User talk:BirgitteSB

This user may have left Wikipedia. BirgitteSB has not edited Wikipedia since April 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Archive 1

I left a comment to your concerns on the talk page on the ridiculous amount of NPOV tags for various Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc captives. Retropunk (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this. I am sorry to see it still is quite a mess, but it doesn't make my priority list right now.--BirgitteSB 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed both your comment and retropunk's comment.

I had half a dozen small files that I had transcluded. This image and its caption was the largest. I didn't know that this was a use of transclusion that was contrary to policy. It seems a lot of people, include BSF, didn't know that. Geo Swan (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The catagory seems to be all cleaned-up now. Thanks for taking care of this.--BirgitteSB 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I put a reference HERE to the "Unsolicited Advice" on your User page. Thanks for the thoughtful advice. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you liked it.--BirgitteSB 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For common sense.[1] DurovaCharge! 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, it's been a while since I've monkeyed with that one. At any rate, I remembered some of the things I had looked at back when I was writing on the article - things were a lot looser back in the Good Old Days - and I've added them in and updated the tag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking for my input. I thought about it and have put a merge tag to Islamism - I believe is the intended meaning of Islamist is someone who ascribes to Islamism. What do you think? Glad to "meet" you.--Kiyarrllston 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(repeating your message for clarity:) I see you have a history of working on the article Ghosting (identity theft). I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I merely did copyediting on that article. It was tagged for cleanup and was one of the oldest in that category. I have no references available. RJFJR (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and info.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a collector of newspaper comic strips, and my reference for articles on comic strips is the primary source, the strips themselves, which is obviously preferable to any secondary source. Secondary sources are always subject to mistakes, copying and otherwise. Going to the primary source eliminates one step and one possbile source of errors. (Also, in the field of comic strips, there are number of secondary sources, Horne's Encyclopedia for example, that are notorious for the number of mistakes they contain.)

So, my reference for Walt Disney's Treasury of Classic Tales is Walt Disney's Treasury of Classic Tales, just as one might list as a reference for the article on Treasure Island the book Treasure Island, by Robert Lewis Stevenson. I hope you can help me with the correct way to indicate this in the bibliography.

Thanks. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've managed to track down and add a couple of references for Empire of Japan (foreign commerce and shipping). However, they do not cover the statistics which make up most of the article. Should I just replace {{unreferenced}} with {{refimprove}} and move on, or should I take out all the stats? I don't want the article to languish in [[Category:Articles needing additional references]] for as long as it has been in unreferenced articles as it seems to defeat the object of the project? For now I've left the {{unreferenced}} template in place, as I'd like some advice? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I will try to that do that from now on! ascidian | talk-to-me 00:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any adminship tips? I'm an administrator on paradoxology, the paradox wiki, at paradox.wikia.com. Wierdox (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Glad to help. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate you to be an admin. You have my trust, and I think the you have trust of the community.

English Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community

I will understand if you decline, but would very much like you to accept. May I nominate you? Jeepday (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response at my talk Jeepday (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, about time. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was never a doubt in my mind of the outcome. Thank you for accepting. Jeepday (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should've asked him at his user talk. Sorry for that, and please rest assured it's not my intention to enter a full-fledged discussion in your RfA. At any rate, the logic of that argument is profoundly flawed, as we both know. Moreover, people should be ready to be confronted by others picking their comments apart invalid conclusion by invalid conclusion. Dorftrottel (harass) 17:45, March 27, 2008

Shoot. I just realised that I actually bothered two different people in your RfA. So, sorry twice. Dorftrottel (harass) 17:49, March 27, 2008

Congrats. Dorftrottel (complain) 19:25, April 1, 2008

Sorry, was a bit premature. Got confused by the temporary delisting of the RfA... Dorftrottel (ask) 19:27, April 1, 2008

