User talk:Anthere

hello, how did u get all those pretty pics on ur screen? im new & i need help! --The lil lady with the hat 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fleur de Torah Torah

A flower for the 8th of March, from User:Zocky

for

--Nirajrm 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Erica

Mike Godwin's RfA

Hi Florence, this might interest you: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikegodwin. It's attracted a fair amount of controversy, with some people suggesting that Jimbo, in his role as a steward and board member, should simply grant Mike Godwin administrator rights directly, rather than making him go through an RfA. There's also a thread on the bureaucrat's noticeboard. Me and Cecropia have declined to speedy promote him. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. --Deskana (banana) 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

done Anthere 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That was getting to be a distraction. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Florence. --Deskana (banana) 00:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And one for you

I wish I knew the species. I found it at the Singapore botanical gardens. ^Charge! 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Contact info

hmmmm, you may ask a question here if it is relevant to the english Wikipedia policy. It probably is not confidential. For other businesses, you can check the contact page on http://wikimediafoundation.org

Best

Anthere

Johann Hari page

Hi. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann Hari page, which I know you've helpfully intervened on in the past.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR81.129.156.202 12:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

stats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis

Wikimedia NL

Again, sorry about the coffee. How do you like our article? Can you add some of the URLs in your presentation to the external links section? I also know you said you were interested in getting the presentation reworked with some wiki details, we have one or two contributors who'd be interested in doing that - so if I can point them in the right direction... --Brianmc —Preceding comment was added at 10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Closure of Volapük Wikipedia

Dear Florence,

I address you to ask for your intervention in a delicate subject. As you may know, there is a proposal to close the Volapük Wikipedia. This wiki recently surpassed 100K articles and therefore its presence was noticeable.

It happens that this voting is based not upon the wiki itself, its lack of active users (they do exist), its lack of contents (it does have contents) but on a war of opinions. As I could perceive, all this started because users at German Wikipedia didn't like interwikis to Volapük Wikipedia. They discriminate Volapük as an obscure language and therefore shouldn't be visible to German users. So, as they can't choose what interwikis to put on articles (a bot will eventually put them back), they decided that closing vowiki was the only chance they had to remove the interwikis from their articles. In my opinion, destroying other people's work just because you don't want some interwiki on your pages looks to me at least childish. And I thought interwikis were exactly to make other projects' existence known to users. Why ban an interwiki?

Another matter under discussion is that 'article creation with bots is evil'. All users against article creation with bots are voting in favor of closing the vowiki. It's true that vowiki unfortunately has most of its articles created by a bot (mainly cities in USA, France, etc.). But this has become the main issue of the voting: people are voting whether it's acceptable to use bots to create stubs or not, not closing vowik. In this matter, I don't even think closing a project for this reason is acceptable. One could just eventually delete the articles in this situation and let the project in a healthier state. Why close a project that has the means to advance but just because some other wikis' users are against some of the policies used in vowiki? There are bots creating articles in this fashion in many other wikis: Portuguese (my own native language) is doing it right now, Lombard has done it already, booming their article count. Why is Volapük any different? I'm afraid that, if Volapük Wikipedia is closed for this reason, a precedent will be opened and the supporters of this closure will advance to close other smaller wikis (as it seems to be their will).

I would like to reassure you by saying that at this moment, no articles are being created by a bot. Moreover, many of the 1000 top articles are being made by human users. Volapük was the first artificial language to have impact in human society. It had a thriving time in the 19th century but know it's hardly known to most people. Although there are just a few speakers worldwide nowadays (enwiki mentions around 30 but without citing a source; the yahoo mailing list volapuk although has nearly 200 members), the language still lives and the project has contributors.

As this voting can only end up in keeping the vowiki or closing it, without any other choice, I would like to ask you to intervene. Closing the project is not necessary. It would be the last of the remedies. If one thinks something should be done about it, why not just solve the interwiki problem by allowing projects to reject interwikis to other projects (if this is acceptable), and why not eventually delete bot created stubs to world cities, reducing the article count drasticaly?

I have my conscience clean: I adhered recently to the Volapük Wikipedia project. The bot created articles were already there and many were being added by another user and still I continued working on it. Whether it may be questionable if that user acted correctly with the creation of these stubs by a bot, it's no reason to close a project for good.

My best regards, Malafaya 10:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC) vo:User:Malafaya

Fundraiser idea

Hi there (ou bonjour, si on veut parler en francais :P). It popped into my head while I was skimming through the server list that it would be a great idea to offer server vanity naming of numbered servers (like "srv14" to "joanne," "mouse," or whatever) to high-dollar donations as a token of appreciation to people who donate large sums of money to the project.

