User talk:Mozzerati

This user may have left Wikipedia. Mozzerati has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This page has been blanked; for old comments please see

• before 21:06, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• before 17:51, September 6, 2005
• before 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mozzerati,

Thank you for posting an additional question on my RfA - I was extremely slow on the uptake and only realised it was there yesterday! I have been quite disappointed that the few opposing votes I have had do not seem to have read or appreciate the sentiments I have expressed on my user page... but hey - perhaps they haven't even looked!

Anyway, thanks again, and all the best. DJR (Talk) 11:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers to my questions on your RFA. They help me much, but still leave me a bit uneasy. I'd like your response to this: a) If we do break the copyright law accidentally, it may be important to show that we do our best to follow it. If asked about this; what could you point to to show that, in general, you try ensure we stay within the spirit of copyright law even if we had somehow failed to exactly follow the letter. b) if a new article contained only copyrighted material from an identified source, why would you not delete it? Mozzerati 12:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) Depending on the situation, the justification for violation varies. For example, the use of a copyrighted, non-fair use image has to be deleted, even if it was uploaded assuming good faith. However, WP:COPY clearly lays out Wikipedia policy regarding copyrights and their possible infringement, the most important quote being "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia". This once again links back to what I said previously regarding the evolutionary nature of copyright - although its content is protected, its ideas are still be free to be developed in order to enhance knowledge for all.

b) If a new article contained only copyrighted material, then I would seek to reformulate it as suggested above (from WP:COPY). There is no reason to delete the article outright if you can simply take some time out to read to copyrighted work, re-write it in your own words, and then remove the original. All knowledge grows from this basis, and Wikipedia is no different. Of course, if the content is unique and cannot be altered significantly enough to avoid the problem, then it has to be deleted. However, the latter is extremely rare.

hi agin.. Thanks for your answer again, though it still didn't completely clarify for me what I was trying to ask. In WP:COPY part of the procedure for copyright is specifically handing on to WP:CP. For pages which are, and always have been, plain copyright violations the procedure there is to delete then rewrite. I'm still not sure from your responses whether that is what you mean by rewriting. Is that the procedure you do / would / could in future follow? If the new version of the page is not a "derivative" of the copyright page, then there is no reason to keep it in the history. Why not just delete the old version and keep the rewrite? Mozzerati 13:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologise for not making myself clearer, but that is exactly what I would do. If the copied text is small I would do it myself and make a note on the article's talk page, but if it is a significant violation then I would take the issue to WP:CP. I completely agree - there is no reason to keep the copyrighted work in the history if a new, reformulated version exists. I was not aware of the procedure of deleting first, then re-writing, but as this is the case then I see no reason to do otherwise. DJR (Talk) 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mozzerati!

First and foremost, I must express my thanks for your support during my first RfA. Due to a highly disturbing surge in opposing votes after the submission closed, it has been resubmitted. Unfortunately, it looks as though are large number of opposing voters have appeared and I would be extremely surprised if my new RfA passed... which is fairly disheartening considering that I was around 1 hour from succeeding last time!

In any case - it has been an interesting experience - one thing I can take from it is that someone with a clear thought process should learn to control the focus of their views. As I am wholly unable to pretend I do not have a clear POV, I doubt I will apply for adminship again. It seems fairly clear from this second submission that I am better off sticking to what I do best! Especially considering that I am "not yet a wikipedian"!

Anyway, many warm thanks for your support, and don't hesitate to give me a shout if you ever need my assistance for anything in particular.

Regards, DJR (Talk) 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for drawing that bug to my attention. It normally would ignore copyvio notices, however, a recent change was made that bypassed the copyvio check under certain circumstances. I've corrected it. Sorry about that. Any other feedback you have is very much appreciated. All the best. joshbuddy^talk 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for Knut Gunnarsson Helland the search engine comes up with 0 result. But it is there. The address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_Gunnarson_Helland

How come?

