User talk:MGA73/Archive 8

Bad name

Hi! Thank you! ...just another question... I'm doing a lot of work now because when uploading the uscg files there is no USCG license on the proper windows (US Federal goverment), so now I've to upload without a valid license than I've to add the right one :( --Nicola Romani (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Tried to add an extra option to upload list but it did not seem to work. No idea why since it normally does. --MGA73 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Familiar

Does this DR sound familiar? Same old problem....no flickrreview at upload. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm trying to get all FlickrLickr images in Category:FlickrLickr images then it should be easyer to request a review for the rest. The hard thing is to find images reviewed by uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• You must run your bot for a few days to find and categorise all the FlickrLickr images here. Its not 252 photos...that's for sure. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• 9,457 photos in this category now. That's closer to the truth but there are probably quite a bit more here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah somthing was wrong with the script I used the first time. It would only check the latest 250 edits made by FlickrLickr. So I had to figure out somthing else. My bot finished not with 10,298 images in the category. Lets hope that new category makes it easyer, --MGA73 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I checked some famous FlickrLickr images (that I remember) and it looks like your bot found them all indeed. They all have this category added to them. Its strange that Nilfanion created this cat in 2006 but no one used it until now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pass these images with your bot?

Dear MGA73,

Can you ask your bot to PASS images by this single user/Paul Walsh IF he gives a flickrlink to them. (no matter what the flickr license is) Images like this below could face deletion if it is not passed:

• File:Jacobs Field Cleveland.JPG

The uploader is the flickrowner. I remember this special case because there was 1 image he uploaded of a skunk and I almost filed a DR. Then I saw that Admin MartinH flickrmailed the flickrowner who confirmed Here that he was the flickr owner. Since there is confirmation by MartinH, his images should not face deletion. You can pass the images by citing the case I just gave. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, please forgive me if I don't always trust the flickr review bot. Like this error and this second error today. It made this error on 3 separate images today when the photos were there. I marked the third one. One cannot even trust the bot. Regards,

It is annoying if bot not works properly. If it "fails" ok images we can live with it. But it must not pass wrong images. Anyway I will look at the images from Escapedtowisconsin. Removing flickrreview-template will only help shortly since my bot will ask an other review if I run it again. If you change license to "self" [1] then my bot will skip it. --MGA73 (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I could do that but someone might still subject the images to a flickrreview in future (who does not know of the evidence from MartinH). That is why it is better to pass them citing that message by Martin H. Anyway, I can't do anything now as it is almost 3 AM here. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed image

I thought the information on the flickr page was sufficient to state that the image is re-usable in Wikimedia commons, but probably I don't master all the details of license treatments ...--Guarracino (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! File:La terra dei fuochi.jpg was deleted because license on Flickr was "cc-by-nc-nd-2.0". The problem is "nc-nd" ("Noncommercial-No Derivative Works"). That license is not allowed on Commons. Image can be allowed if Flickr user changes the license on Flickr or sends a permission to use the image under {{Cc-by-2.0}} or other free license. --MGA73 (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

cats by bot

This edit tells me you are using a dump. The automatic cats are usually not better than the manual ones. It should be checked if the file is already categorized. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn... It was supposed to work in Category:Media needing categories and skip images with a category. I stopped the bot at once and will check what was wrong. Thank you for telling me. Please revert any wrong edits you might notice. --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding File:Nine Inch Nails - 05.16.2009.jpg and File:Trent Reznor - 05.09.2009.jpg

I know they had OTRS pending; I just answered the email tonight. It's up to the emailer to show that permission has been granted, and due to what I found in the email, I thought it was safer to delete the images for now, and undelete once permission has been proven. But, do as you like. Killiondude (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but problem is that uploader made a note on my talk about the permission but when I looked at it others had allready marked the permission as watched so I thought they took it. When I checked yesterday nothing had happend so I asked the "owner". I do not think we should delete images just because some of us (me oops) can't find out to handle a permission in time. Anyway images with OTRS has its own system and will be after some time. --MGA73 (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't look to see if it had an owner before I emailed. I think sometimes people move things between the queues and it gets marked as being "owned" but not really... In any case, I responded and hopefully we can clear it up. Killiondude (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not owner but watched by. Anyway I restored the images because there was an email and it did not look hopeless :-) And also the watcher is not an admin so I thought he should have a chance to see it. Nice reply anyway. Lets hope for a better permission next time. --MGA73 (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