Hi, I don't wish to minimize all the great work you've done but, at the risk of sounding petty, I believe you've misremembered details of your example of work on Fuzzy Wuzzy. Not a big deal, but it jumped out at me for obvious reasons. BanyanTree 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has not closed yet, but I feel safe in offering my congratulations. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 04:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much--BirgitteSB 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, now congrats. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 05:48, April 3, 2008
• Congrats. miranda 07:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Great news. Saw your thank you on the RfA talk page. Pedro :  Chat  08:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats also. PhilKnight (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done! Rudget (review) 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrats. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! And enjoy this free t-shirt! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats on becoming a sysop!!Mifter (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations on a successful trip through RfAland. Is it still customary from new admins to block all those who opposed their RfA for a month and block those voted neutral for a week? I'm sure the administrators' reading list will answer a lot of your questions like that. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats, by the way. May all of your dramas be swiftly archived. Best wishes, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your stated intent, I have closed this debate as withdrawn by nominator, citing the diff of your withdrawal. I don't see any other issues here, except that you might consdier a page move if there's a better title for this individual - the source indicated might help with that. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found some sources but haven't had time to examine them closely enough to decide about a page move.--BirgitteSB 13:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Birgitte, thank you so much for your review of the CrimethInc. article, it was most thought-provoking. If you have some more time to spare, I have followed up your comments on the peer review page. Regards, Skomorokh 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could help peer review the above article. It's part of a large collaboration right now for FA, and we'd appreciate your help. The peer review is here. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thule Society, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thule Society. Thank you. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw your comments on this editor's page regarding the POV tags on the photo captions. I had actually made a request for editor assistance with this. No one has yet answered and I followed it up with a request on this editor's talk page (and again no answer). It's my opinion that there is still a POV issue with this photo caption used in dozens of pages; I tried to help out with this by making it less POV, but the editor keeps reverting my edits. Any thoughts/opinions? BWH76 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, where is the dispute? What talk page are you guys trying to work this out on? Help me figure that out and I will see what I think about it.--BirgitteSB 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the million dollar question. The disagreement was on a talk page of an article that was deleted. So, I guess I'm basically no help to you there. It was originally here; I'm not sure if that is at all helpful for you. If it would help resolve the POV issue with these captions, I will make another edit to one of these articles including the text I believe to be better posting my reasons why. I've just been cautious re-reverting these articles as I'm not interested in the slightest of being involved in an edit war. BWH76 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware there is a dispute (which you are), you need to stop editing and start talking. Please don't get into reverting. I know the "where to talk" is an issue right now, but it not an excuse to edit war--BirgitteSB 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right there with you on this, though I may have just made a mistake by reverting this page and explaining it here. If that was a mistake to do, then I'll undo my revert myself. I've tried to talk this over with the other editor, but it led nowhere (which is why I made the requests for outside opinions). BWH76 (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you should revert yourself, but don't continue with similar edits. I am not going to be able to keep up with right this minute. But I did restore and move the page you mentioned above to User:BirgitteSB/Talk:Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam. So you can all refer to the information there. Maybe try and have comprehensive disscusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. And to all of the disputants that might read this: Work out a compromise. Don't wait for me to have time to give this my full attention.--BirgitteSB 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you very much for your assistance with this. If I screwed up with the revert I made (as described above), please let me know. Either I will revert it myself until the dispute is resolved or I'll do whatever the next step should be. Again, the last thing I want to do with Wikipedia is to be dragged into an edit war, so any advice you or other may offer would be greatly appreciated. Sorry to take up your time with this! BWH76 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that you cannot be dragged into an edit, you can either choose to continue one or choose to avoid one. When trying to resolve a dispute focus on if X is accurate, neutral, and relevant rather than if X is what Foo wrote or whether Foo is biased.--BirgitteSB 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of ensuring that each of the Christianity projects have a todo list template somewhere on their pages. The new template on the top of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page would probably be the best place to put anything though. Considering their size, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism might be able to address a few as well, with the to do list on the top of their talk page. I'm going to be going through some of the other, smaller, projects' articles myself, and I can add the various, probably smaller, number of articles relevant to them as I encounter them. And feel free to put in anything you see fit to in the boxes, POV, merges, verify's, copyedits, cleanup, etc. The only question is whether the weekly basis would necessarily be the best way. The Christianity Project has a newsletter for its members, and we might add some of the oldest problem articles to it in the near future. If we do that, maybe we'd want to keep those articles in the list for the entire period of that newsletter, I dunno. But at this point a lot of that is still theoretical anyway, with the coordinators not taking office officially until the end of the month. But I think we'd all welcome anything you saw fit to do. Thank you very much for the offer. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly would be best for small lists (like 5 articles). So every week it would be fresh articles that might inspire someone. That would be my reccomendation. People are more likely to ignore what seems either overwhelming or stale. You could use the newletter to highlight one sort of backlog and keep several on the Wikiproject page. I will start something.--BirgitteSB 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the page being moved to? I would like to help eliminate all of the red links caused by the deletion. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The page was moved from another one, I see. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one red link from the deletion of Wikipedia:Verifiability is on every single edit page... oh I think you just fixed it. :) Seeing red THERE made me do a double take! ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I think something must have been worng with the software. I had done a "Delte and Move" but only the "Delete" went through. I was moving it back because of page move vandalism, but I kept getting error messages from the software. It should be fixed now and the red links should be blue.--BirgitteSB 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blame you (and moreso our move vandal, I just closed his AfD nom for him) for the database locks just now, that page is referenced from a gazillion places ... :) ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blame your lack of move-protecting such a page weighted towards every action you have taken as an admin which was not a move-protection of that page so that you have more blame than me :) --BirgitteSB 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me of removing the {{POV}} tag from this category, I believe the category should be renamed to something like "science in the Islamic world" I don't pretend to know the best name. For the same reason that the Inventions in the Islamic world article was renamed from "Islamic Inventions". I have many issues with the content of that article but I think the name is correct. I can't see how science can be Islamic, but I do accept that there was a region now known as "The Islamic world" in which many discoveries were made. I recognize I should take the category to WP:CFD and suggest it to be renamed but it has many sub categories and taking them all to WP:CFD is a bit beyond my wiki-talents Oxyman42 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Brigitte. I'm reaching you because I have a problem that I can't seem to find an answer to, and you might be able to help in some way as it seems you are involved with the community portal and wikiprojects. I am part of the Fashion WikiProject and to my regret I have to say that the coverage of fashion related topics is extremely poor, as such that it might be considered one of the most poorly covered subjects on Wikipedia. Most of the members of the wikiproject are inactive. So what I would basically need is a way to advertise the project so more people become interested in it. That's why I am asking you, do you know a way to attract people's attention to a project somewhere on wikipedia ? And if you don't know the answer to that, maybe you could direct me towards some people that might have the answer ? Thanks anyways :) Thiste (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had added it a few months ago and it did not do a lot but thanks anyways :) I have thought about advertising on some fashion forums I know about but my point was, advertising on wikipedia would be far more effective as people would already know what they're doing and how wikipedia works. Too bad nothing exists on wikipedia to make people aware that some areas of knowledge are dreadfully lacking... Thiste (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll take your advice then. Not sure about those people's motivation to work on wikipedia but I guess it's my best take. Thanks again for advice :) Thiste (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the {{backlog}} template back where it was needed. I'm getting ready to start some analysis on the enwiki database dumps, and thought I'd focus on tasks that have a backlog (hence why I was cleaning up the list at Category:Wikipedia backlog.) --Sapphic (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started getting some useful results from my reporting scripts, which you can track at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Database_analysis/enwiki-20080312. I'll continue to post summaries and links to more detailed reports there. I've updated Wikipedia:Dusty articles already, and will be updating some reports related to backlogs soon. --Sapphic (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--BirgitteSB 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Seyhan Kurt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyhan Kurt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you added a primary source tag at the top of the article replacing the previous unreferenced tag. But the article does not have any reference at all. Hence the tag should be unreferenced. Primary source tag is only needed when there are sources in the article, but they are not third party reliable source. But this article has no reference at all, hence unreferenced tag. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The novel is the (primary) source for the plot. All the details including ISBN number are given in the infobox for tracking down this source. Personally I don't like repeating information in the infobox at the bottom of the article unless it is used a footnoted citation. However I won't object if you want to reformat the information into your prefered format.--BirgitteSB 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you asserted that there is no consensus on merging some th-related articles. Is this based on the discussion at Talk:Phonological history of English dental fricatives? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a response there that Phonological history of English dental fricatives was a long enough article. And also the fact that someone felt strongly enough to split them off in the first place and no one has expressed any strong feeling about about remerging them over a year. Considering these were originally in one article rather than independently created I think the bar for merging is a little higher than otherwise and a year is long enough to make a decision.--BirgitteSB 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BrigitteSB,

