rear admiral#rear admiral and/or Rear Admiral, but Rear admiral?
• On talk:general officer:
  • talk:general officer#Capitalization and
  • talk:general officer#Requested move

Also, with respect to your comment (on Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog): All done, but you didn't need to make a specific request for these. According to WP:MOSCAPS, the previous move of the first item was presumably based on a misreading of that page. Splash - tk 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand some of what you have written. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me:

• Why you didn't need to make a specific request for these?
• the previous move - Which previous move are you referring to?
• the previous move of the first item was presumably based on a misreading of that page. - I'm afraid I don't understand this.

I'm looking forward to reading your responses. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I saw the request at the bottom of WP:RM, read the brief discussion on the talk pages (which looked to be essentially identical on all of them), and read the relevant bit of WP:MOSCAP. The MoS seemed unambiguously clear to me that the move request was correct, and there was minimal opposition on talk pages, so I did the move. To answer your bullet points:

• The destinations were redlinks or single-edit redirects, so for a move that was clearly in line with policy there was no need to seek admin assistance, nor really to conduct a big survey. Any more than there is when correcting (mis-)capitalisation on other articles.
• Lieutenant colonel (United States) had been moved previously, to the upper-case version. I've left the edits deleted as they are administrative only and interfere with the current history.
• As I said, it seems to me that WP:MOSCAP is unambiguously clear on the capitalisation to be used. So a move to the upper-case version seemed to be only based on mis-reading that page.

Splash - tk 14:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Splash,

Thanks for the reply, but it's not very informative, and you haven't answered half of the questions I asked you.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret your reply as:

1. There was a request on WP:RM
2. You "read the brief discussion on the talk pages"
3. You read WP:MOSCAP
4. You decided that there was "minimal opposition"
5. You decided to do the move

Is that correct?

I asked:

It is my understanding that such actions are only performed after consensus is reached.
This move (and a number of others) are the subject of ongoing long and heated debate, which is NOT resolved, and hence NO consensus has been reached. I wish to understand how the process allows such a wholesale set of "moves" to occur when consensus has NOT been reached, (and the discussions are ongoing).

There seems to me to be a huge difference between "NO consensus has been reached" and "I decided that there was "minimal opposition"".

I ask again:

It is my understanding that such actions are only performed after consensus is reached.
This move (and a number of others) are the subject of ongoing long and heated debate, which is NOT resolved, and hence NO consensus has been reached. I wish to understand how the process allows such a wholesale set of "moves" to occur when consensus has NOT been reached, (and the discussions are ongoing).

I look forward to a reply which addresses the question I asked. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you asked 5 questions, one of which you have just repeated. I gave you 4 or 5 answers, depending on how you count them, which seems like a fair swap. You did not ask 8 or 10 questions by any stretch, so I did considerably better than "haven't answered half".

In any case, and to be clear, I am now going to (re-)answer the line in your most recent message beginning "I wish to understand ... ongoing)". The process which 'allowed' the moves to occur is the one I described in my previous answer, which you have accurately summarised above. Obviously, I decided that for the set of moves in question, consensus had been reached: there is an unambiguous MoS description of what is correct and there was minimal opposition on the talk pages I looked at. On the basis of the information I had at my disposal, I did the moves. I do not see every page, every dispute, every upset editor on the wiki, however, as I am not omnipotent. Moreover, I was not intervening in your 'dispute' over capital letters - I was merely clearing out a little backlog. Your question as phrased in your last message is clearly rhetorical, so you're not likely to get an answer to it which you find more satisfactory than that. To paraphrase a well-known saying, "Ask a question to which the only answers are ones you will find unsatisfactory, and you will get an unsatisfactory answer". I'm not sure what you want from me, really. I'm not moving the articles back, because then I'd get another complaint about capitals, but there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

On the broader point, if the military wikiproject is having convulsions over capital letters (of all things), then I don't know what they are doing allowing the MoS to contain such language as makes one particular convention clearly the preferred. The project needs to have a centralised discussion to repair that. When doing so, both sides need to remember that 'consensus' is not unanimity, and that the discussion need not be stymied by a relative few who are inevitably going to be disappointed. Moreover, assuming the MoS to reflect some prior agreement (else why does it say what it says?), then the burden of proof lies with those who would change it. This increases the chances they are going to find themselves unable to demonstrate a consensus to alter the convention as Wikipedia is naturally 'sticky'. In that case, the current MoS guideline would remain. Splash - tk 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your reply seems to have addressed all the issues I was unsure of. As you point out, not necessarily the answers I wanted to hear, but never the less, answers which address the issues I asked about. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for going to the effort of clarifying things. Most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAQ

I'd rather reply in a more detailed manner here, and not leave the "right" answer on the talk page. What if I told you that IP was now an extremely constructive user because I offered them a {{2nd chance}} template and unblocked when they responded positively and made an account? Basically, I'd like to see that the candidate knows not to decline their own unblocks (but I'm not going to fault them heavily for this, as I didn't know that until I had some time in the hot seat) and they should be willing to consider the user might one day become a constructive user (as this is exactly what happened). –xeno (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't change my answer, because that's a risk we run with every block (and every protection and every deletion). It would seem fair to say that, if they were going to become constructive anyway, that they'd just get an account, and not be affected by a correctly-configured block. As in - such an non-unblock would presumably make no difference to someone intending to be 'extremely constructive'. Splash - tk 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Just as a follow up, you asked me how it would sway my opinion, it would be especially salient in judging a person with not much mainspace work, i.e. primarily a vandal fighter. I want to see that they still have some AGF left in 'em, and a belief that people can improve or be reformed (sometimes ;>). I'll see about clarifying it a bit, but it's intentionally left somewhat open ended so as to not be a trick question and lead them into the right or wrong answer. –xeno (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(re to new msg) It was a 1 week block, anon only, account creation blocked. So they'd have had to sit out the block unless the admin was willing to work with them. –xeno (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ACB changes things a bit, and seems probably unnecessary in general for an anon vandal's block. I would probably not have taken that as a 'correctly-configured' block. I hope there is not a guideline somewhere that says this should be the block configuration. And, for all my unforgiving answers, I have in the past unblocked on the back of such a plea. It depends whether they write a believeable-sounding mea culpa or not. This is kind of the trouble with a theory situation, as you don't have the realtime effects in the same way. Splash - tk 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of not blocking account creation for a vandal like this? They'd just create an account and continue right on vandalizing. AO,ACB is the default settings for blocking IPs and the standard, prescribed practice (your last IP block was AO,ACB by the way). –xeno (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point would go along the lines of "...but they might turn out to be an extremely constructive editor who would otherwise have been unable to edit at all". :) For a semi-static IP as described in your original question, I don't think I'd see much difference between ACB or not-ACB as there's only semi-one person on the IP. But for a dynamic IP, I think that ACB for a period longer than a matter of hours (e.g. 24) is wrong in proportion to how dynamic the IP is. In that respect, I should say that the new admin school is definitely not "standard, prescribed practice". It is merely a set of exercises to familiarise the unfamiliar with the functionality and general usage of their new tools. It is not policy, guideline or anything else near to a 'prescription', and in this respect, I think it contains a suboptimal recommendation. I would in general block with non-ACB, since this allows later users through and if they register and then still vandalise they can be ACB'd (and likely autoblocked) then. Not sure what relevance a particular block from my log has to the question being posed on RfAs. I probably just left it set to the possibly sub-optimal default, but I don't recall the situation. Splash - tk 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

AO,ACB is the standard procedure for blocking IPs as you can see by the comments made by HBC AIV helperbot under pretty much every IP block in the history of AIV. I'm not trying to be combative, but this simply is the "de facto" method of blocking IPs. But as you say, this is somewhat off-topic from our original discussion. I'll clarify in the question that AO,ACB was the setting used. –xeno (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Move request of Chinese wén

I'm relisting the proposed move of Chinese wén that you closed as a more open-ended request to gain more input. My previous proposed title might have been ambiguous (hence the disambiguator) but the current title is Wikipedia OR and is in violation of a whole host of guidelines. Please weigh in if you have some specific suggestions as to how to deal with this. I'm open to pretty much any title as long as it reflects a term that is actually used for the currency and not something created out of thin air. — AjaxSmack 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to be to able to comment usefully on what is a good/correct name for the series of articles. I was only really able to say that I found the current set up very confusing from a non-numismatist's point of view. I'd be happy to say later if I think that a new outcome is less confusing, and to help with any moves that people reach a consensus should occur. (Although on the former point, I'm obviously not a deciding authority on such things for the same reason of being almost entirely ignorant in the area). Splash - tk 20:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to give me so much information related to the questions I asked. Almost all of it was news to me. I really appreciate you having answered. Sorry for not acknowledging it earlier.

Best regards,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

vapmachado ^talk.cw 17:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to be of help. Splash - tk 00:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IAET

ello, on the UK budget page the pie chart (which is ace by the way, nice one) shows a budget heading called 'IAET.' Can you clarify its meaning? A quick google suggests it might be improperly accumulated earnings tax but i know nooooooothing! ta x Comrade jo (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like the image — as you'll have seen from the talk page, IAET is "industry, agriculture, employment and training". This didn't fit into the legend in a legible font, so I've added it separately. You may need to clear your browser's cache if the change is not showing up for you. Thanks for the excuse to finally do this! Splash - tk 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of Lehman Brothers

Hi Splash,

I noticed you unprotected the article on Lehman Brothers stating that "'high traffic' is not a valid reason for sprotection in the absence of high vandalism, which there was not. this is also on the main page atm". While you are 100% correct that high traffic alone is not a valid reason for semi-protection, a simple look back to the edit history on 15 September shows numerous instances of vandalism and edit warring by anonymous users that prompted me to semi-protect the article for a period of four days.