I would suggest, however, in the interest of keeping everything in the spirit of the wiki, that there be a couple tentative restrictions on naming, like no corporate names, no obscenity, no trademarks, and basically all of the stuff prohibited in username policy. Plus, due to DNS concerns, names would need to be constrained to a-z, 0-9, and hyphens. Tech-wise, nothing would need to change except a redundant forward entry to the IP-- and even that would be optional, since most of the servers are private networks and wouldn't make sense to resolve outside the network. Though, the marketing value of people being able to say, "I helped run a server at wikipedia" is pretty cool, particularly as new servers are purchased. We might even consider sending the donor a picture of the server just for fun. :)

Obviously, the donor wouldn't own the server or even have access to it, so it's really just a superficial token of thanks-- kind of like naming of buildings on college campuses and such. Anyway, I just figured I'd toss that idea your way and let you to decide to either run with it or toss it. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 23:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

eheh, funny idea :-) I remember that a long time ago, I insisted that a new server be called from a french female encyclopedist. Outcome, the server never worked. I think it is just as with boat. Never name a server a female name if you do not want to bring disaster on the boat. Anyway, yeah, the idea is worth exploring. We do that with famous rose variety. Why not our database servers ? Anthere 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom age restriction

I don't know if you're already aware of this matter, but with ArbCom elections approaching there has been some discussion about whether the Foundation Access to nonpublic data policy should be interpreted as excluding persons under 18 from appointment to ArbCom. Although they would not need access to checkuser or oversight tools, the usual discussions between Arbitrators are likely to expose them to private data. The discussion is occuring at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007#Age limit? - WMF input may be helpful. WjBscribe 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, good idea. I'll ask Mike. Thanks

Ombudsman

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mackensen
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herbythyme
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rebecca
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hei_ber

I'm quite surprised to be asked - thank you. I'd be happy to act in the role if needed, although I worry that I might be a touch too controversial for the role. If you think otherwise, however, I'd be fine with it, and wouldn't necessarily mind ceasing to act as a CU. As for the confirmation of identity - you should already have it, as I sent a copy of my drivers license to the foundation when the board passed the resolution that all CUs had to have confirmed identities. Rebecca (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Rebecca; I'm touched (and surprised) to be asked. I would also be happy and willing to serve on the commission, and would have no problem ceasing to act as a checkuser for the duration. Per the board's resolution I sent a copy of my driver's license to the foundation last summer. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan

Hello Anthere. The statss of the Moldovan Wikipedia was not changed until this day. Allthough the decision was to close this Wikipedia, see [10]. The site is blocked from editing, but it was never deleted. Still, if it can't be deleted, than please (if you can) revert the use of "Moldovan language interface" to the Romanian or English interface so that the first page displayed it would be the "Main Page", and not the current "Паӂина принчипалэ".

Thank you! --Danutz (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Anthere, I must confess I was sorely disappointed at your comment Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/The dépeceur of Bergen. Please consider the following:

• There was no way our checkusers could know about the mess at the french wikipedia.
• Threats, even of violence, are not unheard of here.
• The policy is clear that checkusers are to operate strictly within the bounds of the policy. The user was asking that he be given the ip address.
• There is no policy to fall back on here.
• The user was told to contact his local law enforcement which is only way a complaint can be initiated.

What exactly would the checkuser report have revealed that could have been used by anyone other than law enforcement? While you make not like some of what goes on at english, your comments in a RFCU was, in my opinion misplaced. If we are to loosen the CU policy, it should come through a thorough community debate. I suspect we should have some policy in place for these events and would support such. But I think your comments were not productive in this case. I appreciate that you are the ED and I am just volunteer, but I do appreciate your reading these comments. Thank you. -JodyB 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by what you say, because at the time I read the page, the text was fully mentionning the reference to the french wikipedia, with a link to the page where there is a full report of the whole situation. At the time I read the page, there was also a link to the meta page where the issue is mentionned. And there was also specifically a mention saying "no checkuser needed" (which is definitly surprising to me). There was no recommandation to the guy to go send an email to OTRS, nor suggestion to go to the police. It simply suggested to report the case to the admins. What can the admins do in this case ? What bugs me really is that, if we take a step backward, here is someone coming over to report a death threat and his concerns appear dismissed.

I have no problem with the CU saying that they can not give the information directly to the user. I am perfectly fine with this and I appreciate all of you respect the privacy policy. This is great. What I am concerned about is that to the one asking, it is just a dismissal.