File:1520Sedgwick Avenue.jpg

Don't know about this image. There is no OTRS ticket but it was uploaded by East718. And I would say we can trust him since I just passed this other image by him here: File:ShaynaBaszler.png --Leoboudv (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: As for this image below, it appears that the license was once "cc by sa" if you carefully read the comments at the flickr source...before the flickrowner changed the license. But only you can make the judgment call here as an Admin:
• File:Jantar Delhi.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I agree that both images could be kept. Last one with a {{Flickr-unfree-but}}. Will look at it later. Anyway I noticed that Flickrbot is lazy. It only checked five images at the latest run! I hope it does better next time so we only have to check the ones it can't check. --MGA73 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot issue regarding capitalisation

For some reason it decided to change the capitalisation of flickr here, thus screwing up the link. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no... I'm gonna cry now... This is... Easy now... Don't panic... Ok. I think (hope) that this mistake should only be possible in images that need a human check. I HOPE that whoever does that check will notice the mistake and fix it. With at little luck this mistake would only pass un-noticed in a few images.

My bot has worked for several days now and it should be done now (or in few hours) so it's a little to late to block it now (I'm not near it now).

But thank you for telling me. And if you see any mistakes like that you are most welcome to fix it.

Well the only thing that cheers me up right now it the thought that the bot-run can help save unreviewed images. If license on Flickr is changed before image is reviewed we might have to delete the image. --MGA73 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the bot, just thought you ought to know about the issue. Good work. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:TombeauAgnesSorel.jpg

I was going to fail this important photo but I then saw the discussion page message. I think the uploader can be trusted here from his work. As for the flickr review bot, it must have broken down which is why there is a large backlog for images needing review. I have to go now as its 1:30 AM in Canada. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Neftochim-vaya-dinev.jpg

I did get a response from the flickr author and forwarded his licensing of the images as CC-By to OTRS. Can you check it out? Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Good work! --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Roth Joseph And Friedl.jpg

Please read exactly the source of the image, before you highlight it for deletion! Citate of the source "No known copyright restrictions" -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but they also say "...may be subject to third party rights" and "All rights reserved". --MGA73 (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And to further add from the source, via this link on the Flickrpage: "The image files are marked “no known copyright restrictions,” indicating that the partners are unaware of any copyright restrictions on the works so designated. In general, the partners’ image files are made available for research, teaching, and private study. You may reproduce a single copy of this media without prior permission for these "fair use" purposes only." Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MGAbot2 and Category:Categories by city in India etc.

Hi MGA73, please "tell/teach" your User:MGA73bot2, that isn't a good idea to "overwhelm" (for example) Category:Categories by city in India ;-)

MGAbot2 seems also to "love" Category:Categories by language, Category:People by ethnicity, Category:Visitor attractions in India (as of Nov. 3, 2009).

Thanks and best regards, Roland zh 01:00 [edit 01:44], 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Roland zh. The bot used this tool [2] that find out where the file is used checks which categories is used on the article and then it tries to find the matching categories on Commons. If the categorization on the article is good and the categories uses {{Commons cat}} to link to Commons then the suggested categories will also be good. It is hard to improve the script so we still need humans to check categories. --MGA73 (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi MGA73, thanks i've noticed before you (your bot) left an additional message on my talk -> "watchlist" ;-) But, please for other "human categorizers" not "capitulating" like me, try to solve this bot-problem, please. Personally, i do not appreciate "CommonSense" as a reference to categorize especially regarding the "flickr-flood" (i prefer to upload "own works") - to many "by country" cats etc proposed by CommonSense ... That's all i can contribute to this matter/discussion as my personal point of view, and therefore i've stopped categorizing - it's absolutely senseless to "check and 'win' against" categorizing-bots, too: your MGAbot2 has too many "bot-friends", and there are just some few "human categorizers" (.. still need humans to check categories). My best regards, Roland 17:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't give up. If you add a category then the bots will leave it alone :-) The categories are added to make it possible to find the images you are looking for - so it is important that images get categorized. --MGA73 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if the Multichill bot is much more selective, don't adds meta categories and is more efficient in reducing the "by country/city...." categories towards the real categories. --Foroa (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know we use the same script so I think my bot is just unlucky and get some "bad files" to work on. This bot run is working on some old uncategorized images. Multichill normaly works on the new ones. --MGA73 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on giving feedback on Multichill's bot and I am pretty sure he ironed out such stupid redundant cats as in here. But when looking in Category:Geography by city, this almost useless category is filled up, probably by using data from CommonSense, which seems to be a source of data but seems to belong to "another" world. Anyway, it looks as if the machine will win over the humans as the humans will leave, the machines will stay. --Foroa (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, thank you very much for your statements. btw, nothing against bots in general, as being a former IT supporter, using PC's since the 1980's and loving my own notebook as a "family member" ;-) The image showing MGR memorial on Marina beach is an excellent "example", hoping in future to avoid all categories including the simple string "_by_" for CommonSense, too. Leaving and hoping, with my best wishes, Roland zh 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi MGA73, I really do know how important categories are and personally (for "own work") i still use as accurate as possible!