please create my Account new (so that he is "red", no more "blue", so that there is no history to see in der user's page, the discussion-page a´nd in the subpage. Please crate even the subpage new, this would be very kind, and then please make this edit/sontributión (== Please create new my Account and Subpage ==) away on this your discussion-page, thank you in advice! Here the links to the pages to create new or better delete the subpage "User:Nup/staffalang".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nup&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nup&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nup/staffalang&action=history

Thank you in advice, Nup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.235.44 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot verify that this message is from the actual account holder. It is also confusing. You might be better off finding an admin who speaks your native language and then emailing him while signed in under your account name.--BirgitteSB 14:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Birgitte, see my latest post on WP talk:V, which is that we put the quotes thing in a footnote and write that it's a "matter of courtesy." That might satisfy all parties. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes live, I don't expect them to hold, but we will see. At the very least we may find out what parts have consensus, which at this point is hard to tell as they have sat on the talk page for an entire day without anyone commenting. If the reverts are done for logical reasons then that is fine, if the reasoning makes my head hurt then I might fight the point. Brimba (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have beem recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have been dealing with a family emergency this week and am going to steer clear of the more contentious areas of Wikipedia until things are less stressful. I realize this issue seems pretty straightforward but anything touching on policy editing can quickly turn into added stress.--BirgitteSB 04:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged Dividend for cleanup at the start of June. What specific items would you recommend addressing? I noticed in my assessment that there was a lot of work to do to become a Good Article Candidate (Talk:Dividend/Comments). Were those the items you were thinking of? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, {{cleanup}} is about style issues and that article is far from the house style. I mainly noticed the headings and bullet points as being an issue, but I didn't look at it closely so there may be other issues.--BirgitteSB 18:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is only B class, I usually expect there to be general cleanup issues. The headings look ok to me, except there are probably too many, but I will move your cleanup tag to the section with the bullets. I knew that bullets rarely get to FA, but I stand corrected about treating them seriously at this level. As you spot other things, I would welcome tags or talk page notes on those too. Though I am not working on this article at the moment, I would like to some focused improvement effort. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The headings are not correct please read WP:MOS. I disagree with you moving the tag as the whole article needs to be cleaned up, but I am not going to be working on this or guiding you further as have too much going on in my life right now.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance so far. Your explanations helped a lot, even though you may have already discovered that I have an old school philosophical objection to article page improvement request banners. Take care! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually remove at least twice as many tags as I add, and think they are over-used in general. You just caught me here in the middle of an argument with my sister during a very stressful month, so I am avoiding disagreements on line.--BirgitteSB 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, since you were one of the reviewers who gave a particularly careful review of bacteria, would you be interested in looking over its companion article on archaea. Any comments on the FA nomination would be most welcome. Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was beginning to worry I would not get to it in time. But it is done.--BirgitteSB 04:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for all the feedback. I wasn't sure if I understood a couple of your comments, could you clarify for me? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've dealt with most of the comments. Could you strike out the ones you're happy with? There are quite a few, so I'll probably get lost otherwise! Thanks again. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed a quote from your userpage and put it here. Might I also suggest that you submit some of your "unsolicited advice" to WP:MOTD? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birgette, I noticed on the RfAr that you said the evidence provided against OM does not indicate "a sustained habit of harassment and gaming against users whose views Orangemarlin considers in opposition to his own." Would you change your mind after considering

• this incident where he harasses me at Evolution by calling me a "whiny little creationist" (to discredit my edits there),
• this comment, eight months later, at the same page, about me and another supposedly creationist editor "masturbating each other to glorious ecstacy,"
• and this frivolous RfC, which was posted by OM between the previous events, endorsed by his allies, and finally debunked by an outside party?

This is a small sample of his harassment and system-gaming over a period of many months. Gnixon (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Harassment is strong charge and while I have often seen OM react with personal attacks and incivility when frustrated in his efforts, I really haven't noticed him pursuing others so he can harass them. Your RfC is the only incident I have seen that I could rationally put in the column that when filled with similar incidents might become a pattern that is recognized as harassment. After this RfC was rendered mute by SG did he continue to try and engage you on your talk page, on pages not in his normal area of editing, or pages dedicated to dispute resolution or other internal processes? Please note that even I found something in your case it would not yet be a "sustained habit of harassment . . .against users whose views Orangemarlin considers in opposition to his own". That would need several users all experiencing harassment from him. (Frankly I am not that comfortable describing solely on-wiki pursuit as "harassment" but I do believe that is what FT2 would have meant so I am making an exception for this conversation.)

2) Gaming the system is a complex charge and requires a large amount of evidence. Evidence not only that OM engaged opponents in various systems, but also that he did so with false intentions. Do you have any evidence that OM disbelieved the charges he made in your RfC, or anything that could disprove the assumption that he filed the RfC because he thought your editing was inappropriate? Do you know if he had ever initiated an user conduct RfC before?

3) On a side note: I noticed your response at the RFAR page that OM has broken promises to be civil in the past and that you doubt his sincerity this time. I really would ask you read the promises you linked and then to go read his statement again. Previously he promised to be civil on another's recommendation without admission any fault with his previous behavior nor an apology to you. Now read his recent statement again. Notice how he admits he has done wrong, that has apologized to you "without reservation or exception", and that his promises to be civil not because an admin recommended he do so but for the good of the project. This statement seems to me to have a much higher level of sincerity than anything he has said before, what do you think?--BirgitteSB 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll reply briefly (in a hurry), but I'm happy to elaborate.

1) I suppose we need a good definition of "harassment." If you mean what's been called "stalking," there is some of that to be found, but it's a subsidiary point. What I mean by harassment is more along the lines of OM reverting edits only because I made them (happy to convince you), and libeling me across many article and user talk pages (see a conversation on my page with TimVickers apparently resulting from OM's slanders). The "masturbating" incident is a good example. I understand an excerpt of my story alone is not proof of "sustained habit ... against userS," but it's highly suggestive, and research is painful.

2) Here the RfC alone is proof positive (although more evidence could be dug up). It's not possible that such a blatant misrepresentation of the "evidence" could have been carried out in good faith. This holds independently of whether or not he believed the charges or thought my editing was inappropriate---clearly, at least the latter is true. I don't immediately recall whether or not OM had initiated RfC's before, but he certainly at least participated in others in an attempt to eliminate opponents.

3) I fully agree that his recent statement is qualitatively different than the ones I mentioned, and it's not unreasonable to believe that it is sincere. I didn't notice yet if an even later revision mentions me specifically, but I'll check it out. I certainly agree that it seems to have a much higher level of sincerity. Nevertheless, I've interacted with him for over a year, and it's very difficult to trust what he says. Must run. Gnixon (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)I am not sure exactly how it should be defined, but it should definitely include pursuit of a editor out of the realm of OM's normal activities.

