If you leave a message in my talk page, I may leave replies here as well but not necessarily in your talk page.--Jusjih 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for all your work on the UN Resolution lists! cheers. Kingturtle 03:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please put my wikipedia page back up. I am the author of the book. I made the website myself. I own all the copyrights to the book and the site. 

Sincerely,

James F. Morin whozat17 --Whozat17 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CP, the page is quite backlogged and frankly, broken. I'd advising fixing the copy vios on sight. Either turn it into a stub, possible with the website as an external link or add {{db-copyvio}} to it. Thanks.Voice-of-All 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jusjih, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful today with a finaly tally of (56/0/3). I will be very careful at first to avoid any mistakes. Please feel free to leave a message in my talk page if you have any comments/suggestions about me in the future. Once again, thank you! --WinHunter (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this[1]? Would you have done anything about this as an admin? Do you think we should ignore suspicious issues over serious law under the assumption that we can't definetely prove a violation or should we sometimes temporarily hide data until things are sorted out so as to avoid any moral or legal issues?

Though no one would say that WP:AGF trumps clear legal violations, does it trump high suspicion that involves serious legal issues?

On a larger issue, do you believe that a strong community takes precedence over having an effective, accurate encyclopedia? Do you think that without a strong community, where people only communicate on a need bases that we can have an encyclopedia?Voice-of-All 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we cannot ignore suspicious issues over serious law. We should sometimes temporarily hide data until things are sorted out so as to avoid any moral or legal issues, such as blanking copyvios while being investigated.
I think that WP:AGF does not trump high suspicion that involves serious legal issues.
I think that a strong community and having an effective, accurate encyclopedia are equally important. Without a strong community where people only communicate on a need bases, we cannot have a good encyclopedia.--Jusjih 06:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By and large I'd agree with that, except that having a good encyclopedia seems the most important IMO. It is not just a better goal than an internet community, but I don't really see a strong community as necessary to build an encyclopedia. I community that is able to discuess and reach consensus on issues is really all that matters, I don't see us as really needing m:metapedians (save admin tasks) as strongly as people who just go off writing actual articles and talk to others to resolve conflicts or build concensus on policy occassionaly.Voice-of-All 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC

First of all, thank for helping cleaning up wiki. However, you were to fast to make the move. For god's sake, the Image:OSU Newark Campus View.jpg was just created at 15:48, 30 September 2006. I have been working on it, you came a few minutes late and gave a warning already. If this happens more ofter, it is very discouranging to do anything on wiki. Thanks.--Ohho

The rational should be added when or right after you upload it. After that, someone, even a bot, might give you a notice. I suppose a freindly one is better than some of the ones we have arround here.Voice-of-All 00:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for jumping into this discussion. As I administer Wikimedia Commons, I do not upload public domain images here. When I upload copyrighted images, I write fair use rationales at the time of uploading.--Jusjih 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your claimed creation time does not seem correct as I have seen 15:33. I usually give ten-minute leeway for orphaned fair-use images. However, tagging {{symbol}} does not seem very accurate. Please suggest how many minutes you need for a leeway to claim fair use on copyrighted images.--Jusjih 16:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jushih, I am sorely perplexed. I uploaded an image to Wikimedia, selected the tag that releases it to the public domain. You marked it as missing copyright information -- and sure enough, the data in the image file failed to reflect my choice. I uploaded it a second time, and once again my choice to release the file to the public domain vanished into the electronic ether. So, I marked it as GDFL (not my first choice, but good enough). That seemed to work, but now I see that the image fails to appear in the article on Malthusian Catastrophe. I went back to WikiMedia to upload the file one last time, making sure to mark it as GDFL. I still can't see the image!

Is this because of some mistake of mine, or some action of yours, or some Wikipedia bug? At this point I don't know what to do. Please advise. --Aetheling 16:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged missing copyright information because you did not specify which license to release when you uploaded the image. Next time, please specify which license when you upload any image so you will not get embarrassed. I am embarrassed to see too many others' problem files.
You need not re-upload to change your license choice. Just click "edit this page" to do so. You cannot see the image? I cannot see it, either. I cannot explain this other than referring you to read commons:Commons:Village_pump_archive-29#April_14.2C_2006.--Jusjih 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned out the cache on my browser, and now the image is consistently visible. It may be caused by a subtle bug in either WikiMedia or in my browser (Firefox). We may never know. Meanwhile, I want to lend my support to the previous poster, who asked for more time to supply copyright information. Ten minutes is too short. An hour or two would be a lot friendlier. Please remember that for us newbies this WikiMedia thing is very mysterious. --Aetheling 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An hour or two for copyright information? Experienced users may not even need leeways for fair-use images. For newbies, there may be unfortunately robots that give leeways much less than an hour. If there are any such robots, you have to send complaints to them, not me as I use no robot.--Jusjih 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An hour is way to long, by then, most likely, the uploader will most likely never provide any copyright info. Warnings just give the user a notice and some time, so there is little wrong with them. Just add the info in and ask questions if needed.Voice-of-All 00:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of of a third option, something like this; 

  common year starting on Wednesday in the year of the Gregorian calendar

Dfoley51 19:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought the first option is the one you should use Dfoley51 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that MCB replied to the optional questions posed by Malber, so feel free to make a decision supporting or opposing the user. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MCB. By the way, best of luck on your own RfA, which I know will succeed with a probably unanimous decision. Keep up the good work, bud. =) Nishkid64 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jusjih,