This "human categorizer" does give up to re-categorize bots doing their jobs as above mentionned: Too many bots, just a few "human category checkers". For a relatively long time, i was such an "human categorizer", focus for the last eight months on categorizing "overwhelming" Category:India and Category:Switzerland (add: MGAbot2 actually "loves" Switzerland, too), "resisting" in file-histories, personally on user talk pages, and by user-to-user-mail, to categorize images as accurate as possible, again and again and ...

I think you realize this fact, but the above mentionned bot-problem still should be solved as soon as possible.

Hoping you'll be/are a member of the very small "club of human beings re-catorizering bots"; our personal points of view are declared ;-) Ending by sending my best wishes and having (much) more time for other hobbies :-) Roland 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I try to get uncategorized images categorized my the bots as fast as possible, because then the images are still "fresh". Over the last couple much I became somewhat backlogged for various reasons. Over the last couple of days me and MGA73 tried to clear this backlog, see the difference here. The error rate is probably the same but because the sheer amount of images the number of errors per day is a lot bigger. On the bright side: We should be almost done. Multichill (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be less demotivating to work first on the quality, especially of CommonSense, than on the number of images and categories they are spitting out. --Foroa (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot going overboard

Your bot is not smart enough when it comes to derivative images. Please stop marking every image that has fickr.com in it somewhere for flickr review, it is just making more work. eg [3], everything is correct, the original author at flickr is cited, the source image on commons is cited, it does not make sense for flickr-review of derivative images. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The bot has finished marking images for review this time. It has skipped a lot of templates like "RetouchedPicture", "ExtractedFrom", "extracted from" and "Image extracted". Problem is that there is a lot of templates like that. The template that you used is a redirect and it was not on the skip-list. Once we check the images that the Flickrreview bot can't review we will fix the the problems that the review might have caused. --MGA73 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way. If you revert the edit you risk that the bot marks them again if it is run again. So if you find any other images that uses an other template make sure to leave me an note. Or you can just wait and let me fix it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping fix the review problem with the bot. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I realsie that part of the problem is that the flickr review bot doesn't know how to deal with derivative images and it is no longer being maintained (and it has a few bugs too). Great to hear that this bot now ignores pictures with {{RetouchedPicture}} and {{ExtractedFrom}}. I presume that if I use these in the source field of the info template it will now keep it happy :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should skip images with these templates. And some others. I have not decised if I should run this bot in the future. Hopefully users remember to ask for a review when they upload new images. :-D --MGA73 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Hello, thanks a lot for changing the licence for all the "Pornstar Lupe Fuentes on Exxxotica 2009 XY.jpg" files. I had to select wrong licence during the batch upload. Again thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. --Aida (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for...