JodyB, I am sorry you feel disappointed. But 1) according to the request I saw, CU could know about the mess at the french wiki, 2) threats of violence, even if usual, are wrong, 3) I did not say to give him the address, I said to do a CU (my fault, I was not specific in my words sufficiently at all, I should have said "investigate and discuss", sorry, my fault, 4) you are correct, my bad, 5) when I wrote my comment, no one had told him to contact the police. So you are right on some points and I am right on others. Anthere (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC):::

I am now much more reluctant to check accounts, due to your own calls for tightening of the usage of checkuser on the English Wikipedia, specifically. Cases do not normally contain requests to divulge IPs, which is something that the WMF protects under the Privacy Policy. As such checks can be carried out so that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Privacy Policy. At the time of this request, no mention was made of contacting law enforcement, so what section of the policy should I be releasing the data under? Section 5 perhaps, but again no mention was made of formulating an abuse complaint. I understand totally the seriousness of this case (I've had death threats from users in my area in the past), but I'm getting increasingly confused by simultaneous calls for more privacy and more reluctant use of the tool, and calls to release data where it does not neatly fit into one of the allowed circumstances of the Privacy Policy. People will bite my head off if I say too much, and people will also bite my head off if I say too little, and these areas overlap so much that I'm getting bitten no matter what I do. I'm getting messages from you to release data (even when it doesn't fit nicely into the Privacy Policy) and messages from checkusers on other projects saying I'm violating the privacy policy even when I don't actually release any data, and referring said cases to the Ombudsman Commission for investigation. Frankly, I'm not only extremely frustrated, I'm extremely confused. Perhaps the policy should be rewritten, so that checkusers aren't left feeling so confused and frustrated. --Deskana (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, I am very sorry because I was not polite enough. I should have voiced my concerns differently. I think your reaction of not giving the information was perfectly right. What I was annoyed at was the answer he got. Frankly, when a good editor is scared and looking for support, it was not really a supportive answer. There is no need to rewrite the policy on such point, but I simply wish to avoid seeing good users quitting the project just because they are scared and not getting support. I would hope so much to see that we can give decent answers to threats :-(((( Anthere (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I could do with being less abrupt. Unfortunately that's a product of the fact that I deal with a lot of cases, and of the fact that I can be quite abrupt anyway, even when I didn't mean to. I'll try to be less abrupt in future. Is that your only concern? I am perfectly happy to try to address that. I'm sorry for the somewhat snarky post of mine above, since seems we agree on the privacy issue. --Deskana (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthere. I'm User:Alison, a relatively new CheckUser here on enwiki. Per the above case, I took advice from Mike Godwin, our legal counsel, and am assured that I can not reveal personal indentifying information, including IP addresses, at this time without a court order. I'm really sorry for what has happened here; it's disgusting and totally inexcusable. Sickening.

What I have done is followed up on the case and done my utmost to assist and to reveal as much as we legally can here to address this editor's very genuine and serious concerns. There is no information I can glean from the IP address as to where the location of the offending editor is, so I cannot state where they may or may not be. I found one other account which is now also blocked. I wish there was more we could do here but there really isn't. I'm so sorry - Aon ^❤ 04:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alison Anthere (talk)

An article that needs a little bit of love, that you might remember from way back.

Hi Anthere. I wonder if you could take a look at Gaia philosophy. It is a bit worse for the wear, and could do with gently removing some of the bits that are really word for word repetition from other sections of the article, and other smoothing over of the prose to flow more freely. I remember you thought it was important to have a nice article about it here on wikipedia.

Right now it is a bit rough around the edges, and should be given a bit of care. I may help a bit, but since I don't know the subject matter, any things which are better improved by changing the structure of the article, would be beyond me, and in the cases where the same text is in two places, I likely as not wouldn't know which is the best place for it. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

okay ;-) Anthere (talk)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture

Sorry to take so long getting a welcome message out to you. I've been dealing with the "real world" for the last couple months and therefore on a sort of informal wikibreak. Please look around the project page from time to time for things that need work and also add things of your own that you notice that others might want to help with or comment on. Do you have any particular interests? I notice you are collecting resources, are you familiar with the citation forms on Wikipedia?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Foundation, decision and tea cup

Please don't let a little grumpiness at WP:AN discourage you or your developer. The vast majority of en.wikipedians very much appreciate both your efforts, regardless of our position on one side or the other in our tea cup. -- 17:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks :-) Anthere (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthere

Please take a look here. That wording, unfortunately, isn't compliant with local policies on articles. 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to correct a problem is to correct the reality and not just spin-doctor the issue. You want wikipedia to republish a reliable published report that wikia and wikimedia are seperate? Then get a reliable publication to say so. New York Times would be good. A news release from an involved party saying so is worthless. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that you are in violation of WP:COI, and it will be an embarrassment before the mainstream media when this surfaces. You may wish to consider "oversighting" your more recent edits to the article space proper. -- 72.94.165.206 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I BEG YOUR PARDON ? Oversight should be used only for important matters. Such as violation of private information on people. Or recipe to make a nuclear bomb. Anything really dangerous. There is nothing dangerous in what I wrote. Everything is correct, even if Wikipedia prefers not to report reality. There is nothing for me to be ashamed of. I only reported reality. And this is what I already say to the press anyway. So, it makes no sense to oversight what I wrote. I hope no one would have the bad idea to do that, because I would not only consider that being censorship, but in a more pragmatic way, a real misuse of the tool. Anthere (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Anthere's wish to clarify this based on her own knowledge of the matter is totally understandable. Its is why we should always be sensitive to people who point out that our articles are incorrect on matters about which they have personal knowledge. However, our policy on verifiability requires that material be referenced to third party sources. Where those sources have got it wrong, we are at the moment required to also have it wrong. That is unappealing, but the alternative is to open to door to a lot of the original research we struggle to avoid. Although not entirely satisfactory, that is the position we are at. Anthere has agreed not to edit the article further, I think that is wise. But there is no scandal here, nor should anyone be embarassed. If this sparks further debate about how we should deal with clear errors in the references used in Wikipedia articles it is a good thing. Especially as the print media is now getting rather lazy at using Wikipedia as a source. We face the problem that incorrect original research can be added to an article, picked up by the press and printed as fact, and that someone who then tries to correct the information is rebutted by another user who is able to quote a third party source to support the incorrect information. That is a scenario that must have seemed fairly unlikely when our verifiability and original research policies were drafted. 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the article in its current state. Anthere (talk)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Hi Anthere, I saw you express some frustration at the Verifiability policy. This is just to let you know that material that's self-published by Wikia e.g. a press release, or a statement on its website, is allowed to be used as a source in the article. The policy allows self-published material that was written by the subject of the article — with some restrictions, which are listed here — and as that part of the article directly concerns the Foundation, a press release from the Foundation would be acceptable too.

The point of the "verifiability, not truth" provision is just to make sure that Wikipedia is never a first publisher of information. We always need to be able to point to where we took our material from. It helps to keep the project safe.

Hope this helps. 07:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm setting the troll meter to "2.5" here (please don't permaban me!), but... the exceptions that SlimVirgin points to above include:

it does not involve claims about third parties

So, if Wikia issues a press release that posits claims about the Wikimedia Foundation, isn't that such an exception? Similarly, if the Wikimedia Foundation issues a release about Wikia, that would be a third party claim, as well.

Yes, and if they disagreed with each other, that would be an issue, but as they agree, it's fine. 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another exception is:

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject

Now here, we're getting into a pretty tight logical spiral into oblivion, right? If Wikia is "not related" to the Wikimedia Foundation, how can the claim be anything but "not directly related" to the subject? Likewise for the reverse scenario.

The discussion about the relationship, if any, between the organizations is clearly "related" to them. :-) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but why doesn't Jimbo call up one of his many sycophants friends in the mainstream media, and get them to stake their professional reputation on exactly defining how unrelated Wikia is to the Wikimedia Foundation, and then we'll have a neutral, independent source to cite here in our article? -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation non-free image deadline

Hi there. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline

I also wonder if you would be able to advise on the best way to get clarification of the Foundation Licensing policy? The points I've raised here concern historical images and some mentions I've seen of a deadline. What I've said over there is as follows:

"[What] about this bit of the policy? "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..." - it says right there: "to illustrate historically significant events". [...] Also, I've seen people say that there is a deadline of "March 23, 2008" to sort all this out, but in fact that deadline is currently written as a subclause of point 6. ie. It only applies to projects without an EDP. "For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken [...] By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." This may just be a mistake in the layout of the Licensing Policy, but if this is so, it needs to be changed and the change widely advertised."

As well as the 'deadline' confusion, my concern is also over historical images. I would be grateful if you could bring these points to the attention of the board if this needs clarification.