2)I must disagree with you here. It is amazing what selection bias can lead to when a person sets out to make a case against some they believe is acting inappropriately. Look at FT2's evidence on OM, I certainly can attribute the blatant misrepresentations there to good faith.

3) He doesn't mention you specifically but inclusively. That why I quoted the "Without reservation or exclusion". Just making sure you understood how inclusive he was being there.--BirgitteSB 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

1) Here I'll disagree with you.  :) While OM didn't really follow me outside our broad area of common interest, he certainly reverted edits by me on sight, independent of whether or not he would agree with the edit. Further, he made a point of injecting himself into any discussion where I participated or was mentioned, repeating the accusation that I was a creationist, likely in no small part because he knew it annoyed me. The way he did these things is certainly harassment. However, I understand my assessment may appear subjective without a body of supporting evidence. Anyway, I'm satisfied to point out his uncivil, libelous "whiny creationist" and "creationists masturbating each other" comments, spanning 8 months, along with his empty pledges to desist---they speak for themselves clearly enough.

2) I understand selection bias is an unavoidable, and forgivable issue, but OM's "evidence" was really beyond the pale. One could contrast FT2's evidence, consisting of diffs and associated quotes, with OM's evidence, consisting of dubious descriptions of those quotes (ask Sandy, not me). I don't dispute (or confirm) that there may have been bias in some of FT2's evidence, and I could look at individual examples if you'll point me to them, but I'd rather not get too distracted. In any case, I'm convinced the nature of OM's "evidence" is qualitatively different from the usual bias.

FYI here is pointer Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence--BirgitteSB 03:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I read it with interest. We can discuss if you'd like. Gnixon (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Ah, I see. I didn't think I was excluded from his blanket statement. Gnixon (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this has become moot point now that the case has been rejected, try to be philosophical about the situation. Hope that you have been wrong in your previous assessment of OM and that he is merely a misguided fellow with a bad temper and poor social skills. Recognize that the inevitable scrutiny he will be under from now on will mean that if he is not what we hope, he quickly dig his own grave. Everyone who stood up for him at this point will be not have any patience for extending him the benefit of the doubt if they see any future shenanigans.--BirgitteSB 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "Hope that you have been wrong in your previous assessment..." is entirely reasonable advice, given the evidence you've seen, but unfortunately, I know better. Nevertheless, I'm fairly satisfied by the arrangement involving jpgordon's supervision (as I forgot to post before), and I have some hope that this will permanently solve the problem. Count on hearing from me again if the issue resurfaces. I remain frustrated that OM's voluntary cessation has forestalled increased scrutiny on related matters. Gnixon (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I can understand why you are frustrated given how you feel harassed. I know not everyone can manage the detachment required for the philosophical approach, but try to accept his voluntary cessation for what it is - a cessation. That is still a good result even if you can't find it to be the most personally satisfying one. And on the theory that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, there will come a time when OM posts something you happen to agree with. I challenge you to publicly post your agreement when that happens per my Unsolicited Advice. Good luck and happy editing. Let me know if ever you want my thoughts in the future--BirgitteSB 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, OM's harassment of me isn't really an ongoing issue---my frustration stems from the philosophical view that unsolved problems are likely to resurface in new forms, leading to broader damage to the project. (I hope that's not the situation we face.) If the cessation is permanent, the concern that motivated the concept of "voluntary cessation" as a legal exception to mootness wouldn't apply here---I hope it doesn't. As far as agreeing with a stopped clock, I've already repeatedly praised OM's recent statement, and I really have been sincere; I've also concurred with him that FT2's announcement was somewhat flawed. If OM ever seems to lack support for a righteous cause, I promise I'll support him publicly. As for advice, I don't feel a need to "get rid" of him any more than the scientific community needs to "get rid" of crackpots---I just want his comments and contributions to get the respect they deserve. No, I'm not calling OM a crackpot. Gnixon (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to follow the outline at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution and to not edit war no matter what the other guys does.--BirgitteSB 10:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on the mailing list [2], but I am rather bad at using listserv, so I figured I'd comment directly to you. You mentioned that the Board would intervene if a community's image policy was very aberrant to our Free Culture values. I've been working at the Foundation Wiki to add tags to existing images. In my work, I've run across this template in use at IT-WP (it is even used by a board member) which translates to this. In short, it is a free image tag that carries a no derivatives restriction, which seems to directly violate the Free Culture rules we follow, but apparently IT-WP has agreed it should be used as a free license and the Board has not seen fit to intervene. Figured i'd just point this out. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment regarding it.WP was really about the situation in past. About what actually had happened before the licensing resolution was passed. My personal opinion would even go so far as to say brought about the passage of the licensing resolution. The first step you should take with your concerns is to speak with someone from it.WP to find out if what you describe as "apparently" happening there, is in fact the situation. Two it.WP editors responded to the thread on the listserv and they both seem to be knowledgable about copyright and skilled in English. [3] [4] It is likely that the images you see are being used under their current EDP policy which requires some sort of permission or release for images which are equivelent to images that would be labeled "Fair use" and used without permission on en.WP. But only someone familiar with it.WP could say for certain about how these images are being used there.--BirgitteSB 20:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in an RfC for Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades to rename them? I'm not passionate about the titles as long as they're still accurate, so I'm not advocating WP:Canvas, when I suggest as much knowledgeable input as possible would be helpful by placing a note at WP:FLA and Featured article team Mission 4. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current title is not very accurate. I wouldn't want start an RfC till I had a title I really stood behind rather than just a "not X" position. Let me think about it and see if I come up with anything I really like.--BirgitteSB 15:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the correct licence tag to my photograph as requested by your self.(A. Carty (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I saw your question at the AC 08 general question list and it strikes me as a very good one. The link you give in it ([5]) gives me an error though, is that a deleted revision or did you have a typo in it?