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious - are you from Taiwan, or from the Mainland, or...? DS 13:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Taiwan and now in the USA, thus speaking zh-TW (Mandarin) natively with en-US-3. I also understand considerable zh-CN and en-GB.--Jusjih 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 06:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're now an admin on the English Wikipedia. You're already experienced, just make sure you double check policies here before taking action, each project has a little bit different expectations. But keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As your very last supporter, one minute before Taxman closed the nomination, congratulations from me too! Bishonen | talk 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Congratulations! I strongly belief you will be a great admin (with that kind of experience). Good luck and take care. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian ※ Talk 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congrats on the adminship, Jusjih! You're welcome for my support; you way more than pass my criteria. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I know you'll use the mop wisely! KrakatoaKatie 01:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I know that, being an admin on so many other Wikis, you are dedicated and experienced and thus will do a good job here as well. I just wanted to add a clarification about the "Chinese law" issue that was raised during your RFA. My concern is that Chinese law should not apply to the Chinese Wikipedia (whose servers, I assume, are in Florida), much less to the English Wikipedia. Moreover, the appropriate justification for blocking offensive usernames is the Wikipedia policy on usernames. Thus, there may be times when Wikipedia policy is tighter than U.S. law. However, contrary to the implication made by you and User:GeeJo, the language of a country does not imply any jurisdiction over the Wikipedia in that language. U.S. law applies to the English Wikipedia only because the servers are located in Florida and not the Cayman Islands. For further exposition of this issue, see my questions to GeeJo on his RFA. --Richard 17:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you (1) removed the infobox, (2) added an unreferenced tag, and (3) added something about him being the greatest football player of all time, which appears nonsensical. (1) is rather mystifying and (3) even more so. Care to explain? In the meantime I've reverted your edit. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was accidental. It is getting more confusing as to how to deal with so many IP edits without sources. If you know better ways to handle it, I will just leave the article. Fighting IP vandalism is getting harder as we may think.--Jusjih 17:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...for your support of my recent RfA. One of the main reasons that I accepted the nom was to help out with moving images to the commons. If you need any help in this or any other image-related prject, do not hesitate to let me know. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly refering to public domain images (ie works of the US Govt, ect) that people only uploaded to Wikipedia and not the commons. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's a guideline doesn't mean that you are free to ignore it. It may not be policy but it is generally followed. It was blatant advertising for your petition. Also, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article itself (neutrality, POV, copyediting, disputes), not about your quibbles over the subject of the article. Besides that, online petitions are never taken seriously because people can sign it multiple times (though the reason why I removed it was per the first two things). Hbdragon88 16:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, you messaged me just at the time when I'm beginning to read Free Culture by Laurence Lessig. I just read the portion about Lessig's fight against the Sonny Bono Copright Term Extension Act. Very intersting stuff. But if you really want to take action, ring up the phone to the Congressmen and hope that the MPAA doesn't go after it like it did last time. Hbdragon88 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, I can still see no wrong doing of mine. It was no blatant or advertising. Haven't you read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? If you still insist in your way, I may get a fair and impartial third party to intervern.--Jusjih 13:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this one bullet point: Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. A petition is general conversation and does not discuss how to improve the article. If you want a third party, Wikipedia:Third opinion will gladly step in. Hbdragon88 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what you refer to, but haven't you read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, a policy yet? Since excessive copyright extensions are preventing us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we need the Public Domain Enhancement Act even further and I consider this a good reason to ignore the usual guideline, until the Act becomes a law so we need no more petition signing. If you still insist in your way, the result will be destructive like biting newcomers. When you removed my talk, you never sent notice here suggested by Wikipedia:Spam#Warning_spammers when calling it a "spam". It looks insulting and potentially misleading newcomers by likely discouraging them from talking. Fimally, if I were spamming, why would I become an admin at eight Wiki sites?--Jusjih 15:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said...online petitions are almost never taken seriously because people can sign them multiple times, so even if everyone signed it would still probably not be taken seriously. No, I didn't notify you, that is something that I usaully don't do (the only time I notify is for IFD and for new pages). You could justify almost anything with WP:IAR, which is why I prefer not to use that policy. Hbdragon88 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me anything about the deletion of Media:Coke_Vanilla_2L.jpg ? RJFJR 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was deleted from Wikimedia Commons based on commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Older_Discussions#Soda_cans while the underlying logo is copyrighted and the "self-made" picture has reproduced the logo with no new creativity. However, you may appeal at Commons:Undeletion requests, for example, if you would like to claim fair use, you may request temporary undeletion.--Jusjih 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I couldn't find the discussion that led to the deletion. RJFJR 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could not find it? Please try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Older_Discussions#Soda_cans to get to the discussion that led to the deletion, or you may simply request temporary undeletion to claim fair use here at Commons:Undeletion requests. As I administer both this site and Wikimedia Commons, I usually delink images deleted from Commons.--Jusjih 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once you gave me the link I found the discussion. When I was searching for it I couldn't find it. RJFJR 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is much more difficult to search. As I have given you the relevant links, you should know where to ask next.--Jusjih 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A generic but nonetheless warm "thank you" for your support in my RfA. I'm glad that you affirmed Radiant's nomination and I'll be measured in my use of the cleaning closet's contents. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not happy about your using 17 USC 104A as an example for the U.S.'s not implementing the rule of the shorter term at WP:PD. The problem is that most readers will be confused because 104A actually does include something similar, namely that copyright on a foreign work is not restored on the URAA date if it is out of copyright in its source country on that date!