...informations, --Spiridon 83.113.250.71 Manoliu (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Two images by Gun

I think we can trust Thomas Gun on the first 2 images here Today, he orders {{Flickrreview}} but before he did not. There are 4 images here from this flickr account. Two passed review and two, by Gun, were not reviewed but ALL were uploaded in May 2009 from the same account and the flickrowner still licenses her photos freely. I think it is clear the images uploaded by Gun were 'cc by 2.0' at upload. Perhaps they can be passed with Gun as a trusted user? Is this reasonable? Regards & Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: What do you think of my suggestion. We have proof the photos were licensed freely. So, what is the difficulty? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

He looks like a nice guy but I'm still thinking. On his talk page there is a few deletions. I can't remember if the captain has asked user about some other images. If he has he could ask for these images also. I'll try to find out. --MGA73 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Picture 2 and 3 have exactly the same Canon camera model--Powershot S5 IS. The conclusion is clear to me. Same flickrowner. You forget that Gun uploaded his images here first before those other two images were uploaded by different authors. So, I do trust Gun here...How can one not given the flickr owner's photostream image license? One should AGF because there are plenty of sufficient grounds here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: Would it be objectionable if I passed these 2 images on Gun's behalf (as a trusted user) and cite the evidence of the other 2 images--also from May 2009, same flickrowner+fact that the flickrowner licenses her current photos freely right now--in the image discussion page? Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust him. Maybe the captain does too? Maybe we could ask Gun to request to be a trusted user? --MGA73 (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will type in the pass for Gun in this special case here since there is other compelling evidence. One could ask Gun to request to apply to be a trusted user but usually it is better if he asks to do this himself. I was reluctant to apply for trusted user status even as MBisanz and Kanonkas 'suggested' it to me (I was busy saving images and bugging them to mark the photos when they were licensed freely in the past year) until the flickrbot broke down and there was a massive backlog of unmarked images. Only then did I apply and I was given this right in 1 day. The more important thing is Gun now follows my advice to order {{Flickrreview}} s today. And that is important to avoid such future problems like this disaster Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thank you

Hello thanks for helping me out in the discussion with User:Martin H. he is really mad over me, I've given many proves, but he still refuses to believe, what can I do? Eduemoni (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggested that some other admin looks at the images. The best would probably be if you uploaded some images that is not on the web somewhere. Oh and of course to be sure that any bad images is removed from your Flickr account. --MGA73 (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Image in Category:Flickr images not found-old??

I received an email back from the Flickr author of File:Before - Owl in Tree.jpg after I asked her to license this image as either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA in an email so I could create an OTRS ticket. She was a bit confused about the whole thing and instead changed one of her existing Flickr images of the same Owl http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigkids/2816016282/ to CC-BY. So I uploaded that File:Pulsatrix_perspicillata_World_Bird_Sanctuary_-_Valley_Park,_MO.jpg and changed the usage to the newly uploaded image. I hate to keep pestering her since she seemed so confused. Do you think we should DR File:Before - Owl in Tree.jpg? or as I have seen others do tag it with {{Nsd}} and delete it in a week? --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the "Before - Owl..." the better. Maybe you could send her a nice mail with something like that:

"Thank you for your permission to use one of your pictures of this nice owl. We really appreciate this. You can see the image here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pulsatrix_perspicillata_World_Bird_Sanctuary_-_Valley_Park,_MO.jpg.

I do not know if it was intentionally but you changed the license on http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigkids/2816016282/ instead of this deleted file http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigkids/3069608724/ (our version http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Before_-_Owl_in_Tree.jpg). If this was not what you wished for or if it is ok with you that we also keep "Before_-_Owl_in_Tree" under cc-by-sa-2.0 you are most welcome to contact me.

Once again thank you for letting us use your image."

Then she is not forced to answer but has the opportunity to do so. --MGA73 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely worded. I will give it a try. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It worked! She uploaded it to Flickr again with CC-BY-SA. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! And in a much higher res. --MGA73 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File:San Jose City Scape Image.jpg

Pls decide how to mark this image. The uploader licensed it one way in the original picture and another way in the derivative. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• As an aside, these 2 photos should be passed here and here. It is certainly her own work--the author always places her name in the information template and until High Contrast decided to npd one of her photos--just because she said she posted it on her flickr account--(I provided the exact source) there were ZERO messages or warnings of copyvios on her talkpage. The npd is wrong because an author can license his/her images anyway they want. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I've been busy. If we are not sure the author released the San Jose image it is best to use the Flickr license. As for the two other images I agree that own work is fair to asume. Good work! It should all be fixed now. Let me know if somthing is missing. --MGA73 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hej MGA