I count four instances of vandalism (one reverted by yourself and one which I just reverted) by multiple users in the eight hours since you unprotected the article, which would normally be grounds for semiprotecting an article. In the interest of not wheel-warring, rather than reprotecting it myself I'd like to ask you to reconsider the removal of the semi-protection. If you'd rather someone else take a look, I'm perfectly fine with submitting it to WP:RFPP.

While I respect that you've been an administrator for far longer than I have, I'd also like to suggest that you should have left a note on my talk page rather than undo my administrative action without discussion. And on that note, I'll apologize for the terse note (wheel-warring is my only real pet peeve) and just say thanks for your consideration! --jonny-mt 06:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, but I just looked at your contributions and noticed that you're only sporadically active (an editing pattern I understand well). In the interest of going ahead and getting this resolved, I've put in a request at WP:RFPP. --jonny-mt 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did of course look at the edit history that day and concluded it was way below the level that would warrant semi protection, most particularly for a main-paged article. It is not wheel warring to make a page editable on a wiki, and that's before we even get into the fact that a mere reversal of one admin action is never a wheel war. Splash - tk 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I do realise that the absolute number of poor edits was higher than usual, but so was the number of good edits, and the interest level on the article generally. Moreover, the vandalism was being easily handled. Incidentally, four vandal edits in 8 hours should almost never (imo) result in semiprotection because I cannot imagine why that could not be dealt with by blocks and rollbacks, which are far-better targetted tools and much less damaging to a wiki. Splash - tk 09:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there was a good share of good edits as well, but the absolute number of bad edits from various sources (making blocks unfeasible) is what prompted my semi-protection. Semi-protection is a tool to be employed when bad anonymous edits are numerous enough to be disruptive to the development of the article which, in my opinion, they were.

At any rate, the more important point is that you undid my administrative action without attempting to discuss it with me. It's true that you've been a Wikipedian and administrator much longer than I have, but I was given access to the tools for the same reason you were: because the community trusts me to use them to the benefit of the project. To have the actions I take in that capacity undone without any attempt at discussion undermines my role as an administrator, ignores the trust placed in me by the community, and generally makes it impossible to do my job.

Enough ranting from me. I'm disappointed to see that you declined another editor's request for semi-protection on Lehman when the whole point of my putting in that request was to get an outside opinion, but since I don't see anyone overturning that call I'll simply take this as a sign of tacit agreement and move on. If you run across any of my administrative actions that you think should be reversed in the future, please do me the courtesy of discussing them with me first. Thanks. --jonny-mt 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I declined the other editor's request with the bot-food template to avoid doubled-up requests. I deliberately did not decline your request with a template, and am not sure who/how that moved sections of the page; reinstate it if you like. But consider the vanishing point in your second paragraph: the community trusts you to make protections you say. Ok, then they trust me to make unprotections for the same reason. It's just the natural balance of a wiki. At no point need that get transmuted into a reflection on you, or your 'role' or 'job' — a mere unprotection really isn't such a personalized thing. Splash - tk 00:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:African American ethnicity

Thank you. I tried to engage Therock on his Talk page and on Talk:African American, where most of the discussion of the template has taken place, and he replied by "declaring war" against me on my Talk page. I requested page protection in the hope that it would help force some discussion of the matter. Thanks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

You unprotected it to see if the vandals and edit-warriors had given up. Looks like "no", so I reprotected. I've been involved in lots of reverts there...could you double-check that I protected it in the best form of the recent revisions so others don't whine that I an using admin fiat to "win" an edit-war? DMacks (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you unprotected that article, and was about to ask that you reconsider given that your action would likely precipitate an edit war, but then I got distracted and never posted the note. Looks like I was right.

Oh, and DMacks, thanks for your vigilance. I doubt anybody could fault you for protecting m:The Wrong Version in the grand tradition of Wikipedia administratorship. The last protected version should be fine.