As I see it, the true reason why the U.S. does not implement the rule of the shorter term is 17 USC 104(c):

Effect of Berne Convention. – No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. (Emphasis added by Lupo)

That says that the Berne Convention is not self-executing in the U.S., and that only U.S. law applies. Thus §7(8) BC does not apply, because U.S. does provide otherwise, by stating that only U.S. law applied and then not saying anything about a shorter term in its law. In fact, by saying "shall not be expanded or reduced by ... the Berne Convention" they explicitly say that the rule of the shorter term was not valid in the U.S. Lupo 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image deleted from my user page. I will be more careful in the future with this issue. Thank you, Jusjih. Randroide 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jusjih

You made several edits (e.g. for 1615,

"Year 1615 (MDCXV) was a common year starting on Thursday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Monday of the 10-day slower Julian calendar).")

where you noted the confusion between the Julian and Gregoria calendars. with links to clarify. This is a good thing. But ...

  • could the phrase "10-day slower" in that string be replaced with "10-day-earlier" (or "10-day-later"; I'm not sure which is wronger. It's that relativity thingie.) which more precisely conveys the meaning?
  • the Julian calendar is the faster of the two

I expect you used a bot and I don't bot yet, so this request.

Thanks. --Saintrain 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Banach entry was vandalized after you protected it

Polish ultra-nationalists somehow managed to vandalize the Stefan Banach Wikipedia entry after you protected it - see the history of the entry on Stefan Banach. This vandalism has been going on for months. The purpose of these Polish chauvinists is to erase and to distort any mentioning of the Stefan Banach contribution to and afiliation with the Ukrainian mathematics.

Most of the Banach's professional career took place in the Ukrainian city of Lviv. Banach chaired the department of mathematics in Ivan Franko University in Lviv. He is also one of the most prominent members of the world-famous Lviv School of Mathematics. Banach was a member of Ukrainian Academy of Science and colaborated with many Ukrainian and Russian colleagues. Banach's mother was Rusyn or Ukrainian and Banach's father was Polish.

Banach is listed as both Ukrainian and Polish mathematician in at least Ukrainian and Russian wikipedias. The comprehensive List of Ukrainians lists Stefan Banach as one of the eminent Ukrainian mathematicians.

Despite many facts (the origin, place of work and life, contributions to the Ukrainian mathematics) linking Banach to Ukraine, Polish chauvinists systematically vandalise the Stefan Banach entry in the English language Wikipedia. E.g., they erased the mentioning of Banach as both Ukrainian and Polish mathematician, leaving only him being mentioned as Polish.

Yes, my identical copy of bucket-and-mop =]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the authorisation from the Commons Commons:Authorization to use material from http://www.larsen-twins.dk and removed the speedy template. JoJan 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred it now to the Commons : Commons:Dendrobium lindleyi JoJan 15:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. It was an image I took with my camera of a monster head inside a castle I went to a few years ago. Didn't know I had to copyright my own images, but now I know. Do you still have this image kicking around, or do I need to upload it again? Thanx for any input. --erin k. 10:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for returning the pic. Did I copyright it correctly? If so, no reply necessary. Thanx --erin k. 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Italian, how is possible create a credit in this English version of Wikipedia? This image and other are mine. Thank you. Claudia