Jeg henvender mig til dig her fordi som du ved er jeg pt. ude af stand til at gøre det gennem Dawiki. Jeg havde egentlig først tænkt mig at henvende mig til dig for at protestere over at du havde lavet arkiv på min diskussionsside, noget som jeg aldrig selv har brugt -- også fordi det er ligesom man ønsker at gemme noget væk. Men nu er hele min diskussionsside OG min brugerside slettet af "Bruger:Wegge". Jeg havde ellers fået lovning af Jørgen på at min bruger- og diskussionsside ville blive bevaret. Jeg forudså jo præcist at visse Admins (Wegge, as it turned out) kunne have interesse i at slette min side. For mildt sagt tager vedkommende sig jo lidet flatterende ud, den måde han førte sig frem på på min diskussionsside. Og med hensyn til min brugerside, da var denne en unik samling af de artikler jeg har bidraget med/til. Min brugerside var unik fordi den f.eks IKKE ligesom så godt som alle Admin-sider praler af alle de sprog, vedkommende kan [og som når det kommer til stykket viser sig at være ret begrænset, f.eks hvad engelsk angår, - som jeg vil hævde jeg som oftest er bedre til - men uden at prale af det på min brugerside] Jeg henvender mig også til dig fordi du har vist en vis --vis-- evne til at tænke selv, og et ønske om at være retfærdig.P.S. Hvis du ikke vil hjælpe er jeg tvunget til at finde et trådløst access-point for at få Jørgen i tale. Jeg havde ellers affundet mig med udelukkelsen.

• Men hvis ikke mine sider gendannes ved jeg ikke hvad jeg finder på.[Han ER jo ikke for klog ham Wegge. Her troede jeg det var meningen at vi skulle skilles med den forståelse at mine sider kunne blive. Hvis de nu er slettet permanent får jeg jo lyst til at gøre....[uspecificeret........... Bruger: Nick Anfinsen har måske ønsket at tilføje noget her, men indtil videre er det blevet tabt i Cyberspace]
• PPS: MGA, prøv at tage en tit på denne min nye webside, som lister flere af de admins på Dawiki, som trænger til at blive skiftet ud. du er ikke med, fordi du har sammen med f.eks Jørgen, Glenn m. fl. altid forekommet mig at være fornuftig. Der har været visse ting, som f.eks dette, hvor du synes at blande dig i noget som ikke vedkommer dig men lad nu det ligge.
• PPPS: Kære MGA, prøv også at se Mads Gorm Larsens side, hvor jeg fremlægger psykologiske profiler af "Broadbeer", "EPO" og "Palnatoke".Nick Anfinsen (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hej "Nick". Jeg vidste godt, at der nok var nogen, der havde lyst at slette siden, da der jo blev sagt mange ting. Det var bl.a. en af grundene til, at jeg arkiverede den. Tænkte at det nok var bedst hvis den lå lidt i læ.

Den direkte anledning til, at siden blev slettet var vist netop den nævnte "hadeside". Jeg tror egentlig, at de fleste havde "glemt" sagen og var gået i gang med andre ting. Siden fik så følelserne frem igen, og det resulterede så i sletningen.

Jeg har skam tænkt på at gendanne den, men den bliver formentlig blot slettet igen. Jeg tror, at det vil være en fordel at vente et par dage til alle er faldet lidt til ro. --MGA73 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hvad med at gendanne min side? Jeg var jo blevet lovet at den ikke ville blive slettet. Brugersider slettes ALDRIG - det er princippet, - og det er det enste argument du behøver at bruge hvis du ryger ind i diskussioner med nogen. Det er aldrig sket før at brugersider er blevet slettet, og så er det ligegyldigt hvad brugeren privat har oprettet af sider. Brugeren har jo ikke gjort noget på wikipedia som berettigede til sletning af siden, og hvad han har gjort udenfor er sagen uvedkommende. Det han gjorde udenfor var naturligvis en konsekvens af at han blev udelukket, og hvis siden ikke gendannes viser det desværre en mangel på dømmekraft hos de ansvarlige, hvor årsag og virkning blandes, noget som gør dem uegnede til nogen form for domsmæmds-embeder i det civile liv, let alone at have ansvaret for at dømme nogen i cyber-space.Nick Anfinsen (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)