Frode Inge Helland

I wanted to thank for your insanely helpful peer review of DirectShow! I've put it up for peer review again, so if you could comment again that would be great! Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 08:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Could you possibly take a look at my recent article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp? It's by no means finished, but I believe it could benefit from some peer review by a native speaker. Cheers. //Halibutt 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure, I'm done with the changes anyway. I've spent the best part of the last four days on it and I get an impression that I can't do much more for now... Thanks for letting me know and sorry for the edit conflicts :) BTW, in the future you might want to use the {{inuse}} tag, most people honour it. //Halibutt 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for your hard work. In the meantime I asked for a peer review of the article. Hopefully more people will take a look and improve the article. As to the diff - the missing part is the picture. I added it back, no problem whatsoever. //Halibutt 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you wondered, the work on the article is almost finished and I plan to nominate it for FA any time soon. //Halibutt 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have met Merecat and therefore I would like to inform you that in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the article One weekend a month, two weeks a year, to which you made substantial contributions, by converting its bare external links to proper citations and checking them as well. In that process, I found a problem with the following text and link:

It has been claimed that the change in expectations on the National Guard is a deliberate change in policy by military planners in response to the Vietnam War.[1]

First, this should be rephrased to "avoid weasel words" by citing who claims this, so I tried to follow the link to the specified page from The Week. However, that link is apparently broken. Without the article title or any specific quote with which to search, I cannot locate a proper source. (This is precisely why bare links are bad, and proper citations are necessary. With an article title and/or quote, they can be re-found and re-sourced if the link is broken.) I would appreciate it if you could recall any information that would help establish this claim. Otherwise, we should probably delete it from the article. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see someone else actually going around fact checking. This is what we really need. I just found the reference for you. I did this using the The Way Back Machine. It's very worth checking this and the google cache when you find a broken link. Having found an old copy, you will then be able to use google to search for a phrase from the article and normally find the new location. This often helps in retaining important information. Anyway, I even put in a bit more specific related facts. There was actually a specific legal change of control with the removal of the governor's veto on deployments in the 1980s. I added a mention to the main United States National Guard article. The current title of this article, One weekend a month, two weeks a year doesn't mean much to anyone not from the USA. Maybe a merge with National Guard or renaming and expansion to something exciting like "Deployment policy of the U.S. National Guard"?

By the way, I'm a well known opponent of direct links and I partly agree with your "fix it or delete" policy, but please remember that people who provide such links are still in the best 10% (as verified by the University of Bartonia :-) of contributors. They are actually providing verifiable material where others don't. I feel we should try encourage and look after them. Please be gentle and try to help them see the benefits of proper referenced links with encouragement.

All the best. Mozzerati 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I seemed too brusque about replacing the Week link (no pun intended) with a {{citation neeeded}} notice, or if you were (not unreasonably!) offended by the use of the phrase "weasel words". (I cringe every time I use that explanatory link. I wish it had a less offensive title, but some of the WP policy pages are a bit, shall we say, undiplomatic.)

As far as fix-or-delete, I try not to take such action unless I commit to (A) leaving a request for more info from the original editor; (B) monitoring the article for updates; and (C) making a time-delay note in my organizer to ensure I don't forget that I've started something that needs finishing. I'm glad to see in this case that you were able to resolve the problem quickly. And thanks for the tip on the Wayback Machine! I've seen it, but never actually tried to use it to find a broken URL. I'll check there first in the future to avoid putting more of a burden on other conscientious editors.

On the content/merge issue, I don't think I'll get involved, as I'm sure you and other concerned editors will do just fine without my input. This was part of my"drive-by" reference formatting and checking work, so I don't want to get bogged down in larger issues on my victim articles. (I once worked as a university library aide, shelving books. I was the worst employee because I couldn't help skimming through all the books I was shelving. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed that two articles be merged into the Twisted pair article. However, you were the one who originally seperated them out into their own articles. These articles have more or less remained as stubs and aren't likely to expand further into full articles. Before going forward with a merger, we'd like to know your opinion. Post it to the Twisted pair talk page. ~ N. Harmon 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphoto^talk 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article 2.75G, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Paul^C/_T+ 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs much updating, today it would not even pass GA status. If you can, please help with adding inline refs and copyediting.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

nadav 05:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

${\displaystyle Insertf[[Lin<sup>_{Superscripttext}<nowiki><math>Insertnon-formattedtexthere}$File:'Example.jpg'Bold text</nowiki>k title]]ormula here</math>

I have nominated Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Explain-inote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Frequency reuse.fig requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a Word document or PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mnb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SpanishCivilWarNav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:UTP category 3 patcing wire.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aftermath of the Warsaw Uprising is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the Warsaw Uprising until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]