Just as a note, in the recent case I was in, although a party not named did share presentations with me, I never saw anything evidentiary at all from the other named party. Nothing. Which is odd since that party was the one making the accusations. That party has made rather a large statement about how they never saw anything at all, but cast in a way that makes the problem seem one sided. It was not a one sided problem at all in that case. Your suggestion on how to do these sorts of cases seems exceedingly sound. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks letting me know to fix the broken link, I should have checked it. I worry it would not be the most productive thing to let parties see the privately submitted evidence as it is sent in by other parties. However the arbs should be able to write up a balanced presentation of evidence of each parties actions to present for review without sharing exactly who submitted what.--BirgitteSB 18:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comment on OrangeMarlin's talk page, where you state that it is your impression that the FT2 RFC will remain open until either an unconditional resignation or an investigation into the events surrounding the OrangeMarlin RFAR.

RFCs are typically open for 30 days. If active discussion has ended by that point, they can simply be closed. Sometimes, if all parties agree, an RFC can be closed before then. The closure is not dependent on any other activities. With this in mind, I am not entirely certain of your reasoning for investigating this case. I'd appreciate it if you would enlighten me. Risker (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw the RFC existed I planned on sharing my views over what happened with the aborted OM case. But after I made my first comment there, I realized he had already resigned his seat and thought that the RFC was not worth participating in given this point. Then today I was reading the talk page discussion of why it was not closed and read about the resignation being conditional. That issue changed my mind about the value of taking part in the RFC. If the RFC is merely focused on this minor matter of his personal edits that has very little effect on the larger encylopedia, well I could probably be convinced by a good argument about a fair hearing on that issue alone not ending with FT2 losing his seat. So given the conditions, I think it is worthwhile to lay out other issues that I personally find more convincing against his competence as an Arb. My particular reason for investigating the aborted OM case is that I have already investigated it in the past (although not all parts of it to an equal degree of thoroughness) and that I know there are problems in that case worth being part of any discussion about FT2's competence.--BirgitteSB 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that, in your effort to provide further information about the subject of the RFC, i.e. FT2, you will give the appearance of "retrying" a matter that has already come before the committee and has been resolved; you've specifically indicated to OM that he will not come off terribly well in your assessment. Whether or not it is the primary focus of your view, the act of criticising the actions of an editor who is not the subject of the RFC (and whose actions have already been reviewed by Arbcom) is unlikely to be helpful and quite likely to result in drawing attention away from the primary purpose of the RFC, in my own opinion. Please reconsider. Risker (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that there is a way to show significant concerns over the judgement of an arbitrator without to some degree examining those who have been judged. All the same I intend on focusing heavily on FT2 and not OM. At the time, I let some things pass uncommented because few people were calm enough to give things proper weight. And I was unsure how much to credit some of my own ideas. But FT2's actions since then have only further confirmed the pattern I noticed then. I feel obligated to explore this point since his current resignation is only conditional on the resolution of a particular matter, which I feel there is some chance I could be convinced to overlook if I believed he were otherwise competent. (And I also notice people whose judgement I respect endorsing this view [6], which if I knew nothing of other issues I would find rather convincing) That said, if I were convinced that FT2's resignation is not going to held as to be simply about the more personal matter which has enjoyed, what I believe to be, an unmerited amount of weight in this discussion, I would be happy to spare everyone further examination of past issues.--BirgitteSB 19:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Jimbo's comments at the RFC helpful here. I believe the clarification you sought is contained in his words. Risker (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that reassures me.--BirgitteSB 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a kind note to say thanks for some friendly advice you gave me years ago, very early in my editing career. While the advice wasn't that significant, it sort of set the standard for me on how to constructively engage newbies that I still try to uphold. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found my note useful. And thank you for the uplifting note, it is nice to know something from so long ago has been remembered positively.--BirgitteSB 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed someone to it today when that editor just didn't like my comments on other problematic edits. Toddst1 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't pretend to be a mind reader, but I can't help wondering if the two of you are having a miscommunication over how each of you are interpreting of "errors". You seem to be saying that some his actions have been contrary to policy, while you do not see any of your own actions that are outside of policy. He seems to be saying that the both you could have taken greater care in your actions. All and all he seemes to be less centered than you are. When I find myself in conflict with someone less centered than myself, I like to follow some form of the following pattern a) let them know that I have now realized that they are having a particularly rough day b) apologize that my approach towards them added to their wikistress c) reaffirm that my purpose was to be constructive and that I only broached the subject because I believed the substance of my message was important d) acknowledge that I could have conveyed this important message more effectively e) clarify that I am not planning on pursuing this matter any further and that they should not be anxious on that front f) go away and stay away. Over at Wikisource I have a quote I am really fond of on my userpage : The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not, and never persist in trying to set people right. - Hannah Whitall Smith. I hope you can find something helpful in this. After all it is only a mater of time before some approaches you on bad day/week/month and you find you are less centered person in the conflict. I personally have never been more thankful than when I lost my center and my uncharitable reaction was replied to with undeserved graciousness. It was over some silly merge of no real importance and it still embarrasses me now to think of it.--BirgitteSB 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a lot of reverting today, so I'm trying to to stay away from it for a bit. You commented that you were correcting a grammar error. In fact, it was right in the first place: it is viewed as offensive.