The above was written in August 2007 (the bit about historical images can be ignored for the moment - it is the deadline that needs clarification at board level) and left here, but got no response (as far as I can tell). For obvious reasons, it would be good if you, or other members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, could comment at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. I've notified the other Board Members where they have en-wiki user pages. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response at the AN thread. I've replied over there, but wanted to repeat one specific point here: is it at all possible for you to make sure the other board members I contacted (and Erik) are aware of this, and possibly the former board members you mention if you think they would be interested)? I know some of them may not check their en-wiki pages very often, and I don't have accounts on the other projects. Obviously what you said may be enough, but I like to know that they were at least aware of what I'd said and don't discover my message months later! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, I'll put a message to the board Anthere (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification on AN and for contacting the other board members. Your comments have clarified the situation significantly for me. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

About the Wikia article.

An outside neutral opinion here and I think I somewhat understand your frustration. [11]

I generally think editing Wikipedia is futile, but the pursuit still has meaning (see Absurdism). I commented on the talkpage there. [12]

If you'd like to work on the article again, I'd be willing to help.   (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

the article on agriculture really sucks

At http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039751.html you say:

"the article on agriculture really sucks. That's a shame, this is just such an obvious article available in any encyclopedia" (with "Agriculture" just an example)."

POV pushing by protected regulars (in this case animal rights POV) drives away editors and makes a relative wasteland of some areas of Wikipedia. See the talk page at Factory farming or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture for the stomach turning reality of trying to create content at wikipedia in any area where someone has a POV to push. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

designated agent

With regard to changing the foundation's designated agent, you may care to read The US Government's copyright office's page on Online Service Providers - Service Provider Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claims of Infringement. Certain rules must be followed in order to take advantage of the protections afforded by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. For example, "An Interim Designation or an Amended Designation must be accompanied by an $80 fee". Our former filing in 2005 shows we paid $30 then. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah. Well, I just found another argument to speed up the process of changing the registration. It mentions an email address which is non fonctionnal... ouch Anthere (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Echinops.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Echinops.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ≈talk 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Muscaris-2.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Muscaris-2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ≈talk 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could you go through all your images that you uploaded and remove any others that fall under the same situation as well? Images like Image:RhodoP.jpg. Thanks for understanding. ≈talk 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cosmos tubulaire.jpg deleted

It appears that Image:Cosmos tubulaire.jpg has been deleted again. See a notice on my talk page, and a very short discussion at Possibly unfree images. Sorry I didn't notice in time to alert you before the image was deleted. —AlanBarrett 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

privacy policy

I just saw your post in the Village Pump (Policy) about the WMF board resolution on changes to the privacy policy (I somehow missed the original post a week ago and just saw it in the archive right now). Thank you very much for adding this item to the board's agenda and for acting on my proposal! I really appreciate it! Nsk92 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oath of office

I notice that the board and community and staff are discussing an oath of office for the board members. Perhaps you will find http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/oath_of_office.html to be a source of inspiration. I'm very sorry that you have chosen to leave the board; I think we would be in much worse shape if not for you. Thank you for all you have done. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

hi

well, this is one of the most random discussion I am starting but I couldn't help it. I was browsing (well, thats all you do when you are new to wikipedia, right?) through one of the many pages of wikipedia when I came across this list [13] and was shocked to find my name already (even though I hadn't inserted there). Anyways, the only other name for 10th of September was yours and so I decided to have a glance at your userpage and what I find is a personality to succeed Jimbo himself. So thought would drop you a message. Wanted you to know that it feels really nice to find such a great personality I share my bday with. Cheers. Tarun2k (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Saami costumes

Hello, I noticed your photo on Wikimedia commons of two men wearing "Saami" costumes. This photo is now used as an illustration in several wikipedia articles on the Saami peoples in different languages.

Unfortunately, the costumes worn by the men in the pictures seem not be Saami costumes - they are instead fake costumes created by the tourism industry in Lapland. The decorations in authentic Saami costumes are very clearly defined, and reveal from which area the person wearing the costume comes from.

Moreover, I should point out that fake Saami costumes are used by the tourism industry in Finland only, not in the other Nordic countries. This practice is widely concidered misuse of the costume and insulting by the Saami. Hence, this photo is not a suitable illustration of Saami costumes; maybe a comment should be added to the photo in commons stating that the costumes are not authentic Saami costumes. Best, --AAikio (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

hello, I answered on your talk page. Cheers Anthere (talk)

Trophic dynamics

Hi Anthere. Way back, on 23 October 2002, you created the original version of the article on trophic dynamics. If you look at what the current version has to say about global primary biomass, you will see that it still uses the same figures that you originally entered. This may have receded too far into distant history – but can you tell me your source for these figures? (I can't find sources more recent than 1975!) --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

hello, I answered on your talk page. Cheers Anthere (talk)