I wish there were a form of protection between "semi" and "full" that allowed truly "established" editors to contribute, but not anons or new accounts or single-purpose accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UobArms.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dusting (inhalant abuse)

Thanks for fixing the mess I made of a simple move.Originalname37 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem - glad to be of help. As you've probably discovered by now, if you use the 'move' button at the top of your screen, the article's history all gets moved along with it, and the 'copyright detection' tools are placated. Splash - tk 22:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of DM Movie

Splash, I'm just getting started with this whole wiki world and some friends asked me to put their movie on wikipedia. What corrections do i need to make to the article to ensure it meets the guidelines for inclusion? Thanks! Tedsmithwiki - (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedsmith. I'm sorry about your article - possibly deletion is not the most pleasant introduction to Wikipedia! However, you can imagine that Wikipedia gets many articles every day about films that are of either no consequence or, in some cases, no existence. Unfortunately, as the article on your film did not indicate its notability, it got deleted. The general guideline for notability on Wikipedia is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". In the particular case of movies, you can find the guidance on this at WP:MOVIE. See if you can satisfy the descriptions you find there. However, I would suggest from my experience of these things that a new article would not long survive if the movie has not yet received substantial and non-trivial coverage in 3rd-party sources that are reliable and independent of the creators, actors and screeners of the movie. It may be necessary to return to Wikipedia at some point in the future if/when this coverage has been established rather than re-write the article immediately. Splash - tk 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Splash, thanks for taking the time to clarify the "notability" requirement. If/when the movie meets the threshold, we will resubmit. Have a great day! Tedsmithwiki - (talk) 3:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

CryptoBuddy

Hi, Splash, I saw that you recently deleted CryptoBuddy. I removed the speedy tag moments before you deleted it because it's definitely not promotional, and thus does not fall under G11. Could you please undelete this article, which has existed since 2002. I'm planning to expand this article and add references from here. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I had meant to add that it was an A7 'no indication of notability of software' deletion, but missed the menu selection unfortunately. It was no stronger in the versions existing in earlier years, when inclusion standards were rather slacker than now. Splash - tk 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A7 specifically excludes software articles. {{db-a7}} specifically states that that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible under this criterion. Please undelete the article so that I will have the opportunity to expand it without having to start over again. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Splash - tk 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the article! I've added a couple references to it. Take care, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just want to note that it would be reasonable to describe the article as promotional since it was apparently created by a user associated with the producer company Research Triangle. Dialectric (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Angry Jerk Page

Hi, upon doing a Google search for my personal website to see who was linking to it, I stumbled across a deleted article for it. I'm not very great with Wikipedia's formatting system, so I'll just post the URL that leads to the deleted page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Jerk

I am the subject of said article. As of late, I've been being hassled by an individual from a forum on the internet. I suspect that this is the same person who attempted to create this article as some form of an attempt to cause grief for me. I don't know Wikipedia's SysOp policies, but if it is permitted, may I be informed of the article's creator's user handle? If it is an IP address not registered to an account, may I simply compare the first few digits from my own site's log to confirm that this is indeed the same person? If this is against SysOp guidelines, I shall understand and press the issue no further.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide.

AJDotNet (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm following up on this message. I did find out who did it, and it wasn't who I thought it was. However, I did notice your name listed on the user's talk page as someone who can obtain deleted articles. If you could be so kind as to provide copies of several deleted pages, I would be very much grateful. Basically, I'd just like all the pages listed on here. I am not the original author, but if required I can have the original author give his consent.

Thanks, looking forward to your reply.

AJDotNet (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding; I have been away for a time. The reasons for which admins will usually provide copies of deleted pages are essentially limited to the recipient having some intention to make use of their content on Wikipedia, or to retrieve material they wrote themselves. As I gather that would not be the purpose of your request, I think it better if I leave this material quietly buried. Splash - tk 18:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So if I get the original writer to ask, can you provide it to him? AJDotNet (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess so, but given the nature of these writings, I will insist that the request come specifically from the account that created the article. On receiving the content, the author should be aware that, if the content ever appears anywhere on the English Wikipedia, I will indefinitely block the account that causes it to appear. Splash - tk 13:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I give AJDotNet permission to have these pages. CTCSP (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There. Now can one of us have the pages? We've done everything the proper way. AJDotNet (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed them to you as CTCSP does not have an email address set. Sorry to have been so slow, I'm just not around on Wikipedia much these days. Splash - tk 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I'll forward them to him as well. AJDotNet (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps on the articles for Complexity and Sociology and Complexity Science

Dear Splash, thanks for the information regarding the appropriate copyright for images on articles. I did as you requested and changed the maps to meet wikipedia standards. I am very proud of the maps, they represents years of research and work. Bcastel3 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME, Mr/MRS. Splash, you have Vandalized the deletion page for Barbara Smucker. Please revert this or be banned for life. Thx.

(I do not know who wrote the above, but please remove it or make your own section and add your name to it. Thanks) Bcastel3 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Barnyard poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Barnyard poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)