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I misread that.--BirgitteSB 17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unschool already fixed this.--BirgitteSB 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have noticed you have added a contradiction tag to Catalan language article, as regards to its relation to Valencian article. I would like to know what are the issues you have found there, so that I could work to solve them. Thanks in advance. --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a talk page note on the Valencian article, but I stopped working on the issue when I got reverted. There are different maps used for the dialects of language for one thing. And the lead of Valencian gives statistics for language usage in a way that seems to contradict the idea that Valencian and Catalan are the same language. It was very confusing trying to figure out the issue between the two articles. And also the ISO links in Valencian seem to contradict that given in Catalan.--BirgitteSB 17:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BirgitteSB: I replied to your action on the Amtrak article here Your edit was incorrect, although I realize it may have been guided by earlier incorrect fact tags placed by others. I'm not aware of any other more heavily referenced section of any wikipedia article, and yet you swooped in and deleted every sentence that was not immediately followed by a footnote, even when it should have been obvious that those sentences were from the same sources as previous or subsequent referenced statements. In fact, when originally written the statements probably were long continuous sentences that subsequently were broken up by other editors. When you're editing you should remember that it is far easier to destroy than to build; respectfully, although I had a hand in building those sections initially I don't know that I have the patience to rebuild the statements after your hatchet job. --► DRTïllberġ ◄^Talk 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page. I have not destroyed anything and I dispute that my editing can be described as a "hatchet job". Please do not place any more insults on my talk page. If you want me to take you seriously, you really need to calm down. If you want me to specifically look at one of those items let me know. On the other hand I would not contest anything you restore because you feel it is sourced well enough. In fact the only things I can think of that I would contest would be if someone restored something with the old {{fact}} tag or restored it with a edit summary attributing it to original research.--BirgitteSB 05:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I would be considered an expert. I'll try to work on the article sometime in the next couple weeks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted): :It really just needed copy editing. Check it out, see if it's what you need, and if it is remove the tag. If not, let me know what else you need. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when creating or restoring cleanup categories to make sure they are themselves categorized. Category:Articles with trivia sections from March 2007 was linked to from Category:Articles with trivia sections until you restored it as a blank page. Once you did that it was no longer linked to from Category:Articles with trivia sections and so could not be easily found by people working to cleanup that category. I have added {{MonthlyCleanupCat}} to it so it will now show up again. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I didn't realize that I had restored it to a blanked page.--BirgitteSB 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd call your attention to this since nobody else bothered to even though you were pretty active on that dispatchs talk page (each of the dispatchs authors was notified individually though). I have some issues with the language of the proposed guideline as it sugests that importing public domain texts should not be encouraged (the guideline actually conflates alot of issues that are not really related to plagiarism...). Reading the comments alot of people don't really seem to understand the concepts involved or what it is that they're supporting.. 189.105.99.200 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was aware of it, I was hoping to have the time to read it more closely. But I've added my quick thoughts. Thanks for the note.--BirgitteSB 03:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Unreferenced#Proposal to change wording. Thank you. ascidian | talk-to-me 15:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have shared my thoughts.--BirgitteSB 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention from January 2007 with 16 articles in it? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are assuming I deleted a category as general housekeeping with 16 articles in it, but you are mistaken. Looking into the articles that appear there now would show you why this is a mistake. Obviously I deleted the empty category it because the backlog had been cleared and it was unnecessary as no new articles would be added to a category for tags placed in January 2007.--BirgitteSB 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake (obviously). Thought that was rather strange. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for people to quickly revert about old tags especially over so many articles. But in this case, all sixteen articles are characters of the same plot so anything that happens to one will likely happens to all sixteen. This issue used to mostly happen when someone redirects an article to something else and weeks or months later it is reverted back to a separate article, placing it in a deleted category. But lately there seems to be a lot of scripts that are finding slightly mis-typed parameters in templates and correcting them. So articles which never showed up in the category before (even though they always had the template) are now appearing in deleted categories. Hopefully these scripts will all finish running soon and then these deleted categories will be a less common issue again.--BirgitteSB 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Birgitte, I was nice to bump into you again! All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suddenly found myself very active here today! It was funny to see you make a copy edit I was thinking of doing myself. I hope you have a nice long weekend.--BirgitteSB 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken from the original British Passport with 100% permission of the new owners of this material as we are talking about a deceased person (a person who past away almost 40 years ago). But, as I said… I was given permission to take the picture and to use it for any purpose … in fact I mentioned to this people the possibility of uploading the picture onto the wikipedia allowing any one to make use of the picture… and they were 100% happy with it. So, it’s got to be 100% fine with the copyright status. So, please be kind enough to remove your concerns about the copyright status with regard to this picture. By the way,… thanks. --Michael Peer (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but the situation you are describing is not PD-self. If you have permission from the copyright holder, who is likely the photographer that took the picture, you should be able to get them to release the copyright. But you cannot release the copyright as if you actually are the copyright holder, which is what the template you used means.