The problem images claim to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5, but with the watermark, I went to the source site where evidence of CC licensing could not be found. If you cannot prove the licensing to be true, we cannot accept your uploaded images, especially if you did not make these images. See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems in case you make any images without copyright licensing at the source sites but you want to license their uses here.--Jusjih 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright info that I provided is correct I took the picture personally (with my camera phone) someone else edited it for size. I could take another and email it to you. I could not find the pic on the site you posted. Can you please provide me with a link? Maybe I can contact the Webmaster about posting the correct copyright info. Maybe it’s just a similar pic. I have posted another pic on the lorum page you can see they are of the same area. Please post on my talk page THX Randywilliams1975 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think I should do, if the image gets deleted I will just have to take another one and repost it, how to I keep people from questioning the copyright, the internet is a big place and since the image is in the public domain on Wiki anyone can take it and use it. The pic is used on multiple pages not just the amp page and the uploaded Commons image is the same on I took. THX Randywilliams1975 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so if i uploaded the pic again with my name as the copyrighter and my release and kept it that way then it should be ok. i see where your coming from now i hold the copyright but it didnt show my name uploading the images. do you think that would work THX Randywilliams1975 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THX Randywilliams1975 18:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2007 Rand L Kannenberg.jpg

Please delete this old version. Thank you. Cjas

Please do not contacting me about deleting these images as I requested in the discussion for deletion of the template (flphoto). The template has been deleted, and I trust that others will see that all the photos will be deleted properly. I uploaded probably 50 images assuming that whoever made up the template understood the correct copyright on the images. Apparently they did not. Royalbroil 06:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing source is clear for Battle of Natural Bridge Flag

You wrote: Thanks for uploading Image:Battle Natural Bridge Flag.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

Since you have taken it upon yourself to have images from the same (legal) source deleted, you should place the appropriate tags. Noles1984 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no tag. Now it is fine.--Jusjih 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the rationale and information tag I put together (example) Image talk:Bannerman Plantation 1947 rc18299.jpg Why couldn't a template be created incorporating the fair use template? Noles1984 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Noles1984 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still receiving notices from User:BetacommandBot about rationale problems even though the below tag has been placed on the image and discussion pages.

Digital Image Information

This is a one of a kind unique digital image from The Florida Memory Project, Florida Department of State. It holds the archives' number of: 0000000. This image is needed to enhance and improve this article and no other representation exists.

Use: The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images. In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material.

Florida Department of State State Library and Archives of Florida 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 (850) 245-6700

What can be done? Noles1984 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request a deletion review to explain why the page in question should be undeleted.--Jusjih 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jusjih! I saw your note about that image over on WT... and also that you speak Chinese, so I thought I would let you know we're about to launch a Chinese version of WT, I think... see Chinese WT expedition. Hope you're well. – cacahuate talk 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I support launching Chinese Wikitravel, I consider having to use a separate shared site cumbersome. As of now I plan to run for adminship at English Wikiquote and I plan to use Wikiversity to start some original researches, I cannot come to Wikitravel often. While I may eventually wish to become an admin at English Wikitravel, I cannot distract my own attention by using too many sites. The simple words are "one at a time" for adminship as I cannot run for adminship at too many sites altogether.--Jusjih 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for contacting me. I know you've been at WP forever (much longer than I), but I'm not sure how closely you've followed the recent disputes over the application of BLP policy at en.wiki. A few esteemed editors, including the now-departed Doc Glasgow and several members of en.wiki ArbCom, took a rather extreme view of employing speedy deletions under BLP to "preserve the dignity" of young people, crime victims, and other disadvantaged persons who became publicly known through no choice of their own. Some speedy deletions of this sort were endorsed by ArbCom at its "badlydrawnjeff" decision, but the issue is not firmly resolved by any means.

It is no secret that I disagreed with the general expansion of BLP to justify some (though not all) of these speedy deletions: Doc and I argued the issue more than once, as I felt such "speedy" content removals without deliberation harmed Wikipedia. Nevertheless, when I closed DRVs, I remained neutral to the best of my ability, and I did believe that the He DRV endorsed Doc's deletion. When the recreation of the article was brought to my attention at my talk page recently, I felt ethically bound to enforce the DRV to the utmost, and to lay aside my personal opinions. I deleted the recreation under CSD G4, considering the DRV to have constituted a "deletion discussion" for its purposes. (This is an allowance I would not normally make, but given the BLP controversy, I felt it necessary.)

However, now that another esteemed administrator has come forward disagreeing with deletion, I readily -- and happily -- concede the point. :) Your suggestion of a renaming seems wonderful to me, and more than enough to allay any BLP concerns. The article is, as I've sure you've seen, excessively detailed; you, as the multilingual, cross-cultural expert here can likely remedy that easily. I will restore the article and make the move to the suggested title immediately, reversing my own speedy deletion. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. LyrlTalk C 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Chain Barnstar of Merit
For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Chain Barnstar of Diligence
For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour
For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]