Well, put it this way… I think you need to be aware that the picture was taken back in the very late 1930s (the passport was issued in the early 1940s) the type of camera used only produced one negative which back in time, it was the costume, it was given together with all the pictures to Mr JM Langtry.

The person who took the photo, the professional photographer has been dead for a very long time as the picture was taken over 70 years ago. The photographer, at the time, I am told, It was not particularly young… plus the there was no continuity with the photographic studio… it doesn’t exist any more. In fact it closed down after the Second World War… There is nobody other than the owners of the passport, who by the way also own the negatives, who can claim an demonstrate any type of ownership over any copyright of any description… and those people have given me expressed consent to up-load the picture onto the wikipaedia plus have given me expressed consent to use the picture for whatever I might want… so I am the new and only copyright-holder and I am releasing the copyright as PD-self. So, it's got to be right... I think.

--Michael Peer (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is against all common sense, but the copyright is owned by the heirs of the dead photographer. Copyright law does not follow common sense. Owning the photograph, even the negatives, is not the same as owning the copyright. And you cannot obtain permission to use something from people who do not own the rights. When the photographer has been dead for 70 years it will become PD. But it will never be appropriate to label it as "PD-self", because you do not own any copyright on the work. Do you know when the photographer died?--BirgitteSB 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been making some enquiries and it might be easily as many as 70 years ago as the picture was taken in Spain during the turbulent years of the “Spanish Revolution” … which was followed by the world war and political reprisals against dissidents of the new Spanish regime… So… if it’s PD instead of PD-self … what code should I enter to ensure that the label is the right one… because you have to remember that the picture of the picture was taken by me… =S

--Michael Peer (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being taken outside the US probably changes things. I am not sure exactly how without doing some research. If you can get the name and year of death of the photagrapher and the year and location the photo was taken, I will do some research. Or as much of the information as you can get. I won't have time to really research it till later in the week. But I could ask a few other people who deal with images more often than I do, once there are more details.--BirgitteSB 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only catch is that in Spain things due to the Spanish Revolution and stuff when you go a bit back checking records and stuff its not necessarily very easy… you can get stuff from the day of Christopher Columbus and all that shipments of gold from America and stuff but when you try to get births, marriages, deaths censuses and stuff online there is very little. On the other hand the owners of the negatives and passport they don’t know exactly who the owner of the studio was exactly as by name nor where the studio was exactly so we might be just heading for a brick wall, were nobody knows for real much about it. =S

Still, these guys, the owners of the passport plus negatives are more than happy to carry on allowing me to do whatever I want with this picture. =]P

--Michael Peer (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied on my page to keep the discussion in one place. It's nice to hear from you. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you get any further heat over your recent talk page comments you might find this diff useful. In a similar situation, I was criticized for not airing my concerns at the appropriate time when I listed a concern during RFA2 which occurred before RFA1 (an early withdrawal). After that I decided I would do as you have done today in future situations, although I have not yet been in that situation again. It seems, you just can't avoid being accused of maliciousness in these situations.--BirgitteSB 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! It did cross my mind that I likely would be criticised for digging up old grievances if I waited until a future RfA to express my concerns. I'm glad to see that my hunch wasn't off-base. —David Levy 22:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]